ID: nht88-3.93

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 11/03/88 EST

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TO: A. L. BRAGG -- LABORATORY MANAGER, TRUCK-LITE CO., INC.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED JUNE 22, 1988 RE: REQUEST FOR INTERPRETATION OF S4.1.1.16 AND S4.1.17 IN STANDARD NUMBER 108; OCC-2303

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of June 22, 1988, to Mr. Vinson of this Office asking for an interpretation of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

It is your understanding that for purposes of measuring the effective projected illuminated area of a lens, the reflex area, if any, must be subtracted from the total lens area. Your company manufactures a combination lamp which "has four square inches of reflector area and eight square inches of stop, tail and turn area." You have asked if you may advise your customers that this lamp may be used on vehicles whose overall width is 80 inches or more:

"A) Singularly (that is one on each side of the vehicle in the rear) as a stop, turn, tail and reflex reflector?

B) In combination of two's or three's (on each side of the rear of the vehicle), provided that the lamps are separated by at least twenty-two inches?"

Your understanding is correct, that the effective projected illuminated lens area must be determined without reference to any reflex reflector that may be combined with it. If the turn signal function in your lamp is met by one compartment, your lamp is acceptable under "A)." But if the turn signal function is met by more than one compartment, your lamp would not be acceptable as the area of each compartment is less than 12 square inches. With regard to "B)," the lamps could be used in combinations of twos and threes if they are mounted more than 22 inches apart but could not be used if mounted closer than 22 inches.

You also asked about the relationship to paragraph S4.1.1.7. This paragraph covers replacement equipment only, without reference to its location on a vehicle. It applies only to turn signal lamps intended to replace original equipment turn signal lamps on vehicles manufactured in accordance with SAE Standard J588d, June 1966. The current original equipment is SAE standard J588e September 1970.

You should be aware that the Truck Safety Equipment Institute has petitioned for rulemaking the effect of which would be to extend the 12-inch requirement to lamps used on all wide vehicles without reference to the 22-inch spacing. At present the agency is reviewing this petition.

I hope that this answers your questions.

ID: nht88-3.94

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 11/03/88 EST

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL NHTSA

TO: RICHARD W. WARD -- V. P; K-D LAMP COMPANY

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED SEPTEMBER 14, 1988 TO ERIKA Z. JONES, NHTSA ADMIN., FROM RICHARD W. WARD, V.P., K-D LAMP CO.; OCC 2555

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of September 14, 1988, asking for a clarification of Federal requirements for the minimum lens area for turn signal lamps and stop lamps.

The understanding expressed in your letter is correct. The SAE materials for turn signal lamps and stop lamps for wide vehicles incorporated by reference in Table I apply to original equipment on vehicles currently being manufactured, and to equipment i ntended to replace such original equipment. These standards were expressly incorporated to supersede earlier versions of SAE standards for turn signal lamps and stop lamps. However, in recognition that original equipment lamps made to earlier SAE speci fications might not be compatible with the electrical systems of vehicles designed to conform to later SAE specifications, the agency adopted paragraphs S4.1.1.6 and 4.1.1.7, allowing the continued manufacture for replacement purposes only, of turn signa l lamps and stop lamps designed to conform to earlier specifications. Both sections incorporate in their text portions of the earlier SAE standards. Because the earlier specification for turn signal lamps, J588d, required an effective projected luminou s area not less than 12 square inches for turn signal lamps on wide vehicles, this requirement is also specified in S4.1.1.7 for replacement lamps manufactured in conformance with J588d.

In short, your interpretation is correct with respect to turn signal lamps manufactured for installation on vehicles whose overall width is 80 inches or more. Single compartment turn signal lamps designed to conform to SAE J588e need meet only a minimum luminous lens area of 8 square

inches. But if a turn signal lamp is manufactured to replace a turn signal lamp that was designed to conform to SAE J588d, its minimum luminous lens area is 12 square inches.

I hope this clarifies the matter for your customer.

