ID: nht91-1.22

DATE: January 15, 1991

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Kotaro Yakushiji -- Vice President, Emissions & Safety Technology, Mazda Research & Development of North America, Inc.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 11-30-90 to Paul Jackson Rice from Kotaro Yakushiji (OCC-5508)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of November 30, 1990 in which you request an interpretation of Standard No. 216, Roof Crush Resistance-Passenger Cars. Mazda requests an interpretation of the proper application and orientation of the test block when testing vehicles equipped with roof mounted accessories. Specifically, Mazda asks about a vehicle with a sunroof wind deflector. The deflector is constructed of plastic material and is mounted at the wind screen header. You state that, for practical purposes, the wind deflector is not removable during use but can be removed for testing. You further state that the wind deflector neither contributes to nor detracts from roof strength.

You believe that there are three possible test conditions. The first condition would conduct the test with the wind deflector in place. The second condition would conduct the test with the wind deflector removed and with the contact point greater than ten inches from the forward most point of the longitudinal centerline. The third condition would conduct the test with the wind deflector removed and with the contact point positioned according to section S6.2(d) of Standard No. 216.

We have concluded that it is appropriate to conduct the roof crush test with the wind deflector removed. We have reached this conclusion because the purpose of the test is to measure the strength of the roof, not the strength of roof mounted accessories. Further, conducting the test with the wind deflector in place could influence the positioning of the test device.

We have concluded that the third condition, rather than the second condition, is appropriate because the contact point in the third condition is positioned according to section S6.2(d) of the standard. As we stated in a prior interpretation letter (letter of October 3, 1980 to William Blythe), the agency intends to adhere to the ten inch dimension specified in section S6.2(d) regardless of roof configuration.

I hope that this has been helpful. If you have any further questions, please contact John Rigby of this office at 202-366-2992.

ID: nht91-1.23

DATE: January 15, 1991

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: John K. Roberts -- Vice President, Muth Advanced Technologies

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 11-29-90 to Richard Van Iderstine from John K. Roberts (OCC-5511)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of November 29, 1990, to Richard Van Iderstine of this agency. You are developing a "Stop Turn Mirror" (STM) which you intend to be used "in combination with (or possibly in place of) center high-mounted stop lamps (CHMSL's). The STM is so designed that it appears as a mirror to a vehicle operator, but as a stop and turn signal indication system to the operator of a following vehicle.

You have not provided us with a picture of the STM, and we are unable to tell from your letter and description sheet whether the STM is intended to be mounted as an interior rear view mirror, or as an exterior one. As a surrogate for the CHMSL, it would appear to be intended for installation as an interior rear view mirror. However, as a stop and turn signal system, the STM would appear more appropriate as two exterior mirrors mounted on either side of the vehicle. Nevertheless, we shall try to answer your questions on the basis of the information available to us.

Your first question is:

"(1) If the STM satisfies the current explicit requirements of FMVSS 111 and 108, is there further NHTSA approval we should seek before fielding the device?"

NHTSA does not "approve" or "disapprove" items of motor vehicle equipment such as the STM. It will advise whether the equipment is permitted or not permitted by Federal laws, standards, or other regulations. If the equipment is permitted, then it may be manufactured and sold. However, it is the inquirer's responsibility to determine if there are any State and local restrictions on use of the equipment.

For the reasons expressed below, we have serious reservations whether the STM could meet the requirements of Standard No. 108. There is no requirement that a CHMSL be mounted on the rear of a vehicle or in the rear window. STM theoretically could fulfill the requirements for CHMSL's if combined with an interior rear view mirror conventionally placed in the center of the windshield area. In this location, it would appear to be mounted on the vertical centerline of the vehicle as seen from the rear, as the standard requires. The STM will not be perceived by the driver as anything but a mirror; however it must also fulfill the requirement that light from it falling on the rear glazing not reflect back into the mirror, or, in the words of Standard No. 108 that means have been "provided to minimize reflections from the light of the lamp that might be visible to the driver when viewed directly or indirectly in the rear view mirror." Most importantly, the STM must fulfill the photometric requirements and visibility requirements of center high-mounted stop

lamps. Compliance with these requirements is determined with the lamp mounted on or in the vehicle. Because of the different designs of back windows and adjacent "C" pillars in cars, and the distance of the STM from the back window, we believe that compliance with all applicable requirements would be difficult, if not impossible, to achieve.

Standard No. 108 does prohibit the physical combination of the required CHMSL with any other lamp or reflective device. A mirror is not a "reflective device" for purposes of Standard No. 108. Thus the question would be whether the turn signal functions of the STM are clearly separated from the stop function so that the question does not arise as to whether they are combined.

