ID: 9915

Herr P. Binder
ITT Automotive Europe GmbH
Bietigheim-Bissingen
Germany

FAX 07142/73-2895

Dear Herr Binder:

This responds to your FAX of April 28, 1994, to Taylor Vinson of this Office, requesting an interpretation of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

Your letter shows a rear motor vehicle lighting array of four lamps, two on the body ("Rearlamp 1") and the other on the tailgate ("Rearlamp 2"). The four lamps appear to be equal in size. You cite the requirement of Standard No. 108 and "SAE J588e Sept. 77" that the lamp must "provide an unobstructed projected illuminated area of 12.5 cm2 measured at 45 deg." and state that this "will not be performed by Rearlamp 1 because of the tailgate; however, the requirement is met by Rearlamp 2 and will be met by Rearlamp 1 if the tailgate is open. You have asked whether such a system is allowed.

First, a correction. There has never been a standard known as "SAE J588e Sep. 77." We believe that your are referring to SAE Standard J588e September 1970, which is incorporated by reference in Standard No. 108, but now applies only to certain replacement turn signal lamps (See S5.8.4(b)). The standard that applies to new passenger car designs such as you have depicted is SAE J588 NOV84 Turn Signal Lamps for Use on Motor Vehicles Less than 2032 mm in Overall Width. The visibility requirements, however, remain as you have stated. They are set forth in paragraph 5.4.1 of SAE J588 NOV84. As you have noted, the turn signal lamps must be visible through horizontal angles of 45 degrees to the right or left, depending on whether they are mounted on the right or left. To be considered visible, "the lamp must provide an unobstructed view of the outer lens surface . . . of at least 12.5 cm2 measured at 45 deg. to the longitudinal axis of the vehicle."

We believe that the design depicted is in accordance with Standard No. 108. It is, in operation, a turn signal lamp system of two lamps on each side of the vehicle. Contrary to your assertion, we believe that the outer lamp on each side, Rearlamp 1, will meet the visibility requirements when the tailgate is in place because visibility must be met only at 45 degrees outboard (the agency judges compliance with the vehicle in its normal operating condition, that is to say, with the tailgate closed). Thus, under Standard No. 108, Rearlamp 2 is regarded as a permissible supplementary turn signal lamp.

I hope that this is helpful to you.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

ref:108 d:6/21/94

ID: 14635.ztv

Mr. Mark Boykin
J&M Enterprises
1523 Grand Ave.
Spring Valley, CA 91977

Dear Mr. Boykin:

This is in reply to your letter of March 26, 1997, telling us of your interest in manufacturing side marker lamps. You ask whether these lights are required to be "DOT approved". You also ask for information on state and local laws.

We are pleased to try to help you. First, the applicable laws do not provide authority for "DOT approval" of vehicles or equipment items. Under these laws, a manufacturer must satisfy itself, through testing for example, that its product conforms to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. The manufacturer then must certify its product. No permission or approval by DOT is needed.

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment contains specifications for original and replacement side marker lamps, which have been required on all new passenger cars since January 1, 1969. These requirements are those of SAE Standard J592e, July 1972. I enclose a copy for your information.

However, it is not immediately clear that these requirements would apply to you. The color photo you enclosed shows a side marker lamp installed on a contemporary Saab car, just behind the front wheelwell. The Saab also has a yellow lens before the front wheelwell that appears to be part of the front lamp assembly. We take this to be the front side marker lamp required by Standard No. 108. The second lamp which you indicate by an arrow, the lamp you are interested in manufacturing, is a side-mounted turn signal, not a side marker lamp in this photo. On this vehicle, the lamp in question flashes in phase with the required front and rear mounted turn signal lamps. Supplemental lamps, regardless of their purpose, need not meet any Federal specifications.

If you intend to sell the lamp for installation as original or replacement equipment on vehicles, trailers for example, then even this lamp would not have to meet any specifications because side-mounted turn signal lamps are not an item regulated by Standard No. 108. However, other requirements would come into play: the necessity to file a one-page manufacturer identification statement with the agency, and the obligation to notify and remedy in the event that a noncompliance or safety-related defect is found to exist in the lamp.

A state may impose its own requirements for aspects of performance not covered by Standard No. 108, in this case, with SAE Standard J914 Side Turn Signal Lamps. We are not able to advise you on state laws and suggest that you contact the Department of Motor Vehicles in states where you intend to market the device.

