ID: nht89-2.99

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 09/14/89

FROM: S. WATANABE -- MANAGER AUTOMOTIVE LIGHTING ENGINEERING CONTROL DEPT. STANLEY ELECTRIC COMPANY

TO: STEPHEN P. WOOD -- ACTING CHIEF COUNSEL U.S. DOT, NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 11/01/89 FROM STEPHEN P. WOOD -- NHTSA TO JOHN K. MOODY -- MOODY AND MOODY ENTERPRISES; REDBOOK A34; STANDARD 108; LETTER DATED 08/30/89 FROM JOHN K. MOODY -- MOODY AND MOODY ENTERPRISES TO TAYLOR VINSON -- NHTSA; OCC 3 905

TEXT: Dear Sir,

We are now developing a Head Lamp equipped with VHAD, whose structure is shown in the attached drawing. Please give us the advice to the following questions about this Head Lamp.

1) Does a VHAD without a function which compensates the deviation of floor slope satisfy FMVSS No. 108 S7.7.5.2.(a).(1).(V)?

2) This Head Lamp is designed to be aimed vertically by means of observing only one spirit level placed on the movable reflector, as shown in the drawing. Does this structure of VHAD satisfy FMVSS No. 108 S7.7.5.2.(a).(1).(V)?

Any information that might be of our interest when designing the Head Lamp with VHAD, as well as the answers to the above questions, would be highly appreciated.

Yours faithfully,

ID: nht89-3.1

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: SEPTEMBER 21, 1989

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

TO: JIM BOWEN -- VICE PRESIDENT OF QUALITY, SERVICE AND PARTS, GULF STREAM COACH, INC.

TITLE: N

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED APRIL 20, 1989 TO OFFICE OF CHIEF COUNSEL FROM JIM BOWEN, GULF STREAM COACH, INC. ATTACHED.

TEXT: This responds to your letter concerning the installation of a television receiver in view of the driver of a vehicle. You asked whether the television is required to be off, when the ignition switch is turned on. I regret the delay in responding. Your question is responded to below.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, it is the responsibility of th e manufacturer to ensure that its vehicles and equipment meet applicable standards. The following represents our opinion based on the facts provided in your letter.

I have enclosed a copy of a June 4, 1987 letter, addressed to Panasonic, which discusses a number of issues relating to the installation of television receivers in motor vehicles. The letter notes that NHTSA does not have any safety standards specifical ly covering television receivers. The letter also explains that is possible that the installation of a television receiver could affect the compliance of a vehicle with some safety standards.

With respect to your specific question concerning whether a television receiver installed in view of the driver of a vehicle is required to be off when the ignition is turned on, I would like to draw your attention to one requirement of Standard No. 101, Controls and Displays. Section S5.3.5 of that standard reads as follows:

Any source of illumination within the passenger compartment which is forward of a transverse vertical plane 4.35 inch (110.6 mm) rearward of the manikin "H" point with the driver's seat in its rearmost driving position, which is not used for the controls and displays regulated by this standard, which is not a telltale, and which is capable of being illuminated while the vehicle is in motion, shall have either (1) light intensity which is manually or automatically adjustable to pr ovide at least two levels of brightness, (2) a single intensity that is barely discernible to a driver who has adapted to dark ambient roadway conditions, or (3) a means of being turned off. This requirement does not apply to buses that are n ormally operated with the passenger compartment illuminated.

The purpose of this requirement is to prevent glare visible to the

driver. If a television receiver installed in view of the driver is capable of operation while the vehicle is in motion, it would be subject to this requirement.

While NHTSA does not have any safety standards specifically covering television receivers, the installation of a television receiver in view of the driver which is capable of operation while the vehicle is in motion would raise obvious safety concerns re lated to possible driver distraction. If you are considering such installation, we recommend that you carefully evaluate the safety implications of such action.

Finally, I note that state laws may cover the installation of television receivers in motor vehicles. The American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators may be able to provide information on that issue. Its address is: 4200 Wilson Boulevard, Sui te 600, Arlington, Virginia 22203.

Sincerely,

ID: nht89-3.10

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 10/06/89

FROM: STEPHEN P. WOOD

ACTING CHIEF COUNSEL NHTSA

TO: SADATO KADOYA --

MAZDA RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT OF NORTH AMERICA, INC.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 8/24/89, FROM SADATO KADOYA OF MAZDA TO STEPHEN WOOD OF NHTSA RE REQUEST FOR INTERPRETATION - FMVSS 108: LAMPS, REFLECTIVE DEVICE AND ASSOCIATED EQUIPMENT

TEXT: Dear Mr. Kadoya:

This is in reply to your letter of August 24, 1989, with respect to an interpretation of paragraph S5.3.1.8 of Standard No. 108, as it applies to the location of center highmounted stop lamps.

The paragraph requires that no portion of the lens shall be lower than 3 inches below the rear window, if the lamp is mounted below the rear window. Your letter depicts two areas in which a lamp lens may be mounted, denoted "(A)" and "(B)". In both, th e lower edge of the rear window is curved. In "(A)", the boundary of the allowable area is curved, and follows the curve of the lower edge of the rear window at a parallel distance of 3 inches. In "(B)", the boundary of the allowable area is a straight line which measures 3 inches from the end of the lower edge of the rear window, but which is greater than 3 inches at all other points because of the curve of the window.

The initial requirement of paragraph S5.3.1.8 is that the highmounted lamp be "mounted with its center on the vertical centerline of the passenger car as the car is viewed from the rear." This means that the 3-inch distance is measured from the lower edg e of the rear window that is at the vertical centerline. Thus, your "(A)" is the correct location because the boundary line is 3 inches directly below the center point of the vertical centerline, and your "(B)" is not acceptable because its boundary line is more than 3 inches below that point.

I hope that this answers your question.

Sincerely,

ID: nht89-3.11

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: OCTOBER 10, 1989

FROM: J. DOUGLAS SMITH -- ENGINEERING MGR., DURALITE TRUCK BODY AND CONTAINER CORP. TO: TAYLOR VINSON -- LEGAL COUNSEL, NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 4-25-90 TO J. DOUGLAS SMITH FROM STEPHEN P. WOOD; (A35; STD. 108)

TEXT:

As an O.E.M. manufacturer of truck bodies, Duralite is responsible for final certification on literally thousands of new straight trucks. Recently however there has been some question regarding the interpre- tation of FMVSS 108 (lamps, reflective devices , and associated equipment). It is our understanding as well as industry standard that if a chassis cab is equipped with clearance and marker lamps, it is not necessary to add a second set of two lamps to act as clearance lamps to the front wall of the truck body. During the last week, a customer of ours received a warning for not having clearance lights in the proper location. Corporal Talbot of the Maryland State Police said that it was their interpretation that the cab mounted lights were sufficie nt and that a new officer had interpreted the meaning differently.

A change in the interpretation of this standard would effect many thousands of vehicles already on the road. Of all the major truck body manufacturers there is only one of which I am aware that has body mounted clearance lamps visible to the front. To revise the standard at this point would cost fleets a great deal of time and money.

As it is our responsibility to build and certify new units, your immediate attention and response to this situation would be greatly appreciated. If you have any question please feel free to contact me at (301) 727-6962.

ID: nht89-3.12

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: OCTOBER 11, 1989

FROM: GARY R. BALANZA

TO: OFFICE OF COMPLIANCE -- NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 4-9-90 TO GARY R. BALANZA FROM STEPHEN P. WOOD; (A35; STD. 108; VSA 108 (a)(2)(A) TEXT:

Aloha! My name is Gary Balanza and I reside in Honolulu, in the state of Hawaii.

I am in the process of submitting an application to the U.S. patent office.

The required lighting on motor vehicles is regulated through FMVSS-108.