If the STM iS intended to be mounted as one or both exterior rear view mirrors it would not meet the location requirement, and could not be used as a substitute for the required CHMSL. Under Standard No. 108 it would be permissible as supplementary lighting equipment as long as it did not impair the effectiveness of lighting equipment that the standard requires. In this instance, in its role as a supplementary stop/turn signal lamp system, we do not consider that the STM would impair the effectiveness of the original stop/turn signal lamp system.

"(2) Would it be reasonable for us to apply for a variance or to seek a change in FMVSS 108, if the STM doesn't meet the letter of FMVSS 106 in certain applications, but demonstrably meets or exceeds the intent of the standard."

"Variances", or exemptions from one or more requirements of a Federal motor vehicle safety standard are only granted to manufacturers of motor vehicles. We have no authority to exempt an equipment manufacturer.

As for seeking a change in Standard No. 108, while any person may file a petition for rulemaking to change a standard, I have no reason to believe that the agency would look favorably on allowing the CHMSL to be combined with a turn signal lamp, or require use of the STM as standard equipment in place of the present CHMSL.

"(3) Before a pickup truck standard is published, would it be possible to certify the STM as a compliant device and ensure that the wording of the new rule doesn't needlessly prohibit utilization of STM's?"

It is a legal impossibility to certify something as a compliant device before the requirements for that device have been formally adopted, and the effective date established for compliance. We anticipate the "pickup truck standard" as you call it will be published sometime in January 1991. If you find that it prohibits utilization of the STM you may file a petition for reconsideration of the rule with the agency within 30 days after its publication.

" (4) Is it possible that someone at NHTSA would like to see this thing or test it before we go too far in our development and larketing? It may be a useful development in vehicle safety devices with importance to industry and the public. It also may be a ready solution to the difficult issue of requiring CHMSL's on pick-up trucks. We would be happy to support

any such investigative effort by supplying a model, information, etc.

We appreciate but decline your offer. The agency is satisfied that its forthcoming rule achieves a reasonable solution to the issue of CHMSL's on pickup trucks. The agency's resources are limited, and must be deployed in areas where there is a reasonable possibility that a mandatory safety standard may result as a consequence of its investigative efforts. Given the facts that the STM addresses an area of safety that is already covered by the CHMSL, and that any safety benefits of the STM remain speculative while those of the CHMSL are well demonstrated, there is no reasonable possibility that the STM would become a mandatory requirement of this agency.

ID: nht91-1.24

DATE: January 15, 1991

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Michael L. Hayes

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 7-12-90 from Michael L. Hayes to General Curry, NHTSA; Also attached to letter dated 7-12-90 from Michael L. Hayes to James Gilkey (OCC 5046)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter to NHTSA's enforcement office and to your telephone conversations with Ms. Fujita of my staff, about the application of Safety Standard 213, Child Restraint Systems, to "transport incubators." Your letter and enclosures indicate that "transport incubator" refers to an incubator that is mounted on a collapsible stand with wheels. The incubator is typically used on an ambulance or helicopter to transfer a neonate from one medical facility to another, or between sites within a facility. The issue raised by your letter is whether Standard 213 applies to transport incubators.

We believe the answer is no, because a transport incubator is not an item of "motor vehicle equipment." Our agency has the authority under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (copy enclosed) to regulate the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. Section 102(4) of the Safety 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...

According to the manufacturer of the incubator, whom we contacted for information about the product, the incubator is sold to hospitals, and not to vehicle manufacturers for inclusion in new vehicles. Based on this information, a transport incubator is not a "system, part, or component of a motor vehicle as originally manufactured." Since there is no system, part or component similar to the incubator installed in or on a motor vehicle at the time of its delivery to the first purchaser and since there is no such system, part or component which is original equipment, the incubator is not sold as a replacement or improvement of original equipment.

The incubator also does not appear to be an "accessory . . . to the motor vehicle." In determining whether an item of equipment is considered an accessory, NHTSA applies two criteria. The first criterion is whether a substantial portion of the expected use of the item are related to the operation or maintenance of motor vehicles. We determine the expected use 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. Items normally used by professional vehicle repair and maintenance

personnel would not meet this second criterion. 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 the incubator, we are uncertain whether a substantial portion of the exBpected use of the incubator is related to motor vehicle (ambulance) operation. We are unsure because we lack information about the extent of the non-motor vehicle uses of the incubator. However, regardless of our conclusion about the first criterion, we conclude that the incubator does not satisfy the second one (which is directed to the nature of the likely users of the product). The incubator would not be used by ordinary vehicle owners. Instead, the incubator is intended for use by professional medical personnel only. Since at least one of the criteria is not satisfied, the transport incubator is not an accessory.

