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: aiam5378

Dear Mr. Steffy: This responds to your FAX of May 5, 1994, to Taylo Vinson of this Office, requesting an interpretation of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. You describe a motorcycle lamp 'which comprises a headlight with high and low beams and 2 symmetrically (sic) flanking front auxillary (sic) lamps possessing low beam (sic) that augment the headlight.' You ask for our comments. Paragraph S5.1.3 of Standard No. 108 permits auxiliary lighting equipment provided that it does not impair the effectiveness of the lighting equipment that is required by Standard No. 108. The vehicle manufacturer's certification of compliance with Standard No. 108 includes certification to S5.1.3 and represents its determination that the supplementary equipment does not impair the effectiveness of other lighting equipment. Unless that determination appears clearly erroneous, NHTSA will not question it. Your letter contains too little information for us to comment further. For example, we do not know whether the candela of the auxiliary lower beam lamps is higher, lower, or the same as the main lower beam of the headlamp. Nor does the letter indicate whether the supplementary lower beam lamps are extinguished when the upper beam is activated. If you have further questions, we shall be pleased to answer them. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel;

ID: aiam3820

Dear Mr. Thrower: This is in response to your letter of February 14, 1984, to Mr. Vinso of my staff asking 'is there any reluctance on the part of NHTSA to make a patented device a legal option under Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108?'; At present, Standard No. 108 mandates specific items of lightin equipment not optional ones (though 'options' as to matters such as size and shape exist among headlamps which are required items). Instead, NHTSA points out that, pursuant to S4.1.3 optional lighting devices (proprietary or not) are allowable, provided that they do not impair the effectiveness of the lighting equipment the standard requires. When proprietary rights are involved in mandated lighting equipment, manufacturers have been willing to waive their rights.; You have also said that you 'presume that other patented automotiv devices also must have DOT approval before their optional public use is permissible.' I don't know what you have in mind, but under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, no 'approval' by DOT is necessary to market 'optional' motor vehicle equipment of any sort. Such equipment is subject only to the general requirement that its installation must not affect the compliance of the vehicle with any Federal motor vehicle safety standard.; If you have further questions, please let us know. Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam0820

Dear Mr. Hammerstein: Your Broadview, Illinois, Subsidiary recently forwarded to us a copy o your December 17, 1971, letter concerning aiming adjustment tests as specified in SAE Standard J580a. A search of our files does not reveal that your letter was previously received by this Office.; Specifically, your concern is the interpretation of a requirement whic is specified in SAE J580a as follows:; >>>'2. The mechanism, including the aiming adjustment, must be s designed as to prevent the unit from receding into the lamp body or housing when an inward pressure of 50 lb(sic) is exerted on the outer surface of the lens.'<<<; Our interpretation of the above requirement is that no visible recedin of the sealed beam unit is permitted when the inward pressure is applied on the outer lens surface. Testing for compliance to the requirements of FMVSS No. 108, which references SAE J580a, is conducted on the basis of this interpretation.; In the upcoming Notice of Proposed Rule Making (NPRM) on FMVSS No. 10 (Docket 69-19), we are considering the feasibility of specifying more objective type requirements on this aspect of aiming adjustment tests for headlamps. You will no doubt be interested in commenting on the proposed requirements after issuance of the NPRM.; Sincerely, E. T. Driver, Director, Office of Operating Systems, Moto Vehicle Programs;

ID: nht80-3.46

DATE: 09/11/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Commonwealth of Pennsylvania

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letters of July 18, 1980, to the Administrator and myself and confirms a telephone conversation between Mr. Devin of your office and Taylor Vinson of ours, on August 5, 1980.

You have asked the following questions:

"1. Does any Federal Regulation address the issue of inter-mixing motorcycle and other motor vehicle parts?"

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.), a copy of which I enclose, is the authority for Federal regulation of the manufacture of motorcycles and other motor vehicles. The Federal motor vehicle safety standards (49 CFR Part 571) implement the Act.

Neither the Act nor the Standards directly address the issue of the intermixing of parts of motorcycles and other motor vehicles. However, use of one half of a passenger car headlighting system is permitted as a motorcycle headlighting system (See paragraph S4.1.1.34 of 49 CFR 571.108). As a general rule, under the Act and Standards use of motorcycle equipment as original equipment on passenger cars and other motor vehicles is not prohibited unless such use creates a noncompliance with any Federal motor vehicle safety standard applicable to the vehicles or a defect related to motor vehicle safety.

In addition, section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Act prohibits any "manufacturer", "distributor", "dealer", or "motor vehicle repair business" from rendering inoperative in whole or in part any device or element of design installed on a vehicle in accordance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard. We interpret this as forbidding anyone but the owner of a vehicle in use from removing and substituting original vehicle equipment if it results in a noncompliance. This prohibition has at least a theoretical application to the intermixing of vehicle parts.