ID: nht88-3.95

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 11/03/88 EST

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TO: AL CUNNINGHAM -- CHIEF ENGINEER, WESBAR CORPORATION

ATTACHMT: 9/14/88 letter from Al Cunningham to Erika Jones (Std. 108; OCC 2564)

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of September 14, 1988, attaching two lamps, and asking for an interpretation of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 with respect to each. Specifically, you wish clarifications of SAE J588e, "the definition . . . 2.2 'Mu ltiple Compartment Lamp' and the term used in 3.1 'Single Compartment Lamp'".

SAE Standard J588e Turn Signal Lamps, incorporated by reference in Standard No. 108, defines a multiple compartment lamp as "a device which gives its indication by two or more separately lighted areas which are joined by one or more common parts such as a housing or lens." The term "single compartment lamp" is not used in section 3.1, though the term "single compartment photometric requirements" is used in referencing the values for one "lighted section" given in Table 1 of J588e. For purposes of this discussion we shall define a "single compartment lamp" as one that gives its indication by one lighted area.

You have described your first lamp as "a housing with back and four sides containing a two filament bulb with a single lens covering face of housing." The lamp photometrically complies to the basic requirements of a Class A tail, stop and turn signal lam p. You have asked if this lamp is a single compartment lamp. The answer is yes; your model 3504 Exp. contains a single light source and has a single lighted area.

Your second lamp is described as "a housing with a back, two sides and one end, containing one #57 bulb and one #1157 (2 filament) bulb. This housing is closed with two red lenses, one on the end and one on the face with an additional clear lens on bott om side. This lamp also complies to all standards of a class A tail, stop and turn lamp plus side marker clearance, license plate illuminator and class a reflex reflector side and rear". You ask if this also is a single compartment lamp. The answer is yes. The term "separately lighted area" in the definition of a multiple compartment lamp is understood to mean an area that is

2

illuminated by a separate light source. In your model 3504 the turn signal light is provided by the #1157 bulb alone, and not in tandem with the #57 bulb.

I hope that this provides the clarification you seek. We are returning your lamps under separate cover.

ID: nht88-3.96

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 11/03/88 EST

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TO: SADATO KADOYA -- MANAGER, SAFETY ENGINEERING, MAZDA (NORTH AMERICA), INC.

ATTACHMT: MEMO DATED 7-14-88, RE: REQUEST FOR INTERPRETATION-FMVSS 108; LAMPS, REFLECTIVE DEVICES, AND ASSOCIATED EQUIPMENT-AUXILIARY LAMPS; MEMO DATED 7-14-88, RE: REQUEST FOR CONFIDENTIAL TREATMENT OF INFORMATION-49 CFR PART 512, CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS INFORMATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letters of July 14, 1988, with respect to an interpretation of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 and a request for confidential treatment of it. We understand that you orally withdrew this request during a telephone conversa tion with this Office on August 23, 1988.

You have asked whether Standard No. 108 permits the use of replaceable bulb headlamps with adjustable reflectors, or the use of such lamps as fog and/or cornering lamps. Although Standard No. 108 defines a replaceable bulb headlamps as one with a bonded lens-reflector assembly, this definition does not preclude a design with an adjustable reflector, as the bond may be applied to a portion of the reflector assembly that is not adjustable. However, a headlamp with an adjustable reflector must be designe d to conform with all applicable photometric requirements with the reflector in all positions in which it may be adjusted.

As for its use as a fog or cornering lamp, you are correct that it is acceptable provided that it does not impair the effectiveness of the lighting equipment required by Standard No. 108. Whether the device impairs the effectiveness is determined by the vehicle manufacturer before it certifies compliance with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. The decision, however, may be questioned by this agency if it appears erroneous.

I hope that this answers your questions.

ID: nht88-3.97

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 11/03/88

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA

TO: DIETMAR K. HAENCHEN -- VOLKSWAGEN OF AMERICA, INC.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 06/24/87 FROM DIETMAR K HAENCHEN TO ERIKA Z JONES RE REQUEST FOR INTERPRETATION - FMVSS 205

TEXT: Dear Mr. Haenchen:

This is in response to your letter regarding Volkswagen's (VW) plan to introduce ceramic dots on selected areas of passenger motor vehicle windows in order to reduce energy transmission on the car's glazing. I sincerely apologize for the delay in this r esponse.