Since my invention, PINLIGHTS, is a non-required lighting system, I need the N.H.T.S.A.s legal opinion whether this such lighting system will or will not interfere with the standard equipment.

Thank you.

P.S. Please respond immediately, your reply is urgently needed to proceed with the necessary paperwork, thanks again.)

Attachment

PURPOSE AND DISCUSSION OF SAFETY

Accidents and deaths on public roads and highways pose a very serious human and economical problem with major deleterious effects on public welfare.

There is a vital need for the development and promotion of automotive safety equipment and education.

Therefore, I feel that night driving will be demonstrably and scientifically much safer with additional auxiliary lighting systems.

My reason is this, I am in the process of applying for a patent that incorporates a streamlined lighting system that when illuminated, will light up the entire length of a vehicle.

With PINLIGHTS, it is much more visible to see a line of light than the standard auxiliary lamps currently available on motor vehicles.

Given these reasons, please grant me written permission for research and development purposes. I also request that your administration to set standards or guidelines I am able to follow.

DESCRIPTION OF INVENTION

I. SUBJECT: Pinlights (Tradename in process of being applied for)

II. DESCRIPTION: Pinlights is an auxiliary lamp system custom/ mass produced to fit an automobile's side contours. It involves:

A. Creating a cavity on the sides of a vehicle. B. Connecting and wiring of the lighting. C. Covering the sides with one of the many plastics available.

III. VARIATIONS: Please specify, I leave the answers up to the board or committee. 1. Number of stripes allowed on a car. 2. Colors allowed on a car. 3. Maximum brightness allowable.

ID: nht89-3.13

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 10/12/89

FROM: GEORGE MILLER -- MEMBER OF CONGRESS

TO: NANCY BRUCE -- DIRECTOR OFFICE OF CONGRESSIONAL AFFAIRS DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 12/1/89 FROM STEPHEN P. WOOD -- NHTSA TO U.S. CONGRESSMAN GEORGE MILLER; REDBOOK A34; STANDARD 125; LETTER DATED 10/17/89 FROM NANCY L. BRUCE -- D.O.T OFFICE OF CONGRESSIONAL AFFAIRS TO GEORGE MILLER, U.S. HOUSE OF REPR ESENTATIVES; LETTER DATED 10/4/89 FROM DELL RANDLE TO CONGRESSMAN GEORGE MILLER; LETTER DATED 9/8/89 FROM ELIZABETH M LUCAS -- NATIONAL SAFETY COUNCIL, PRODUCT DEVELOPMENT TO DELL RANDLE OF SHIKARI CONSULTANT FIRM LTD.

TEXT: Dear Ms. Bruce:

The enclosed correspondence from my constituent, Mr. Dell Randle, concerning the safety approval of his device, the Shi-Lite Holder, is being forwarded for your consideration.

I would appreciate any assistance you may be able to provide in addressing the concerns presented in Mr. Randle's letter. Please direct your response to Jennifer Steneberg of my Richmond office at 3220 Blume Drive, Suite 281, Richmond, CA 94806, (415 ) 222-4212.

Sincerely,

ID: nht89-3.14

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 10/12/89

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

TO: DAVID W. RANEY -- ENVIRONMENTAL ACTIVITIES MANAGER SAAB-SCANIA OF AMERICA, INC.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 6/29/89 FROM DAVID W. RANEY OF SAAB TO ERIKA JONES OF NHTSA

TEXT: Dear Mr. Raney:

Thank you for your letter requesting our interpretation of 49 CFR Parts 541, Federal Motor Vehicle Theft Prevention Standard, and 543, Exemption from Theft Prevention Standard. I apologize for the delay in this response.

You asked two questions. Your first question concerned the scope of the exemptions granted under Part 543. You noted that the Saab 9000 car line has been determined to be a high theft car line. Accordingly, Part 541 requires that both the original equ ipment and the replacement major parts for the Saab 9000 be marked with certain information. Your letter states that your company marked both the original equipment and replacement major parts for the Saab 9000 in the 1987 and 1988 model years.

