ID: nht88-2.89

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/08/88

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL NHTSA

TO: WARD W. REESER -- PROJECT ENGINEER ELECTRICAL SYSTEMS CATERPILLAR TRACTOR CO.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 12/04/87 TO TAYLOR VINSON FROM W.W. REESER, OCC-1383

TEXT: Dear Mr. Reeser:

I am writing in response to your December 4, 1987 letter in which you described Caterpillar Inc.'s worldwide program to review lighting used on Caterpillar product lines in order to standardize the devices. You specifically asked if any of Caterpillar's lighting devices were covered by Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FVSS) 108. You enclosed descriptive literature on the Caterpillar product line. I regret the delay in responding to your question.

It must be noted at the outset that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) issues safety standards for "motor vehicles." Therefore, Standard 108 and all of our other regulations apply to a vehicle and its manufacturer only if the vehi cle qualifies as a "motor vehicle" under the provisions of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.). Section 102(3) of the Act defines "motor vehicle" as: any vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power manufact ured primarily for use on the public streets, roads, and highways, except any vehicle operated exclusively on a rail or rails.

We have interpreted this language as follows. Vehicles that are equipped with tracks or are otherwise incapable of highway travel are plainly not motor vehicles. Agricultural equipment, such as tractors, are not motor vehicles because Congress clearly did not intend to include them in its coverage. Further, vehicles designed and sold solely for off-road use (e.g., Airport runway vehicles and underground mining vehicles) are not considered motor vehicles, even though they may be operationally capable o f highway travel.

On the other hand, vehicles that use the public highways on a necessary and recurring basis are motor vehicles. For instance, utility vehicles like the Jeep are plainly motor vehicles, even though they are equipped with special features to permit off-ro ad operation. If a vehicle's greatest use will be off-road, but it will spend a substantial amount of time on-road, NHTSA has interpreted the vehicle to be a "motor vehicle." Further, if a vehicle is readily usable on the public roads and is in fact use d on the public roads by a substantial number of owners, NHTSA has found the vehicle to be a motor vehicle. This finding was made with respect to dune buggies and regardless of the manufacturer's stated intent regarding the terrain on which the vehicles were to be operated.

As noted above, this agency has consistently interpreted "motor vehicle" to exclude vehicles that are equipped with tracks or are otherwise incapable of highway travel. Therefore, the track-type tractors, excavators, track-type loaders, tracked pavement profilers PR-450, PR-750B and PR-1000, concrete slipform pavers & auxiliary equipment, finegraders, front shovels, swing machines, tracked skidders D4H and D5H are not considered to be "motor vehicles."

In your letter, you described the Caterpillar line of construction and industrial equipment as basically for off-highway use: "There are occasional uses on the highway for such equipment as motor graders, but obviously none of this equipment is designed for normal highway use or for the transportation of people." Despite their use of the highway, some vehicles are expected from the motor vehicle classification. Highway maintenance and construction equipment, lane stripers, self-propelled asphalt pavers , and other vehicles whose maximum speed does not exceed 20 miles per hour and whose abnormal configuration distinguishes them from the traffic flow are not considered "motor vehicles."

Although many items in the Caterpillar product line have an abnormal configuration that readily distinguishes them from other vehicles, the product literature enclosed with your letter did not provide sufficient information on the maximum speed capabilit ies or intended uses (i.e., strictly off highway or occasional on-highway use) of the motor graders, off-highway tractors, articulated dump trucks, wheel tractors, compactors, landfill compactors, wheel loaders, integrated toolcarriers, backhoe loaders, pavement profilers PR-75, PR-105 and PR-275, asphalt pavers & auxiliary equipment, compaction equipment, skidders, pipelayers, scrapers, and off-highway trucks to enable me to make a determination whether these would be considered "motor vehicles." Howev er, I believe that the guidelines for classifying vehicles that are set forth above will allow you to determine if these are "motor vehicles." If they are, they must comply with safety standards, including Standard 108, applicable to trucks.