In your letter, you suggested that one possible means of reducing energy transmission into the interior of cars would be to apply extensive tinting or ceramic dots over extended areas of the glazing on those cars. You provided, in Attachments I and II o f your letter, diagrams of the proposed areas of the glazing that would be shaded under your proposal, which included shading at the top (in the shade band areas) of the windshield as well as at the bottom. Shading on side and rear glazing was also shown . You offer a rationale that all of these areas may have less than 70% light transmissibility, and still comply with Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials (49 CFR @571.205).

Your rationale begins with the observation that Section 4.2 of ANS Z26.1 has specifications for items 1 and 2 glazing which refer to footnotes 1 and 3 when specifying Test 2 - Light Transmittance. Those footnotes allow areas of the glazing to have less than 70% light transmittance if the areas are not within the "levels required for driving visibility."

These footnotes are referring mainly to shade bands on the upper edge of the windshield. You also referred to SAE J100 (passenger car glazing shade bands), which defines a "glazing shade band" as "an area of the vehicle glazing through which light trans mission is less than required for use at levels requisite for driving visibility by [ANS] Z26.1." SAE J100 recommends shade bands only on the upper edge of the glazing. However, you implied that this recommended practice does not necessarily

result from a determination that all other portions of the glazing are at "levels required for driving visibility," the limitation set forth in Standard No. 205.

Instead, your letter set forth a suggested definition of the term "levels required for driving visibility." In a February 15, 1974 letter from this agency to Mr. George Nield, NHTSA said, "We consider the word "levels" in Standard 205 to mean vertical he ights in relation to the driver's eyes." You noted that EEC Directive 77/649 specifies levels requisite for driving visibility in the driver's 180 degree forward direct field of vision, and that Section 5.1.3 of this Directive specifies the boundaries fo r the driver's forward direct field of vision. You stated that this Directive provides guidelines for determining which areas of the glazing are "requisite for driving visibility." You stated that VW has tested its proposed shade bands around the lower edge and vertical sides of the glazing, as shown in Attachments I and II of your letter, according to the specifications of Directive 77/649 and concluded that "ceramic dots in the area defined in [the EEC directive] very well cover the vertical heights in relation to even small drivers' eyes, which are 'requisite for driving visibility'." Based on this information, you asked the agency whether your proposal to include tinted bands or ceramic dots with light transmittance of less than 70 percent in area s beyond the shade band of the windshield would comply with Standard No. 205. The answer to your question is no.

We agree with your observation that neither Standard No. 205 nor ANS Z26 explicity states how one determines whether or not an area is "requisite for driving visibility." Our February 15, 1974 letter explained that one would make such a determination by considering the vertical height of the glazing in relation to the driver's eyes.

We subsequently considered this subject again in a June 19, 1987 letter to a manufacturer whose identity was kept confidential. I have enclosed a copy of this letter for your information. As you will see, we concluded in this letter that the particular proposed head-up display described in the manufacturer's letter would not be located in an area of the windshield that was "requisite for driving visibility," and therefore vehicles equipped with this head-up display would not appear to violate Standard No. 205. This conclusion was based on the fact that the display would not obstruct the driver's forward visibility any more than typical hood designs or unretracted head lamps.

Applying this reasoning to your plans to tint a band along the bottom of the windshield, it appears that this area is "requisite for driving visibility," except for that portion through which the shortest driver sees the hood or other parts of the vehicl e. We again conclude that it is not requisite for driving visibility that the driver see the hood of the vehicle he or she is driving.

