ID: aiam5060

"Dear Ms. Lang: This responds to your letter of September 12, 1992 requesting information on regulations concerning bus conversions. Your company converts the interior of buses by installing such materials as carpets, wall coverings, and blinds. In particular you asked for information on regulations concerning the attachment of seats to vehicles and the material used for the construction of seats. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our law and regulations to you. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Safety Act, 15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.) authorizes this agency to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. Section 108(a)(1)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(1)(A)) prohibits any person from manufacturing, introducing into commerce, selling, or importing any new motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment unless the vehicle or equipment item is in conformity with all applicable safety standards. NHTSA, however, does not approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, nor do we endorse any commercial products. Instead, the Safety Act establishes a 'self-certification' process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards. NHTSA has exercised its authority to establish one safety standard relevant to seating, Standard No. 207, Seating Systems, which establishes strength and other performance requirements for vehicle seats. However, this standard excludes passenger seats on buses from these performance requirements. There is one other safety standard that could be affected by the work your company performs. Standard No. 302, Flammability of Interior Materials, specifies burn resistance requirements for materials used in motor vehicles, including buses. If your company converts previously certified buses, it could be considered an alterer under our regulations. Under 49 CFR Part 567, Certification, an alterer is defined as: A person who alters a vehicle that has been previously certified ... other than by the addition, substitution, or removal of readily attachable components such as mirrors or tire and rim assemblies, or minor finishing operations such as painting, ... before the first purchase of the vehicle in good faith for purposes other than resale .... If considered an alterer, your company would be subject to the certification requirements of 49 CFR 567.7. These requirements include provisions that the alterer supplement the original manufacturer's certification label, which must remain on the vehicle, by affixing an additional label. The label must state that the vehicle as altered conforms to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards, including Standard No. 302. The label must also state the name of the alterer and the month and the year in which the alterations were completed. Your company would not be subject to the certification requirements of 49 CFR 567.7 if the modifications involve only readily attachable components. However, the modifications would still be affected by section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act. That section provides that: No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or in part, any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle . . . in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard. Any violation of this 'render inoperative' prohibition would subject the violator to a potential civil penalty of up to $1,000 for each violation. I hope you find this information helpful. I have enclosed an information sheet for new manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment that briefly explains the responsibilities imposed on manufacturers, and tells how to get copies of the relevant laws and regulations. If you have any other questions, please contact Mary Versailles of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel Enclosure";

ID: 2407y

Dipl.-Ing. H. Westermann
Hella KG Hueck & Co.
Postfach 28 40
4780 Lippstadt
West Germany

Dear Herr Westermann:

This is in reply to your letter of February 21, l990, to Taylor Vinson of this Office, requesting an interpretation of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 with respect to whether two designs for center highmounted stop lamps (CHMSL) you enclosed are permissible. You wish to know whether the ECE definition of "lamp unity" can be applied, and whether the designs form a CHMSL unity in the sense of Standard No. 108.

The question, as we see it, is not whether the ECE definition can be applied, but whether the two designs you submitted would meet the clearly expressed requirements of Standard No. 108. The standard requires that there be a single lamp, that it have an effective projected luminous area of not less than 4 1/2 square inches, that its signal be visible through a horizontal angle from 45 degrees to the left to 45 degrees to the right of the longitudinal axis of the vehicle, and that it provide specified minimum photometric values at 13 specific test points.

The design represented in Enclosure l appears to pass through the center of the lamp, at the H-V test point, thus affecting compliance of the lamp. Measurement at test points can only be determined by photometric testing. The design represented in Enclosure 2 would not comply with the standard. It is, in effect, two lamps mounted symmetrically about the vertical centerline. Standard No. l08 requires a single lamp, to be mounted on the vertical centerline.