For the 1989 model year, the Saab 9000 was granted an exemption from the parts marking requirements of Part 541, pursuant to the provisions of Part 543. Your company understands that this exemption means that the original equipment parts on the Saab 900 0 are no longer required to be marked. However, the replacement parts for the Saab 9000 that are produced in 1989 and thereafter pose a more difficult problem. On the one hand, Saab could consider these parts as replacement parts for the 1989 models, w hich would mean these parts are exempted from the parts marking requirement. On the other hand, these parts could also be considered as replacement parts for the 1987 and 1988 Saab 9000 line, which would mean the parts have to be marked because no exemp tion applies for such parts.

The answer to your question is that once a high theft line is granted a Part 543 exemption in whole from the parts marking requirements of Part 541, as the Saab 9000 was, the replacement parts for that line are also exempted from the parts marking requir ements even if those parts can be used as replacement parts for the high theft line during model years for which no exemption applies. NHTSA addressed this issue in the preamble to the September 8, 1987 final rule establishing Part 543 (52 FR 33821), as follows:

Section 602(d)(2)(A) of Title VI (of the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act) states that the vehicle theft prevention standard can not require 'identification of any part which is not designed as a replacement for a major part required to be identified under such standard.' (Emphasis added.) As long as a manufacturer is producing a car line under an exemption granted in whole, there is no requirement to identify major parts otherwise subject to the theft standard; therefore, NHTSA can not re quire marking replacement parts. 52 FR 33828.

Applying this reasoning to your company's situation, Saab was free to discontinue marking both the original equipment and replacement major parts for the Saab 9000 as soon as the Part 543 exemption took effect, provided that Saab actually installed the a ntitheft device described in its petition as original equipment on 1989 Saab 9000 vehicles.

Your second question asked whether the manufacturer of a high theft car lines that has been granted an exemption from the parts marking requirements, pursuant to Part 543, may discontinue the installation of the antitheft device and resume parts marking in some future model year. We addressed this issue in detail in a May 4, 1988 letter to Ms. Deborah Bakker, a copy of which is enclosed for your information. A manufacturer of a high theft line that has received an exemption under Part 543 is required to either install the antitheft device as standard equipment on every vehicle in that line produced during a model year or to mark all original equipment and replacement major parts for that line produced during the model year. As long as Saab marked al l of the original equipment and replacement parts produced in a model year for the Saab 9000, your company is free to stop installing the antitheft device on those cars.

If you have any further questions or need additional information on this subject, please feel free to contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

ENCLOSURE

Sincerely,

ID: nht89-3.15

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: OCTOBER 12, 1989

FROM: DAVID SCHMELTZER -- ASSOCIATE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR COMPLIANCE AND ADMINISTRATIVE LITIGATION, U.S. CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION TO: STEPHEN WOOD -- ACTING CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 5-25-90 TO SUSAN BIRENBAUM FROM STEPHEN P. WOOD (A35; VSA 102(4)); ALSO ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 2-1-90 TO STEPHEN WOOD FROM SUSAN BIRENBAUM AND LETTER DATED 6-29-89 TO STEPHEN WOOD FROM SUSAN BIRENBAUM. TEXT:

By letter dated June 29, 1989, this office inquired if a product which is intended for inflating and temporarily repairing flat tires is an item of "motor vehicle equipment" as that term is defined by the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Act at 15 U.S. C. S1391(4). A copy of that letter is enclosed.

The Commission has received reports of six serious injuries associated with the ignition of the propellant gas from this product in tires which were being repaired. These injuries have included brain damage, loss of vision, loss of hearing, and broken b ones.