You also asked about putting shade bands on the lower edges of all side windows and over most of the surface area of the rear window in the car. These areas cover parts of the glazing through which the driver could see not just parts of the car being dr iven, but also the road and traffic to

the side and rear of the car. In many of our previous interpretations, we have said that all windows in passenger cars are requisite for driving visibility and must, therefore, meet the 70 percent light transmittance requirement in Test 2 of ANS Z26 . See, for example, the enclosed letters of April 4, 1985 to Mr. Armond Carderelli and of August 4, 1983 to Ms. Mary Ruth Harsha. This position was taken after considering the number of potential driving situations in which the entire surface area of any of these windows may be needed to allow the driver to analyze the traffic situation and react to it properly and promptly.

As shown by our June 19, 1987 letter to the unnamed manufacturer, it is possible for a party to rebut this presumption. To do so, however, the party must present clear and convincing evidence to show that the area of the window surface in question is at a level that would never enhance driver visibility. We do not believe your letter shows this for the side and rear window area surfaces shown in Attachments I and II.

Your letter attempts to show that the extended shade bands on the side and rear windows are at levels of the glazing that are not requisite for driving visibility by relying primarily on a European Economic Community Directive. We note that this Directi ve has not been referenced by or incorporated into Standard No. 205. Whatever the ultimate value of this Directive may prove to be in determining what levels on windows are requisite for driving visibility, the agency has not analyzed the recommendation s of the EEC directive in detail. Thus, we are not in a position to comment on whether the guidelines established in this Directive are sufficient for defining levels which are requisite for driving visibility, within the meaning of Standard No. 205.

Additionally, another source of information that is not referenced by or incorporated into Standard No. 205 appears to disagree with the EEC directive. This is the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) Recommended Practice J100, which indicates that the only levels of windows that are known not to be requisite for driving visibility are bands along the upper edge of the windshield. SAE J100 suggests that the areas along the side and rear window you propose to tint darkly may be at levels requisite for driving visibility. As noted above, NHTSA has not yet evaluated this situation. However, the SAE recommendation suggests that it may not be as simple to determine the levels that are requisite for driving visibility as implied in your letter.

Because of these uncertainties, we cannot conclude that the areas shown in Attachments I and II are not at levels requisite for driving visibility. Accordingly, the presumption that all of the window surfaces in this car are at levels requisite for drivi ng visibility has not been rebutted. This means that if a vehicle has side and rear window portions that do not meet the 70 percent light transmittance requirements, as shown in your Attachments I and II, the vehicle would not comply with Standard No. 2 05.

I would also like to respond to your assertion that, since your company could block the areas of the side and rear window in question with sheet metal, those areas must be interpreted as not being at "levels requisite

for driving visibility," within the meaning of Standard No. 205. We have already considered and rejected this argument in a June 30, 1980 letter to Mr. Hisakazu Murakami (copy enclosed). In that letter, we said, "While there currently are not requi rements for the size of window openings, the agency must interpret Standard No. 205 to require window openings that are present to have complying glazing."

Although we have concluded that the areas on the side and rear windows are at levels requisite for driving visibility, we believe that it is appropriate to again re-examine the question of whether we should more precisely specify those areas of windows t hat are at "levels requisite for driving visibility." As we stated in the enclosed June 19, 1987 letter, we plan to initiate a rulemaking action to address this issue, instead of continuing our case-by-case consideration of whether particular areas are a t levels requisite for driving visibility.

Again I apologize for the delay in this response. Please let me know if you have any further questions on this subject.

ENCLOSURES

ID: nht88-3.98

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 11/03/88

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA

TO: ERNIE J. BUNNELL -- VICE PRESIDENT/GENERAL MANAGER PACIFIC T-TOP, INC.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: 08/30/88 LETTER FROM ERNIE J. BUNNELL TO TAYLOR VINSON; OCC 2485

TEXT: Dear Mr. Bunnell:

This is in reply to your letter of August 30, 1988, to Taylor Vinson of this Office. You have provided diagrams of two types of deck lid spoiler installations, intended as either OEM or aftermarket equipment, and have asked how these relate to requireme nts for the center highmounted stop lamp. You understand that the spoiler itself does not have to meet the lighting standard, but would like to comply if possible.

