ID: nht88-4.37

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/09/88

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA CHIEF COUNSEL

TO: LANCE E. TUNICK, -- VICE PRESIDENT AND GENERAL COUNSEL MASERATI AUTOMOBILES, INC.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 09/04/85 FROM JEFFREY R. MILLER TO STEPHEN T. WAIMEY AND DEAN HANSELL, STANDARD 208; LETTER DATED 11/10/75 FROM FRANK A. BERNDT TO JOHN B. WHITE, N40-30, SECTION 108(B)(5); LETTER DATED 10/20/88 FROM LANCE E. TUNICK TO ERIKA Z. JON ES, REQUEST FOR INTERPRETATION OF FMVSS 208, OCC 2696

TEXT: Dear Mr. Tunick:

This responds to your October 20, 1988 letter, in which you asked for an interpretation of Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection (49 CFR @ 571.208). More specifically, you noted that section S4.1.3 requires a specified percentage of a manufacturer 's annual production to be equipped with automatic occupant protection. You stated that some vehicles imported into the United States may subsequently be exported to Canada. Since section 108(b)(5) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act ( 15 U.S.C. 1397(b)(5); the Safety Act) specifies that none of the safety standards apply to vehicles intended solely for export, your company assumes that it should not include vehicles subsequently exported to Canada in its annual production totals when determining compliance with S4.1.3 of Standard No. 208. This assumption is incorrect, as explained below.

In a September 4, 1985 letter to Messrs. Stephen Waimey and Dean Hansell (copy enclosed), we answered the question of how manufacturers that produce cars outside the United States should calculate their annual production to determine compliance with the phase-in requirements of Standard No. 208. That letter explains that foreign-based manufacturers should count the number of vehicles that were produced and certified for sale in the United States, in accordance with 49 CFR Part 567, Certification, durin g the relevant time period to determine their annual production for the purposes of Standard No. 208.

Your letter referred to section 108(b)(5) of the Safety Act, and suggested that this statutory provision means that any vehicles that are imported into the United States and subsequently exported to a different country should not be counted as part of th e manufacturer's annual production. I am happy to explain our view of what is permitted under that statutory provision.

Section 108(b)(5) provides that the requirements in the safety standards "shall not apply in the case of a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle

equipment intended solely for export, and so labeled or tagged on the vehicle or item itself and on the outside of the container, if any, which is exported." This statutory language establishes three separate conditions that would have to be satisfied to exclude a vehicle from the requirements of the safety standards, including the calculation of a manufacturer's annual production for purposes of Standard No. 208. These three conditions are:

1. The vehicle must be intended solely for export;

2. The vehicle must have a label or tag on it at the time it is imported which shows that the vehicle is intended solely for export; and

3. The vehicle must actually be exported.

We agree with your contention that a vehicle satisfying all three of these conditions would not be subject to the requirements of any of the safety standards, and could properly be excluded from the calculation of a manufacturer's annual production for t he purposes of Standard No. 208. For a similar interpretation regarding imported tires that are intended solely for export and so labeled, see the enclosed November 10, 1975 letter to Mr. John B. White. Of course, it would not be sufficient if only one of these conditions, such as the third one regarding actual exportation, were satisfied.

We are uncertain regarding the facts surrounding the vehicles that have already been imported into the United States and then exported to Canada and thus are unable to give an opinion concerning their satisfaction of the section 108(b)(5) conditions. It should be relatively simple for you to determine whether these vehicles satisfied the first two conditions. Did those vehicles truly just pass through the US on their way to Canada? To what country's standards were those vehicles certified and when? When the vehicles were imported into the United States, your company was required to complete a Form HS-7. That form allows the importer to declare that a vehicle is intended solely for export and that the vehicle bears a label or tag to that effect. W hat type of declaration was made with respect to the vehicles in question?

As to vehicles which Maserati Automobiles, Inc., wishes in the future to import into this country and pass directly through to Canada for sale there, satisfaction of each of the three section 108(b)(5) conditions will assure that the vehicles are not included in the Standard No. 208 calculations.

If you have any further questions or need additional information on this subject, please feel free to contact Steve Kratzke of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

ENCLOSURES

ID: 21467.ztv

Mr. Herb Brown
Vice President of Sales
Air Fender Systems
P.O. Box 552
Oskaloosa, KS 66066

Dear Mr. Brown:

This is in reply to your letter of March 20, 2000, to Stephen Wood of this Office. Your company manufacturers "a wheel fender designed to reduce splash and spray for tractor trailers." You state that "the fender extends a maximum of 3" beyond the tires on each side. With reference to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, you have asked "as a splash and spray reduction item are the fenders covered under the same portion of the provision as mud flaps?" You have enclosed a product brochure describing the fenders and showing them mounted to a tractor trailer.

The only direct reference to mud flaps in Standard No. 108 appears in Note 1 which follows Table IV. Tables I and II apply to specified motor vehicles whose overall width is 80 inches or more; Tables III and IV to specified vehicles whose overall width is less than 80 inches. Note 1 states that the term " overall width" of a vehicle refers to "the nominal design dimension of the widest part of the vehicle, exclusive of . . . flexible fender extensions, and mud flaps. . . ." Thus, a manufacturer must determine the overall width of its vehicle in order to discern the requirements with which it must comply, and this determination does not have to include flexible fender extensions. However, your product is clearly the fender itself, and not an extension of a fender. Nor is there any indication as to whether your fender is "flexible." The overall width of the tractor trailer fitted with your fenders, then, includes the total of 6 inches added by the fenders beyond the tires. We're not sure how this interpretation affects you under Standard No. 108 because tractor trailers are invariably manufactured with an overall width of more than 80 inches. There may be overall width restrictions of 96 or 108 inches for use of vehicles on certain roads, but the definition of "overall width" for those purposes is established by State and Federal authorities other than this agency, and they are not required to adopt our definition of overall width.

There is an indirect reference to mud flaps in Standard No. 108. Paragraph S5.3.1 requires that lamps and reflectors be "securely mounted on a rigid part of the vehicle." In our opinion, mud flaps are not rigid parts of a vehicle, and equipment required by Standard No. 108 cannot be mounted on them. Although the composition of your fenders is not stated, they appear to be rigid within the intent of S5.3.1 so that lighting equipment could be mounted to them, provided that, once installed, they complied with the location and visibility requirements of Standard No. 108.

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

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
ref:108
d.6/19/00

ID: nht76-4.15

DATE: 09/30/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; R. L. Carter; NHTSA

TO: Rockwell International

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to Rockwell International's February 23, 1976, request for confirmation that the deactivation of automatic adjusters is acceptable during burnish procedures of Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems, at the option of the manufacturer.

The procedure that you recommend is not permitted by any provision of Standard No. 121. The NHTSA would consider some provision to deal with the overadjustment of automatic adjusters upon receipt of technical data showing justification for such action. Based on consideration of the data received and a petition for amendment, the agency could commence a rulemaking proceeding in accordance with established procedures.

It should be noted that the option in FMVSS 105-75 that you describe requires that the automatic adjusters be deactivated for the entire test sequence, not just the burnish procedure.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

February 23, 1976

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Office of Crash Avoidance

Gentlemen:

Subject: Air Brakes - Automatic Adjusters

Rockwell International requests an interpretation of FMVSS #121 testing procedures as it relates to Rockwell cam and wedge brakes with automatic adjustment features.

Automatic adjusting air brakes are premium brakes having significant safety advantages in day to day operation. The automatic adjustment feature is offered on Rockwell cam and wedge brakes, single and dual actuated air and single and dual air/hydraulic units. The automatic adjusting feature enables vehicles to maintain their stopping capability when an otherwise manually adjusting brake would exceed available adjustment or "stroke." At the same time the automatic adjustment feature keeps brakes within a favorable operating range of the air chamber. This becomes more important with the improved brake performance required by FMVSS #121. It is noted that NHTSA has made proper allowance for automatic adjusting hydraulic brakes in the test procedures of FMVSS #105-75.

The accelerated brake burnishing required by FMVSS #121 results in rapid expansion of the brake drum and to a lesser extent brake lining, thereby preventing proper operation of the adjusters. It is, therefore, necessary to manually adjust the brakes for the test procedure.

Enclosed are copies of our recommended procedure for Rockwell International brakes with automatic adjusters when tested for FMVSS #121. It is requested that NHTSA review this procedure and advise that it is acceptable for testing under FMVSS #121. Secondly, it is requested that NHTSA allow for deactivation of automatic adjusters in the FMVSS #121 similar to the provisions of FMVSS #105-75 at the next opportunity.

Very truly yours,

ROCKWELL INTERNATIONAL, CORPORATION AUTOMOTIVE OPERATIONS;

William R. Rodger -- Vice President - Advanced Programs

Encls.

