ID: 86-5.5

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/22/86

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL NHTSA

TO: DONALD E. STEPHENS,

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 07/16/86 TO NHTSA, FROM DONALD E STEPHENS

TEXT: Dear Mr. Stephens:

This is in reply to your letter of July 16, 1986, on kit cars and other subjects related to motor vehicle safety, amplifying your previous letter of April 26.

From your most recent letter I gather you are interested in knowing how our regulations would relate to a commercial situation where you buy used Triumph Spitfires, removing bodies and engines, and replacing them with fiberglass bodies of your own manufacture and garden tractor diesel engines. You intend to retain the chassis, and I will assume for purposes of discussion that you will also retain other chassis-related components such as suspension, and original parts such as the braking and steering systems. As the copy of the interpretation furnished you explained, if a kit car operation consists of a new body placed upon an old chassis, the resulting motor vehicle is not considered one that must comply with Federal motor vehicle safety standards that apply to vehicles assembled entirely from new and unused components. This appears to be your situation. However, under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, with one exception motor vehicle equipment that has been installed to meet a safety standard must remain there for the operational life of the vehicle. The one exception is that an owner may remove such equipment himself. For example, you intend to remove bodies from old Triumphs and resell them with new bodies installed. These vehicles as reassembled must continue to meet the Federal safety standards that they did as originally manufactured (e.g., head rests and seat belts must be retained, the fuel system must not leak more than five ounces of fluid in the first five minutes following a 30 mph barrier impact). But a vehicle that you disassemble and reassemble for your own use need not meet the Federal safety standards. This, in a nutshell, is how the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act would relate to the operation you are interested in pursuing.

You have asked several related questions such as whether all kit car manufacturers are DOT certified, whether companies that sell plans for home built cars are certified and meet DOT standards, and what do you need to know if you buy plans for building a homebuilt car or a kit car.

The agency does not license or certify manufacturers of kit cars. Nor have we any requirements that apply to those who sell plans for kit cars. Further, we do not know whether vehicles built from these plans could be certified as meeting all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. If you buy plans to build a car, or assemble a kit, your most important piece of knowledge, as we see it, is whether the vehicle as assembled will meet the requirements necessary for State registration.

You have also asked "how good" are grey market cars converted to U.S. specifications. If a vehicle has been brought into full compliance with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards it should provide a level of safety equivalent to one that was originally manufactured to comply with the requirements.

You have also asked how well the center high-mounted stop lamp helps prevent rear end collisions. The research data upon which the decision was made to require all new cars to have the light showed a 53 to 58% reduction in rear end collisions, the latter figure reached when two bulbs were used in a single lamp.

Finally, you have informed us that your planned kit car will be an energy saver, and you have asked whether you could receive a grant from the government for your work. We suggest that you address that question to the Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C.

Sincerely,

ID: nht67-1.7

DATE: 12/27/67

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Howard A. Heffron; NHTSA

TO: Department of California Highway Patrol

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: The Federal Highway Administrator has asked me to reply to your letter of November 24, 1967, in which you asked whether tow cars (as defined in the California Vehicle Code), "emergency vehicles, and other specially designed vehicles" come within the coverage of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

Standard No. 108 prescribes requirements for lamps, reflective devices, and associated equipment. It applies, by its terms, to "trucks . . . that are 80 or more inches overall." As you point out, the term "truck" is broadly defined in Subpart A of the Standards and includes any "motor vehicle with motive power . . . designed primarily for transportation of property or special purpose equipment." There is nothing in the definition, nor is there any other reason, to exclude vehicles designed to tow or otherwise assist other disabled vehicles from the coverage of the Standard. Moreover, paragraph S3.4.4.2 of Standard No. 108 provides that "stoplamps on a towing vehicle need not be actuated when service brakes are applied to the towed vehicle or vehicles only." The adoption of specific requirements pertaining to vehicles being towed would indicate that no exclusion for tow cars or tow trucks was intended.

