ID: nht87-1.99

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 05/27/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Takashi Shimoda -- Chief of Quality Assurance Section, Nichirin Rubber Industrial Co., Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Takashi Shimoda Chief of Quality Assurance Section Nichirin Rubber Industrial Co., Ltd. 1118, Sazuchi, Besso-cho Himeji-City, 671-02 JAPAN

This responds to your letter to our office asking two questions about Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 106, Brake Hoses. I am pleased to be of assistance.

In your letter, you explain that your company plans to export brake hose assemblies to the United States that are made of resin and other materials. You first ask whether Standard No. 106 applies "equally" to all brake hoses and assemblies regardless of the materials used in their manufacture. Your understanding is correct. Brake hoses and brake hose assemblies may be made from any material as long as they can meet all applicable performance requirements of the standard.

Your second question concerns the standard's whip resistance requirement of S5.3.3 and the whip resistance test of S6.3, You ask for confirmation that cracks in hose specimen are acceptable under S5.3.3 provided that there is no leakage from the hose assembly. Your understanding is correct. S5.3.3 states: "A hydraulic brake hose assembly shall not rupture when run continuously on a flexing machine for 35 hours (S6.3)." The standard defines "rupture" as "any failure that results in separation of a brake hose from its end fitting or in leakage." The determining factor for the whip resistance requirement is thus the pressure maintained by the system. If there is no pressure loss in the system, the brake hose assembly meets S5.3.3, regardless of the presence of cracks in the hose specimen. Please note, however, that although cracks in themselves do not constitute a failure of S5.3.3, the development of cracks caused by exposure to ozone is important for the ozone resistance requirement of S5.3.10.

Since you are planning to import your products into the United States, I am enclosing copies to two procedural rules which apply to all manufacturers subject to the regulations of this agency. The first is 49 CFR Part 566, Manufacturer Identification. This rule requires your company to submit its name, address and a brief description of the items of equipment it manufactures to this agency within 30 days after it imports its products into this country.

The other rule is 49 CFR Part 551, Procedural Rules. Subpart D of this regulation requires all manufacturers headquartered outside of the United States as the manufacturer's agent for service of all process, notices, orders and decisions. This designation should be mailed to the Chief Counsel, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20590, and must include the following information:

1. A certification that the designation of agent is valid in form and binding on the manufacturer under the laws, corporate-by-laws, or other requirements governing the making of the designation at the time and place where it is made;

2. The full legal name, principal place of business and mailing address of the manufacturer;

3. Marks, trade names, or other designations of origin of any of the manufacturer's products which do not bear its name;

4. A statement that the designation shall remain in effect until withdrawn or replaced by the manufacturer;

5. A declaration of acceptance duly signed by the agent appointed, which may be an individual, a firm or a United States corporation; and,

6. The full legal name and address of the designated agent.

In addition, the designation must be signed by a person with authority to appoint the agent. The signer's name and title should be clearly indicated beneath his or her signature.

I hope this information is helpful. Please contact us if you have further questions.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Enclosures

(procedural rules 49 CFR Part 566 and Part 551) omitted

Dear Sir:

Re: Inquiry on FMVSS No. 106 - Brake Hose

We are a manufacturer of brake hoses, and are registered at NHTSA with a maker identification code "NCRN".

Now, we are planning to export to the U.S. brake hose assemblies made of resin which are individually built into motor cycles.

We are aware that the brake hose assemblies are subject to control under FMVSS No. 106.

In this connection, we ask you a few questions on interpretations of FMVSS No. 106.

Question 1. FMVSS No. 106 provides for no regulations on the materials used. We interpret it to equally apply, whether the material is rubber or resin. Is this understanding justifiable?

For the inner tubes and outer covers of the brake hoses we are now manufacturing, we are using rubber.

But under a future plan, we schedule to use nylon for the inner tubes, and thermoplastic polyester resin for the outer covers.

Question 2. On whip resistance:

The standard sets forth the requirement s follows;

A hydraulic brake hose assembly shall not rupture, when run continuously on a flexing machine for 35 hours.

In this test, the time elapsed before a hose assembly, while being tested, has ruptured, causing water inside to leak out, is recorded, to make the judgment on its whip resistance.

If even when cracks have developed which have not lead to leakage from the hose which is under testing, the hose shows no evidence of leakage, while the tester is running, then, we judge this hose acceptable. Is this judgment right?

Thanking you for your early answer.