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel

ref:l08 d:4/25/90

ID: nht87-1.39

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/24/87

FROM: Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Hal McNamara

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 09/29/87 FROM ERIKA Z. JONES TO PETER MCINTOSH; LETTER DATED 01/01/87 (EST) FROM PETER MCINTOSH TO TAYLOR VINSON (OCC 797)

TEXT:

Mr. Hal McNamara McNamara Pontiac Inc. P.O. Box 3269 Orlando, FL 32802

Dear Mr. McNamara:

This is in reply to your letter of September 29, 1986, to Mr. Vinson of this office asking for an interpretation of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard NO. 108. You have enclosed a copy of a flyer for "Ad-A-Lens:" the device appears to be an overlay with a dea ler's name, intended to be placed over the lens of the center highmounted stop lamp. You have told us that "the company selling this product says there is no problem legally or safety-wise....." You have also furnished us with a portion of a preamble to the standard discussing the visibility requirements for the lamp in which the statement is made that beyond the specified test points "no requirements are established other than that the signal be 'visible,' which means any portion of the signal, without regard to lens area or candela."

Standard No. 108 does not prohibit adding an overlay to the center highmounted stop lamp that contains a dealer's name. However, the addition of the overlay must not create a noncompliance with Standard No. 108, in violation of the National Traffic and M otor Vehicle Safety Act.

Paragraph S4.1.1.41(a) requires each center highmounted stop lamp to have an effective projected luminous area not less than 4 1/2 square inches. Application of dealer identification to an original equipment lamp not designed for the overlay could well r educe the luminous area below the minimum required by the standard. Further, there is the possibility that the overlay could affect photometric compliance as well. The lamp must meet the photometric requirements at the 13 test points specified in Standar d No. 108 up to the maximum specified 10 degrees right and left. Beyond 10 degrees, up to 45 degrees right and left, the overlay must not obscure the signal so that no portion of it is visible.

Should the overlay create a noncompliance with Standard No. 108, any person offering for sale or selling a vehicle with it would be in violation of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, as would any dealer adding an overlay to the lamp of a vehicle after it is sold. The Act provides that a penalty of up to $1000 per violation may be imposed, up to a maximum of $800,000 for any related series of violations. You should also seek the advice of State motor vehicle authorities on this matter.

We are providing a copy of this interpretation to Ad-A-Lens, and appreciate your bringing this matter to our attention.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

cc: Ad-A-Lens

Mr. Tayor Vinson Legal Council NHTSA-FMVSS - 108 Department of Transportation 400 7th St. S.W. Washington, DC 20590

Dear Mr. Vinson,

Would you please give us your opinion of a new car dealer using "Ad-A-Lens" to add dealership identification using the high mounted stop lamp on a new vehicle. The company selling this product says there is no problem legally or safety-wise, but we would appreciate your opinion on any modification or addition to the stop lamp.

Sincerely,

Hal McNamara

HM/dp

MAKE A FAST BRAKE IN THE LIGHT DIRECTION WITH AD-A-LENS

INSERT GRAPHICS Have you reached the crossroads of exorbitant advertising costs that cut into your profits? AD-A-LENS helps you put the "Brakes" on high advertising costs while allowing you visual exposure to the buying public 24 hours a day, 365 days a year! Now you can have your dealerships name prominently displayed in lights for just pennies. AD-A-LENS has been uniquely designed to become an integral part of every car. Just imagine your dealerships name appearing in lights over 50,000* times a year from just one car you sold! 34AD-A-LENS is now offering dealerships a special one-time discount purchase price. Don't be left in the dark, call today for details: AD-A-LENS (305) 629-5777 1500 W. FAIRBANKS - WINTER PARK, FL 32789

20820 Federal Register

Paragraph S4.1.1.41(b) requires that the signal be "visible to the rear through a horizontal angle from 45 degrees to the left to 45 degrees to the right ***". Koito asked what the agency considered "visible". This appears especially important for the de sign of the shroud on interior mounted lamps. In the agency's opinion, the lamp must meet the test points specified in Figure 10 up to the maximum specified 10 degrees right and left. Beyond those points until 45 degrees right and left, no requirements a re established other than that the signal be "visible", which means any portion of the signal, without regard to lens area or candela.