We conclude, therefore, that tow trucks and tow cars that are 80 or more inches wide overall must comply with the provisions of Standard No. 108. That Standard applies to vehicles manufactured on or after January 1, 1968. State standards, if any, would continue to apply to tow cars or trucks manufactured prior to that date. I also wish to point out that, by a formal interpretation (published at 32 F.S. 8803), the term "overall width" in Standard No. 108 has been deamed to refer to "the nominal design dimension of the widest part of the vehicle, exclusive of signal lamps, market lamps, outside rearview mirrors, flexible fender extensions, and mud flaps. . . ." We are presently considering an amendment which would extend Standard No. 108 to trucks having a width of less than 80 inches, but the Standard in its prevent form is limited to the larger trucks.

In your letter, you refer to "emergency vehicles" and "special purpose vehicles" and ask whether such vehicles are covered by Standard No. 108. Since you did not further describe the vehicles you had in mind, we cannot tell whether they are of a type which must meet the requirements of the Standard. Since you mention the possibility that some of these vehicles may be deemed "truck tractors," we wish to call your attention to the fact that Standard No. 108, by its terms, does not apply to truck tractors.

If we can be of further assistance to you, please do not hesitate to call upon us.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

DEPARTMENT OF CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL

November 24, 1967

Lowell K. Bridwell -- Federal Highway Administrator, U.S. Department of Transportation

Dear Mr. Bridwell:

A question has arisen concerning the application of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 issued January 31, 1967, to tow cars.

A "tow car" is defined in the California Vehicle Code as "a motor vehicle which has been altered or designed and equipped for and exclusively used in the business of towing vehicles by means of a crane, hoist, tow bar, tow line, or dolly or is otherwise exclusively used to render assistance to other vehicles."

Although the definitions for "truck" and "truck tractor" included in Subpart A of Initial Motor Vehicle Safety Standards are broad, there appears to be a number of special purpose vehicles such as tow cars, emergency vehicles, and other specially designed vehicles which may not be included.

Will you please clarify for us the definition of "truck" and "truck tractor" with relation to the above special purpose vehicles.

Very truly yours,

H. W. SULLIVAN -- Commissioner

ID: aiam0706

Dear Mr. Good: This is in response to your telephone inquiry of May 17, 1972 concerning the preemptive effect of section 103(d) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (15 U.S.C 1392) on the authority of States to adopt laws regarding bumpers on passenger cars and other vehicle types.; You stated that you interpreted this section as preventing the adoptio by a State of a passenger car bumper law that was not identical to the Federal motor vehicle safety standard (FMVSS 215) on that subject. You stated further that this result (sic) obtained regardless of whether the State law were cast in terms of safety or property damage reduction.; We agree with both statements. This result is required by both sectio 103(d) and the Federal 'common law' of premption (sic), based on the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution. Were the result otherwise, States could adopt laws which frustrated not only the clear Congressional intent of establishing a uniform set of national regulations, but also the specific objectives of many of our safety standards.; You also asked whether, in view of FMVSS 215's application to passenge cars only, section 103(d) prevented the adoption of State laws regarding bumpers on multipurpose passenger vehicles. You indicated that you thought the answer to be 'no'.; Again, we agree. Section 103(d) provides that whenever there is Federal safety standard applicable to an aspect of performance of any motor vehicle, a State may not 'establish . . . any safety standard applicable to the *same aspect of performance* of *such vehicle* . . . which is not identical to the Federal standard. (Emphasis added.) The application of this section turns upon both of the underlined factors. Consequently, the existence of a Federal safety standard applicable to an aspect of performance of a particular vehicle type does not preclude the establishment of a State law regarding the same aspect of performance of another vehicle type unregulated by the Federal standard. Since FMVSS 215 does not apply to multipurpose passenger vehicles, a State may regulate the bumpers of such vehicles without regard to the Federal standard. Of course, if FMVSS 215 is subsequently extended to multipurpose passenger vehicles, State laws regulating the bumpers on those vehicles would have to be made to conform with the Federal standard or they would be preempted.; Thank you for your interest in motor vehicle safety. As requested, have enclosed a copy of the notice issuing FMVSS 215 (36 F.R. 7218) and related notices. Among the other notices is the notice of proposed rulemaking (35 F.R. 17999) which preceded issuance of the standard. The preamble of that notice contains a passage regarding the preemptive effect of the standard.; Please let me know if I can be of any further assistance. Sincerely, Lawrence R. Schneider, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam2060