If you have further questions, you may call Taylor Vinson of this Office at 202-366-5263.

Sincerely,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
Enclosure
ref:108
d.6/16/97

ID: nht93-3.47

DATE: May 17, 1993

FROM: Thomas D. Turner -- Manager, Engineering Services, Blue Bird Body Company

TO: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: REFERENCE: 49 CFR Part 571.217; Docket No. 88-21; Notice No. 3; Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 217; Bus Emergency Exits and Window Retention and Release; Federal Register Vol. 57, No. 212, Monday, November 2,1992

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 7/7/93 from John Womack to Thomas D. Turner (A41; Std. 217)

TEXT:

Section S5.5.3(c) of the referenced final rule requires that:

"Each opening for a required emergency exit shall be outlined around its outside perimeter with a minimum 3 centimeters wide retro-reflective tape, either red, white or yellow in color that when tested under the conditions specified in S6.1 of 571.131, meets the criteria specified in Table 1."

1. The March 15, 1991 NPRM of Docket No. 88-21; Notice No.2 proposed the of "one inch wide" retro-reflective tape and item 10 of the Supplementary Information section of the final rule discussed the final rule requirement of a "minimum 1 inch wide strip of retro-reflective tape." The conversion to metric units in the final wording resulted in requirement for a "minimum 3 centimeters wide retro-reflective tape." Since the logic and rationale for the requirement is based on the use of one inch wide tape and because retro-reflective tape is currently not commercially available in metric widths, Blue Bird requests an interpretation or a change in the rule to require the tape be 1 inch or 2.5 centimeters wide rather than 3 centimeters wide. Blue Bird is in the process of developing exit marking designs to conform to the requirement that "each opening for a required emergency exit shall be outlined around its outside perimeter...." The retro-reflective tape commercially available for this application is stiff and will not conform to rivet heads, curved surfaces, and other discontinuities. It must be located to avoid rivets, rubrails, hinges or curved surfaces and/or must have relief holes punched in it to allow installation over rivet heads. Attached are photographs of various emergency exits with tape installed around their perimeters. The photographs are labeled to illustrate the problem areas encountered and the discontinuities required to install the tape. Blue Bird requests interpretations that the tape outlining the perimeter of the exit shall be installed such that the edge of the tape closest to the emergency exit opening is not greater than 6 inches from the edge of the opening and that splits, interruptions, discontinuities and holes in the tape are allowed to avoid and/or accommodate rivets, rubrails, hinges, handle, curved surfaces, and other function components located around the exit opening.

In addition, Blue Bird requests that appropriate NHTSA officials and staff review the enclosed photographs and advise if the retro-reflective tape installations shown would be in compliance with the subject requirement of Section S5.5.3(c).

Although the final rule does not become effective until May 2, 1994, several states have mandated conformance to the new standard in advance of the FMVSS effective date. Blue Bird must therefore complete the Engineering work and release final designs to Production in the very near future. We, therefore, request that prompt and favorable responses to our requests for interpretations be provided.

(Graphics omitted)

ID: 8107

Mr. Stan Kaplan
Shimazaki Corp.
10 Columbus Circle
New York, NY 10019

Dear Mr. Kaplan:

This responds to your letter of December 10, 1992, with respect to the relationship of Federal motor vehicle regulations to the Red Alert device that you wish to import and sell in the United States.

The device is located on the accelerator rod. When there is a sudden release of the accelerator, the stop lamps are activated before the driver's foot has touched the service brake pedal. You state also that installation of the device is quick and simple, requiring 10 to 15 minutes and no special tools. You have asked if Red Alert "meets the standard set by your administration and the (sic) how we can get a waiver on this product or does it require one at all."

The descriptive literature that you enclosed notes (under "Authorization Requirements for Installation") that "there are many countries in which it is mandated by regulations that only the brake pedal activate the rear brake lights," and that "Red Alert, situated as it is on the accelerator rod, is illegal in these countries." The United States is one of these countries. Under Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment, the stop lamps may only be activated by the brake pedal. This means that a vehicle that is equipped with Red Alert no longer complies with Standard No. 108.

Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, this means that the manufacturer of the vehicle, and any distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business who installs Red Alert is liable for a civil penalty for creating the noncompliance. In addition, if the noncompliance is created by the manufacturer of the vehicle, the manufacturer is obliged to notify owners of the noncompliance, and then to remedy it. However, the Act does not restrict the owner of the vehicle from such modifications as (s)he may perform, even if the modifications result in a noncompliance, unless State laws so forbid. Thus, Federal law does not prohibit a vehicle owner from installing Red Alert but (s)he may not enlist the services of a distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business to perform the installation. In no circumstance is importation and sale of the device itself a violation of Federal law.

These matters and the agency's views on the device are set forth more fully in the enclosed agency letter of January 25, 1990, concerning the Advanced Brake Light Device (ABLD). Noting that both the ABLD and Red Alert originate in Israel, we surmise that Red Alert is a variant of the ABLD. Although the interpretation in this letter does allow installation of the Red Alert at the hands of the vehicle owner, our conclusion is based upon Federal law and should not be construed as an endorsement of the device. The same safety concerns that we expressed in January 1990 remain valid today.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

Enclosure ref:108 d.12/29/92

ID: nht90-3.56

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: August 14, 1990

FROM: Paul G. Scully -- Vice President, Peterson Manufacturing Company

TO: Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 12-27-90 to Paul G. Scully from Paul Jackson Rice (A37; Std. 108)

TEXT:

A few days ago, one of our fleet customers telephoned our Sales Department and advised that they were notified that the Peterson reflex reflectors used on their vehicles were not legal because they did not have the SAE-A marking one them. Sergeant Harti gan of the Traffic Enforcement Division was under the impression that SAE markings were required because they are still shown as a requirement in the regulations of the Office of Motor Carrier Safety. As you know, Federal Safety Standard 108 requirement s do not mandate the use of SAE markings on any regulated products. I believe this is the third instance in the past two years (the other two occurring in Texas) where police officials have mistakenly advised our customers that our products were illegal and should be removed. The reflex reflector products in questions do have the DOT markings on them and we certify that these products are in full compliance with Federal Safety Standards for reflex reflectors. These thin, flexible reflectors are diecu t which explains why it would be somewhat difficult and costly to put the SAE impressions on this thin film; therefore, we elected not to do it even though the SAE code markings are, in fact, used on all of our other products. It is somewhat ironic that Peterson Manufacturing Company led the industry effort to require SAE markings as part of the MVSS 108 requirements. Our company initiated the petition to require code markings, but after about one year of study, we were advised that this petition had been denied, even though the majority of the departments in both the NHTSA and the Office of Motor Carrier Safety agreed with our petition. I am sure that Messrs. Felrice and Helmuth remember our many discussions concerning these markings.

These reflex reflectors are sold in large volumes both to original equipment manufacturers and as replacement products throughout the nation and, I emphasize again that they fully comply with all requirements. It is quite unfortunate that another agency of the Department of Transportation, the OMCS, still retains these marking requirements in their publication. Again, we would be pleased to have all regulated items marked as per our petition because it would avoid situations like these, as well as impe de the importation of many illegal products from the Orient which are never identified as to the source.

We would like to request that you promptly notify the Tucson Police Department that these products are not required to have SAE markings in order to be perfectly legal reflectors. I would also like to once again appeal for a uniform set of regulations b etween the two government agencies involved. We can probably expect similar misunderstandings to occur by other municipal authorities unless some action is taken.

ID: 1985-02.44

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/18/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Jeffrey R. Miller; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Victor Felice