Very sincerely yours,

Takashi Shimoda Chief of Quality Assurance Section NICHIRIN RUBBER INDUSTRIAL CO., LTD.

ID: nht87-2.1

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/05/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Albert Schwarz -- Senior engineer, Imperial Clevite Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

ATTACHMT: 8/3/84 letter from Frank Berndt to Terry E. Teeter (Std. 106)

TEXT:

Mr. Albert Schwarz Senior Engineer, Product Development Imperial Clevite Inc. Imperial Eastman Division 6300 W. Howard Street Chicago, IL 60648-3492

This responds to your January 12, 1987 letter to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) concerning Standard No. 106, Brake Hoses. You ask whether the standard applies to flexible conduits (i.e., hoses and plastic tubing) used to trans mit air pressure to accessories such as horns and windshield wipers. The answer to your question is yes, if a failure of such a conduit result; in a loss of air pressure in the brake system.

On August 3, 1984, NHTSA issued an interpretation of Standard No. 106 to Mr. Terry Teeter of the Eaton Corporation, who asked the same question you did about the applicability of the standard to conduits used for accessories. Our letter explains that fle xible hoses (and tubing) connected to accessories are "brake hoses" and subject to the standard if they transmit or contain the air pressure used to apply force to the vehicle's brakes--i.e., a failure of such a hose would result in a loss of air pressur e in the brake system. I have enclosed a copy of our letter to Mr. Teeter for your information.

I understand that Ms. Hom of my staff sent you a copy of a Federal Register notice issued by NHTSA on April 17, 1986, which terminated rulemaking on whether the air brake hose tensile requirement of Standard No. 106 should be reduced for hoses typically used for accessories. NHTSA decided to terminate rulemaking because the agency believed that it would be in the interest of safety for the smaller-diameter hoses to comply with current requirements of the standard. Since you might want to review this not ice in light of the information provided you in this letter, I have enclosed a duplicate copy for your convenience.

You also ask whether there are requirements other than those included in Standard No. 106 that must be met by accessory lines. The answer to your question is no. The air brake hoses you intend to use in accessory lines need comply only with Standard No. 106 to be manufactured and sold in this country.

I hope this information is helpful. Please contact my office if you have further questions.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Enclosures

(4/17/86 Federal Register notice of termination of rulemaking, 49 CFR Part 571, Docket No. 85-04, Notice 2) omitted.

Januxary 12, 1987

Dear Ms. Jones:

Today, during a conversation with Ms. Dierdra Hom, I raised a question which she has suggested that I pass along to you for comment.

This question involves a vehicle equipped with an air brake system which is within the jurisdiction of DOT 106-74. When such a vehicle also uses the compressed air system to power accessory non-brake equipment, such as horns or windshield wipers, must th e hoses and or plastic tubing, along with their associated couplings, also meet the requirements of DOT 106? Are their other requirements which must also be met by non-safety-related accessories which may also be powered by, and therefore connected to th e compressed air system?

I look forward to receiving your comment.

Yours truly,

Albert Schwarz

Senior Engineer, Product Development

ID: nht87-2.10

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/15/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Clarence M. Ditlow III

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Clarence M. Ditlow III, Esq. Center for Auto Safety 2001 S Street, N.W., Suite 410 Washington, DC 20009

Dear Mr. Ditlow:

Thank you for your letter concerning how the provisions of section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act apply to the displaying, test driving, and delivery of a passenger car with an automatic safety belt. The agency has rece ntly issued the enclosed Federal Register notice that addresses the issues you raised.

If you have any further questions, please let me know.

Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel Enclosure

Erika Jones, Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh St., SW Washington, DC 20590

Dear Ms. Jones:

With the 1987 model year less than a month away, automobile dealers will soon be selling large numbers of vehicles equipped with passive restraints. Unfortunately, while the passive restraint requirement has the potential for saving thousands 0f lives an nually, these benefits will not be realized if dealerships mock the standard by disconnecting the automatic seat belts offered by some manufacturers.

The cumbersome and easily detached automatic belts offered by General Motors, for example, will actually encourage disconnection by dealerships and consumers. The GM automatic belt has a buckle to disconnect it with the window shade retractor convenientl y rolling the loose belt up into the retractor. GM is introducing this system over the express objections of safety groups and the criticism of the Supreme Court which asked in its unanimous decision overturning DOT's revocation of the passive restraint standard whether such automatic belt disconnects should be outlawed.