Dear Mr. Oesch: This is in response to your letter of June 27, 1975, inquiring as t the legislative basis for the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's (NHTSA) May 13, 1975, amendment of Standard No. 215, *Exterior Protection*, to delay for 1 year the application of the low-corner impact requirements to vehicles with wheelbases exceeding 120 inches (40 FR 20823).; The sections of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Pub L. 89-563) supporting the agency's May 13, 1975, action are sections 103(a) and 103(f) (15 U.S.C. 1392(a), 1392(f)). Section 103(a) directs the Secretary to establish appropriate motor vehicle safety standards which are practicable, meet the need for motor vehicle safety, and are stated in objective terms. The 1-year delay in application of the low-corner requirements to 'full-sized' cars was granted as a means of providing Chrysler with relief from the serious financial difficulties it was experiencing. Based upon the information presented by Chrysler to the agency, compliance with the low-corner requirements by its 'full-sized' cars would endanger its ability to continue functioning as an automobile manufacturer. Imposition of these pendulum requirements on Chrysler was therefore not considered practicable.; Granting the relief contained in the May notice meets the need fo motor vehicle safety in that jeopardizing the existence of Chrysler as one of the United States' major motor vehicle manufacturers would have a distinct impact on the technological advances fostered by competition among these members of the motor vehicle industry. In addition, loss of Chrysler as a viable competitor in the motor vehicle market would almost certainly have an unhealthy economic impact.; Section 103(f) of the Traffic Safety Act specifies factors to b considered in prescribing standards: that they be 'reasonable, practicable, and appropriate for the particular type of motor vehicle.' On the basis of the information submitted by Chrysler explaining the effect of this requirement on it as a motor vehicle manufacturer, the agency determined that a delay of 1 year in the imposition of the low-corner hit to the type of vehicles in question would be reasonable, in light of these policy considerations.; The NHTSA did not follow the procedures prescribed in section 113 o the Traffic Safety Act relating to cost information in its handling of Chrysler's request to delay for one year the application of the low-corner impact requirements to vehicles with wheelbases exceeding 120 inches since the Chrysler request did not constitute an objection 'to an action of the Secretary.' The low-corner impact requirements were issued in 1971 and it was not that action of the Secretary which was opposed by Chrysler. Chrysler, in its petition, has requested that new action be taken to provide them with some relief from their existing financial burdens.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel

ID: aiam3349

Dear Mr. Blythe: This responds to your recent letter asking questions concerning th test procedures of Safety Standard No. 216, *Roof Crush Resistance* (49 CFR 571.216). Specifically, you are concerned with the proper applications of the test block forces specified in paragraphs S6.3 and S6.2(d) of the standard.; Your first question asks whether paragraph S6.3 allows the force on th test block to be applied 'essentially opposite the initial contact point of the roof to the block.' Paragraph S6.3 specifies that the force required by the standard shall be applied in a downward direction to the lower surface of the test device. Figure 1 of the standard illustrates this procedure and indicates that the force is to be centrally applied to the loading block. This procedure will be followed during tests by the agency to determine the compliance of particular passenger cars with Safety Standard No. 216. Therefore, we would not recommend that you apply the force opposite the initial contact point of the test block with the roof.; Paragraph S6.2(d) of the standard specifies that the initial contac point (with the roof) is on the longitudinal centerline of the lower surface of the test device and 10 inches from the forwardmost point of the centerline. Your second question asks whether this 10-inch dimension should be maintained if this places the leading edge of the test device behind the leading edge of the roof and the A-pillars. You state that this would occur with certain roof configurations which tend to be high in the center (i.e., in which the leading edge of the roof is not the highest point of the roof). A manufacturer should adhere to the 10-inch dimension even if this means the leading edge of the test device will not be forward of the A-pillar and the roof's forward edge. The test procedures specified are standardized procedures which the agency applies to all passenger cars regardless of roof configuration. Thus, the agency would maintain the 10-inch dimension even when testing a roof with a higher center than its leading edge.; I would like to point out, however, that the test procedures specifie in the safety standards only document how the agency will conduct its compliance tests. Manufacturers are not required to test vehicles according to the procedures specified. A manufacturer's responsibility is to exercise due care to ascertain that its vehicles are in fact in compliance with the standards (15 U.S.C. 1397). If you are convinced that the procedures mentioned in your letter would accurately test the compliance of a particular vehicle with Safety Standard No. 216, you are certainly permitted to use those procedures. It is up to the manufacturer, however, to determine whether it has in fact exercised due care to determine compliance.; I hope this has been responsive to your inquiry. Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel

ID: 1985-03.39

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 09/04/85

FROM: JEFFREY R. MILLER -- CHIEF COUNSEL NHTSA

TO: STEPHEN T. WAIMEY, DEAN HANSELL, LAW OFFICES OF DONOVAN, LEISURE, NEWTON & IRVINE

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 12/09/88 FROM ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA TO LANCE E. TUNICK, REDBOOK A33, 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. JONES, REQUEST FOR INTERPRETATION OF FMVSS 208, OCC 2696

TEXT: Dear Mr. Waimey and Mr. Hansell:

Thank you for your letter of April 15, 1985, concerning the automatic restraint requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection. I regret the delay in our reply.

You asked about the requirement in S4.1.3 of the standard concerning the minimum annual production of passenger cars that must be equipped with automatic restraints. You stated your assumption that the standard applies only to vehicles produced for sale in the United States and asked how a manufacturer is to determine if a vehicle is a part of its annual production for the United States. You pointed out that there are a number of possible sales transactions, beginning with the sale of a vehicle by Porsche to the U.S. importer and ending with the first sale to a consumer in the U.S. that can be used in determining at which point a vehicle becomes part of Porsche's annual production for the United States. I hope the following discussion answers your question.

As discussed in the agency's April 12, 1985, (50 FR 14596) notice on Standard No. 208, your assumption that the term "average annual production" refers only to cars manufactured for sale in the United States is correct. S4.1.3 specifies that percentages of production are to be based on the number of cars manufactured between discrete dates. In the case of foreign cars, as in the case of domestic ones, "manufactured" means produced or assembled. Part 567 Certification (49 CFR Part 567) of the agency's regulation requires all vehicles manufactured for sale in the United States to have a tag affixed to them certifying that they meet all Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. Therefore, in determining which vehicles are to be counted as the manufacturer's average annual production, the manufacturer should determine how many vehicles were produced and certified in accordance with our regulation during the applicable time period. Using production and certification provides the agency and manufacturers with an easily verifiable event to determine which cars are to be counted.

I hope this information is of assistance to you. If you have further questions, please let me know.

Sincerely,

ID: nht92-6.41

DATE: May 22, 1992

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Charles Chun -- General Manager, Kia Motors Corporation, Los Angeles Office

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 4/1/92 from Charles Chun to Paul J. Rice (OCC 7169)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of April 1, 1992, requesting an interpretation of section S5 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 214, Side Impact Protection. You asked two questions, which I have answered below.

First, you asked about the meaning of "manufactured date," in connection with cars that would be produced at your factory in Korea and imported into the United States. Specifically, you asked whether the "manufactured date" would be the date of production at the Kia factory or the date of U.S. customs clearance.

For purposes of S5 of Standard No. 214 and all the rest of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards, the date of manufacture is the date on which the assembly and other manufacturing operations are completed for a motor vehicle. See 49 CFR Part 571.7 and 49 CFR Part 567.4(g)(2) and (5). Therefore, the "manufactured date" for the your company's vehicles would be the production date at the Kia factory in Korea.

Second, you asked whether "manufactured date," as used in S5 of Standard No. 214, has the same meaning as "model year." The answer is no. The term "model year" is defined in 49 CFR Part 565.3(h) as "the year used to designate a discrete vehicle model irrespective of the calendar year in which the vehicle was actually produced, so long as the actual period is less than two calendar years." As explained above, the concept of "manufactured date" refers to the actual date on which manufacturing operations are completed on a vehicle, not a year designation chosen by the manufacturer.

Please note that the minimum percentage phase-in requirements for Standard No. 214's dynamic requirements are based on annual production periods and not model years.

See, for example, S8.1 to S8.1.1 of Standard No. 214. A manufacturer's annual production of passenger cars manufactured on or after September 1, 1993 and before September 1, 1994 would include all passenger cars completed during that time. The annual production period for purposes of the Standard No. 214 phase-in would not be based on the number of passenger cars which the manufacturer chose to designate as model year 1994 cars.