You are correct that the spoiler itself is not subject to the lighting standard (Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108); however, its installation has the potential for creating a noncompliance with that standard. The basic requirements for the lamp is that it must meet the photometric intensities at each of the test points specified in Figure 10 of the standard, and the visibility (and other) requirements of paragraph S4.1.1.41. Photometric testing is conducted according to SAE Recommended Pr actice J186a, with the photometer at a distance of at least 10 feet from the lamp. Test points lie above and below the horizontal axis of the lamp, and to the left and right of the vertical axis.

According to your first design, the spoiler is "at or below the rear brake light using the 5 degree measurement as a guide." You are correct in taking into account the necessity of meeting the 5 degree down test points. But compliance will be affected b y the location of the lamp and slope of the deck lid as well as the shape of the spoiler. The second spoiler is designed "to go over the horizontal intensity of the light." We interpret this as recognition of the need to meet the test points lying 5 and 10 degrees above the horizontal. Our comments are the same as for the first spoiler. In short, if a spoiler design is not vehicle specific there may be no practicable way for you, as the manufacturer of the spoiler, to determine whether its installati on would create a noncompliance. If your design is vehicle specific, the SAE photometric test could be conducted with the spoiler installed.

The responsibility for compliance with Standard No. 108 is initially that of the vehicle manufacturer. If the spoiler is installed as part of the vehicle manufacturing process, the manufacturer's certification of compliance with all applicable Federal m otor vehicle safety standards would cover the center lamp with the spoiler in place. But the dealer also must ensure that a certified vehicle remains in conformance at the time it is delivered to its first purchaser. Therefore, a dealer could be reluct ant to install a spoiler that is not vehicle specific in the absence of some showing that it does not create a noncompliance with Standard No. 108.

Once the vehicle is sold, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act in effect forbids the dealer, or any motor vehicle repair business, from modifications that affect compliance of equipment installed in accordance with a safety standard. This p rohibition, however, does not extend to the vehicle owner, who may modify the vehicle as (s)he wishes, subject to State laws. We are not aware of any State laws that would forbid spoilers of the designs indicated.

We have enclosed a copy of paragraph S4.1.1.41 and Figure 10 for your information, and appreciate your interest in learning more about Standard No. 108.

ENCLOSURE

ID: nht88-3.99

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 11/03/88

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL NHTSA

TO: JOSEPH F. MIKOLL -- VICE PRESIDENT TRANSPORTATION EQUIPMENT CORP.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED LETTER DATED 03/10/89 FROM ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA TO JOSEPH F. MIKOLL, REDBOOK A33, STANDARD 217, 222 AND 302; LETTER DATED 12/15/88 FROM JOSEPH F. MIKOLL TO ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA, OCC 2812; LETTER DATED 08/11/88 FROM JOSEPH F. MIKO LL TO ERIKA Z. JONES

TEXT: Dear Mr. Mikoll:

This responds to your recent request for confirmation of your understanding that school buses with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of 10,000 pounds or less would comply with the existing requirements of the safety standards if those buses were equip ped with a new occupant protection device your company is considering producing. As explained below, this device could not be installed in small school buses as a substitute for safety belts at those seating positions. Assuming those seating positions are equipped with safety belts, the seating positions could also be equipped with this device if the addition of the device does not prevent the safety belts from complying with the requirements of the safety standards.

The new device you are considering producing is a "safety bar." This bar consists, in part, of two curved metal poles in planes that are parallel to the longitudinal centerline of the bus. These curved poles are joined by three cross members that are pa rallel to the seat and covered with padding. The padded surface is angled at the top slightly back from the vertical. The curved metal poles are attached to the outside of the seat in front of the seat whose occupants will be protected by the "safety b ar," so that the padded surface extends over the entire width of the seat whose occupants it is designed to protect. When the seat whose occupants are to be protected by this "safety bar" is unoccupied, the padded surface rests approximately on the lati tudinal centerline of the seat. When an occupant wishes to be seated, he or she must lift the "safety bar" and then sit down. The "safety bar" will then rest on the occupant's thighs. Additionally, a special strap that resembles a very long seat belt assembly must be fastened around the safety bar to hold it in position in the event of a crash.