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

June 18, 1985 Mr. Victor Felice President Eurospec, Inc. 109 Treetops Circle Nanuet, New York 10954 Dear Mr. Felice: This responds to your letter of March 29, 1985, concerning two aftermarket products you intend to import. The products, which you call the "Super Klip" and the "Klumk Klip" safety belt comfort devices, consist of plastic devices which attach to the upper torso belt anchorage. The belt webbing through a wedge attached to your device. A belt user can then pull the webbing through the open wedge and close the wedge to introduce slack into the shoulder portion of the belt. You asked for the agency to review the devices and inform you of any comments or objections. As background information, let me explain that the agency does not have the authority to approve items of motor vehicle equipment, such as your devices. We do have the authority to issue Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards that set performance requirements for motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. Manufacturers of vehicles or equipment covered by our standards must certify that their product complies with all of the applicable standards. Your particular aftermarket products are not covered by any of our safety belt or other standards. However, as a manufacturer of an item of motor vehicle equipment, you do have certain responsibilities concerning possible safety-related defects you or the agency discover in your products. Those responsibilities are set out in sections 151-160 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, a copy of which is enclosed. The agency is concerned that a belted occupant could use your product to reduce the effectiveness of the upper torso belt by moving the belt so close to the edge of the shoulder that the occupant could rotate out of the upper torso belt in a crash. Likewise, your product could be used to introduce excessive slack in the upper torso belt, which would also reduce its effectiveness. The instructions you provide with the "Klunk Klip" do include information about how much slack to introduce into the belt and warns users not to introduce excessive slack. The instructions for the Super Klip contain no information or warnings on belt slack. We urge you to include a warning in both your instructions to advise belt users about the consequences of introducing too much slack in the belt. I am returning the samples of your products that you enclosed with your letter. If you have any further questions, please let me know. Sincerely, Original Signed By Jeffrey R. Miller Chief Counsel Enclosures

ID: 16788.ztv

Mr. L. W. Camp
Director, Automotive Safety Office
Environmental and Safety Engineering
Ford Motor Company
330 Town Center Drive
Dearborn, MI 48126

Dear Mr. Camp:

This replies to your letter of December 16, 1997, to Dr. Martinez asking for an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

Paragraph S7.8.2 of Standard No. 108 requires that the mounting and aiming mechanisms of headlamps installed on motor vehicles be accessible without the removal of any vehicle parts "except for protective covers removable without the use of tools." You ask whether "a hard object, such as the vehicle ignition key" is a "tool" within the meaning of S7.8.2.

We have concluded that an ignition key is a "tool" as contemplated by S7.8.2. A "tool" is defined as "1. An implement, esp. one held in the hand, as a hammer, saw, or file for performing or facilitating mechanical operation. 2. Any instrument of manual operation." (Random House Complete Unabridged Dictionary, Special Second Edition, 1996, at p. 1995).

The ignition key, or any other hard object, is an instrument of manual operation held in the hand to facilitate the removal of the headlamp covers, and therefore a "tool." Compare with S5.1.1.27(a)(5) and (b)(4) which specify that center high mounted stop lamps "shall provide access for convenient replacement of the bulbs without special tools" (emphasis supplied). Had you asked whether an ignition key was a "special tool" we might well have said that it is not, because any hard object could be used to provide access to the bulbs and access does not require a tool specifically designed for that purpose.

We note that Ford initially intended that all covers be removable by hand, and that the reason for your request is that "manufacturing variation of the plastic push pins and vehicle structure can result in elevated retention forces" in "approximately 30% of the attachments." While this is regrettable, identification of the problem at this stage should allow Ford time to resolve this problem before production of your 1999 vehicle commences and forestall any question of compliance with S7.8.2.

Sincerely,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
ref:108
d.2/12/98

ID: nht90-3.1

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: June 28, 1990

FROM: John Durant -- Commercial Rulings Division, Department of the Treasury, U.S. Customs Service

TO: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 5-1-90 from J. Laderberg to J.H. Heinrich; Also attached to letter dated 9-14-90 from P.J. Rice to J. Durant (A36; Std. 205); Also attached to letter dated June 26, 1989 from S.P. Wood to M. Turner

TEXT:

On June 26, 1990, Marvin Amernick of my staff spoke to Dorothy Nakama of your staff concerning the markings which appear on automotive glass. She was extremely helpful. Mr. Amernick explained that this office issued a ruling letter on May 1, 1990, to t he Customs office in Los Angeles, in which we determined that the automobile owner who needs to replace automotive glass is the ultimate purchaser of the replacement glass. As such, in accordance with section 304, Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S. C. 1304), and Part 134, Customs Regulations (19 CFR Part 134), if the automative glass is imported, the automobile owner must be made aware of the country of origin of the imported glass. Noting that automotive glass is already required by the Departmen t of Transportation to be permanently marked with certain information, we referred to 19 CFR 134.41(a) which states that generally, the country of origin marking is best met by marking worked into articles at the time of manufacture. In the ruling we di d not prescribe any particular method of marking automotive glass. However, we stated that the marking must be permanent enough to insure that in any reasonably foreseeable circumstance, the marking shall remain on the article until it reaches the ultima te purchaser, unless it is deliberately removed. A copy of the ruling is enclosed for your information.