I hope the above information is responsive to your inquiry. Should you have any further questions or need any additional information regarding this matter, please feel free to contact Mr. Walter Myers of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

ID: aiam4522

Dear Mr. Robinson: This is in reply to your letters of December 3 l987, January 19, 1988, and April 4, l988 (to Taylor Vinson of this Office), asking whether a device of your invention complies with all applicable Federal regulations. You have also requested information on how to petition for adoption of this device as mandated equipment on new motor vehicles. We regret the delay in responding to your letter. You have requested confidentiality of this matter to the extent permissible. As Mr. Donaldson of this Office explained to you by phone on January 14, our practice is to make available for public perusal copies of all agency interpretations, but not necessarily the correspondence that occasioned the interpretation, and, upon request, to delete from the interpretation the name and address and other data that might identify the person requesting the interpretation. You have assented to the withholding of your name and address in your letter of January 19. In that letter you requested withholding the drawings you enclosed on December 3. We shall not attach them to the copy of this letter made publicly available (although they will be subject to review by agency personnel who review this letter before I have signed it, and may be subject to eventual disclosure under a Freedom of Information Act request). However, the device must be described to the extent necessary to allow a reader to understand just what the opinion covers. Your device is a horizontal bar of lamps mounted inside the rear window of a passenger car consisting of the center highmounted stop lamp in the center, flanked by back up lamps, which are themselves flanked by left and right turn signal lamps. Each of the five lamps would have a lens area approximately 6' wide and 1 1/2 inches high. The applicable Federal law and regulation is the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act and Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment. With respect to acceptability of your device as an item of original equipment, for purposes of this interpretation we assume that the device is intended to replace the standard center highmounted stoplamp, but only to supplement the backup and turn signal lamps. Your device appears permissible as an item of original equipment under Standard No. 108 provided that all requirements for the center highmounted stoplamp continue to be met. We call your specific attention to the fact that means must be provided to minimize reflections from the center lamp upon the rear window glazing that might be visible to the driver, either directly or indirectly in the rearview mirror. Supplementary original lighting equipment is permissible under Standard No. 108 as long as it does not impair the effectiveness of lighting equipment required by the standard. The certification by a manufacturer that its vehicle complies with Standard No. 108 would encompass a certification that there is no impairment by any supplemental lighting equipment. The vehicle manufacturer must also consider whether any device installed in a rear window affects compliance with the interior rearview mirror field of view requirements specified by Standard No. lll Rearview Mirrors, and if affirmative to provide a passenger side exterior mirror. The Vehicle Safety Act covers safety related defects as well as motor vehicle safety standards, requiring notification of purchasers and remedy of safety related defects when they occur. Spillage of light upon the rear glazing could be considered as a safety related defect, and, for this reason, means should be provided to minimize reflections upon the rear glazing from all lamps in the array, and not just the center lamp. The applicable Federal law for aftermarket equipment is also the Vehicle Safety Act. It prohibits modifications by manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and motor vehicle repair businesses to vehicles if those modifications render inoperative in whole or in part equipment installed in accordance with a safety standard. Center highmounted lamps have been required as original equipment on new cars manufactured on or after September l, l985. Because of the potential for interfering with the effectiveness of the center lamp, we would regard removal of an original equipment center lamp and substitution of your device including its center lamp as rendering the center lamp partially inoperative within the meaning of the prohibition. However, if the modification is such that it can be done by the vehicle owner, the Act does not prohibit an owner from it. Further, the Act would not prohibit in any way the installation of your device on passenger cars manufactured before September l, 1985. However, supplementary lighting devices sold in the aftermarket are regulated by each State in which the device would be sold and used. Although we are not conversant with those laws, you may consult the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Va. 22203 for an opinion. You have also asked how this device could be mandated as original equipment on new passenger cars. Any interested person may petition the Administrator for an amendment of Standard No. 108. However, the Vehicle Safety Act requires the safety standards to be standards for motor vehicle performance, and, to the extent possible, the agency attempts to minimize standards expressed in terms of design. For the same reason, the agency does not normally propose adoption of proprietary designs. As one of the requirements of a petition for rulemaking is that it contain the name and address of the petitioner, it might not be possible to afford the same degree of confidentiality to a petition that it is to a request for an interpretation. Your letter of April 4 asks a slightly different question on the subject of what is allowed to be viewed by other motorists in or around the rear window, with specific reference to turn signals, backup lamps, and hazard warning signals. The relevant portions of Standard No. 108 are those relating to mounting height. The maximum mounting height of 83 inches allowed for turn signals (which commonly also serve as hazard warning signals) is unlikely to be exceeded by turn signals mounted in the rear window area. There is no maximum restriction on the mounting height of backup lamps but we do have performance criteria which must be met in order to ensure that they can satisfy their intended function of providing illumination behind the vehicle. Finally, you should realize that it is incorrect to refer to your device as a 'third tail light assembly.' A taillamp is a specific rear lamp required by Standard No. 108, and one which you have not incorporated into your assembly. I hope that this answers your questions. As you requested in a phone call to Taylor Vinson the other day, we are returning the originals of your correspondence. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel Enclosures;