The crash protection requirements for school buses with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less are set forth in S5(b) of Standard No. 222, School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection (49 CFR @ 571.222). That section provides that these school buses must be capable of meeting the

requirements of Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection (49 CFR @ 571.208) as it applies to multipurpose passenger vehicles, at all seating positions other than the driver's seat.

The requirements of Standard No. 208 that apply to multipurpose passenger vehicles with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less are set forth in section S4.2 of Standard No. 208. That section specifies that multipurpose passenger vehicles with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less shall meet the requirements specified for passenger cars in either S4.1.2.1, S4.1.2.2, or S4.1.2.3 of Standard No. 208. Each of these three subsections of S4.1.2 requires each rear designated seating position to be equipped with a safety b elt. S4.1.2 gives manufactures the option of substituting a protection system "that requires no action by vehicle occupants" for a safety belt at any or all rear designated seating positions.

Your proposed "safety bar" requires two specific actions by vehicle occupants; i.e., lifting the bar so that the seat can be occupied and buckling the strap to hold the bar in place. Therefore, the "safety bar" could not be considered a protection syste m that "requires no action by vehicle occupants," for the purpose of S4.1.2 of Standard No. 208. Accordingly, each rear designated seating position in small school buses equipped with this "safety bar" must also be equipped with safety belts.

Assuming that these seating positions were equipped with safety belts, the installation of "safety bar" in small school buses would be a voluntary action on the part of the school bus manufacturer. NHTSA has said in several prior interpretation letters that the systems or components installed in addition to required safety systems are not required to meet Federal safety standards, provided that the additional components or systems do not destroy the ability of required systems (the safety belts in this case) to comply with the Federal safety standards. If this is the case, the "safety bar" could be provided as a supplement to safety belts on small school buses.

To install these "safety bars" in any new school bus, the manufacturer would have to certify that a bus with the "safety bars" installed complied with the impact zone requirements set forth in S5.3 of Standard No. 222. Thus, if any part of the "safety b ar" was within the head protection zone or leg protection zone, the "safety bar" would have to be certified as complying with the applicable requirements of S5.3. Additionally, the manufacturer would have to certify that the school buses with these "saf ety bars" installed complied with Standard No. 217, Bus Window Retention and Release (49 CFR @ 571.217). Standard No. 217 requires school buses to be equipped with emergency exits of a minimum size. This means the "safety bars" could not obstruct emerg ency exits located adjacent to seats.

If you decide to manufacture these "safety bar," your company will be a manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment within the meaning of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.). As such, you will have several responsibili ties, including the responsibility specified in sections 151-159 of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1411-1419) to conduct a notification and remedy campaign if your company or the agency determines either that the safety bar contains a defect

related to motor vehicle safety or that it does not comply with an applicable safety standard. A copy of an information sheet is enclosed, which describes briefly this and other statutory and regulatory responsibilities of manufacturers and explains how to obtain copies of our regulations.

Please let me know if you have any further questions or need additional information.

Sincerely,

ENCLOSURE

ID: nht88-4.1

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 11/03/88

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA CHIEF COUNSEL

TO: BRIAN HALL -- PRESIDENT, VS TECHNOLOGY

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER UNDATED FROM BRIAN HALL TO VINSON, OCC 2576

TEXT: Dear Mr. Hall:

This is in reply to your recent undated letter to Mr. Vinson of this Office. You have described a safety apparatus and have requested "approval" from the Department. The apparatus is a red light that is worn on the back of a rider on small open vehicles such as motorcycles. The light connects to the stop lamp system on the vehicle and is activated at the same time as the vehicle's stop lamp.

The Department has no authority to "approve" or "disapprove" specific concepts or equipment. However, it can advise whether such is permissible or impermissible under Federal statutes or Departmental regulations. Yours is a unique device, and there are no Federal motor vehicle safety standards that apply to it. Our primary concern is whether its operation would in any way interfere with the effectiveness of the vehicle's stop lamp, such as a power drain that would make that light less bright. Becaus e the apparatus is "apparel not a system part...which is intended for use exclusively to safeguard motor vehicles, drivers, passengers...from risk of accident, injury, or death", it meets the statutory definition of "motor vehicle equipment." This means that the apparatus is subject to Federal notification and remedy provisions in the event a determination is made that it incorporates a defect that relates to motor vehicle safety.