The Food and Drug Administration has the authority to regulate medical "devices." We suggest that you address your concerns about transport incubators to that agency.

I hope this information is helpful.

ID: nht91-1.25

DATE: January 16, 1991

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Carol Zeitlow -- Manager, Engineering Services, Oshkosh Truck Corp.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 12-21-90 from Carol Zeitlow to Taylor Vincon (Vinson) (OCC 5550)

TEXT:

This is in response to your letter of December 21, 1990, to Taylor Vinson of this office, in which you ask a question about Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. You have also asked for confirmation of your understanding with Mr. Vinson with respect to three other aspects of motor vehicle safety regulations of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.

With respect to Standard No. 108, you believe that our letter to you of August 27, 1990, stated that "the hazard warning signal should always override the stop lamp signal when both are red in color." Mr. Vinson, by telephone on October 9, said that he believed that at some time previous the override feature had been at the option of the vehicle manufacturer. You have asked the date that Standard No. 108 changed, and "in which section of the regulations can I find the ruling."

Actually, our letter of August 27, 1990, did not state that the hazard warning signal should override the stop lamp signal. We explained that Standard No. 108 requires a turn signal lamp to override the stop lamps if the lamp optically combines stop and turn signals, and that because the hazard system operates through the turn signal lamps, the stop signal cannot be turned on in an optically combined lamp if the hazard system is in use. The specific wording of the regulatory requirement is "When a stop signal is optically combined with a turn signal, the circuit shall be such that the stop signal cannot be turned on in the turn signal which is flashing." You will find this in paragraph 4.2 of SAE Standard J586c Stop Lamps August 1970, and in paragraph 4.4 of SAE Standard J588e Turn Signal Lamps September 1970, both of which are incorporated by reference in Table I and Table III of Standard No. 108. And a vehicular hazard warning flasher is a device which causes all the required turn signal lamps to flash; see Definition in SAE Recommended Practice J945 Vehicular Hazard Warning Signal Flasher February 1966, also incorporated by reference.

We note that this regulatory requirement was not originally contained in Standard No. 108. The predecessor SAE Standards J586b June 1966 and SAE J588d June 1966 originally incorporated in Standard No. 108 did not include override language. Standard No. 108 was amended on January 5, 1976, to incorporate SAE J586c and SAE J588e, with an immediate effective date, but allowed compliance with the older standards until September 1, 1978 (41 FR 765). Thus, during the period January 5, 1976, to September 1, 1978, a manufacturer had the option of providing the override feature in a combination lamp in which the hazard and turn signal functions used the same circuit.

You have also asked whether a sun visor is required by the Federal motor

vehicle safety standards. The answer is no, if the vehicle is a truck, bus, or multipurpose passenger vehicle with a GVWR that exceeds 10,000 pounds. However, if the GVWR of those vehicles is 10,000 pounds or less, or if the vehicle is a passenger car, paragraph S3.4 of Standard No. 201 Occupant Protection in Interior Impact requires that a sun visor be provided for each front outboard designated seating position.

In addition, you asked whether any regulation specified the type or quantity of horns required on a motor vehicle. The answer is no. Standard No. 101 Controls and Displays does not require that any motor vehicle be equipped with a horn. However, if a horn is provided, it is subject to the requirements of the standard for horn control location, identification, and illumination.

Finally, you asked whether Standard No. 104 Windshield Wiping and Washing Systems contains "the percentage of area of the windshield that the windshield wiper must wipe", or specifies only the frequency of the wipers. Standard No. 104 does not specify wiped area percentages for windshield wiping systems on multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, or buses. However, it does specify percentages for passenger car systems, and it specifies the frequency for all motor vehicle windshield wiping systems.

I hope that this answers your questions.

ID: nht91-1.26

DATE: January 16, 1991

FROM: Marvin A. Leach, D.Ed. -- Regional Program Manager, NHTSA

TO: S.V. Kaaria

COPYEE: Kathleen DeMeter

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 1-3-91 from S.V. Kaaria to NHTSA; Also attached to letter dated 2-11-91 from Paul Jackson Rice to S.V. Kaaria (A37; Std. 108)

TEXT:

Thank you for your letter of January 3, 1991, seeking information about problems related to negotiating a settlement with auto manufacturers on a design you were involved in developing.

I am taking the liberty of forwarding your letter to:

Ms. Kathleen DeMeter General Law Division Office of the Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 7th Street S.W., NCC30 Washington , D.C. 20590

I hope this will be of assistance toward the resolution of your inquiry.

ID: nht91-1.27

DATE: January 22, 1991

FROM: Robert H. Jones -- President, Triple J Enterprises, Inc.

TO: Clive Van Orden -- Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance Enforcement, NHTSA

COPYEE: Congressman Ben Blaz

TITLE: Re Ref 0-3J001

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 12-11-90 from Robert H. Jones to Clive Van Orden; Also attached to letter dated 10-11-90 from Robert H. Jones to Congressman Ben Blaz; Also attached to letter dated 7-6-89 from Bob Jones to Congressman Ben Blas; Also attached to letter dated 7-5-90 from Robert H. Jones to Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance Enforcement, NHTSA; Also attached to letter dated 3-11-91 from Paul Jackson Rice to Robert H. Jones (A37; VSA Sec. 103(8))

TEXT:

On December 11, 1990 we wrote you the letter attached with a copy to Congressman Ben Blaz. Would you please advise if you received this letter and if you can shed any light on our query I do not believe it is in the best interest of the CNMI residence or the automobile distributors of the CNMI for this issue to continue to lie dormant.

Your early attention to this matter would be greatly appreciated as we sincerely wish to have this matter resolved one way or the other.

ID: nht91-1.28

DATE: January 24, 1991

FROM: Samuel Yk Lau -- Kenwo Industries Ltd.

TO: NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 2-22-91 from Paul Jackson Rice to Samuel Yk Lau (A37; Std. 108)

TEXT:

We are manufacturer of "Additional Brake Lamps" and are planning to export this product to the U.S.A.

The "Additional Brake lamp" is the add-on lamp which is usually mounted near the rear windshield of a private car and it turns on when the brake pedal is pushed. The product we manufacture now consists of light bulb, LED and red transparant plastic filter plate.

We would like to ask of there are regulations, standards or approval for this kind of product. Does this product need to have any certificate or approval before it can be sold or installed?

We will be very grateful if your department can give me the answers.

ID: nht91-1.29

DATE: January 24, 1991

FROM: Nancy J. Hunt -- Paralegal to John T. McDowell, Bankston & McDowell

TO: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 3-25-91 from Paul Jackson Rice to Nancy J. Hunt (A37; Std. 301)

TEXT:

I am contacting you for the purpose of confirming the official ruling as it relates to FMVSS 301-75 (Rear Impact, Fuel Integrity Test Protocol) with respect to whether the spare tire is required to be in its proper place inside a vehicle at the time of testing.

We would appreciate a copy of any and all protocols, requirements, and regulations as well as any recommendations regarding the inclusion and/or exclusion of a spare tire during automobile testing. We would also welcome your comments or opinions regarding this matter.

Should you have any questions concerning our request, please feel free to contact the undersigned.

Thank you for your cooperation.

ID: nht91-1.3

DATE: 01/01/91 EST

FROM: Stephen Mamakas -- AIR Inc.

TO: To whom it may concern

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 5-13-91 from Paul Jackson Rice to Stephen Mamakas (A37; Std. 208; VSA 108(a)(2)(A))

TEXT:

We are starting a company which will be repairing deployed air bags. We would like to know what are the Federal Standards we require to comply with.

ID: nht91-1.30

DATE: January 25, 1991

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Jack Barben -- Custom Form Mfg. Inc.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 10-8-90 from Jack Barben to Paul Jackson Rice (OCC 5293)

TEXT:

This replies to your letter of October 8, 1990, with respect to a lighted side rail for pickup trucks that you wish to sell in the aftermarket. The rail would be offered in colors of amber, hot pink, and hot yellow. Your literature shows the rails as mounted immediately above the right and left longitudinal sides of the pickup bed. You would like to know our position on compliance of this product.

Aftermarket lighting equipment is permissible under the statutes and regulations of our agency as long as its installation by a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business does not render inoperative, in whole or in part, any element of design or device installed in accordance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard. You have informed us that your literature warns against installation of the device in any manner that would orient it towards the front or rear of the vehicle, rather than along its sides. Also, you would provide instruc- tions "for separate fusing of the electrical supply lines." Under these circumstances, we believe that there would not be any rendering inoperative of the lighting equipment required by Motor Vehicle Standard No. 108. Further, the lighted side rails would appear to enhance the conspicuity of the vehicle from the side, even though the colors you intend to offer are not the red of the vehicle's rear side marker lamp and reflector.

We are not in a position to advise whether the lighted side rails would comply with the laws of any State in which a vehicle so equipped is registered or operated. We recommend that you ask the opinion of the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Va. 22203 on this issue.

You have commented that "This is a proprietary product and would appreciate your treatment as such." However, based upon a telephone conversation between you and Bill Fox of my staff, I understand that you do not expect confidential treatment of any of the information in your letter. Therefore, both your letter and our reply will be made available for inspection by the public in accordance with our policy on interpretations.