ID: aiam4622

"Dear Mr. Knauff: On April 21, l989, you wrote the agency with respec to the acceptability of your collision avoidance lighting system, as both original and aftermarket lighting equipment, under Federal laws and regulations. Because the patent application you enclosed was stamped 'Confidential', Ms Kathy DeMeter, the Assistant Chief Counsel for General Law, wrote you on May 26 for a clarification of your intent regarding confidential treatment of the material you submitted. We have received your letter of June 8 to Ms DeMeter containing your 'permission to use' the confidential information in responding to you. As Ms DeMeter explained, the issue is not whether we may 'use' the information, but whether it may be made available to the public, for the agency cannot provide non-public interpretations. Your statement is not a clear waiver of a claim of confidentiality, however, Ms DeMeter states that you told her that you were no longer requesting confidential treatment as the patent application has been filed, and we regard that as a sufficient oral waiver of your request. Your invention is intended as an advance warning of braking, and consists of 'a single pulse of light lasting approximately 40 millionths of a second.' You wish to know of the acceptability of this device as both original and aftermarket lighting equipment in six different configurations. First, let me observe that the agency has not performed research with respect to a device such as yours. However, it is concerned with the effects of glare, whether disabling or discomforting in nature. It would be concerned if the after-image left by the pulse of light from your device created a momentary distraction in drivers from their immediate driving task, in this instance, causing them to hesitate rather than to apply the brake pedal. We note the concern expressed by the State of Minnesota in its l987 and l988 letters to you. Under the assumption that a pulse of 40 millionths of a second does not produce this effect, I shall proceed to a discussion of your device with respect to the situations you envision. The first configuration is as 'a high-mount stop light system.' A center high-mounted stop lamp has been required for all passenger cars manufactured on and after September l, l985, by Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. l08 Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment. Paragraph S5.4 of Standard No. l08 states that the center stop lamp 'shall not be combined with any other lamp or reflective device.' This is the only flat prohibition in Standard No. l08 against physical combinations of lighting equipment, and as such, we read it as forbidding use of the collision avoidance pulse. Thus, your device would not be acceptable as original equipment for passenger cars. As for its suitability as original equipment on other types of motor vehicles, it is permissible as long as it does not impair the effectiveness of other lamps that Standard No. l08 requires (paragraph S5.1.3). With respect to the aftermarket, the pulse could not be incorporated in a center high-mounted stop lamp intended to replace original equipment high-mounted stop lamps, because replacement equipment must conform with original equipment requirements. However, the lamp would be permissible for installation on passenger cars manufactured before September l, l985, and on any other vehicle as well. Whether or not subject to a standard, all aftermarket equipment is subject to the Federal requirement that its installation not lead to a rendering inoperative (wholly or partially) of equipment installed in accordance with any Federal safety standard. For example, if your light utilized the wiring of stop lamps and somehow diminished the light output, we would regard its installation as rendering the stop lamps partially inoperative within the meaning of the prohibition. This prohibition applies to motor vehicle manufacturers, distributors, dealers and repair shops. It does not, however, apply to changes made by a person to his or her own vehicle. Because the agency has no standards for your device, a State may set its own standard for it, or even prohibit it altogether even though it is not prohibited under Federal Law. This is implied by the State of Minnesota to you in its letter of August l6, l988. We are unable to advise you on State law, and suggest that you consult the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Va. 22203. Your second configuration is as 'an enhancement for existing vehicular brake lights.' We interpret this as meaning a combination of the pulse lamp with a stop lamp. This is not a forbidden equipment combination for original equipment, but it is subject to the same restriction (paragraph S5.1.3) as all supplementary lighting equipment: that it not impair the effectiveness of required lighting equipment. Similarly, its installation as an aftermarket device is permissible if it does not violate the rendering inoperative prohibition mentioned above. Your third configuration involves 'use in motorcycle taillights'. Taillamps are steady burning in nature, activated when the headlamps are on. Today, most motorcycle headlamps are activated when the ignition is turned on, meaning that the taillamp operates at all times that the motorcycle is in motion. Your letter does not indicate the frequency of the pulse, but we must raise the possibility that a pulse from the taillamp might impair the effectiveness of signals from the stop lamp, or from the turn signal lamps. If this possibility occurs, the device could not be incorporated into original equipment or replacement motorcycle taillamps for the reasons discussed in the preceding paragraph. The fourth configuration you envision involves 'use for 8-way lights in school bus systems.' This would appear to mean incorporation in the red warning lamps of the red and amber warning lamp system. This system operates automatically when the bus door is opened (paragraph S5.1.4). This appears to enhance the warning purpose of the lamps, and not impair their effectiveness. Nor does it appear to 'render inoperative', within the meaning of the aftermarket prohibition. We must advise you, however, that States are particularly sensitive to issues of school bus safety and lighting. 'Ambulance lighting' is your fifth concern. The agency has no specific requirements for warning light systems on ambulances. Such systems, of course, must not impair the effectiveness of original equipment lighting installed in accordance with Standard No. l08. Strobe-type warning lamps on the vehicle top, at front and rear, have been considered permissible. Finally, you ask about 'off-road type vehicles, i.e., snowmobiles, boats, etc.' The agency has no jurisdiction over vehicles that are not manufactured primarily for use on the public roads, and thus we cannot answer this question. Sincerely, Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel";