"2. Can NHTSA provide any suggestions, recommendations or guidance on this matter?"

We are unable to be helpful because few instances of intermixing came to mind. We are currently in litigation with an importer of European passenger car headlamps that are purportedly certified only to "motorcycle" requirements but which, in fact, are being sold for use on passenger cars. This would not appear to be a true instance of intermixing since there appears to be little market for them as motorcycle headlamps. Generally, however, it would not appear sound practice to use equipment in an application not intended by its manufacturer.

"3. We would also like to know your position on 'kit cars'".

There are no regulations or standards applicable to "kit cars" per se, nor do we even have a definition of the term. But some general principles apply under the Act nonetheless.

The classic "kit car" operation involves the removal of an old vehicle body from its chassis and its replacement with a new one. The resulting assemblage retains the title of the vehicle's original incarnation. As the Act defines a "manufacturer" to include one who assembles motor vehicles, a person in the business of assembling kit cars bears the manufacturer's statutory responsibility (15 U.S.C. 1411 et seq.) for notification and remedy in the event his assembly operations create a safety related defect in the vehicle.

A newly-assembled vehicle using its previous title is considered "used" and does not have to comply with the safety standards that apply to "new" vehicles. However, we interpret Section 108(a)(2)(A), discussed in response to your first question, as requiring the assembler, if it is the party removing the old body, to insure that the vehicle upon completion of reassembly had it been originally manufactured with the new body meet the standards with which it would have complied. For example, if a new fiberglass convertible body is mounted on the chassis of a 1972 Volkswagen Beetle, the vehicle must meet all standards that apply to 1972 convertibles. If it does not, its assembler as a "manufacturer" appears to be obligated under the Act to notify purchasers and remedy the noncompliances.

Some of the safety standards apply to individual equipment items such as tires, lighting equipment, glazing and seat belts. Any item covered by a Federal equipment standard and supplied in the kit must meet such standard.

Outside this framework our position is necessarily determined by the facts of each use but generally, the greater the number of new parts used in a vehicle, the more likely we are to consider it as one which must meet the standards that apply to new vehicles.

If you have any further questions Mr. Vinson will be happy to answer them (202-426-9511).

SINCERELY,

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

July 18, 1980

Frank A. Berndt Chief Counsel U.S. Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Re: State Vehicle Programs

Dear Mr. Berndt:

The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania is presently reviewing its Vehicle Equipment and Inspection Requlations. As part of this process, a question has arisen as to the origin of Section 483.6(d), "Components - Motorcycle components and components of other motor vehicles are not compatible and shall not be intermixed in a specially constructed or reconstructed vehicle." I request an answer to the following questions:

1. Does any Federal Regulation address the issue of intermixing motorcycle and other motor vehicle parts?

2. Can NHTSA provide any suggestions, recommendations, or guidance on this matter?

3. We would also like to know your position on "kit cars."

Your prompt attention to this request will be greatly appreciated. In order to expedite our resolution of this matter, I would like to request that a member of your staff contact Mr. Maurice Devin at (717) 787-1829, as soon as the above questions can be answered. A follow-up letter confirming the telephone conversation is also requested, so the information can be placed in our files.

Robert P. Spena, D.S.W. Director Bureau of Traffic Safety Operations

ID: aiam1827

Dear Mr. Mollohan: This is in response to your letter of February 19, 1975, requestin information concerning correspondence from one of your constituents, Mr. Charles E. Allard, criticizing the recent proposal to reduce the performance requirements of the Federal bumper standard.; The proposal was based primarily on the results of two agency sponsore studies which indicated that the cost and weight of many current production bumpers, in light of inflation and fuel shortages, made the bumpers no longer cost-beneficial. Information presented at public hearings on the bumper notice and comments submitted to the docket in response to the proposal have brought to light additional data. The NHTSA has carefully examined all of this evidence and reviewed its studies in light of the new information. As a result, the agency has concluded that the 5-mph protection level should not be reduced. This decision is contained in a Federal Register notice that was issued on March 7, 1975 (Docket No. 74-11, Notice 7, Docket No. 73-19, Notice 6).; I would like to point out that the bumper standard, as it currentl exists, has no direct effect on occupant safety in collisions. The safety benefits of the standard relate to the prevention of damage to safety-related components such as headlamps, fuel and cooling systems, and exhaust systems. It is the after-crash dangers that would exist if a vehicle were driven with any of the specified vehicle systems inoperative that the standard focuses on. Therefore, a reduction in the performance requirements would not expose occupants to greater hazards during a collision itself.; We appreciate your interest and that of Mr. Allard. Sincerely, William T. Coleman, Jr.