ID: 19359.rbm

Martha A. Geer, Esq.
Patterson, Harkavy & Lawrence
200 West Morgan St.
Raleigh, NC 27611

Dear Ms. Geer:

This responds to a request for an interpretation by this office as to whether a cellular phone charger constitutes a piece of motor vehicle equipment as that term is used in 49 U.S.C., Chapter 301, "Motor Vehicle Safety" (the Safety Act), and if so, what legal limitations apply to that product.

The product you described is designed to charge the cellular phone's battery and is intended exclusively for installation in motor vehicles. You state that installation usually occurs after the vehicle has been purchased by the consumer. The cellular phone charger operates by drawing current from the vehicle's battery.

Your first question was whether this device would be considered an item of motor vehicle equipment within the meaning of the Safety Act. 49 U.S.C. 30102(a)(7) defines, in part, the term "motor vehicle equipment" as:

(A) any system, part, or component of a motor vehicle as originally manufactured;

(B) any similar part or component manufactured or sold for replacement or improvement of a system, part, or component, or as an accessory or addition to the motor vehicle; or

(C) any device or an article or apparel (except medicine or eyeglasses prescribed by a licensed practitioner) that is not a system, part, or component of a motor vehicle and is manufactured, sold, delivered, offered, or intended to be used only to safeguard motor vehicles and highway users against risk of accident, injury, or death.

Since the product you described is not original equipment or sold for replacement or improvement of any original equipment, it would be included within this definition only if it were an "accessory." In determining whether an item of equipment is considered an accessory, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) applies two criteria. The first criterion is whether a substantial portion of the expected use of the item is related to the operation or maintenance of motor vehicles. We determine a product's expected use by considering product advertising, product labeling, and the type of store that retails the product, as well as available information about the actual use of the product. The second criterion is whether the product is intended to be used principally by ordinary users of motor vehicles. If the product satisfies both criteria, then the product is considered an "accessory" and is subject to the provisions of the Safety Act.

Applying these criteria to the cellular phone charger you have described, it appears that this product would be an accessory and is consequently an item of motor vehicle equipment under the Safety Act. NHTSA has not issued any safety standards that directly apply to the product you have described. Nevertheless, there are several statutory provisions of which you should be aware.

First, 49 U.S.C. 30122 states that "no manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly make inoperative, in whole or part, any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard."

If installing the charger would adversely affect compliance with a safety standard, then it would "make inoperative" a design element in compliance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard. A manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair business who committed such an act would be subject to a civil penalty of up to $1100 for each violation. Since the statute is limited to manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and motor vehicle repair businesses, a vehicle owner would not violate the Act by installing the device even if doing so would adversely affect some safety feature in his or her vehicle or equipment.

Second, the manufacturer of the charger would be a motor vehicle equipment manufacturer. The manufacturer would be subject to the notification and remedy requirements for products with defects related to motor vehicle safety (49 U.S.C. 30118-30121). A "defect" includes "any defect in performance, construction, a component, or material of a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment." "Motor vehicle safety" is defined as "the performance of a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment in a way that protects the public against unreasonable risk of accidents occurring because of the design, construction, or performance of a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment performance." 49 U.S.C. 30102.

If the manufacturer or NHTSA determined that the product had a defect related to motor vehicle safety, the manufacturer would have to notify all product purchasers of the defect, and either:

1. Repair the product so that the defect is removed; or

2. Replace the product with an identical or reasonably equivalent product that does not have the defect.

The manufacturer would have to bear the full expense of the recall campaign, irrespective of the option chosen, for any owner who purchased the product less than eight years before the determination that defect existed

I hope you find this information helpful. If you have further questions about NHTSA's safety standards, please feel free to contact Rebecca MacPherson of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
ref:VSA
d.6/23/99

ID: nht87-2.1

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/05/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Albert Schwarz -- Senior engineer, Imperial Clevite Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

ATTACHMT: 8/3/84 letter from Frank Berndt to Terry E. Teeter (Std. 106)

TEXT:

Mr. Albert Schwarz Senior Engineer, Product Development Imperial Clevite Inc. Imperial Eastman Division 6300 W. Howard Street Chicago, IL 60648-3492

This responds to your January 12, 1987 letter to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) concerning Standard No. 106, Brake Hoses. You ask whether the standard applies to flexible conduits (i.e., hoses and plastic tubing) used to trans mit air pressure to accessories such as horns and windshield wipers. The answer to your question is yes, if a failure of such a conduit result; in a loss of air pressure in the brake system.