ID: 7169-3

Mr. Charles Chun
General Manager
Kia Motors Corporation
Los Angeles Office
1 Technology Drive, Building H
Irvine, CA 92718

Dear Mr. Chun:

This responds to your letter of April 1, 1992, requesting an interpretation of section S5 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 214, Side Impact Protection. You asked two questions, which I have answered below.

First, you asked about the meaning of "manufactured date," in connection with cars that would be produced at your factory in Korea and imported into the United States. Specifically, you asked whether the "manufactured date" would be the date of production at the Kia factory or the date of U.S. customs clearance.

For purposes of S5 of Standard No. 214 and all the rest of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards, the date of manufacture is the date on which the assembly and other manufacturing operations are completed for a motor vehicle. See 49 CFR Part 571.7 and 49 CFR Part 567.4(g)(2) and (5). Therefore, the "manufactured date" for the your company's vehicles would be the production date at the Kia factory in Korea.

Second, you asked whether "manufactured date," as used in S5 of Standard No. 214, has the same meaning as "model year." The answer is no. The term "model year" is defined in 49 CFR Part 565.3(h) as "the year used to designate a discrete vehicle model irrespective of the calendar year in which the vehicle was actually produced, so long as the actual period is less than two calendar years." As explained above, the concept of "manufactured date" refers to the actual date on which manufacturing operations are completed on a vehicle, not a year designation chosen by the manufacturer.

Please note that the minimum percentage phase-in requirements for Standard No. 214's dynamic requirements are based on annual production periods and not model years. See, for example, S8.1 to S8.1.1 of Standard No. 214. A manufacturer's annual production of passenger cars manufactured on or after September 1, 1993 and before September 1, 1994 would include all passenger cars completed during that time. The annual production period for purposes of the Standard No. 214 phase-in would not be based on the number of passenger cars which the manufacturer chose to designate as model year 1994 cars.

I hope the above information is responsive to your inquiry. Should you have any further questions or need any additional information regarding this matter, please feel free to contact Mr. Walter Myers of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

ref:214#571#567 d:5/22/92