ID: nht92-9.53

DATE: January 13, 1992

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Tadoru Yamamoto -- Technical Administration Div., Hino Motors, Ltd.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 11/1/91 from Tadoru Yamamoto to Paul Jackson Rice (OCC 6648)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter concerning Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 113, Hood Latch System. You ask two questions about the applicability of the standard's requirements to your vehicle. As explained below, the vehicle must have a hood latch system, but need not have a second latch position on the system or a second hood latch system.

By way of background information, NHTSA does not provide approvals of any vehicle or equipment. Under the Vehicle Safety Act, it is your responsibility as a manufacturer to determine whether your vehicles and equipment comply with all applicable safety standards and regulations, and to certify your products in accordance with that determination. The following interpretation represents the agency's opinion based on the information provided in your letter.

Standard 113 requires that a vehicle's hood must have a hood latch system (S4.1). The standard also requires a front opening hood to have a second latch position on the latch system or a second hood latch system, if the hood has any open position that partially or completely obstructs a driver's forward view through the windshield (S4.2). The standard defines "hood" as "any exterior movable body panel forward of the windshield that is used to cover an engine, luggage, storage, or battery compartment" (S3).

Your first question asks about the general applicability of Standard 113's requirements to your vehicle. You believe your vehicle is not subject to any of the standard's requirements because the front panel of the vehicle is not forward of the windshield, and is therefore not a "hood" as defined by Standard 113.

We disagree. According to the drawing you provided with your letter, the body panel appears to be forward of the windshield. We would consider the panel to be a hood, and subject to S4.1's requirement for a hood latch system.

Whether the hood must have a secondary latch for the hood (either a second latch position on the hood latch system or a second latch system) is the subject of your second question. The answer is that the hood need not have the secondary latch. The secondary latch is required by S4.2 only for a front opening hood. According to the drawing you provided, your hood is essentially vertical, with the opening on the bottom of the hood. We consider a hood such as yours that is essentially vertical not to be a front opening hood.

We note that a secondary latch for front opening hoods is required because such a hood is particularly hazardous if it were to unlatch during vehicle operation. The front opening design of the hood lends itself to flying open while the vehicle is moving, obstructing the driver's view through the windshield. However, an essentially vertical hood such as yours does not lend itself to such openings if it were to become unlatched. The secondary latch is therefore not required by the standard.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have further questions, please contact Deirdre Fujita of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

ID: aiam3934

Dear Mr. Alexander: This is in reply to your letter of March 25, 1985, asking for ou comments on your planned London Taxi marketing program.; Under the program, products of Carbodies Ltd. of Coventry, England would be imported 'devoid of an engine, transmission, and finished interior.' LondonCoach would then install 'an American engine, transmission and driveshaft, interior seats, coverings and details, and various exterior cosmetic trim items.' However, a 'representative' vehicle with the modifications mentioned above will have undergone all testing necessitated by the standards, at the Motor Industry Research Association in England. Vehicles would be certified by Carbodies as meeting the standards prior to importation, and LondonCoach Co., Inc., in the role of alterer, would attach the label attesting to continued compliance required by 49 CFR Section 567.7 upon completion of the modifications.; Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, certificatio of compliance of a motor vehicle can only be provided by the manufacturer or importer of a completed motor vehicle. Certification of compliance with at least four Federal motor vehicle safety standards is directly dependent upon the manner in which the Carbodies vehicles are completed by LondonCoach: Standard No. 124, *Accelerator Control Systems*, Standard No. 207, *Seating Systems*, Standard No. 301, *Fuel System Integrity*, and Standard No. 302, *Flammability of Interior Materials*. Therefore, LondonCoach is the only party who can certify compliance of the completed vehicle with Federal motor vehicle safety standards. As the manufacturer, LondonCoach is also responsible for assigning and affixing the vehicle identification number (VIN) to each vehicle, according to the requirements of Standard No. 115, *Vehicle Identification Number--Basic Requirements*, and 49 CFR Part 565, *Vehicle Identification Number--Content Requirements*.; The Carbodies products are an assemblage of items of motor vehicl equipment and should be labeled as equipment items for importation into the United States. Carbodies should certify that each item of motor vehicle equipment that is covered by a Federal motor vehicle safety standard complies with such standard. Those items are brake hoses, new pneumatic tires, brake fluid, surface glazing, seat belt assemblies, and lamps, reflective devices, and associated equipment. This certification should free LondonCoach, as the importer, from the obligation under 19 CFR 12.80 to post a compliance bond upon entry into the United States.; Sincerely, Jeffrey R. Miller, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam3933