ID: 1985-01.12

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 01/15/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Ken Rutland; NHTSA

TO: Docket Section Docket No. 83-12; Notice 2

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

U.S. Department of Transportation

Date: Jan. 15, 1985

Subject: INFORMATION: Clarification of Requirements of Final Rule on Harmonization (Docket No. 83-12; Notice 2)

From: Ken Rutland Safety Standards Engineer

To: Docket Section Docket No. 83-12; Notice 2

THRU: Barry Felrice Associate Administrator for Rulemaking

VIA: Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

I received a telephone call from Mr. Kazue Watanabe of the Stanley Electric Company, Tokyo, Japan on December 19, 1984, with a question concerning the November 26, 1984, Final Rule amendment to harmonize FMVSS No. 108 with European standards. With the amendment Published in Notice 2, Mr. Watanabe wanted to know if motorcycle turn signal lamps were supposed to meet the photometric requirements of Table I of SAE J588e or the requirements set forth by Figure 1a and Figure 1b given in Notice 2, after December 26, 1984.

I transmitted the attached message to Mr. Watanabe by telex, on December 27, 1984.

Attachment (w/6 copies)

Interpretations NOA-30 Std. 108 Interpretations Room 5109 Red Book (3)

To: Mr. Kazue Watanabe Stanley Electric Co. Telex # 246-6623 SEC TOKJ

For motorcycle turn signal lamps, FMVSS No. 108 as amended (FR 46386, November 26, 1984), allows motorcycle turn signal lamps to meet one-half of the minimum photometric values at each test point, as specified in SAE J588e, according to S4.1.1.30 and substituting the values in figure 1a and 1b for table 1 of SAE J588e. This requirement is now located in S4.1.1.11 for the 19 individual test points. The new S4.1.1.12 substitutes Figure 1C for the former Figure 1 and establishes the group totals for 5 zonal groups. It is intended that the individual test points with a value of one-half that of Figure 1b be used in determining the group totals for motorcycle turn signal camps. We hope this answers your question.

ID: nht90-2.29

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: April 25, 1990

FROM: Stephen P. Wood -- Acting Chief Counsel.,NHTSA

TO: Dipl.-Ing. H. Westermann -- Hella KG Hueck & Co.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 2-21-90 To Taylor Vinson and From Dipl.- H. Westermann; (OCC 4484); Also attached to letter dated 2- 7-90 To Richard van Iderstine and From Dipl.- H. Westermann.

TEXT:

This is in reply to your letter of February 21, 1990, to Taylor Vinson of this office, requesting an interpretation of Motor Vehicle Safety standard No. 108 with respect to whether two designs for center highmounted stop lamps (CHMSL) you enclosed are permissible. You wish to know whether tbe ECE definition of "lamp unity" can be applied, and whether the designs form a CHMSL unity in the sense of Standard NO. 108. The question, as we see it, is not whether the ECE definition can be applied, but whether the two designs you submitted would meet the clearly expressed requirements of standard No. 108. The standard requires that there be a single lamp, that it have an effective projected luminous area of not less than 4 1/2 square inches, that its signal be visible through a horizontal angle from 45 degrees to the left to 45 degrees to the right of the longitudinal axis of the vehicle, and that it provide specified minimum photometric values at 13 specific test points. The design represented in Enclosure 1 appears to pass through the center of the lamp, at the H-V test point, thus affecting compliance of the lamp. Measurement at test points can only be determined by photometric testing. The design represented in Enclosure 2 would not comply with the standard. It is, in effect, two lamps mounted symmetrically about the vertical centerline. standard No. 108 requires a single lamp, to be mounted on the vertical centerline.

ID: 18911.ztv

Mr. Bill Carpenter, Jr.
The Carpenter Group
514 Chestnut Street
Pacific Grove, CA 93950-3916

Dear Mr. Carpenter:

This is further reply to your letter of August 3, 1998, in which you submitted a request for an interpretation, subject to a claim of confidentiality. This Office informed you on October 13, that your request was granted subject to the exceptions noted therein.