The lighting devices and other features of "motor vehicles" would be required to comply with the FMVSS (49 CFR Part 571). As you are aware, Standard No. 108; Lamps, reflective devices, and associated equipment (49 CFR @ 571.108) specifies requirements f or original and replacement lamps, reflective devices, and associated equipment necessary for signaling and

for the safe operation of motor vehicles during darkness and other conditions of reduced visibility.

Finally, the product literature included several items which did not appear to be self-propelling, including the asphalt drum mixers, aggregate bins, and compaction equipment items TSF-54 and TSM-54. These products fall within NHTSA's jurisdiction if th ey are "trailers" as that term is defined at 49 CFR @571.3. That section defines "trailer" as "a motor vehicle with or without motive power, designed for carrying persons or property and for being drawn by another motor vehicle."

Based on the depiction in the brochure, the equipment appear to be designed for carrying property (drum mixers, aggregate bins, and compaction equipment) and for being drawn by another vehicle. Therefore, whether the equipment are trailers depends on wh ether they are "motor vehicles" within the meaning of the Safety Act and on whether the vehicles the equipment are designed to be drawn by are "motor vehicles." Specific information has not been provided about the intended uses of the equipment. If they make frequent use of the highways, and stay at one particular job site for a limited amount of time, the items mentioned above would be motor vehicles, and woul d fall within the definition of "trailers." Trailers are subject to Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment. If, on the other hand, the equipment are intended to be drawn by vehicles that are not motor vehicles, or the equi pment stays at a job site for extended periods of time and it travels on the highways only to move to another job site for an extended stay, the equipment would not be considered motor vehicles.

It is important to note that NHTSA does not approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, nor do we endorse commercial products. Instead, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act establishes a "self certification" process under which each manufacturer is required to certify that its products meet all applicable safety standards. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act prohibits the manufacture or sale of a noncomplying product.

I hope the information provided above will be useful to you and to Caterpillar, Inc. If there are any further questions or if you need further information, please do not hesitate to write to me.

Sincerely,

ID: nht88-2.9

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/29/88

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Texas State Purchasing & General Service Commission Austin, Texas

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Troy C. Martin Specifications/Inspections Chief Texas State Purchasing & General Service Commission Lyndon Baines Johnson State Office Bldg. P.O. Box 13047 Capitol Station Austin, Texas 78711-3047

Dear Mr. Martin:

This is a response to your letter of last year where you stated your concern respecting the installation of "latches" on the rear doors of a school bus of 10,000 lbs or less GVWR (small school bus), and asked a number of questions on release mechanisms f or required rear emergency doors on these small school buses. I regret the delay in this response.

You said that the State of Texas has a school bus specification that requires "the first-closed (left-hand) door)" to have a latching mechanism at the top and bottom. Your supplier tells you that this specification conflicts with provisions of Federal sa fety standard 217, Bus Window Retention and Release (Standard 217). You go on to express your concern that a single mechanism would hold both doors closed, and that this feature increases the risk of injury from accidental or intentional opening. You bel ieve that where a small school bus has two rear doors, if each door is secured independently, then there is a decreased risk of a student' s falling through a door opened inadvertently.

Let me begin my answer with some general information on the requirement for a rear emergency door in a small school bus. As your supplier suggests, there can be instances where independently securing the rear doors on a small school bus would violate Sta ndard 217. Paragraph S5.2.3.1 requires a manufacturer of these buses to install either (1) one rear emergency door, or (2) one emergency door on the vehicle' s left side and one push-out rear window. Where a manufacturer chooses to meet this requirement by installing one rear emergency door, the door may be hinged on either side of the vehicle.

When a manufacturer installs more than one rear door exit, the question of whether both exits are "emergency doors" under paragraph S5.2.3.1 of Standard 217 depends upon whether one or both doors must be opened for unobstructed passage of a specified par allelepiped under paragraph S5.4.2.2. The purpose of the school bus emergency exit requirements is to facilitate quick and safe rider exit from the vehicle in the event of an emergency. (44 FR 7961, 7962, February 8, 1979.)

Question 1: Are both of the rear doors on small school buses (with GVWR of 10,000 lbs or less) considered "emergency doors" in the context of Paragraph S5.2.3.1 of FMVSS 217?

If a manufacturer installs more than one rear door on a small school bus, and intends one door to be a rear emergency door under S5.2.3.1 and one to be a regular door for loading and unloading passengers, then the designated rear emergency door is a suff icient sear emergency exit so long as it will permit unobstructed passage of the device specified in paragraph S5.4.2.2 of the Standard. In a case such as this one, the manufacturer must label the emergency door appropriately, and otherwise ensure that t he designated rear emergency door meets the performance, accessibility, and release requirements for a rear emergency door on a small school bus .

On the other hand, if the manufacturer installs two rear doors on a small school bus, and if both of those doors must be open to accommodate the parallelepiped, then both doors constitute a rear emergency exit under S5.2.3.1. In this case, the two doors together must meet the applicable provisions of Standard 217.

There is yet another possibility that a manufacturer may install a second rear exit and designate it as an emergency exit. Assuming that at least one exit meets Standard 217's requirements for a rear emergency door exit, NHTSA would not prohibit installi ng this additional emergency exit. However, as the agency long has held, that "extra" emergency exit must comply with Standard 217 provisions applicable to emergency exits in buses other than school buses.

Question 2: Does Paragraph S5.3.3 require separate, independent operation: that is, must one be able to open the left-hand door without first opening the right-hand door from outside of the passenger compartment?

Again, the answer to this question depends upon whether one door can meet the unobstructed test measurement for a required sear emergency door. Let me begin this answer by explaining the release requirements for a rear emergency door on a small school bu s.

Under paragraph S5.3.3, a required small school bus rear emergency door generally must have a release mechanism that allows (1) a single person (2) to operate the door manually (3) from in or outside the vehicle's passenger compartment without the use of remote controls or tools (4) irrespective of whether the vehicle's power system fails. (Paragraph S5.3.3 also sets the maximum permissible magnitude of force and the permissible direction in which a force must be applied to operate the release mechanism .)

In an interpretation of March 17, 1982, this agency stated that the release mechanism is the mechanism that keeps the door from opening. In other words, the release mechanism is that you refer to in your letter as the door "latch." If the test device des cribed in my answer to your first question passes through unobstructed only when both doors are open, then the door release mechanism must be operable for both doors from inside the vehicle passenger compartment irrespective of whether a person outside t he vehicle operates the outside release mechanism. Further, this same release mechanism must be operable from outside the vehicle. In this circumstance, a separate release mechanism for each door would not comply with the Standard.

If only one door needs to be open, and the manufacturer has designated the second door as an emergency exit, then this additional emergency door still must be operable from inside the passenger compartment. In this case, independent release mechanisms ma y be appropriate, but a release mechanism on an additional emergency exit need not be operable from outside the vehicle. (S5.3.2.)

If only one door needs to be open to accommodate the parallelepiped, and the manufacturer neither intends the second door to be an emergency door, nor designates it as an emergency exit, then the second door is a regular door for loading and unloading pa ssengers. Standard 217 would be inapplicable to this second door.

Question 3: Does Paragraph S5.3.3 require a warning system to indicate an opened position of any latch or latches on the left-hand door even though this door cannot be opened until after the right-hand door is opened, provided both doors must be opened t o insert the 45" high by 22" wide x 6" deep parallelepiped?

If both doors must be opened for unobstructed passage of the specified parallelepiped, then there must be a single emergency release mechanism (or latch) for both doors. In a case such as this, there must be an audible alarm under S5.3.3 whenever the rel ease mechanism is not closed and the vehicle ignition switch is "on." That alarm should sound if either door is unsecured.

Question 4: Would a warning system be required to indicate opened latch or latches on the left-hand door as in 3 above, provided the parallelepiped could be inserted into the passenger compartment through the opened right-hand door with the left-hand doo r closed?

In your question, the manufacturer may designate either door as the required S5.2.3.1 emergency exit if the door accommodates the test device. The warning system then must sound when the release mechanism on the designated rear emergency door is open and the vehicle ignition switch is "on." For example, if in your question, the manufacturer designated the right-hand door as the required rear door emergency exit, then the warning system must sound whenever the release mechanism for that door is open and the vehicle ignition position is "on." As I stated in Question 1, the second rear door could be an "additional" emergency exit, or a regular means for loading and unloading passengers; then the additional door would have to meet such other requirements a s may apply to these exits.

Question 5: Would a latch or latches be required on the left-hand door if both doors had to be opened to insert this parallelepiped even though the left-hand door is close by the latches of the right-hand door?

In this circumstance, Standard 217 would prohibit installing a separate release mechanism on each door. Recall that S5.2.3.1 requires on a small school bus, "one rear emergency door," or one side door and one push-out window. If the manufacturer chooses to install the rear emergency door, then under S5.4.2. 2, the specified parallelepiped must pass through that rear emergency door without obstruction. If both doors must be open to accommodate the test device, then both doors constitute the single, rear emergency door which the Standard requires. Under paragraph S5.3.3, the required rear emergency door must have its own release mechanism.

I Hope you find this information helpful.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Ms. Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel Room 5219 National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 7th Street NW Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Ms. Jones:

We have a question concerning the installation of latches on small van conversion buses that have two rear doors that act or may act as emergency doors. We have in our Texas school bus specifications a requirement that the first-closed (left-hand) door be equipped with latching mechanisms top and bottom. Collins Industries, one of our suppliers of this type of bus, claims that they cannot meet our requirement because it is in conflict with the provisions of FMVSS No. 217.

We are concerned about this door not having any latching mechanisms at all, since, if Collins is correct, this door would be held close only by the right-hand door. One could envision situations in which several children could be seated or standing in th e immediate vicinity of these doors (even behind the last row of seats or in the isle immediately ahead of the emergency doors) at the time the right-hand door was accidentally or intentionally opened. Of course, the driver would be immediately notified by the ringing of the buzzer (if it were operational) that the emergency door was opened, but by the time the driver could take any action, both doors could be open and a student could fall from the back of the bus. We maintain that in this situation, if the first-closed (the left-hand) door is latched independently or the last-closed (right-hand) door, there would be less chance of a student fa lling out of the bus should the right-hand door be opened while the bus is underway.

I would appreciate your addressing the following questions:

1. Are both of the rear doors on small school buses (with GVWR of 10,000 lbs or less) considered "emergency doors" in the context of Paragraph S5.2.3.1. of FMVSS No. 217?

2. Does Paragraph S5.3.3. require separate, independent operation; that is, must one be able to open the left-hand door without first opening the right-hand door from outside of the passenger compartment?

3. Does Paragraph S5.3.3. require a warning system to indicate an opened position of any latch or latches on the left-hand door even though this door cannot be opened until after the right-hand door is opened, provided both doors must be opened to insert the 45" high by 22" wide x 6" deep parallelopiped?

4. Would a warning system be required to indicate opened latch or latches on the left-hand door as in 3 above, provided the parallelopiped could be inserted into the passenger compartment through the opened right-hand door with the left-hand door closed?

5. Would a latch or latches be required on the left-hand door if both doors had to be opened to insert this parallelopiped even though the left-hand door is held close by the latches of the right-hand door?

Thank you for your assistance.

Sincerely yours,

Troy C. Martin

Specifications/Inspections Chief

ID: nht88-2.90

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/08/88

FROM: JACK SATKOSKI -- SPECTRA ENTERPRISES

TO: OFFICE OF CHIEF COUNCIL NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: 6/19/89 letter from Stephen P. Wood to Jack Satkoski (Std. 201; Std. 302; VSA 108(A)(2)(a))

TEXT: I have enclosed five sketches and a photograph of a sun visor extender being developed for market at Spectra Enterprises. The product is called the ADD-VISOR and consists of a magnetic base and moveable panel that attaches by means of velcro straps to t he existing auto, truck, or RV's sun visor. The moveable panel is designed so that it can be positioned in areas to block the sun not covered by existing sun visors.

The size of the product is 11.5 in by 4.5 in., has rounded corners, and is made from soft and flexible vinyl related magnetic materials.

Can you please advise and send me copies if applicable, any federal standards this product will have to meet prior to marketing. I also require suggestions on similar contacts to make at the state level for possible standards that may apply.

Thanks for your time and consideration.

Sincerely

enclosures

ID: nht88-2.91

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/08/88

FROM: ALAN S. ELDAHR -- OPTIMUM BUILDING TECHNOLOGIES PRESIDENT

TO: ERICA JONES -- CHIEF COUNCIL NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY COMMISSION

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 08/17/89 FROM STEPHEN P. WOOD -- NHTSA TO ALAN S. ELDAHR; REDBOOK A34; VSA 108 [A] [2] [A]; STANDARD 108

TEXT: Dear Ms. Jones:

Thank you for the information you sent us on Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. My company is interested in producing a small LED display reader board for use in private vehicles. The unit will measure approximately 1 1/2" x 12" and will display messages programmed by the driver.

This can be accomplished in one of two ways. First, we can incorporate both the LED display and the high mounted stop lamp into one unit. The unit will be mounted on the vertical center line (as required for the stop lamp). Messages will display until the service brakes are applied, at which time the stop lamp will come on as usual.

The second alternative is to produce the LED display as a separate unit, also to be placed in the rear window. This unit can either display messages continuously, or stop when service brakes are applied (as above).

Both units will comply with all other safety standards: photometric requirements, visibility ranges and bulb replacement, and neither shall impair the effectiveness of any other lighting equipment required by the Motor Vehicle Safety Standards.

We would appreciate a reply with your comments and input on any problems you might forsee with our format or design.

Sincerely,

ID: nht88-2.92

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/09/88

FROM: BLANCHE G. KOZAK

TO: CHIEF COUNCIL LEGAL DEPT. U.S. DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 06/09/89 FROM STEPHEN P. WOOD -- NHTSA TO BLANCHE KOZAK; REDBOOK A33 [2]; VSA 108 [A] [1] [A]; LETTER DATED 04/04/89 FROM NANCY L. BRUCE -- DOT TO CHESTER ATKINS -- HOUSE; LETTER DATED 03/29/89 FROM CHESTER G. ATKINS -- HOUSE TO NANCY BRUCE -- DOT, RE MRS. BLANCHE KOZAK; LETTER DATED 09/26/88 FROM BLANCHE KOZAK TO BERRY FELRICE; LETTER DATED 10/16/79 FROM EDWIN P. RIEDEL; REPORT UNDATED

TEXT: Dear Sir/Madam;

Please be informed that I spoke to Ms. Williams, Supervisor NHTSA, on Aug. 9, 1988 and was advised to request a written statement from the Legal Dept. in regards to the Cushman Vehicle, Model #404. It is my understanding that the "on-road Cushman Veh icle is classified as a motorcycle under the current definitions found in the Code of Federal Regulations, Vol. 49, Part 571.3." by Barry Felrice of the Dept. of Transportation on July 22, 1988 to Rep. James J. Florio.

My question is in regards to the Model # 404 which is the Off-road design manufactured by O.M.C. Lincoln Cushman-Ryan and sold by The Sawtelle Bros. for on road use in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. When and by whom was this vehicle authoruzed fo r on road use as a motor vehicle and not a motorcycle.

This information was requested of me by my State Senator for the purpose of having it in writing to present to the committee in the process of filing a bill on the State Level to have these Cushman Vehicles regulated in the Commonwealth of Massachuset ts.

My Husband was killed on a Cushman Model # 404 while working for the Lawrence General Hospital on Dec. 9, 1980. This vehicle was sold to the LGH for on road use, for further information you may refer to my report of the accident to NHTSA on June 11, 1988.

Thank you very much for your anticipated response to my plea.

Gratefully yours

ID: nht88-2.93

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/10/88 EST

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

TO: AMNON SHOMLO -- PRESIDENT, A.A.S.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: MEMO DATED 3-25-88, TO ERIKA JONES-NHTSA, FROM AMNON SHOMLO, OCC-1783

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of March 25, 1988, enclosing a "Peace" decal designed to be affixed to the center highmounted stop lamp. The letters and design are in white, printed on transparent plastic, "in an effort to preserve the basic requirement s for an effective projected luminous area of the lens and the specified candela." You have asked what "Federal/Legal authorizations we need to obtain, stating that we comply with all the regulations and the requirements regarding this product."

There are no regulations that apply directly to the decal, nor any Federal restrictions on its sale. Thus you cannot state in any sales materials that the product meets Federal requirements, for there are none. If a center highmounted brake lamp would continue to meet all applicable requirements of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 after installation of your decal, there are no restrictions on its use.

Although you intend the product to preserve the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, it is not certain that this will occur. The decal has the potential of obscuring light from some of the 13 test points at distances where cand ela photometrics must be measured and the specified minima met. However, its actual effect can be determined only through laboratory tests on lamps of different sizes and lens and reflector designs. Although you have no liability under Federal law for selling this decal, a violation of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act will result if the decal creates a noncompliance and if it is applied by a manufacturer, distributor, or dealer before the first sale of the vehicle. A violation will a lso occur if the decal creates a noncompliance and if it is applied after the vehicle's first sale by any of these persons or by a motor vehicle repair business. There is no violation of Federal law if the decal is applied by a person other

than those named above, such as the vehicle owner. In the absence of a violation of Federal law there may nonetheless be State statutes restricting the application of the decal under any circumstances. We are unable to advise you on State laws.

I hope that this answers your question.

ID: nht88-2.94

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/10/88 EST

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

TO: M. ARISAKA -- MANAGER, AUTOMOTIVE LIGHTING, HOMOLOGATION SECT., STANLEY ELECTRIC CO., LTD.

ATTACHMT: MEMO DATED 5-31-88, TO ERIKA Z. JONES, FROM M. ARISAKA-STANLEY ELECTRIC CO., LTD

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of May 31, 1988, asking about the acceptability of installing an additional red reflex reflector on the rear of a passenger car. The reflector would be centered between the two red reflex reflectors required by the standar d. In your opinion, the additional reflector will not impair the effectiveness of other lighting equipment required by Standard No. 108.

As you have properly noted, supplementary motor vehicle equipment including reflectors is permissible under paragraph S4.1.3 of Standard No. 108 as long as it does not impair the effectiveness of equipment that the standard requires. The determination of whether supplementary equipment, in fact, impairs the effectiveness of the required equipment is initially that of the manufacturer of the vehicle upon which the supplementary equipment is to be installed, and who certifies compliance with all applicabl e Federal motor vehicle safety standards including paragraph S4.1.3 of Standard No. 108. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration neither approves nor disapproves of specific vehicles designs, and unless there are reasons to believe that the s upplementary equipment will, in fact, impair the effectiveness of the required lighting equipment this agency accepts the manufacturer's determination.

The drawing you attached shows the location of the two required rear reflex reflectors, and the supplementary one, but does not depict the location or types of other required rear lighting equipment, i.e. stop lamps, center highmounted stop lamp, taillam ps, turn signal lamps, license plate lamp, and backup lamps. However, in your opinion the reflector will not impair the effectiveness of these lamps and the required reflectors, and the agency has no reason to believe that the third reflector will, in fa ct, impair the effectiveness of them.

I hope this answers your question, and that the guidelines given in this letter will encourage you to reach satisfactory determinations without the necessity of submitting them to this agency for comment. We appreciate your continuing interest in motor vehicle safety.

ID: nht88-2.95

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/10/88

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL NHTSA

TO: PETER CAMERON-NOTT

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 06/01/88 TO ERIKA Z. JONES FROM PETER CAMERON, OCC-2120; LETTER DATED 11/13/86 TO PETER CAMERON FROM FRANCIS ARMSTRONG, NEF 32GSH

TEXT: Dear Mr. Cameron-Nott:

This is in reply to your letter of June 1, 1988, with reference to importation of motor vehicle equipment included in an incomplete vehicle.

You have stated that the kit will include brake hoses, brake fluid, and glazing, and that these items will conform with Motor Vehicle Safety Standards Nos. 106, 116, and 205 respectively, and that they will all carry the DOT symbol certifying compliance. You ask whether these items may be entered under Box 2 on the HS-7 importation form.

The answer is yes. Box 2 (implementing 19 C.F.R. 12.80(b)(1)(ii)) allows importation without bond of motor vehicles and equipment manufactured to conform with, and certified as conforming to, all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards.

Sincerely,

ID: nht88-2.96

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/10/88

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL NHTSA

TO: STEPHEN BORKOWSKI

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 06/24/88 TO ERIKA Z. JONES FROM STEPHEN BORKOWSKI, OCC - 2243

TEXT: Dear Mr. Borkowski:

This is in reply to your letter of June 24, 1988, asking about the legality of your "Bimmer Dimmer Safety Stop Light Concept". The concept has as its goal to lessen the chance of rear end collisions, by governing "the intensity of brake light brightness to indicate the degree of braking being applied to a vehicle."

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment governs the legality of your concept. SAE Standard J586c Stop Lamps, August 1970, has been incorporated by reference, and specifies appropriate photometric requirements. Paragraph S4.5.4 of Standard No. 108 requires in pertinent part that "the stoplamps on each vehicle shall be activated upon application of the service brakes". We believe that this means that the lamp shall display the intensity that is designed into it to meet the photometrics of J586c. The photometrics are expressed in terms of a minimum for each test point and while there is not a corresponding maximum for each point, there is an overall maximum for the lamp. Thus, a lamp of variab le intensity could fall below the minimum at one or more test points or exceed the overall maximum. This, of course, would result in a noncompliance with Standard No. 108.

The agency examined the problem of rear end collisions and concluded that the most appropriate way to address it was through the center highmounted stoplamp, required equipment on passenger cars manufactured on and after September 1, 1985. This is inten ded not only to reduce the incidence of rear end collisions but also their severity. We are interested in the possibility of further reductions in rear end collisions. Because your concept may be of interest to that Office, I am forwarding a copy of yo ur letter to the agency's Associate Administrator for Research and Development for such further correspondence as may be warranted. We appreciate your interest in motor vehicle safety.

Sincerely,

ID: nht88-2.97

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/11/88 EST

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

TO: SCOTT A. SNYDER

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: MEMO DATED 3-10-88 TO NHTSA FROM SCOTT A. SNYDER

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of March 10, 1988, to the Department's regional office in Philadelphia, asking for a response concerning "ornamental lighting." In your opinion "a few extra lights on the side and rear of a vehicle would help other people see you better while driving at night."

The agency is interested in the role that vehicle conspicuity plays in accidents and accident avoidance. With reference to motorcycles, we have amended our motor vehicle lighting standard to prescribe performance characteristics for headlamp modulation. We were prepared to amend the standard to require the activation of motorcycle headlamps when the ignition was turned on (but did not do so when we learned that almost all motorcycles were being wired to operate in that fashion). Some time ago we aske d the public to comment on ways of increasing the conspicuity of large vehicles as our research had indicated that reflective tape applied to the side and rear of wide trucks and trailers might lessen crashes and crash severity, and our research still co ntinues in this area. Most importantly we adopted the center highmounted stop lamp for passenger cars because of the ability it demonstrated in test fleets to reduce the frequency of rear end impacts.

The type of lights of which you speak are referred to as "presence" lamps (as contrasted with "signal" lamps), and the agency over the years has acted with respect to all motor vehicles by requiring them to be equipped with side marker lamps, and by incr easing the lens area for stop lamps. As the Federal safety standards are by statutory definition "minimum" safety standards, the requirement that there be two taillamps, for example, does not mean that a manufacturer may not add two more if it wishes, o r any lighting device not covered by the standard. The sole restriction is that lighting devices added by the manufacturer or dealer that are in excess of the minimum must not impair the effectiveness of the equipment required by the standard. This cou ld happen, for example, if a fog lamp (not covered by the standard) was of an intensity and located so that it masked an adjacent front turn signal. With respect to nighttime operation, the critical issue would appear to be that additional lighting devi ces not create glare to oncoming and following drivers.

The owner of the vehicle is not under a similar Federal restriction, and may personally add such additional lighting devices as seems desirable, subject to the laws of the States where the vehicle is registered and/or driven. However, the owner may not have these devices installed by a motor vehicle dealer or repair business if the result is to render wholly or partially inoperative any of the vehicle's original lamps or reflectors.

We appreciate your suggestion for improving motor vehicle safety.