As you know, the Commission does not have authority to regulate products which are items of "motor vehicle equipment" under provisions of the Consumer Product Safety Act (CPSA) (15 U.S.C. S2051 et seq.). Because of the serious nature of some of the inju ries associated with this product, this office would appreciate y our guidance as soon as possible on the question of whether this product is an item of "motor vehicle equipment." If the product is not motor vehicle equipment, the Commission would have a uthority under the CPSA to issue a consumer product safety standard or a banning rule to eliminate or reduce any unreasonable risk of injury which may be associated with the product. Additionally, the CPSA authorizes the Commission to order the manufact urer of any product con- taining a defect which presents a "substantial product hazard" to give public notice of that defect and to elect to repair, replace, or repurchase the product.

If you have any questions or comments, you may contact Bill Moore in our office of Administrative Litigation. His telephone number is 492-6626.

ID: nht89-3.16

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: OCTOBER 13, 1989

FROM: BILL WALTZ -- WAGNER DIVISION, COOPER INDUSTRIES, INC.

TO: STEPHEN WOOD -- ACTING CHIEF COUNCIL, NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED APRIL 8, 1990 TO BILL WALTZ FROM STEPHEN P. WOOD; (A35; STD. 108)

TEXT:

Lectric Limited has asked Wagner to assemble some round glass headlights for them, designed to appear as closely as possible to those produced by Guide Lamp in the 1950's.

All markings and configurations on the original lamps are being reproduced and this creates a problem in complying with "108". The lamps they are interested in are 6012 (7"), 4001 (5 3/4" #1) and 4002 (5 3/4" #2). In accordance with the original marking they will have a "1" or "2" at the top of the lens, not the "2D1", "1C1" and "2C1" now required by NHTSA.

Secondly, the inscription DOT, indicating compliance with existing regulations, will be omitted, since this was obviously riot on the original lamps.

We are asking your permission for those deviations since the lamps will be made to today's photometric standards and will be distributed on a limited basis through antique part dealers. The lamps will be subjected to all the tests currently required of the round headlights.

If there is any problem with this production, please let me know, so that we can try to worK out a solution satisfactory to all parties involved.

ID: nht89-3.17

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 10/16/89

FROM: DONALD S. CLARK -- SECRETARY FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION

TO: BUD SHUSTER -- U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 11/20/89 FROM STEPHEN P. WOOD -- NHTSA TO CONGRESSMAN BUD SHUSTER; REDBOOK A34; STANDARDS 109, 117, AND 119; LETTER DATED 8/8/89 FROM CONGRESSMAN BUD SHUSTER TO THE DIRECTOR OF CONGRESSIONAL RELATIONS -- DEPARTMENT OF C OMMERCE

TEXT: Dear Mr. Shuster:

The Department of Commerce has forwarded your letter on behalf of Mr. Lester Hoover to the Federal Trade Commission. Mr. Hoover contacted your office for assistance in obtaining a copy of any regulations pertaining to presale disclosure of grading in formation on automobile tires.

I have enclosed a copy of the Commission's 1967 Tire Advertising and Labeling Guides, 16 C.F.R. Part 228, which, inter alia, call for certain disclosures in the sale of blemished, imperfect, or defective tires (Section 228.11) and in the sale of retre ads and used tires (Section 228.9). These are the only regulations promulgated by the Federal Trade Commission that focus specifically on tires, although other regulations and statutes of general application (such as Section 5 of the FTC Act, which the Commission enforces) cover tires along with other products.

It may interest Mr. Hoover to know that failure to comply with the Guides is not a per se law violation. Rather, as Section 228.0-1 states, the Guides set forth general principles that the Commission applies in determining whether given representatio ns or other practices concerning tires constitute violations of Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act. The remedy for a violation of Section 5 is generally an administrative cease and desist order, rather than the monetary civil penalties which may be obtained in cases involving violation of a Commission order or Trade Regulation Rule.

There may be other tire regulations that would be of interest to Mr. Hoover. I have therefore taken the liberty of forwarding a copy of your inquiry to the Department of Transportation for further review and response.

Please let me know whenever I can be of service.

Sincerely,

Enclosure