Your company has developed an automotive aftermarket "security accessory" that "provides a highly visual reference for a vehicle's audible alarm device." You wish to ensure that the device does not violate any Federal safety requirements. When the audible alarm device is operating, your device provides a visual signal consisting of "a series of bright white flashes provided by an oscillating xenon strobe circuit." The unit is mounted inside the vehicle, permanently attached to the windshield and/or back window (recommended mounting location is "centered left-to-right at the highest possible point"). The unit will not operate when the ignition is on or when the vehicle is moving under its own power.

The manufacture and sale of this accessory is not subject to any Federal motor vehicle safety standard. However, the accessory is considered "motor vehicle equipment," and in the event that either its manufacturer or this agency determines that it incorporates a safety-related defect, the manufacturer must notify and remedy according to Federal law.

The installation of the accessory has the theoretical potential of affecting compliance with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 111 Rearview Mirrors. This standard specifies a field of view of a level road surface that the inside rearview mirror must provide. Mounting the accessory at a location below the recommended "highest possible point" could compromise the view of the road surface, resulting in a noncompliance with the field of view requirements. If the vehicle as originally manufactured or sold fails to meet the field of view requirement, its manufacturer or dealer must provide an outside rearview mirror on the passenger side of the vehicle. We believe that virtually all new motor vehicles are now equipped with a passenger side rearview mirror as standard equipment, and that a vehicle would continue to conform with Standard No. 111 even if the field of view of the interior rearview mirror was compromised by mounting the accessory at other than the "highest possible point."

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

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
ref:111
d.11/20/98

ID: aiam4007

Dear Mr. Benabbi: Thank you for your letter of June 3, 1985, asking about compliance o the child seat, 'Titti,' manufactured by Bizzi in Milan, with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 213, *Child Restraint Systems*. You state in your letter that you plan to export these child seats to the United States.; This agency administers the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safet Act of 1966, as amended, 15 U.S.C. 1391, *et seq*. (the Act). Unlike the type-approved or homologation process used in Europe, we have a self-certification process in the United States. Under the Act, manufacturers are responsible for certifying that items of motor vehicle equipment, such as child seats, which are made by them, comply with the requirements of any applicable safety standard. For this reason, the agency does not approve equipment items prior to their sale.; Each child restraint system, such as the 'Titti' child seat, must b labeled and certified according to the requirements of S5.5 of Standard No. 213. The label which you enclosed does not state, as required by S5.5, that 'THIS CHILD RESTRAINT SYSTEM CONFORMS TO ALL APPLICABLE FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDS.' The label should be changed to meet the requirements of S5.5. If the manufacturer chooses, he may, but is not required to, certify that the child restraint also complies with the provisions of section S8 and state on the label: 'THIS RESTRAINT IS CERTIFIED FOR USE IN MOTOR VEHICLES AND AIRCRAFT.'; In your letter and on the label you enclosed there is the followin reference: 'ATG CALSPAN No. 7174-1.' This may refer to a contract between the manufacturer, Bizzi, and Calspan to test the child restraint for compliance with Standard No. 213. You can write to Calspan to inquire about any testing at the following address:; >>>Ms. Barbara Kelleher, Arvin-Calspan, Inc., Advanced Technolog Center, 4455 Genesee Street, Buffalo, New York 14225<<<; Please note that Calspan's test may not cover requirements of Standar No. 213 regarding webbing abrasion, flammability, or hardware corrosion, for example. Testing by Calspan or any other testing laboratory does not relieve the manufacturer from its responsibility of certifying the equipment item.; Under the Vehicle Safety Act and our regulations, manufacturers hav the responsibility to conduct notification and remedy campaigns for safety related defects or noncompliances in their products (VSA SS151-159). The Vehicle Safety Act defines a manufacturer as; >>>any person engaging in the manufacturing or assemblying (sic) o motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, including any person importing motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment for resale.<<<; In the event that neither the importer nor the actual manufacturer me an obligation imposed on a 'manufacturer' by the Act or our regulations, the agency would consider taking enforcement action against both parties. Any such obligation, however, may be satisfied by either party.; In addition, there are two other regulations which affec manufacturers. Those regulations require manufacturers to provide the agency with certain identifying information (49 CFR Part 566), and, in the case of foreign manufacturers, to designate an agent for the service of process (49 CFR Part 551).; A copy of Standard No. 213, the Vehicle Safety Act, Part 566, Part 551 and an instruction sheet for new manufacturers is enclosed.; I hope this information is helpful to you. Sincerely, Jeffrey R. Miller, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam1788