We have now been asked to reconsider the ruling. Various issues are being raised as part of this request and we are looking into several on our own initiative. One of these is the marking requirements imposed on manufacturers of automotive glass by the Department of Transportation. We would appreciate your views on whether a Customs requirement that all imported automotive glass for the replacement market be permanently marked with the name of the country of origin would in any way impact on the mark ing requirements of your agency.

Your prompt review of this issue and response would be appreciated inasmuch as we need to advise the affected industry and our field staff as soon as possible. If you have any questions, please call me on 566-5868 or Mr. Amernick on 566-5765.

ID: 8589

Dr. Thomas Lckemeyer
Dept VER/LB
SWF Auto-Electric GmbH

FAX 07142/73 28 95

Dear Dr. Lckemeyer:

As you have requested, we are responding by FAX to your letter of April 28, 1993, to Taylor Vinson of this Office. You have asked two questions with respect to the acceptability of a multiple rear turn signal lamp under Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, and have enclosed a sketch of the lamp.

Your first question is:

"Is it allowed to split the turn signal lamp in two parts with the dimensions given in the sketch . . . where the bigger part (4.5 sq. in.) is on the body of the car. The distance does not exceed 22 in."

Your question indicates that the turn signal lamp array of two lamps that is illustrated in the sketch is intended for installation on passenger cars or other vehicles whose overall width is less than 80 inches. Standard No. 108 incorporates by reference the SAE standard applicable to such vehicles, J588 NOV84. Paragraph 5.1.5.2 of SAE J588 NOV84 permits the use of multiple rear turn signal lamps to meet the photometric requirements of Standard No. 108.

When multiple lamps are used to meet the photometric requirements of a rear turn signal lamp, paragraph 5.3.3 of SAE J588 NOV84 requires that the functional lighted lens area of each lamp shall be at least 22 sq. cm, provided the combined area is at least 37.5 sq. cm. Your sketch shows that the functional lighted lens area of one lamp is 23 sq. cm, and of the other, 30 sq. cm, with a combined area of 53 sq. cm. Therefore, Standard No. 108 permits you to use the turn signal lamp array shown in your sketch. Your second question is:

"Is it allowed to use the combination of the two lamps to meet the photometric requirements."

Because the distance between the two adjacent light sources in the array does not exceed 560 mm (the sketch indicates that it is less than 550 mm), paragraph 5.1.5.2 of SAE J588 NOV84 requires that the combination of the lamps be used to meet the photometric requirements for the corresponding number of lighted sections, two in this case. Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

NCC-20:ZTVinson:mar:5/19/93:OCC 8589:62992 cc: NCC-0l Subj/Chron Interps. Std. 108; redbook (3) w/sketch 8589; ztv; U:\ncc20\interp\108\8589.ztv

ID: nht93-9.1

DATE: December 2, 1993

FROM: Harry C. Gough, P.E. -- Automotive Engineering Professional Specialist, State of Connecticut, Department of Motor Vehicles

TO: Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 3/29/94 from John Womack to Harry C. Gough (A42; Std. 108)

TEXT:

I am writing on behalf of the State of Connecticut Department of Motor Vehicles. We are requesting a written opinion or interpretation regarding the meaning of the terms "flash alternately" or "alternately flashing" as they apply to school bus overhead signal lamps required under FMVSS #108. The terms are used in SAE Standard J887, which is incorporated by reference. The reason for the request is that a manufacturer of strobe (gaseous-discharge) lamps has supplied test documentation indicating that a system they offer complies with the mechanical, color, and intensity provisions of SAE J887 and thus comply with FMVSS #108. The system offered uses what is referred to as a quad-pulse strobe flash pattern. Effectively the lamp on one side flashes on and off four times in a 255 millisecond period and then stays off for 745 milliseconds, then the lamp on the opposite side of the bus repeats the aforementioned pattern. While the pattern is repeated alternately from side to side a question arises as to whether "alternately flashing" refers to the pattern heretofore described or do the four distinct on/off cycles on each side of the school bus defeat the intent of the term alternating.

While I realize your office is very busy with such interpretations, I would appreciate a response at your earliest convenience. If there are any additional questions or information required, please feel free to have your office call me at (203) 566-3754.

Thank you in advance for your attention to this matter.