On August 3, 1984, NHTSA issued an interpretation of Standard No. 106 to Mr. Terry Teeter of the Eaton Corporation, who asked the same question you did about the applicability of the standard to conduits used for accessories. Our letter explains that fle xible hoses (and tubing) connected to accessories are "brake hoses" and subject to the standard if they transmit or contain the air pressure used to apply force to the vehicle's brakes--i.e., a failure of such a hose would result in a loss of air pressur e in the brake system. I have enclosed a copy of our letter to Mr. Teeter for your information.

I understand that Ms. Hom of my staff sent you a copy of a Federal Register notice issued by NHTSA on April 17, 1986, which terminated rulemaking on whether the air brake hose tensile requirement of Standard No. 106 should be reduced for hoses typically used for accessories. NHTSA decided to terminate rulemaking because the agency believed that it would be in the interest of safety for the smaller-diameter hoses to comply with current requirements of the standard. Since you might want to review this not ice in light of the information provided you in this letter, I have enclosed a duplicate copy for your convenience.

You also ask whether there are requirements other than those included in Standard No. 106 that must be met by accessory lines. The answer to your question is no. The air brake hoses you intend to use in accessory lines need comply only with Standard No. 106 to be manufactured and sold in this country.

I hope this information is helpful. Please contact my office if you have further questions.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Enclosures

(4/17/86 Federal Register notice of termination of rulemaking, 49 CFR Part 571, Docket No. 85-04, Notice 2) omitted.

Januxary 12, 1987

Dear Ms. Jones:

Today, during a conversation with Ms. Dierdra Hom, I raised a question which she has suggested that I pass along to you for comment.

This question involves a vehicle equipped with an air brake system which is within the jurisdiction of DOT 106-74. When such a vehicle also uses the compressed air system to power accessory non-brake equipment, such as horns or windshield wipers, must th e hoses and or plastic tubing, along with their associated couplings, also meet the requirements of DOT 106? Are their other requirements which must also be met by non-safety-related accessories which may also be powered by, and therefore connected to th e compressed air system?

I look forward to receiving your comment.

Yours truly,

Albert Schwarz

Senior Engineer, Product Development

ID: nht91-5.32

DATE: September 3, 1991

FROM: D. G. Kong -- General Manager, Certification Business Dept., KIA Motors Corp.

TO: Andrew J. Sklover -- Special Assistant to the Administrator, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 10-7-91 from Paul Jackson Rice to D. G. Kong (A38; Std. 216, Part 567)

TEXT:

We are pleased to get to give our best regards to you this time since your visit to our company last year.

Since then, we are trying to do our best for developing our future models suitable for American market in accordance with the guidance of NHTSA.

For the lack of information on USA safety certification, we are in need of your help for the followings: (A) FMVSS 216 Roof Crush Resistance for Convertibles : According to S3(c) of FMVSS 216 Roof Crush Resistance, convertible vehicles are exempted from application for this rule, we understood. We'd like to know the clear & detailed definition of convertibles. Let's make an example for your reference. The soft roofline of ISUZU Amigo (Sports Utility Vehicle) is composed of half hard top with steel and half soft top with plastic or special cloth. Is it called by convertible in connection with application of FMVSS 216 requirements effective September 1, 1993? (Soft top can be detachable in use.)

(B) Submitting reports to NHTSA and state governments: In relation to USA Safety certification, there are lots of laws & regulations of federal/state goverments, we know. What regulations in addition to FMVSS do we should follow (expecially in state regulations) and what reporting (such as, Bumper-Indiana and VIN Reporting-NHTSA) do we have to submit when we proceed USA Safety Certifiction? We'd like know the relationship of laws and regulations between federal states.

We're wondering if you are in charge of these queries or not, but you are kindly requested to deliver the message to the man in charge.

We'll do endeavor to keep up with the line of NHTSA to improve the safety of motor vehicles and at last wish you and your family every happiness.

ID: nht72-2.24

DATE: 05/09/72

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; D. W. Toms; NHTSA

TO: Department of California Highway Patrol

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of April 18, 1972, requesting an interpretation of the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 which relates to the use of mechanical aimers on headlamps.

Standard No. 108 references, in Tables I and III, SAE Standard J580a. As stated in your letter, SAE J580a specifies in part that "Headlamps shall be designed so that they may be checked by mechanical aimers without the removal of any ornamental trim rings or other parts." The language in this requirement, and that contained in other referenced and subreferenced SAE standards, does not specifically identify the design or complete dimensional details of "mechanical aimers." Therefore, the use of any mechanical aimer, including those fitted with special adapters for specific vehicles, would be permitted under the above stated requirement.