ID: aiam3297

Dear Mr. Lundregan: This is in reply to your letter of April 16, 1980, asking whether Moto Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 allows 'reflective markings (such as red diagonal stripes on a white reflective background) [to] be used to increase visibility on the front of [trucks and heavy vehicles]'.; You are correct that Standard No. 108 does not directly address thi question. The section of the standard that appears most pertinent to it, however, is S4.1.3 prohibiting the installation as original equipment of any reflective device 'that impairs the effectiveness of lighting equipment required by' Standard No. 108. We would be concerned, for example, if reflective materials were installed in a manner that might cause confusion with headlamps or front turn signal lamps. We also wish to point out that under the standard the use of the color red is at the rear of motor vehicles and that its appearance in any other location might also cause confusion.; However, as a practical matter the use of reflective materials as truc and heavy vehicle equipment sold either as original equipment or in the aftermarket is governed by requirements of the Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety (Federal Highway Administration) which prohibit use of the color red on the front of a vehicle. You should review their requirements before proceeding with your marketing plans. (49 CFR 393.26(e)(4)).; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam3653

Dear Mr. Turner: This is in reply to your letter of December 7, 1982, to Mr. Vinson o this office asking for an interpretation of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 with respect to a new option for school buses permitted by Wisconsin. This option would allow two additional red lamps, front and rear, as a supplement to the red warning lamp system required by paragraph S4.1.4(a) of the standard.; As a general rule, supplemental lighting is permitted by Standard No 108 as long as it does not 'impair the effectiveness of lighting equipment' required by the standard (paragraph S4.1.3). In our opinion, the separate lamps that would be permitted by Wisconsin on the front of the school bus, between the bottom of the windshield and the top of the highest headlamp, would not impair the effectiveness of the front lighting equipment. The lamps on the rear, however, according to Wisconsin, could be incorporated 'in an existing lamp' provided that such incorporation 'shall not interfere with or override the existing unit's function.' We believe that the language both of Standard No. 108 and the Wisconsin specification would effectively prohibit incorporation of the warning lamp into the stop lamp of the school bus. However, we believe that this language would allow its combination with the tail lamp, or its addition as a separate lamp.; We trust that this is responsive to your request. Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam2215

Dear Mr. Heath: This is in reply to your letter of March 10, 1976, asking whethe S4.6(b) of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 allows a flashing side marker lamp 'in any location on the side of a motor vehicle without having to comply with State law pertaining to side-mounted turn signals.'; S4.6(b) allows side marker lamps to flash for signalling purposes Since a flashing side marker lamp is in essence a side turn signal lamp, any State regulation specifically addressed to location and flash rate of side turn signals would appear to be preempted by Standard No. 108, if the side marker lamp is combined with a side turn signal lamp. If the side turn signal lamp is a separate lamp, then it would be subject to State regulation.; Your inquirer wishes to install 'a side marker lamp on each side nea the middle of the trailer to flash with the turn signal lamps.' If the lamp to be added is not the intermediate side marker lamp required by Standard No. 108 for trailers whose length is 30 feet or more, it would be governed by the California Vehicle Code and not preempted.; We intend to address the issues of side mounted turn signal lamps flashing side marker lamps, and flashing headlamps in a rulemaking proposal whose publication is imminent, and I will include your letter in the Docket as a comment to be considered.; Yours truly, Stephen P. Wood, Assistant Chief Counsel

ID: aiam3109

Dear Mr. Newman: This is in reply to your letter of August 23, 1979, to the former Chie Counsel Joseph J. Levin, Jr. You have asked whether a double-faced turn signal front side marker lamp 'meets the intent' of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, and you enclosed a sample of the lamp for our inspection.; You have quoted paragraph 3.4 of SAE Standard J588e, September 1970 which states 'the flashing signal from a double faced signal lamp shall not be obliterated when subjected to external light rays from either in front or behind at any and all angles.' It is not possible to make a definitive statement about your lamp without actually subjecting it to a representative external light source such as the headlamps of a vehicle in proximity to the vehicle to which the lamp is mounted, but its design appears adequate to meet the intent of paragraph 3.4. Any changes in design of the lenses or baffling from that of the sample lamp submitted, however, might transmit more light from external sources and may not meet paragraph 3.4.; We would also like to observe that since the side marker signal use the front and rear lenses of the turn signal in a single compartment a high intensity ratio of turn signal to side marker signal will be needed if the steady burning light from the side marker lamp is not to obscure the darker portion of the turn signal lamp.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel