ID: nht67-1.6

DATE: 09/12/67

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; George C. Nield; NHTSA

TO: Blue Bird Body Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Your June 2, 1967, letter contained nine questions concerning several areas of Public Law 89-563 and Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. Answers to several of these questions are of common interest to many manufacturers and the National Highway Safety Bureau is developing and planning to issue appropriate policies, procedures and rules to guide manufacturers in respect to some of these questions. In the meantime, we are able to reply to questions 5, 7, and 8 of the June 2, 1967, letter and question 9 of the June 2, 1967, letter as amended by the corrected drawings furnished by your letter of July 18, 1967.

Question 5. Section 113 of Public Law 89-563

Will forms be furnished to us to use to notify the first purchaser, dealer, and Secretary of defects we might find? If not, will an example of an acceptable form be available? Will a more detailed procedure be made available on the action required under Section 113? What would be our liability if a component purchased by us and certified to us to be in conformance with the Motor Vehicle Safety Standards was found after manufacture and delivery not to be in conformance?

Answer

The Bureau is studying the requirements for procedures and forms on defect notification. At present a form is being considered for the manufacturers to report defect information to the Secretary. If after further study forms are also considered desirable for the manufacturer to report to his dealers and the purchasers, you will be advised as to what types of forms are acceptable via publication in the Federal Register.

It is not clear what you mean by "liability." If you refer to your obligations under Section III, this section defines the responsibilities of manufacturers in regard to motor vehicles or items of motor vehicle equipment determined not to be in conformance with applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. Section III also requires the immediate repurchase of the nonconforming vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment, or that the required conforming part or parts of equipment be furnished to the dealer or distributor for installation and that financial renumeration be made for incoveniences involved. Additionally, the provisions of Section 108 would apply.

Question 7. Title 23, Section 255.7 Applicability:

"(b) Military vehicles. No standard applies to a vehicle or item of equipment manufactured for, and sold directly to, the Armed Forces of the United States in conformity with Contractual specifications.

(c) Export. No standard applies to a vehicle or item of equipment in the circumstance provided in section 108 (b) (5) of the Act (15 U.S.C. 1397) (b) (5)."

We understand that the standard does not apply to military or export vehicles. Will we be allowed to drive on public roads export and/or military buses that do not meet the minimum standards to a port or other destination? If not, what will we have to do to them so that they can be driven on public roads?

Answer

Motor vehicles intended solely for military or for export use are specifically excluded from compliance with Federal motor vehicle standards, and therefore not subject to the provisions of the Act.

Question 8. Standard No. 108 S3.4.3

"Taillamps, license plate lamps, and side marker lamps shall be illuminated when the headlamps are illuminated."

This standard does not mention parking lamps. We would then assume that the parking lamps may or may not be illuminated when the headlamps are illuminated at our discretion or the chassis manufacturer's discretion. Is this correct?

Answer

The parking lamps may or may not be illuminated when the headlamps are illuminated.

Question 9. Standard No. 103 Table II Location of Equipment

These prints show the location of lamps and reflex reflectors we plan to supply to comply with Standard 108 Table II. Are these locations in compliance? If not, please mark one each of the prints with acceptable locations and return them to us.

Answer

The location of lamps and reflectors, as shown on the drawings dated July 17, 1967, appear to be acceptable.

Questions 1, 2, and 6 relate to the subject of "Incomplete vehicles" and questions 3 and 4 relate to labeling and record-keeping. We are currently working on the entire area relating to these other questions and you will be furnished with detailed answers as soon as possible.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

June 2, 1967

George C. Nield -- Acting Director, Motor Vehicle Safety Performance Service, U. S. Department of Transportation

Dear Mr. Nield: Listed below are several areas of Public Law 89-563 and the Motor Vehicle Safety Standards that we are concerned about and need rulings and/or clarification. If at all possible, we need this information by June 12, 1967.

1. Section 108 of Public Law 89-563

It is quite possible that there might be new chassis at our plant January 1, 1968, to have new bodies mounted on them that do not meet the Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. Will we be able to mount bodies on these? From time to time it is a couple of months after a chassis arrives before a body is mounted on it. They also sometimes sit in our field for long periods of time finished before the end customer comes for them or arranges for delivery. I believe you can appreciate the situation we could find ourselves in if we are unable to mount or deliver chassis after January 1, 1968, that were received prior to January 1, 1968. Could we have your comments and a ruling on this?

2. Section 108 of Public Law 89-563 Paragraph (a) (1)

Will replacement parts for buses built prior to January 1, 1968, have to meet applicable Motor Vehicle Safety Standards? In some cases the conforming parts might not fit or work without a lot of rework, etc.

3. Section 108 of Public Law 89-563 (b) (5)

In what manner should we label or tag motor vehicles or items of motor vehicle equipment intended solely for export? Do you have examples or acceptable forms for this?

4. Section 112 of Public Law 89-563

What records, reports, technical data, performance data, and other information are we required to establish and maintain? Will we be required to give notification of performance and technical data to the Secretary and/or to the original purchaser? What will we be expected to do to satisfy this law?

Will we be able to have inspectors designated by the Secretary come here prior to January 1, 1968, to be sure we are in compliance with all applicable Safety Standards if we feel the need?

5. Section 113 of Public Law 89-563

Will forms be furnished to us to use to notify the first purchaser, dealer, and Secretary of defects we might find? If not, will an example of an acceptable form be available? Will a more detailed procedure be made available on the action required under Section 113? What would be our liability if a component purchased by us and certified to us to be in conformance with the Motor Vehicle Safety Standards was found after manufacture and delivery not to be in conformance?

6. Section 114 of Public Law 89-563

We mount bodies on three types of chassis. We build the Blue Bird Forward Control Chassis. The Conventional and Pusher Chassis are built by others, and we mount bus bodies we manufacture on them. It seems logical to me that the chassis manufacturer should certify the chassis by label or tag as stated in the law. Is this correct? We would then be required to certify what? The bus body or the complete vehicle? I don't see how we could certify items such as those cited in Standard No. 102 which we would not alter in any way or some of the equipment in Standard No. 108 that comes in on the chassis that we would not bother such as headlamps. What should the certification tag or label say? Do you have forms or acceptable examples for this?

7. Title 23, Section 255.7 Applicability:

"(b) Military vehicles. No standard applies to a vehicle or item of equipment manufactured for, and sold directly to, the Armed Forces of the United States in conformity with contractual specifications.

(c) Export. No standard applies to a vehicle or item of equipment in the circumstances provided in section 108 (b) (5) of the Act (15 U.S.C. 1397 (b) (5)."

We understand that the standard does not apply to military or export vehicles. Will we be allowed to drive on public roads export and/or military buses that do not meet the minimum standards to a port or other destination? If not, what will we have to do to them so that they can be driven on public roads?

8. Standard No. 108 S3.4.3: "Taillamps, license plate lamps, and side marker lamps shall be illuminated when the headlamps are illuminated."

This standard does not mention parking lamps. We would then assume that the parking lamps may or may not be illuminated when the headlamps are illuminated at our discretion or the chassis manufacturer's discretion. Is this correct?

9. Standard No. 108 Table II Location of Equipment

Enclosed are two prints of

34754 Layout, Lamps and Reflex Reflector Locations, 1968 Model, 74" Headroom Conventional Bus

34755 Layout, Lamps and Reflex Reflector Locations, 1968 Model, 77" Headroom Conventional Bus

34756 Layout, Lamps and Reflex Reflector Locations, 1968 Model, 74" Headroom All American and Pusher Bus

34757 Layout, Lamps and Reflex Reflector Locations, 1968 Model, 77" Headroom All American and Pusher Bus

These prints show the location of lamps and reflex reflectors we plan to supply to comply with Standard 108 Table II. Are these locations in compliance? If not, please mark one each of the prints with acceptable locations and return them to us.

We certainly appreciate your help and consideration on these matters.

Sincerely, David A. Phelps, Jr. Engineering Services

Enclosures

ID: nht89-1.16

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/06/89 EST

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL NHTSA

TO: LEONARD M. PERKINS

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 09/07/88 FROM LEONARD M. PERKINS TO ROBERT BURNLEY -- DOT

TEXT: Dear Mr. Perkins:

Secretary Burnley has asked me to respond to your letter of September 7, 1988, with respect to your lighting device. In essence, this is a center high-mounted stop lamp, with turn signal lamps adjacent to it. You believe that high-mounted turn signals "joined with the rear window brake light should have a dramatic effect on rear and side collections", but you have been told that "this conception is at present illegal."

Paragraph S4.4 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 states that "no high-mounted stop lamp shall be combined with any other lamp or reflective device." We interpret this as prohibiting lamps or reflective devices that share a single lens or c ompartment with the center highmounted lamp. Your device shows lamp adjacent to the center highmounted lamp but not combined with it. Therefore, your device is not prohibited by that paragraph of the standard if you wish to market this device as origina l equipment. The next question to ask is whether it impairs the effectiveness of required lighting equipment (paragraph S4.1.3), principally the center stoplamp. For example, if the yellow turn signals were too bright or if the color of the turn signal were red, these lamps might "impair the effectiveness" of the center stoplamp. However, this is a determination to be made, in the first instance, by the manufacturer of the vehicle who must certify compliance with Standard No. 108.

If you wish to sell your device in the aftermarket, it is acceptable under Federal law if its installation does not adversely affect the operation of motor vehicle equipment installed in accordance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard so that the equipment would no longer comply with the standard. Assuming that the installation does not have this effect, the legality of installing or using such a device must then be determined according to the laws of any State in which a vehicle so equipped is registered or operated, and these auxiliary lamps must

comply with any State requirements. We cannot advise you on State laws. One source of advice is the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 4600 Wilson Blvd., Arlington, Va. 22203.

Sincerely,

ID: 2806yy

Ms. Rebecca Flint
Polymeric Systems, Inc.
Wheatland and Mason Streets
Phoenixville, PA 19460

Dear Ms. Flint:

This responds to your letter asking whether this agency must approve your product, an epoxy putty that could be used to repair leaking gas tanks. You said a customer would like to market your product "for fleet (buses and truck) maintenance." The answer is no, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not approve or certify products.

By way of background, NHTSA is authorized to issue Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS's) applying to the manufacture of new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA is not authorized to certify or approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment for compliance with our FMVSS's. Instead, under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (copy enclosed), each manufacturer of a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment is responsible for certifying that its products meet all of our applicable safety standards. This process requires each manufacturer to determine in the exercise of due care that its products meet all applicable requirements. NHTSA regularly tests vehicles and equipment for compliance with the FMVSS's as part of its enforcement program. In addition, the agency also investigates safety-related defects in motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment.

There isn't any FMVSS that directly applies to repair putty for fuel tanks. Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 301, Fuel System Integrity, sets performance requirements for new vehicles with a gross vehicle weight rating of 10,000 pounds or less and school buses. The standard does not apply to products sold to repair fuel tanks on vehicles already in use.

Repair of a damaged fuel tank in a new vehicle would be affected by the statutory requirement that the vehicle, when first sold to a consumer, must comply with FMVSS 301. If a new vehicle's fuel tank is repaired prior to such sale, the person making the repairs would be considered a vehicle alterer under our regulation on certification (Part 567, copy enclosed). As an alterer, the person must certify that the fuel system, as altered, continues to comply with all of the applicable requirements of Standard 301.

After a vehicle is first sold to a consumer, repairs to a vehicle are potentially affected by section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Vehicle Safety Act. That section prohibits manufacturers, distributors, dealers, or motor vehicle repair businesses from knowingly rendering inoperative any device or element of design installed in compliance with a FMVSS. However, the agency does not view that prohibition as applying to the repair of a fuel tank which has been previously installed in a vehicle and damaged in use. The agency considers the event that damaged the fuel tank and not any subsequent action by a person repairing the damaged tank in a used vehicle as the event that "rendered inoperative" the compliance of the fuel tank with the standard. Thus, a person in one of the aforementioned categories may use the putty to repair a damaged fuel tank on a used vehicle without regard to the render inoperative prohibition. Of course, however, NHTSA urges all persons repairing motor vehicles to ensure that the repair is done safely.

The prohibition of section 108(a)(2)(A) does not apply to individual vehicle owners who alter their own vehicles. Thus, under our requirements, individual owners may use the repair putty regardless of its effect on the performance of fuel tanks. However, NHTSA encourages vehicle owners not to tamper with vehicle safety equipment if the modification would degrade the safety of the vehicle.

An issue raised by your inquiry is whether the putty is "motor vehicle equipment" under the Vehicle Safety Act. Manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment are subject to the requirements in sections 151-159 of the Safety Act concerning the recall and remedy of products with defects relating to motor vehicle safety. As discussed below, we believe the putty is not motor vehicle equipment.

Section 103(4) of the Act defines, in relevant part, the term "motor vehicle equipment" as:

any system, part, or component of a motor vehicle as originally manufactured or any similar part or component manufactured or sold for replacement or improvement of such system, part, or component or as any accessory, or addition to the motor vehicle . . . (emphasis added).

In determining whether an item of equipment is considered an "accessory . . . to the motor vehicle," NHTSA applies not only the relevant statutory language, but also two criteria. The first criterion is whether a substantial portion of the expected uses of the item are related to the operation or maintenance of motor vehicles. We determine the expected uses by considering product advertising, product labeling, and the type of store that retails the product, as well as available information about the actual use of the product. The second criterion is whether the product is intended to be used principally by ordinary users of motor vehicles (e.g., items normally used by professional vehicle repair and maintenance personnel would not qualify). If the product satifies both criteria, the product is considered to be an "accessory" and thus is subject to the provisions of the Safety Act.

Applying these criteria to your inquiry, the first criterion appears to be satisfied because a substantial portion of the expected uses of the putty is related to the operation or maintenance of motor vehicles. The second criterion, however, does not appear to be satisfied. In a December 21, 1990 telephone conversation with Ms. Fujita of my staff, you stated that the putty would be sold to professional mechanics only. Since your product is not intended for use by ordinary vehicle users, the putty is not considered to be motor vehicle equipment.

Our sister agency in the Department, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), has operational and equipment requirements for commercial vehicles used in interstate commerce. We will forward a copy of your letter to the FHWA for information about those requirements.

I hope this information is helpful.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

Enclosures ref:301, VSA#108 d:l/l4/9l

ID: nht91-1.20

DATE: January 14, 1991

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Rebecca Flint -- Polymeric Systems, Inc.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 8-30-90 from Rebecca Flint to Paul Rice (OCC 5167)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter asking whether this agency must approve your product, an epoxy putty that could be used to repair leaking gas tanks. You said a customer would like to market your product "for fleet (buses and truck) maintenance." The answer is no, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not approve or certify products.

By way of background, NHTSA is authorized to issue Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS's) applying to the manufacture of new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA is not authorized to certify or approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment for compliance with our FMVSS's. Instead, under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (copy enclosed), each manufacturer of a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment is responsible for certifying that its products meet all of our applicable safety standards. This process requires each manufacturer to determine in the exercise of due care that its products meet all applicable requirements. NHTSA regularly tests vehicles and equipment for compliance with the FMVSS's as part of its enforcement program. In addition, the agency also investigates safety-related defects in motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment.

There isn't any FMVSS that directly applies to repair putty for fuel tanks. Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 301, Fuel System Integrity, sets performance requirements for new vehicles with a gross vehicle weight rating of 10,000 pounds or less and school buses. The standard does not apply to products sold to repair fuel tanks on vehicles already in use.

Repair of a damaged fuel tank in a new vehicle would be affected by the statutory requirement that the vehicle, when first sold to a consumer, must comply with FMVSS 301. If a new vehicle's fuel tank is repaired prior to such sale, the person making the repairs would be considered a vehicle alterer under our regulation on certification (Part 567, copy enclosed). As an alterer, the person must certify that the fuel system, as altered, continues to comply with all of the applicable requirements of Standard 301.

After a vehicle is first sold to a consumer, repairs to a vehicle are potentially affected by section 108(a)(2)(A) of the vehicle safety Act. That section prohibits manufacturers, distributors, dealers, or motor vehicle repair businesses from knowingly rendering inoperative any device or element of design installed in compliance with a FMVSS. However, the agency does not view that prohibition as applying to the repair of a fuel tank which has been previously installed in a vehicle and damaged in use. The agency considers the event that damaged the fuel tank and not any

subsequent action by a person repairing the damaged tank in a used vehicle as the event that "rendered inoperative" the compliance of the fuel tank with the standard. Thus, a person in one of the aforementioned categories may use the putty to repair a damaged fuel tank on a used vehicle without regard to the render inoperative prohibition. Of course, however, NHTSA urges all persons repairing motor vehicles to ensure that the repair is done safely.

The prohibition of section 108(a)(2)(A) does not apply to individual vehicle owners who alter their own vehicles. Thus, under our require- ments, individual owners may use the repair putty regardless of its effect on the performance of fuel tanks. However, NHTSA encourages vehicle owners not to tamper with vehicle safety equipment if the modification would degrade the safety of the vehicle.

An issue raised by your inquiry is whether the putty is "motor vehicle equipment under the Vehicle Safety Act. Manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment are subject to the requirements in sections 151-159 of the Safety Act concerning the recall and remedy of products with defects relating to motor vehicle safety. As discussed below, we believe the putty is not motor vehicle equipment.

Section 103(4) of the Act defines, in relevant part, the term "motor vehicle equipment" as:

any system, part, or component of a motor vehicle as originally manufactured or any similar part or component manufactured or sold for replacement or improvement of such system, part, or component or as any ACCESSORY, OR ADDITION TO THE MOTOR VEHICLE . . . (emphasis added).

In determining whether an item of equipment is considered an "accessory . . . to the motor vehicle," NHTSA applies not only the relevant statutory language, but also two criteria. The first criterion is whether a substantial portion of the expected uses of the item are related to the operation or maintenance of motor vehicles. We determine the expected uses by considering product advertising, product labeling, and the type of store that retails the product, as well as available information about the actual use of the product. The second criterion is whether the product is intended to be used principally by ordinary users of motor vehicles (e.g., items normally used by professional vehicle repair and maintenance personnel would not qualify). If the product satisfies both criteria, the product is considered to be an "accessory" and thus is subject to the provisions of the Safety Act.

Applying these criteria to your inquiry, the first criterion appears to be satisfied because a substantial portion of the expected uses of the putty is related to the operation or maintenance of motor vehicles. The second criterion, however, does not appear to be satisfied. In a December 21, 1990 telephone conversation with Ms. Fujita of my staff, you stated that the putty would be sold to professional mechanics only. Since your product is not intended for use by ordinary vehicle users, the putty is not considered to be motor vehicle equipment.

Our sister agency in the Department, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), has operational and equipment requirements for commercial vehicles used in interstate commerce. We will forward a copy of your letter to the FHWA for information about those requirements.

I hope this information is helpful.

ID: nht94-1.80

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: March 16, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Harold R. Burke, Esq. -- Duel and Holland (Greenwich, CT)

TITLE: Importation of Type M-151 Military Vehicle

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 7/8/93 from Harold R. Burke to Office of the Chief Counsel, NHTSA (OCC 8867)

TEXT:

We have received your letter of July 8, 1993, asking several questions about the motor vehicle importation regulations as they apply to M-151 military vehicles. I apologize for the delay in our response. Your client wishes to import for resale in the U .S. approximately 8,000 such vehicles built in the U.S. between 1973075, and which, according to you, have never been used.

Before I answer your questions, you should know that it has been the policy of the Department of Defense (DOD) for at least two decades to section and scrap M-151s at the end of their useful military life rather than to sell them for civilian use or allo w further use by other government agencies. This policy, which was developed with the participation and support of this agency, is based on the tendency of the M-151 to turn over during quick turning maneuvers or when driven by unskilled operators. DOD has followed this policy consistently, notwithstanding the economic benefits that would accrue to the government were the vehicles allowed to be sold to the public or to be operated by other Federal agencies, such as the U.S. Park Service, in non-milita ry applications. The unvarying applicability of this policy highlights the safety concern of two Federal Departments for civilian use of the M-151, and we believe that your client should be aware of the potential liability that sale to the public would e ntail.

Your client should also be aware that, under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.), (the Act), any person importing motor vehicles for resale is considered the "manufacturer" of these vehicles, and would have the same responsibility as the original manufacturer to notify owners and remedy safety related defects in the event they occurred in the M- 151. (15 U.S.C. 1391(5)). For example, the agency has the authority to determine that a tendency to overturn is a defec t in performance, a safety related defect which would require the importer for resale to notify and remedy in accordance with statutory requirements (15 U.S.C. 1411 et seq.).

You have asked the following three questions:

"1. As U.S. origin vehicles which have been outside this country since 1975 are they now classified as 'foreign' vehicles which are subject to current D.O.T. and E.P.A. safety and emissions criteria?"

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration does not classify motor vehicles as "domestic" and "foreign." Any motor vehicle, whether manufactured in the U.S. or elsewhere, must conform to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMV SS) in order to be sold in the U.S. The FMVSS that apply to a motor vehicle to be imported into the U.S. are those that were in effect at the time the vehicle was manufactured, not those in effect at the time of its importation. We are unable to advise you on the regulations of the

Environmental Protection Agency as it is an agency independent of the Department of Transportation.

In order to be imported into the U.S., a motor vehicle must conform with (or be brought into conformity with) any applicable FMVSS. Although the M-151 is a "motor vehicle" under the Act, from the beginning the agency on its own volition has excluded mot or vehicles manufactured for and sold directly to the Armed Forces of the United States in conformity with contractual specifications from compliance with the FMVSS (49 CFR 571.7(a)), though retaining jurisdiction over them for safety defect notification and remedy campaigns. This means that the M-151 was not designed to comply with FMVSS at the time of its manufacture.

For importers of an M-151 other than the Armed Forces of the United States, the importer would be required, as a condition of importation, to bring the M-151 into compliance with the FMVSS that applied at the time of its manufacture. However, because of the restrictions imposed by the Imported Vehicle Safety Compliance Act of 1988 (PL 100-562), it is no longer simple to import nonconforming motor vehicles to which the FMVSS apply. Under this recent legislation, the agency must make a formal determinati on, either pursuant to a petition or on its own motion, that the vehicles are capable of conversion to meet the FMVSS. Following this, a vehicle may be imported by its owner, only if the owner has a contract with a "registered importer" (one whom the ag ency has recognized as a converter) to convert the vehicles, or if the importer itself is a registered importer. However, nonconforming vehicles which are imported for resale can only be imported by a registered importer. We would require any prospecti ve civilian importer of an M-151 manufactured in 1973-75 to demonstrate that the vehicle is capable of conversion to comply with the FMVSS that applied to multipurpose passenger vehicles during that period. A bond equal to 150% of the value of the vehic le as determined by the U.S. Customs Service must also be posted during the conversion process.

"2. If they are not considered 'foreign' vehicles what, if any, D.O.T. regulations would apply to the registration of such vehicles for use on U.S. roads?"

"3. If they are considered 'foreign' vehicles . . . ."

There are no Federal registration requirements for vehicles sold to persons other than Federal agencies. State regulations apply. We are not conversant with State registration laws, and refer inquirers for an opinion to the American Association of Moto r Vehicle Administrators, 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA 22203.

ID: 86-2.46

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/28/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Bill Taylor

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Bill Taylor General Manager Airport Honda P.O. Box 297 Alcoa, Tenn. 377

Dear Mr. Taylor:

This is in reply to your letter of February 24, 1986 to Ms. DeMeter of this office with reference to the installation of a luggage rack on a vehicle equipped with a center high-mounted atop lamp, and the liability of a dealer for such installation if in accident occurred while the rack was in use.

Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, a dealer of new passenger cars must not perform such modifications as will create a noncompliance with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards before initial sale of the car. This means that a deck mounted luggage rack must be mounted in such a way that the center high-mounted stop lamp continues to meet the visibility and photometric requirements that it did when originally installed. However, compliance with these requirements is judged with the rack in place, and not with the rack in use. There is no liability of a dealer under the Vehicle Safety Act for any accidents that might occur while the rack is in use.

We are not aware of any suits in State courts seeking recovery against dealers who have installed luggage racks on cars equipped with center high-mounted stop lamps.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

February 24, 1986

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Chief Counsel's Office 400 7th St. Washington, DC 20590

Dear Ms DeMeter:

I am writing in reference to a telephone conversation I had with Ms. Walsh of Consumer Affairs on February 25. I was inquiring as to whether or not federal laws would be violated by installing a luggage rack on the trunk of a 1986 Honda. By doing so, if the driver was to put luggage on the rack, it would block the high-mount stop light. My concern is not only if the customer would be in violation of federal law, but also, what would the dealership's liabilities be if there was an accident while the luggage rack was in use.

Ms. Walsh's reply, after talking with you, was that there is no liability to the dealership. In either case, please send me a letter stating what liability if any, the dealership may have.

Sincerely,

Bill Taylor General Manager

rjc

ID: nht93-4.49

DATE: June 28, 1993

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, U.S. Department of Transportation, NHTSA

TO: Henry Murillo

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 4-20-93 from Henry Murillo to Z. Taylor Vinson (OCC 8609).

TEXT: This responds to your letter of April 20, 1993, to Taylor Vinson of this Office. You have asked for an interpretation of the regulations regarding new automotive products, and how they apply to your invention, the "Green Light System". This system consists of two strips of green plastic, illuminated from behind. One would be mounted "somewhere in the front of the car", and the other "possibly on top of the cyclops (rear top dash mounted brake light)." The flashing of each unit (strip plus light source) would indicate to a vehicle either in front or behind when it was safe to pass.

The general rule with automotive accessory equipment that a dealer adds before sale of a vehicle is that it must not create a noncompliance with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards to which the vehicle manufacturer has certified.

For example, the Green Light System unit installed in the front should be mounted so that it does not block the field of view required by the safety standard on rearview mirrors (Standard No. 111) or that it is not in the head impact area of the instrument panel so as to interfere with interior occupant protection requirements (Standard No. 201).

When the Green Light System is mounted in the rear, the same concerns with the field of view required by Standard No. 111 still apply. With respect to our safety standard on vehicle lighting, Standard No. 108, in order for the vehicle to remain in compliance the Green Light System must not impair the effectiveness of the lighting equipment required by Standard No. 108. We believe that the Green Light System mounted in the rear of the vehicle has the potential to impair required rear lamp systems equipped with red lenses if the Green Light System is wired so that it may operate simultaneously with one of these systems. The public is not used to seeing a flashing green lamp at the rear, and momentary confusion may result. For example, a driver following a slow-moving vehicle could confront simultaneous operation of a flashing red turn signal and a flashing Green Light System, and would not know whether the leading vehicle was intending to turn or signalling that it was safe to pass.

Accessory equipment that is installed on vehicles after their sale, when they are in use, is also permissible if its installation by a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business does not knowingly create a partial or total noncompliance with a standard. However, under Federal law, the vehicle owner may install aftermarket equipment such as the Green Light System without regard to its effect upon compliance with the standards. There remains the question of whether use of accessory equipment such as the Green Light System is permissible under the laws of the State where the vehicle is registered and operated. We are unable to answer questions relating to State laws, and suggest that you consult the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Va. 22203.

ID: nht89-2.42

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/24/89

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

TO: ROBERT KNAUFF -- APPLIED RESEARCH & DESIGN, INC.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 06/08/89 FROM ROBERT J. KNAUFF -- APPLIED RESEARCH AND DESIGN INC TO; KATHLEEN DEMETER -- DOT; LETTER DATED 08/16/88 FROM RICHARD H. SCHULTZ -- AMERICAN PULSE LIGHTS INC TO ROBERT KNAUFF; LETTER DATED 12/07/87 FROM RICHARD H. SCHUL TZ -- AMERICAN PULSE LIGHTS TO ROBERT J. KNAUFF

TEXT: Dear Mr. Knauff:

On April 21, 1989, you wrote the agency with respect 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 avail able 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 t he 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 equip ment 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 1987 and 1988 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 1, 1985, by Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 Lamps, Reflective Devic es, and Associated Equipment. Paragraph S5.4 of Standard No. 108 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. 108 against physical combinations of li ghting 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 vehic les, it is permissible as long as it does not impair the effectiveness of other lamps that Standard No. 108 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. Howe ver, the lamp would be permissible for installation on passenger cars manufactured before September 1, 1985, 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 m otor 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 16, 1988. 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 rende ring 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 sig nals 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, tha t 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. 108. 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,

ID: 1920y

Robert Knauff, President
Applied Research & Design, Inc.
Markethouse Suite 405
289 E. 5th St
St. Paul, MN 55l0l

Dear Mr. Knauff:

On April 21, l989, you wrote the agency with respect 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

ref:l08 d:7/24/89

ID: 17323.ztv

Mr. Tadashi Suzuki
Manager
Automotive Equipment
Legal & Homologation Sect.
Stanley Electric Co.
2-9-13, Nakameguro-ku
Tokyo 153, Japan

Re: Headlamp light source arrangement

Dear Mr. Suzuki:

This is in reply to your letter of January 29, 1998, asking about the relationship of a planned replaceable light source headlamp system to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

Paragraph S7.5(e)(2)(i)(A) specifies that the lower beam in a headlighting system may be provided "by the outboard light source (or the uppermost if arranged vertically) . . . ." In the system of interest to Stanley, the lower beam light source is placed above the upper beam light source but is also closer to the vehicle centerline than the upper beam light source. You have asked, in essence, whether this arrangement would comply with paragraph S7.5(e)(2)(i)(A).

This requirement originated with four-lamp headlamp sealed beam lighting systems in which headlamps were initially located side by side, with an identical horizontal centerline. Thus, the outboard specification was the one that was initially deemed most critical in drafting an amendment to Standard No. 108. However, when it was brought to the attention of the drafters that manufacturers intended to adopt four-lamp systems in which one lamp was mounted over the other, with an identical vertical centerline, the specification was proposed that the lower beam be provided by the upper lamp. The specification was applied to headlamp systems with replaceable light sources when these systems became permissible under Standard No. 108.

In Stanley's design, the two light sources do not have a common horizontal or vertical centerline. The horizontal centerline of the lower beam light source is 110 mm above that of the upper beam light source. Thus, the lower beam is clearly provided by the upper light source, in accordance with Standard No. 108. However, the vertical centerline of the lower beam light source is 20 mm inboard of that of the upper beam light source. That does not comport with the original intent of Standard No. 108 that the lower beam be provided by either the outermost lamp or by one with an identical vertical centerline to the upper beam lamp. In short, the lower beam light source must not only be the uppermost of the two light sources but, also, its vertical centerline must not be inboard of the vertical centerline of the upper beam light source. This means that Stanley's design does not comply with Standard No. 108.

Sincerely,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
Ref:108
d.3/25/98