Dear Mr. Alexander: This is in reply to your letter of March 25, 1985, asking for ou comments on your planned London Taxi marketing program.; Under the program, products of Carbodies Ltd. of Coventry, England would be imported 'devoid of an engine, transmission, and finished interior.' LondonCoach would then install 'an American engine, transmission and driveshaft, interior seats, coverings and details, and various exterior cosmetic trim items.' However, a 'representative' vehicle with the modifications mentioned above will have undergone all testing necessitated by the standards, at the Motor Industry Research Association in England. Vehicles would be certified by Carbodies as meeting the standards prior to importation, and LondonCoach Co., Inc., in the role of alterer, would attach the label attesting to continued compliance required by 49 CFR Section 567.7 upon completion of the modifications.; Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, certificatio of compliance of a motor vehicle can only be provided by the manufacturer or importer of a completed motor vehicle. Certification of compliance with at least four Federal motor vehicle safety standards is directly dependent upon the manner in which the Carbodies vehicles are completed by LondonCoach: Standard No. 124, *Accelerator Control Systems*, Standard No. 207, *Seating Systems*, Standard No. 301, *Fuel System Integrity*, and Standard No. 302, *Flammability of Interior Materials*. Therefore, LondonCoach is the only party who can certify compliance of the completed vehicle with Federal motor vehicle safety standards. As the manufacturer, LondonCoach is also responsible for assigning and affixing the vehicle identification number (VIN) to each vehicle, according to the requirements of Standard No. 115, *Vehicle Identification Number--Basic Requirements*, and 49 CFR Part 565, *Vehicle Identification Number--Content Requirements*.; The Carbodies products are an assemblage of items of motor vehicl equipment and should be labeled as equipment items for importation into the United States. Carbodies should certify that each item of motor vehicle equipment that is covered by a Federal motor vehicle safety standard complies with such standard. Those items are brake hoses, new pneumatic tires, brake fluid, surface glazing, seat belt assemblies, and lamps, reflective devices, and associated equipment. This certification should free LondonCoach, as the importer, from the obligation under 19 CFR 12.80 to post a compliance bond upon entry into the United States.; Sincerely, Jeffrey R. Miller, Chief Counsel

ID: nht89-2.9

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/19/89

FROM: STEPHEN P. WOOD -- NHTSA ACTING CHIEF COUNSEL

TO: H. HASEGAWA -- AUTOMOTIVE LIGHTING ENGINEERING CONTROL SECTION STANLEY ELECTRIC CO. LTD.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 05/22/89 FROM H. HASEGAWA TO RICHARD L. VANIDERSTINE, RE REVISION OF FMVSS NO 108 [DOCKET NO 85-15 NOTICE 8

TEXT: Dear Mr. Hasegawa:

This is in reply to your FAX letter of May 22, 1989, to Richard Van Iderstine of this agency.

You have two questions with respect to the amendment to Standard No. 108 published on May 9, 1989 (Docket No. 85-15; Notice 8).

Your first question is the effective date of paragraph S7.7.5.1.(a), which you point out was not previously a requirement of Standard No. 108. You suggest the need for a delayed effective date (but give no reason why one may be needed).

Paragraph S7.7.5.1(a) will be effective June 8, 1989. Although the requirement is a new one (the restriction on motion of a headlamp when an external aiming device is applied to it), it was proposed as part of the December 29, 1987 NPRM, and no comments received indicated a need for a delayed effective date. Your supposition is correct; S7.5.5.1 will apply to all headlamps with an external aiming system, including those incorporating replaceable bulbs.

Your second question relates to paragraph S7.7.5.1(b), and you ask "whether the requirement of '0.1 in. max.' will be determined, either during the test or after the test". In pertinent part, subsection (b) states "nor shall the lamp recede more than 0. 1 in. (2.5 mm) after being subjected to an inward force...." This means that the measurement is determined after the test.

Sincerely,

ID: nht71-5.16

DATE: 12/08/71

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; R. B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Holophane Company, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of October 27, 1971, to David H. Soule of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration concerning the requirements of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 for school bus lighting.

You are concerned with paragraph S4.3.4(b)(ii) which roads:

"The system shall be wired so that the amber signal lamps are activated only by manual or foot operation, and if activated, are automatically deactivated and the red signal lamps automatically activated when the bus entrance door is opened."