Because the Department has no authority to regulate how a vehicle is used on the public roads, you may wish to investigate whether the apparatus is acceptable under the laws of the individual States. The American

Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators may be able to provide you with an answer. Its address is 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Va. 22203.

We appreciate your interest in improving safety.

Sincerely,

ID: nht88-4.10

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 11/15/88

FROM: JOSEPH F. MIKOLL -- VICE PRESIDENT TRANSPORTATION EQUIPMENT CORP

TO: ERIKA JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 03/10/89 FROM ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA TO JOSEPH F. MIKOLL, REDBOOK A33, STANDARDS 217, 222 AND 302; LETTER DATED 12/03/88 FROM ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA TO JOSEPH F. MIKOLL; LETTER DATED 08/11/88 FROM JOSEPH F. MIKOLL TO ERIKA Z. JONES

TEXT: Dear Ms. Jones:

On November 3, 1988 your office responded to our correspondence of August 11, 1988. A copy of both these letters are included for your convenience. In our letter we requested an opinion that our "Impact Control System" or safety-bar did not infringe on any existing standard for installation in school buses. Your reply details a number of conditions that must be complied with if we choose to install our system in school buses with a gross vehicle weight rating of 10,000 pounds or less; however, it is n ot clear to us from your letter that the device does not infringe on standards for installation in the larger school buses. While we are prepared to certify compliance with Federal safety standards for large bus installation, we do not wish to go forwar d on the assumption of not conflicting with those standards. In this regard, we would appreciate clarification on the following:

1) that your letter of November 3, 1988 addresses both the large and smaller school buses.

2) that your letter addresses only those vehicles with (GVWR) of 10,000 pounds and under.

If your letter addresses only the smaller vehicles, we wish at this time to request an opinion that our device does not conflict with any standard for large school bus installation. In that your office has recently reviewed this matter you should refer to the supporting documents previously submitted. Should you need any additional information, please let us know.

Thank you.

Cordially,

ID: nht88-4.11

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 11/16/88

FROM: TERRY HUDYMA -- LAFORZA AUTOMIBILES INC

TO: CHIEF COUNSEL NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

TITLE: 49CFR 567, CERTIFICATION

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 09/07/89 FROM STEPHEN P. WOOD -- NHTSA TO TERRY HUDYMA -- LAFORZA AUTOMOBILES; REDBOOK A34 B; PART 567; PART 568; LETTER DATED 05/06/85 FROM JOFFREY R. MILLER CHIEF COUNSEL TO HAYLEY ALEXANDER

TEXT: Dear Sirs:

LAFORZA Automobiles (formerly Rayton Fissore North America) has acquired the US rights to manufacture and sell a MPV designed and manufactured by Rayton Fissore of Cherasco, Italy. LAFORZA Automobiles is incorporated in the state of California.

The vehicle will be built in two stages. Pininfarina will build the vehicle complete with everything except the engine (and associated equipment such as ignition and air conditioning, etc.) transmission and transfer case in Italy. These items along with some of the lighting fixtures will be installed by Cars and Concepts in Brighton, Michigan to complete the vehicle. These operations both will be performed by the respective firms under contract to LAFORZA Automobiles. Thus LAFORZA Automobiles will ha ve complete control of the manufacturing process at all times.

It is our understanding that under these circumstances, LAFORZA Automobiles is considered to be the manufacturer of the vehicle. They therefore must apply the certification label required under 49CFR Part 567, Certification, upon completion of the vehic le at Cars and Concepts Inc.

Please provide us with a verification of our interpretation of this matter with a copy to our Safety Consultant, Haus W. Metzger, 6323 E. Turquoise Ave., Scottsdale, Arizona 85253.

We would appreciate a prompt reply. Thank you for your coorperation in this matter.

Yours truly