Specifically, you asked, "If a vehicle is so designed that the headlamps cannot be checked with mechanical aimers of the type now commonly available without the removal of ornamental trim rings or other parts, does it meet the requirements of Federal Standard 108?" A "commonly available" aimer is defined as one that is manufactured and offered for sale, including an aimer with adapters for special applications. A vehicle which is so designed that the headlamps cannot be checked with mechanical aimers as thus defined, without the removal of ornamental trim rings or other parts, would not meet the requirements of Standard No. 108.

ID: nht89-3.23

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: October 26, 1989

FROM: Susan Birenbaum -- Acting General Counsel, U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission

TO: Stephen Wood -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 7-19-90 to S. Birenbaum from P. J. Rice; (A35; VSA 102(4); and photos (text omitted); and undated Consumer Product Incident Report for D. Jaeger

TEXT:

I am writing to request your assistance in determining whether a product manufactured by IG-LO Products and marketed under the brand name "kwik kool" is an item of "motor vehicle equipment" as that term is defined by section 102(4) of the National Traffi c and Motor Vehicle Act (15 U.S.C. S1391(4)). As you know, section 3(a)(1)(C) of the Consumer Product Safety Act (CPSA) (15 U.S.C. S2052(a)(1)(C)) excludes "motor vehicle equipment" from those "consumer products" which are subject to the authority of th e Consumer Product Safety commission under the CPSA.

The product in question is intended to improve the performance of an automobile's air-conditioner. Copies of the package of the product are enclosed. The warnings and instructions printed on the container of the product are reproduced on the second pag e of the enclosed report of a consumer complaint concerning this product.

The labeling and packaging of the product indicate that the product is intended for use with a motor vehicle and for no other purpose. The directions on the package and container also indicate that the product is intended to be used primarily by the ope rator of a motor vehicle. Previous correspondence from your office suggests that the product under consideration would fall within the definition of "motor vehicle equipment" codified at 15 U.S.C. S1391(4). However, the individual who made the enclosed complaint has told a member of the Commission staff that when he registered a similar complaint with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, he was advised that the product is not subject to your agency's authority.

If your office concludes that the product is not an item of "motor vehicle equipment," we would appreciate a response to that effect. If you conclude that it is motor vehicle equipment, please forward the enclosed complaint to the appropriate staff of y our agency.

Section 6(b) of the CPSA (15 U.S.C. S2055(b)), requires that before the Commission may release information about a product identified by manufacturer, it must first provide the manufacturer of the product with a summary of the information and an opportun ity to comment on its accuracy. However, section 29(e) of the CPSA (15 U.S.C. S2078(e)) authorizes the Commission to provide information about products to other agencies of the Federal Government without having followed the procedure required by section 6(b), provided that the agency receiving the information does not disclose it to the general public.

The information in this letter about the product under consideration is subject to the provisions of section 6(b) of the CPSA. The Commission has not provided the manufacturer with either a summary of this information or the opportunity to comment on it s accuracy. For this reason, I request your assistance in not disclosing it to the general public.

If you need additional information about this inquiry, please call Allen F. Brauninger of this office at 492-6980.

Thank you for your assistance with this matter and our other recent inquiries.

ID: nht94-3.21

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: June 6, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Robin Liu -- President, Introbusy

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached To Letter Dated 4/18/94 From Robin Liu To Stephen Wood

TEXT: Dear Mr. Liu:

This responds to your letter of April 18, 1994, with respect to a supplementary stop lamp that you intend to import into the United States. You have asked whether you "need to get any official approval or to apply any license to ensure that installing t his product in motor vehicle will not violate the regulation of Transportation Department."

There are no requirements of the Department of Transportation (DOT) that a supplementary stop lamp must meet. You do not have to receive DOT approval, or apply for a license.

The authority of this agency over installation of supplementary lighting equipment differs, according to whether the equipment is "original" (installed by the vehicle dealer or manufacturer before the vehicle's first sale) or "aftermarket" (installed aft er the vehicle's first sale).

We believe that you intend your lamp for sale in the aftermarket. If your lamp is installed by the owner of the vehicle itself, there are no Federal laws that must be considered. However, it is subject to the laws of the States in which the lamp is ope rated. We are unable to advise you on these laws and suggest that you write for an interpretation to: American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA 22203.