You have commented that "the use of the automatic system would make it mandatory that the red lights go on when the door is open and stop traffic where unnecessary -- such as railroad crossings." That is not correct. You will see from S4.1.4(b)(ii) that the red lamps are not automatically activated when the bus entrance door opens unless there has been prior manual or foot activation of the amber signal lamps.

You are also concerned with the fact "that this automatic system is patented and only one manufacturer has the right to make it." Since you have not enclosed the copy of the patent enclosed in attorney Smith's letter to you dated June 4, 1970, I am unable to comment on your statement. I would like to point out that Standard No. 108 does

not mandate the use of an amber-red lamp system; a system of red lamps only is also permissible. If the amber-red lamp system is used, paragraph S4.1.4(b)(ii) does not specify system design but only that the system be wired so that the driver can activate the amber lamp system at his option, and if he does activate it, that it automatically be deactivated and the red system automatically activated when the bus entrance door is opened.

ID: nht72-1.1

DATE: 12/11/72

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; E. T. Driver; NHTSA

TO: Chrysler United Kingdom Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of November 7, 1972, about Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 102 as applied to a four speed automatic gear box.

As described, gear transmission functions as follows:

"When the gear selector is in any forward position and the vehicle speed falls the automatic Mechanism will cause the drive ratio to eventually fall to the lowest gear and thereafter to disengage at about 6 mph leaving the vehicle in a state of 'free-wheel'."

Paragraph S3.1.2, Transmission Braking Effect, requires that:

"In vehicles having more than one forward transmission gear ratio, one forward drive position shall provide a greater degree of engine braking than the highest speed transmission ratio at vehicle speeds below 25 miles per hour."

Your transmission, as described, does not meet this requirement, since, in downshifting, the drive ratio would disengage at about 6 miles per hour leaving the vehicle in a state of "free-wheel" with no engine braking at all.

Sincerely,

CHRYSLER UNITED KINGDOM LTD

The Office of Standards Motor Vehicle Safety Performance Service, U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, National Highway Safety Bureau,

NOVEMBER 7, 1972

Dear Sirs,

Interpretation of F.M.V.S.S. 102.

We are considering the use of a four speed Automatic Gear Box which has the following characteristic:

When the gear selector is in any forward position and the vehicle speed falls the automatic mechanism will cause the drive ratio to eventually fall to the lowest gear and thereafter to disengage at about 6 mph leaving the vehicle in a state of "free-wheel".

We notice F.M.V.S.S. requires an automatic gear box to be such that: "One forward drive position shall provide a greater degree of engine braking than the highest speed transmission ratio".

Whilst this clause would be met with the characteristic described at speeds above 6 mph it could not be considered to be met at speed below 6 mph.

I would be grateful if you would let me know whether or not you consider such a gear box would meet the requirements of F.M.V.S.S. 102.

P.J.P Horris. Manager, Vehicle Legislation.

ID: aiam2690

Dear Mr. Locke: This is in response to your letter of October 4, 1977, to Mr. Franci Armstrong of our Office of Standards Enforcement, in which you asked whether our regulations require seat belts in fifth wheel vehicles.; Our seat belt requirements are specified in Federal Motor Vehicl Safety Standard No. 208 (49 CFR 571.208), which applies to passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks and buses. I am assuming that by fifth wheel vehicle you mean a towed vehicle attached to the towing vehicle by means of a fifth wheel. If I am correct in this assumption, these vehicles would be classified as trailers, which are not subject to Standard No. 208. There would therefore be no Federal requirement for seat belts in these vehicles.; Sincerely, Joseph J. Levin, Jr., Chief Counsel

ID: 12221.ztv

Mr. J. Yoshimoto
Deputy General Manager
Technical Admin. Dept.
Koito Mfg. Ltd.
Shizuoka Works
500, Kitawaki
Shimizu-shi, Shizuoka-ken
Japan

Dear Mr. Yoshimoto:

This responds to your letter of July 11, 1996, asking for an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 with respect to the permissibility of a combination turn signal lamp, taillamp, and stop lamp.

In this design, a bulb in Chamber A functions as a turn signal and taillamp. Chamber B functions as a stop and taillamp. A partition partially separates the two Chambers, but ends at a point 10 to 15 mm from the lens.