Dear Mr. Kennebeck:#This responds to Volkswagen of America's Januar 24, 1975, request for written confirmation that S5.3.3 of Standard No. 105-75, *Hydraulic brake systems*, only requires indication of a low fluid level condition (S5.3.1(b)) with the vehicle on a level surface, but that, in the event of a decrease in this fluid level (and apparent fluid volume) due to positioning the vehicle on an incline, the indicator lamp is permitted to activate and then deactivate when the vehicle is repositioned on a level surface.#Your understanding of the requirements of S5.3.3. for indication of a low fluid level condition (S5.3.1(b)) is correct. S5.3.3 requires low fluid level indication with the vehicle on a level surface, and an activation due only to positioning on an incline may be extinguished when the vehicle is again placed an a level surface.#Yours truly,Richard B. Dyson,Assistant Chief Counsel;

ID: aiam0258

Dear Mr. Lundstrom: The Director has asked me to reply to your letter of September 29 1970, concerning the compliance of certain motor vehicles, which General Motors intends to import, with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 206 - Door Locks and Door Retention Components.; Each rear door of these vehicles has, in addition to a 'conventional locking mechanism, a special locking mechanism which is described in your letter as:; >>>'an additional lever located on the rear edge of each door which when placed in its 'lock position', will only allow the door to be opened from outside the vehicle even if the conventional locking knob on the upper portion of the door inside the vehicle is in the unlocked position. The additional lever is covered when the door is closed.'<<<; You ask whether the rear doors on these vehicles comply with S4.1.3 o Standard No. 206, which requires that each door 'shall be equipped with a locking mechanism with an operating means in the interior of the vehicle.; A somewhat similar problem was discussed in the preamble to the Apri 27, 1968 amendment (33 F.R. 6465) to the Standard. As stated there, S4.1.3 does not preclude the installation of a special locking mechanism in addition to the required locking mechanism. However, the required locking mechanism must be able to be engaged or disengaged regardless of whether any additional locking mechanism is engaged or disengaged. If the special locking mechanism does not interfere with the operation of the required locking mechanism on the doors in questions, therefore, it will not constitute a failure to comply with the standard.; Please write if I can be of any further assistance. Sincerely, Rodolfo A. Diaz, Acting Associate Director, Motor Vehicl Programs;

ID: aiam4445

Dear Mr. Peterson: This is in reply to your letter of September 23 1987, with respect to positioning of rear mounted lamps and reflectors in accordance with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. Your client has designed a vehicle in which the backup lamps and rear reflex reflectors would be mounted on the deck lid, and you have asked whether there are any current or contemplated prohibitions that would preclude this design. The lamps in question will be mounted on a rigid part of the vehicle as required by paragraph S4.3.1 of Standard No. 108, and the deck lid will be closed and the lamps and reflectors in full view under normal operating conditions. The visibility requirements of lamps and reflectors in Standard No. 108 are predicated on the normal driving or closed deck lid position. Since the use of motor vehicles, including driving with deck lids open or otherwise having the lamps and reflectors obscured by a particular load on the vehicle is under the jurisdiction of the individual States, we do not anticipate rulemaking on this subject. Thus this design is not prohibited by Standard No. 108. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel;