ID: nht94-1.41

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: February 7, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Cheryl Graham -- District Manager, Northeast Region, ARI

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 11/10/93 from Cheryl Graham to Chief Counsel's Office, NHTSA (OCC-9345)

TEXT:

We have received your letter of November 10, 1993, asking about the permissibility of aftermarket installation of an auxiliary pair of stop lamps "at each side of the rear window."

by way of background information the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) issues Federal motor vehicle safety standards under the authority of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Safety Act). Under that Act, the sole res traint upon modifications to vehicles in use is that, if performed by a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business, the modifications must not "knowingly render inoperative, in whole or in part, any device or element of design in stalled on...a motor vehicle in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard...." (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)).

In NHTSA's view, if the modifications tend to impair the safety effectiveness of the "device or element of design," then, at the minimum, a partial inoperability may have occurred within the meaning of the statutory prohibition. The question raised by y our letter, therefore, is whether the installation of the auxiliary stop lamps in that location would impair the effectiveness of the three original equipment stop lamps.

NHTSA decided to require the center highmounted stop lamp in addition to the then-existing original equipment two-lamp stop lamp system following research which indicated that a three-lamp system of this configuration was demonstrably more effective in p reventing rear end crashes than other rear end lighting systems that were tested, and considerably lower in cost. Included in the testing was a four-lamp system which incorporated two lamps at each side of the rear window, but no tests were conducted on the five-lamp system you describe.

The reasons for the better performance of the three-lamp system are unclear, but the triangular lighting array proved to be more effective than the trapezoidal four-lamp system (and more effective than a system tested which separated the usual stop lamp from the tail lamp).

Your customer appears to believe that the ability of following drivers to avoid rear end crashes is enhanced by a five-lamp stop lamp system. On the other hand, your proposed system, by incorporating the two lamps at each side of the rear window, would appear to change the lighting array.

We cannot say that the five-lamp system would either enhance or detract from safety. Thus, we cannot find that the additional lamps would "render inoperative" the original equipment three-lamp system, and it would be permissible under the regulations of this agency. However, the

permissibility of such a modification would be determinable under State law. We are unable to advise you on the laws of the various States and suggest that you write the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators for an interpretation. Its add ress is 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA 22203.

You have also asked "if the work is done improperly and results in an accident, where does the liability lie?" This question is a matter of state law, and we suggest that you consult a local attorney concerning it.

ID: nht94-1.55

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: February 14, 1994

FROM: Gary D. March -- Director, Illinois Department of Transportation, Division of Traffic Safety

TO: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: Docket No. 88-21; Notice No. 3; 57 FR 49413, November 2, 1992

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 3/24/94 from John Womack to Gary D. March (A42; Std. 217)

TEXT:

On November 2, 1992, NHTSA published a Final Rule which revised the minimum requirements for school bus emergency exits and improved access to school bus emergency doors. I am sure you would agree that the purpose of this rulemaking was to enhance the s afety of children being transported in school buses. The Docket states that this Final Rule is effective May 2, 1994. We at the Illinois Department of Transportation interpret this Docket to mean school buses manufactured on or after May 2, 1994 must c omply with these new standards.

In September of 1993, we were asked the following question by a school bus distributor here in Illinois:

Does the vehicle's "date of manufacture" correspond to the vehicle's chassis completion date or the vehicle's body completion date? In essence, he asked when do manufacturers have to comply with this Docket?

On September 27, 1993, Ms. Catherine Allen of my staff spoke to Mr. David Elias of NHTSA and asked him the above question. He indicated the date of manufacture is correlated to the vehicle's date of completion. The vehicle's date of completion correspo nds to the date when the body and chassis are combined to form a completed vehicle. Therefore, we interpreted that answer to mean vehicles "combined" on or after May 2, 1994 must comply with this Docket.

On February 2, 1994, Ms. Allen spoke to Ms. Jane Dawson of Thomas Built Buses and asked if school buses manufactured on or after May 2, 1994 would meet the new standards. She replied, "Only if the chassis was manufactured on or after May 2, 1994." She indicated multi-stage manufacturers have the option of choosing the chassis manufacture date, the body manufacture date or a date in- between for the effective date of new standards.

On February 3, 1994, Ms. Allen spoke to Mr. Charles Hott of NHTSA and asked him the same question. He confirmed what Ms. Dawson had said.

Therefore, according to Mr. Hott's interpretation, a school bus which clearly displays a June 1994, or later, date of manufacture will not need to meet the standards of Docket 88-21 if the chassis was completed prior to May 2, 1994.

Since we have received two different interpretations from Mr. Elias and Mr. Hott, we are asking for an official interpretation from the agency. Currently, school districts are in the process of taking bids on buses that will be

delivered and perhaps have bodies mounted after May 2, 1994 to chassis manufactured prior to May 2, 1994. Therefore, I am sure you can understand the necessity of a prompt and official interpretation by your office.

If you need any additional information from us, please contact Mr. Larry Wort at 217/782-4974 or Ms. Catherine Allen at 217/785-1181. I will appreciate your expeditious response.

ID: nht94-1.60

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: February 14, 1994

FROM: March, Gary D. -- Director, Illinois Department Of Transportation, Division Of Traffic Safety

TO: Womack, John -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: Docket No. 88-21; Notice No. 3 57 FR 49413, November 2, 1992

ATTACHMT: Attached To 10/01/94 (EST.) Letter From John Womack To Gary D. March (A42; STD. 217; Part 586)

TEXT: On November 2, 1992, NHTSA published a Final Rule which revised the minimum requirements for school bus emergency exits and improved access to school bus emergency doors. I am sure you would agree that the purpose of this rulemaking was to enhance the s afety of children being transported in school buses. The Docket states that this Final Rule is effective May 2, 1994. We at the Illinois Department of Transportation interpret this Docket to mean school buses manufactured on or after May 2, 1994 must c omply with these new standards.

In September of 1993, we were asked the following question by a school bus distributor here in Illinois:

Does the vehicle's "date of manufacture" correspond to the vehicle's chassis completion date or the vehicle's body completion date? In essence, he asked when do manufacturers have to comply with this Docket?

On September 27, 1993, Ms. Catherine Allen of my staff spoke to Mr. David Elias of NHTSA and asked him the above question. He indicated the date of manufacture is correlated to the vehicle's date of completion. The vehicle's date of completion correspo nds to the date when the body and chassis are combined to form a completed vehicle. Therefore, we interpreted that answer to mean vehicles "combined" on or after May 2, 1994 must comply with this Docket.

On February 2, 1994, Ms. Allen spoke to Ms. Jane Dawson of Thomas Built Buses and asked if school buses manufactured on or after May 2, 1994 would meet the new standards. She replied, "Only if the chassis was manufactured on or after May 2, 1994." She i ndicated multi-stage manufacturers have the option of choosing the chassis manufacture date, the body manufacture date or a date in-between for the effective date of new standards.

On February 3, 1994, Ms. Allen spoke to Mr. Charles Hott of NHTSA and asked him the same question. He confirmed what Ms. Dawson had said.

Therefore, according to Mr. Hott's interpretation, a school bus which clearly displays a June 1994, or later, date of manufacture will not need to meet the standards of Docket 88-21 if the chassis was completed prior to May 2, 1994.

Since we have received two different interpretations from Mr. Elias and Mr. Hott, we are asking for an official interpretation from the agency. Currently, school districts are in the process of taking bids on buses that will be delivered and perhaps hav e bodies mounted after May 2, 1994 to chassis manufactured prior to May 2, 1994. Therefore, I am sure you can understand the necessity of a prompt and official interpretation by your office.

If you need any additional information from us, please contact Mr. Larry Wort at 217/782-4974 or Ms. Catherine Allen at 217/785-1181. I will appreciate your expeditious response.

ID: nht91-6.15

DATE: October 7, 1991

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Jon Nisper -- K.B. Lighting, Inc.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 8-23-91 from Jon Nisper to Jerry Medelin (OCC 6403)

TEXT:

This responds to your FAX of August 23, 1991, to Jere Medlin of this agency. You have enclosed a drawing of a combination headlamp/turn signal lamp assembly that depicts two possible positions ("Case l," "Case 2") for the inboard wall. With respect to each, you have asked "where should the 100mm separation be measured for turn signal headlamp position?"

Let me begin by noting that there is no requirement in Standard No. 108 that front turn signal lamps be separated from headlamps by at least 100mm. However, if there is less than a 100mm separation of those lamps, S5.3.1.7 of Standard No. 108 provides that the multiplier applied to obtain the required minimum luminous intensities for the lamps shall be 2.5. NHTSA determines the distance of the separation pursuant to the provisions of paragraph 5.1.5.4.2 of SAE Standard J588 NOV84, "Turn Signal Lamps for Use on Motor Vehicles Less Than 2032 mm in Overall Width." That paragraph provides the following means of measuring spacing:

"Spacing for a front turn signal lamp which primarily employs a reflector (for example, one of parabolic section) in conjunction with a lens to meet photometric requirements, shall be measured from the geomeric centroid of the front turn signal functional lighted area to the lighted edge of the low beam headlamp or any additional lamp used to supplement or used in lieu of the lower beam, such as an auxiliary low beam or fog lamp."

We would apply this as follows. You stated in your letter that the inboard walls in your proposed headlamp/turn signal assembly serve no functional purpose. We interpret this as meaning that neither the inboard wall in Case 1 or Case 2 shown in your drawing would be used optically in the headlamp. Under this assumption, and the assumption that no direct light from the bulb filament illuminates the outer edges of the headlamp lens nearest the turn signal, the lighted edge of the headlamp reflector would end where the relevant inboard wall meets the reflector. Pursuant to SAE Standard J588 NOV 84, one would then take a vertical plane that is parallel to the axis of the headlamp bulb, and project it from the end of the lighted edge of the reflector (i.e., where the respective inboard wall meets the reflector) onto the lens. You have already drawn this as a line in the drawing enclosed with your FAX. Next, take the axis of the turn signal bulb and project it onto the lens (this line also exists in your enclosed drawing). To determine the separation, one would then measure the distance between the projected points on each lens. Should the headlamp lens area between the turn signal and the projected vertical wall line onto the headlamp lens be lighted, either on purpose or inadvertently, then the actual lighted edge of the headlamp would be used for measurement purposes.

ID: nht95-4.37

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: September 26, 1995

FROM: Carol Stroebel -- Director of Intergovernmental Affairs, NHTSA

TO: The Honorable Bart Stupak -- U.S. House of Representatives

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 8/21/95 LETTER FROM BART STUPAK TO BRENDA BROWN

TEXT: Dear Mr. Stupak:

Thank you for your letter enclosing correspondence from your constituent, Mr. Kurt B. Ries, concerning our requirements for school vehicles. Your letter was referred to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) for reply, since NHTSA re gulates the manufacture of all vehicles, including vans and school buses.

Mr. Ries, Director of the Northeast Michigan Consortium, asks for relief from what he believes is a new Federal regulation. The Northeast Michigan Consortium uses a number of 15-passenger vans to transport students to employment training programs and jo bs. Mr. Ries believes the new Federal regulation will require all vehicles transporting students, including vans, to be replaced with "mini-school buses," which he believes is economically unfeasible.

I appreciate this opportunity to address your constituent's concerns. As explained below, the new regulation that Mr. Ries is concerned about is not a Federal regulation, but one that Michigan is considering adopting as State law.

NHTSA has issued safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles, including school buses. Under our regulations, a "school bus" is a vehicle carrying 11 or more persons, that is sold to transport children to school or school-related events. Congress has directed NHTSA to require school bus manufacturers to meet safety standards on aspects of school bus safety, including floor strength, seating systems, and crashworthiness. Each seller of a new school bus must ensure that the vehicle is certified as meeting these safety standards.

While NHTSA regulates the manufacture and sale of new school buses, this agency does not regulate the use of vehicles. Thus, we do not have a present or pending requirement that would require Mr. Ries to cease using his vans for school transportation.

The requirements for the use of school buses and other vehicles are matters for each State to decide. We understand from Mr. Roger Lynas, the State Pupil Transportation Director in Michigan, that Michigan is considering changing its school bus definitio n to make it more similar to NHTSA's. Such an amendment could affect what vehicles can be used for school transportation under State law. For more information about Michigan's proposed amendment, we suggest Mr. Ries contact Mr. Lynas at (517) 373-4013.

NHTSA does not require States to permit only the use of "school buses" when buses are used for school transportation. However, we support State decisions to do so. NHTSA provides recommendations for the States on various operational aspects of school b us and pupil transportation safety programs, in the form of Highway Safety Program Guideline No. 17, "Pupil Transportation Safety," copy enclosed. Since school buses have special safety features that conventional buses do not have, such as padded, high- backed seats, protected fuel tanks, and warning lights and stop arms, they are the safest means to transport school children. Guideline 17 recommends that all buses regularly used for student transportation meet our school bus safety standards.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.

ID: 9252

Mr. James Schaub
Midas Muffler Shop
180 Gause Blvd.
Slidell, LA 70458

Dear Mr. Schaub:

This responds to your letter asking us about Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 105 with regard to replacing brake rotors and/or drums. I apologize for the delay in our response. You stated that local automobile dealership service departments do not follow manufacturers' recommendations in this area, causing your customers to believe that your shop is fraudulently selling and installing parts on vehicles when they are not needed. You requested an interpretation of Standard No. 105 in this regard, and asked whether there is any basis for fraud in replacing rotors and drums when they are outside manufacturer safety tolerances. You stated that if you can present an established standard to your customers, you can prevent them from believing they have been taken advantage of.

By way of background information, the National Traffic and Motor Safety Act (Safety Act) authorizes the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards for new motor vehicles and new motor vehicle equipment. Standard No. 105, Hydraulic Brake Systems, specifies requirements for hydraulic brake systems and associated parking brake systems. The standard applies to new motor vehicles.

While you asked for an interpretation of Standard No. 105, that standard is of little relevance to your situation. This is because the Federal motor vehicle safety standards do not apply to a motor vehicle after its first sale to a consumer. The Safety Act does include some provisions which are relevant to used vehicles. In particular, the Safety Act prohibits manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and motor vehicle repair businesses from knowingly rendering inoperative any safety device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with a safety standard. However, this provision would ordinarily not be relevant to a decision whether to replace, or mill or turn, worn brake drums and rotors.

With respect to your desire to show your customers an established standard in this area, I can call your attention to NHTSA's vehicle in use inspection standards. These standards set forth criteria for, among other things, inspecting service brake systems. You should be aware that these standards were developed for use by the States in establishing their inspection requirements. Thus, the standards only apply to the extent that they are adopted by individual States. I have enclosed a copy of the standards for your information and particularly call your attention to section 570.5(f). That section, which applies to vehicles with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less, reads as follows:

(f) Disc and drum condition. If the drum is embossed with a maximum safe diameter dimension or the rotor is embossed with a minimum safety thickness dimension, the drum or disc shall be within the appropriate specifications. . . .

This section reflects the importance NHTSA places on following manufacturer recommendations in this area.

The states may regulate the repair of motor vehicles. We suggest that you investigate the laws of Louisiana to see whether they affect your situation.

We cannot advise you about Federal or state requirements concerning fraud. You may wish to contact the Federal Trade Commission, your state government, and/or a private attorney about this matter.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosure

ref:105#570 d:5/18/94

ID: 9345

Cheryl Graham, District Manager
Northeast Region
ARI
P.O. Box 5039
Mt. Laurel, NJ 08054

Dear Ms. Graham:

We have received your letter of November 10, 1993, asking about the permissibility of aftermarket installation of an auxiliary pair of stop lamps "at each side of the rear window."

By way of background information the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) issues Federal motor vehicle safety standards under the authority of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Safety Act). Under that Act, the sole restraint upon modifications to vehicles in use is that, if performed by a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business, the modifications must not "knowingly render inoperative, in whole or in part, any device or element of design installed on . . . a motor vehicle in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard . . . ." (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)).

In NHTSA's view, if the modifications tend to impair the safety effectiveness of the "device or element of design", then, at the minimum, a partial inoperability may have occurred within the meaning of the statutory prohibition. The question raised by your letter, therefore, is whether the installation of the auxiliary stop lamps in that location would impair the effectiveness of the three original equipment stop lamps.

NHTSA decided to require the center highmounted stop lamp in addition to the then-existing original equipment two-lamp stop lamp system following research which indicated that a three- lamp system of this configuration was demonstrably more effective in preventing rear end crashes than other rear end lighting systems that were tested, and considerably lower in cost. Included in the testing was a four-lamp system which incorporated two lamps at each side of the rear window, but no tests were conducted on the five-lamp system you describe. The reasons for the better performance of the three-lamp system are unclear, but the triangular lighting array proved to be more effective than the trapezoidal four-lamp system (and more effective than a system tested which separated the usual stop lamp from the taillamp).

Your customer appears to believe that the ability of following drivers to avoid rear end crashes is enhanced by a five-lamp stop lamp system. On the other hand, your proposed system, by incorporating the two lamps at each side of the rear window, would appear to change the lighting array. We cannot say that the five-lamp system would either enhance or detract from safety. Thus, we cannot find that the additional lamps would "render inoperative" the original equipment three-lamp system, and it would be permissible under the regulations of this agency. However, the permissibility of such a modification would be determinable under State law. We are unable to advise you on the laws of the various States and suggest that you write the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators for an interpretation. Its address is 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA 22203.

You have also asked "if the work is done improperly and results in an accident, where does the liability lie?" This question is a matter of state law, and we suggest that you consult a local attorney concerning it.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

ref:VSA d.2/7/94

ID: nht71-5.57

DATE: 05/12/71

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Robert L. Carter; NHTSA

TO: Mercedes-Benz of North America, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Thank you for your letter of April 20, 1971, regarding an interpretation for seat belt assemblies required by Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208 - Occupant Crash Protection.

It is our intent that an integral (3-point) lap and shoulder belt system, with a sliding attachment, could meet the requirements of the subject standard. Since paragraph S7.1.1 requires automatic adjustment by means of an emergency-locking retractor for this type of integral system (see S7.1.1.3), the sliding attachment friction could not unduly restrict adjusting movements of the belt, however, a nominal friction is permissible and is expected.

The seat belt assembly which you submitted to Mr. Clue Ferguson's Office of Crash Worthiness has been placed in Docket 69-7. This system would appear to have a nominal friction at the sliding adjustment, however, an actual vehicle installation is necessary to enable a full evaluation.

MERCEDES-BENZ OF NORTH AMERICA, INC.

April 20, 1971

Doug W. Toms, Director National Traffic and Highway Safety Administration

Subject: Seat Belt Assemblies According to FMVSS 208

The Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 208 which will be effective January 1, 1972, requires that seat belt assemblies shall adjust to fit the occupant by means of an automatic or emergency locking retractor. The seat belt assembly being considered for installation in our vehicles has been designed to comply with the subject Safety Standard. We would, however, appreciate receiving your confirmation that the design complies with the aspect of performance described in S7.1.1 of the Standard prior to equipping our vehicles.

The subject assembly consists of a single piece of webbing permanently attached at the outboard floor anchorage, with the release/fastening mechanism at the inboard anchorage forming the pelvic restraining loop and a third anchorage behind the shoulder forming the upper torso restraint. The webbing is fed during extension by an emergency locking retractor through the upper shoulder restraint anchorage to provide freedom of movement for the occupant.

Application of this assembly around the occupant is achieved by pulling the "tongue" portion of the attachment hardware from its fully retracted position at the "3" pillar, across the occupant down to the fixed buckle or receptable at the inboard anchorage. The webbing passes loosely through a slot in the tongue to provide a sliding adjustment during this application.

We are requesting your confirmation that this sliding adjustment specifically, will not be considered in non-compliance with your requirement for adjustment by the retractor because of the small amount of friction occuring at the webbing and tongue. It is our opinion that the friction is adequately overcome by the retractor force to provide proper adjustment. Additionally, the assembly when extended for use, will be drawn across the occupant, thus a snug fit across the pelvic region will be provided upon application thereby minimizing the need for further automatic adjustment by the retractor.

A sample of an assembly incorporating this design has been left at Mr. C. Ferguson's office for further evaluation by your staff. Upon receipt of your evaluation of this design we will advise our parent company accordingly.

H. W. Gerth General Manager Product Engineering and Service

cc: Mr. Wilfert Dr. Reidelbach

ID: nht73-4.12

DATE: 04/19/73

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Milwaukee Truck Center Inc.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of March 6, 1973, in which you ask several questions regarding the certification of trucks with concrete mixers. You state that you supply a chassis to the Rex Chainbelt factory in Milwaukee, where a concrete mixer is installed. The combined unit is then shipped to a Rex dealer in Puerto Rico who sells the complete unit to a user. You provide weight ratings for the vehicle as follows: a gross vehicle weight rating, based on axle capacity, of 68,000 pounds: a rating, based on the tire capacity, of 56,740 pounds, and a gross weight of 66,800 pounds. Based on these figures you ask (1) Whether the truck can be completed in this fashion and shipped by you to Puerto Rico; (2) Whether the dealer in Puerto Rico can promise to install larger tires at a later date; (3) Whether Rex Chainbelt can certify the chassis at 68,000 pounds gross weight rating if the dealer in Puerto Rico notifies Rex that he will change the tires at a later date (4) Whether the chassis manufacturer can certify the truck chassis for a greater capacity than the lightest component if the local dealer or customer will notify him that they will bring the chassis to the higher certified level, and (5) What penalties can be imposed if a dealer or user does not make changes he has promised to make.

It appears to us from your letter that essentially the same issue underlies all your questions; that is, whether a final-stage manufacturer in completing a vehicle may place on it tires that are not sufficient to carry the vehicle at its gross vehicle weight rating, and elicit a promise from either a dealer or user that the latter will change the tires.

A truck that is equipped at the tire of its manufacturer with tires inadequate in terms of load rating to carry the truck at its gross vehicle weight rating would be considered by NHTSA to contain a safety related defect. The manufacturer of such a vehicle is subject to the provisions of section 113 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1402), which requires that notification of the defect be sent to first purchasers and dealers. A truck which was labeled with a gross vehicle weight rating below the minimum specified in 49 CFR 567(g)(3) would be in violation of the Certification regulations, and the person affixing such a label would be subject to civil penalties and other sanctions pursuant to section 108, 109, and 110 of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397, 1398, 1399). The Certification regulations (49 CFR Parts 567, 568) require weight ratings, in cases of vehicles manufactured in two or more stages, to be based on the vehicle as completed by the final-stage manufacturer. That manufacturer is not permitted to delegate his responsibility to a dealer or user.

The NHTSA has made an exception in the case of vehicles shipped without tires, or vehicles shipped with temporary tires that are not intended to be used on the vehicle apart from the limited purpose of shipment. Your letter contains no implication that your case is within this exception.

ID: nht91-1.49

DATE: February 22, 1991

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Samuel Yk Lau -- Kenwo Industries Ltd.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 1-24-91 from Samuel Yk Lau to NHTSA (OCC 5657)

TEXT:

This is in reply to your letter of January 24, 1991, asking the agency for an opinion with respect to an "additional brake lamp" that you manufacture and intend to export to the United States. You ask "if there are any regulations, standards, or approval for this kind of product", and, further, "does this product need to have any certificate or approval before it can be sold or installed?"

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment, has required the additional stop lamp on all passenger cars manufactured on and after September 1, 1985. The Standard specifies performance and minimum lens area requirements for the lamp, and these requirements must be met by any lamp that is used as original equipment on passenger cars, and by any lamp that is intended to replace a lamp originally installed on a car manufactured on and after September 1, 1985. If the lamp is intended as replacement equipment, its manufacturer must provide certification to the distributor or dealer of the lamp that the lamp meets Standard No. 108. For lighting equipment this certifica- tion may be in the form of a DOT symbol on the product, or a written statement on the packaging that the lamp meets all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards, or such other written certification as the lamp manufacturer may choose (e.g., an invoice). In addition, the lamp manufacturer must file an identification Statement with the agency, and a foreign manufacturer must designate an agent in the United States upon which the agency may serve legal process should that be required. However, there is no requirement that a manufacturer obtain approval from the agency before exporting its certified product to the United States and selling it here.

However, Standard No. 108 does not apply to an additional stop lamp that is intended for use in a passenger car manufactured before September 1, 1985, and there is no requirement that it be certified as meeting Standard No. 108. Under this circumstance, we advise that the packaging for any such lamp should clearly state that it is not intended to replace an original equipment center lamp so that legal questions regarding its conformity with Federal requirements do not arise. Even though the lamp is not subject to Standard No. 108, its foreign manufacturer must designate an agent in the United States, as mentioned in the previous paragraph.

An additional stop lamp for passenger cars manufactured before September 1, 1985, is also subject to the laws of the individual States in which the lamp is sold and used. We are unable to advise you on these laws, and suggest that you write for an opinion to the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Va. 22203, USA.

We enclose a copy of Standard No. 108 and of the SAE standard on supplementary stop lamps that is incorporated by reference. We are also enclosing copies of the Manufacturer Identification and Designation of Agent regulations, and of other materials that our Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance provides in response to inquiries of this nature. Questions on these materials should be addressed to that Office.