Standard No. 108 incorporates by reference SAE Standard J586 FEB84 "Stop Lamps" and SAE Standard J588 NOV84 "Turn Signal Lamps for use on Motor Vehicles Less Than 2032 MM in Overall Width". Paragraph 5.4.2 of each of the SAE Standards provides that "[w]hen a stop signal is optically combined with the turn signal, the circuit shall be such that the stop signal cannot be turned on if the signal is flashing." You ask for confirmation that the design of your lamp is such that the stop signal is not optically combined with the turn signal, and that, therefore, the stop signal can remain turned on even if the turn signal is flashing.

We confirm your interpretation. In your design, the stop signal is not optically combined with the turn signal. The bulbs providing the turn signal and the stop signal are in separate chambers, and ought to be perceived as separate signals through the respective lighted areas of their common lens, even though there may be some small incidental spillover between chambers because the chamber partition does not extend all the way to the lens.

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

Sincerely,

Samuel J. Dubbin

Chief Counsel

ref:108

d:8/7/96

ID: nht90-4.56

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: November 8, 1990

FROM: Mitch L. Williams -- President, Hella, Inc.

TO: Richard Van Iderstine -- Office of Vehicle Safety Standards; NHTSA

TITLE: Re Proposed new product from Hella

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 12-24-90 from Paul Jackson Rice to Mitch L. Williams (A37; FMVSS 108); Also attached to letter dated 11-1-90 from Mitch L. Williams to Richard Van Iderstine (OCC 5441)

TEXT:

In addition to my letter to you of November 1, 1990, Hella is considering another new product which could have vehicle safety implications.

As you know, pick-up trucks are not currently required to have a third brake light originally equipped. We feel that adding a third brake light to these vehicles would significantly reduce the chances of rear end collisions for the following reasons:

A) Pick-up trucks are selling in record numbers and are becoming a larger portion of the vehicle population, therefore diluting safety advantages created by adding third rear brake lights to automobiles in 1986.

B) Pick-up trucks are among the most difficult vehicles on the road for a following driver to see around. Any added safety must have a positive effect for following drivers.

Since there are no current regulations on this subject, Hella would like to ask NHTSA's opinion on the following questions:

1) Does NHTSA agree with Hella that a third brake light would be an added safety feature for pick-up trucks?

2) Does NHTSA intend to regulate this subject matter and if so, when and how?

3) The major technical point for us as manufacturers is where to mount the third lamp. The obvious place is on the tailgate, but this presents certain technical problems such as operating the vehicle with the tailgate down, and insuring a good electrical connection with a tailgate which moves. Also a good place is the upper edge of the back window, but for trucks with caps or campers on them, this will not work. Assuming NHTSA will address this area, how will NHTSA view the mount ing location?

Thank you in advance for your consideration.

ID: nht68-4.11

DATE: 09/06/68

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Robert M. O'Mahoney; NHTSA

TO: The Flink Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: I regret the delay in answering your letter of April 9 to the Office of Performance Analysis, National Highway Safety Bureau, concerning the obligations of Flink as a manufacturer of spreader equipment for installation on trucks. It appears that your primary concern is with the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 109 (Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment).

You have asked:

"1. Who is responsible for the meeting of the requirements when the spreader is shipped to a distant point and there mounted on an existing truck either by a dealer or by the ultimate customer?"

Section 101(5) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 includes in the definition of manufacturer any person engaged in the assembling of motor vehicles. Accordingly, any person including a dealer, mounting a spreader to a truck, prior to its sale to the first purchaser for purposes other than resale, will be responsible for insuring that the completed vehicle, when sold, complies with Federal Standard No. 108 and any other standard which might have been adversely affected by installation of the spreader.

"2. If the manufacturer complies with the law and attaches the lights, etc., is his responsibility ended or is he responsible after the unit is mounted by another party?"

Flink's status, as a spreader manufacturer, is that of a manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment. There are no standards currently applicable to spreaders. In other words, the Act does not require that Flink install lights on spreaders if Flink is not attaching spreaders to trucks. Even if Flink attaches lights to a spreader pursuant to a contractual obligation, the responsibility for insuring compliance with Standard No. 108 lies with the party mounting the spreader. In neither event is certification by Flink required.

"3. If a dump body to which a spreader is to be attached already has the required lighting, etc., is anything further required on the spreader?"

Since Federal standards currently do not apply to spreaders, nothing is required on them. If Flink is mounting spreaders to trucks, however, it is possible that this installation could affect Standard No. 108 so that Flink would have to install lighting devices on the spreader to insure compliance with this standard. If Flink's mounting of spreaders does not affect previously existing compliance with Standard No. 108, no certification by Flink is required.