However, if your lamp is installed by someone other than a vehicle owner, specifically by a manufacturer, distributor, dealer or motor vehicle repair business, under Federal law (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)) the question must be asked whether your lamp will "render inoperative in whole or in part" the center stop lamp or other stop lamps which have been installed in accordance with a Federal regulation (49 CFR 571.108 Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment. Literally, these lamps will continue to operate; however, if their signal is not clearly perceived as

2

stop signals, then, in our view, they have been rendered partially inoperative within the meaning of the statutory prohibition.

The supplementary stop lamp depicted in the photos you enclosed is mounted atop a vehicle's center highmounted stop lamp. It connects "+/- wire to manufacturer's braking light system." The one shown is in the shape of a snowman, but others are available as Santa Claus, pumpkins, sports figures, etc. The photo of your snowman stop lamp in operation indicates that an interior bulb shines through the exterior and, in this case, gives a distinctly white light in contrast to the red of the center lamp on t op of which it is mounted. Thus, we believe that when the snowman lamp operates simultaneously with the other stop lamps there could be momentary confusion on the part of a following driver, in other words, that the stop lamps will be rendered partially inoperative.

If your lamp is installed before the first sale of a vehicle (for example, by the vehicle dealer), under Standard No. 108 (S5.1.3) the question must be asked whether your lamp would impair the effectiveness of the center and other stop lamps. Because of the possibility of momentary confusion discussed above, we believe that your lamp could impair the effectiveness of the stop lamps which are required under Standard No. 108.

There is also the possibility that installation of the lamp could affect compliance of the vehicle with the interior field of view requirements (S5.1.1) of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 111 Rearview Mirrors.

In summary, while there is no restriction upon your importation and sale of this device, we believe that its installation would raise problems of compliance with Federal laws.

Sincerely,

ID: 9913

Mr. Robin Liu
President
Introbusy
1320 Girard Street
San Francisco, CA 94134

Dear Mr. Liu:

This responds to your letter of April 18, 1994, with respect to a supplementary stop lamp that you intend to import into the United States. You have asked whether you "need to get any official approval or to apply any license to ensure that installing this product in motor vehicle will not violate the regulation of Transportation Department."

There are no requirements of the Department of Transportation (DOT) that a supplementary stop lamp must meet. You do not have to receive DOT approval, or apply for a license.

The authority of this agency over installation of supplementary lighting equipment differs, according to whether the equipment is "original" (installed by the vehicle dealer or manufacturer before the vehicle's first sale) or "aftermarket" (installed after the vehicle's first sale).

We believe that you intend your lamp for sale in the aftermarket. If your lamp is installed by the owner of the vehicle itself, there are no Federal laws that must be considered. However, it is subject to the laws of the States in which the lamp is operated. We are unable to advise you on these laws and suggest that you write for an interpretation to: American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA 22203.

However, if your lamp is installed by someone other than a vehicle owner, specifically by a manufacturer, distributor, dealer or motor vehicle repair business, under Federal law (l5 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)) the question must be asked whether your lamp will "render inoperative in whole or in part" the center stop lamp or other stop lamps which have been installed in accordance with a Federal regulation (49 CFR 571.108 Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment. Literally, these lamps will continue to operate; however, if their signal is not clearly perceived as

stop signals, then, in our view, they have been rendered partially inoperative within the meaning of the statutory prohibition.

The supplementary stop lamp depicted in the photos you enclosed is mounted atop a vehicle's center highmounted stop lamp. It connects "+/- wire to manufacturer's braking light system." The one shown is in the shape of a snowman, but others are available as Santa Claus, pumpkins, sports figures, etc. The photo of your snowman stop lamp in operation indicates that an interior bulb shines through the exterior and, in this case, gives a distinctly white light in contrast to the red of the center lamp on top of which it is mounted. Thus, we believe that when the snowman lamp operates simultaneously with the other stop lamps there could be momentary confusion on the part of a following driver, in other words, that the stop lamps will be rendered partially inoperative.

If your lamp is installed before the first sale of a vehicle (for example, by the vehicle dealer), under Standard No. 108 (S5.1.3) the question must be asked whether your lamp would impair the effectiveness of the center and other stop lamps. Because of the possibility of momentary confusion discussed above, we believe that your lamp could impair the effectiveness of the stop lamps which are required under Standard No. 108.

There is also the possibility that installation of the lamp could affect compliance of the vehicle with the interior field of view requirements (S5.1.1) of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 111 Rearview Mirrors.

In summary, while there is no restriction upon your importation and sale of this device, we believe that its installation would raise problems of compliance with Federal laws.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

ref:108#VSA d:6/6/94