Moreover, GM's easy-to-release but hard-to-wear automatic belts are particularly reprehensible given that other auto companies will have far superior belts on their 1987 models. Ford, Nissan and Toyota will all use motorized passive belts with demonstrat ed consumer acceptance. For the past ten model years, Volkswagon has sold an automatic belt that is so easy to use consumers don't disconnect it. DOT's own studies of the VW "easy rider" automatic belt show usage of over 80%. In contrast, GM's "hard ride r" automatic belt is unlikely to obtain more than 15% usage.

Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act prohibits any dealer from "knowingly rendering inoperative, in whole or in part, any device installed in a motor vehicle in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safe ty standard." The NHTSA has previously ruled this section does not prohibit dealers from disconnecting an, automatic seat belt to demonstrate the emergency release mechanism. However, this section clearly prohibits dealers from disconnecting and disablin g automatic seat belts in all other circumstances. If they do so, they are liable for a $1,000 fine per car under Section 109 of the Act.

The temporary disconnection of an automatic belts for the purpose of demonstrating the emergency release mechanism is a separate and unique activity easily distinguishable from having display models with disconnected automatic belts sitting on the showro om floor. The same is true of allowing vehicles to be test driven with disconnected belts, or delivered to purchasers with detached automatic belts. These practices have no safety benefit and serve only to encourage consumer disuse or automatic belts, th ereby undercutting their unique contribution of automatic belts to occupant protection.

Accordingly, the Center for Auto Safety petitions the NHTSA to issue, prior "to the beginning or the 1987 model year, an interpretive legal opinion of Section 108 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act stating it is illegal for dealers to: (1) display 1987 models with disconnected automatic seat belts on the showroom floor or on the dealership lot, (2) conduct test drives with automatic belts disconnected, and (3) deliver 1987 models at the time of purchase with automatic belts disconnecte d. NHTSA is also requested to rule that dealers who so violate Section 108 by displaying and selling new cars with automatic belts disconnected are subject to a 81,000 per vehicle fine.

Sincerely, Clarence M. Ditlow III Executive Director cc: Sen. John Danforth Rep. Tim Wirth

ID: nht87-2.100

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: SEPTEMBER 22, 1987 EST

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

TO: JAN PETER KRYGER -- VICE PRESIDENT, QUICKWHEEL

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: MEMO DATED 9-22-87, TO DEIRDRE HOM, FROM JAN PETER KRYGER, OCC-1071

TEXT: This responds to your letter asking whether any Federal safety standards apply to your product called "Quickwheel" and whether you need approval from the Department of Transportation to market the product. You indicated that Quickwheel is similar to a r oller skate and can be placed under a flat tire in a few seconds, enabling the driver to go on to a service station. You stated that the device has three little wheels and has been "thoroughly tested" in Germany.

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Safety Act) authorizes the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to issue safety standards for new motor vehicles and new motor vehicles equipment. All motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment manufactured or imported for sale in the United States must comply with all applicable safety standards. NHTSA does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or equipment. The Safety Act places the responsibility on the manufacturer to ensure that its vehicles or equipment comply with applicable requirements. The following represents our opinion based on the facts provided in your letter.

NHTSA does not have any safety standards covering a roller-skate-like device intended to be placed under a flat tire in order to enable the driver to continue driving. However, should a safety-related defect be discovered in your device, whether by the agency or yourself, you as the manufacturer would be required by the Safety Act to notify purchasers and provide a remedy for the defect.

While no Federal motor vehicle safety standards apply to Quickwheel, we note that the performance of the device is relevant to safety in many of the same respects as tires, which are covered by safety standards. Given this potential safety significance, we urge you to carefully review

whether the testing conducted in Germany covered the full range of real-world driving conditions and experiences that may be encountered by Quickwheel, and if not, to conduct such additional testing and/or analysis as may be necessary to ensure that the product will perform in a safe manner.

You also asked for an explanation of the Code of Federal Regulations. You will find such an explanation on the last page of an enclosed information sheet entitled "Information for New Manufacturers of Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Equipment." You may also find other parts of the information sheet to be of interest.

ID: nht87-2.11

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/15/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Farrel L. Krall -- Manager, Technical Legislation, Navistar International

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

ATTACHMT: 6/15/72 letter from R.L. Carter to Frank and Frank (Std. 113)

TEXT:

Mr. Farrel L. Krall Manager, Technical Legislation Navistar International 2911 Meyer Road P.O. Box 1109 Fort Wayne, IN 46801

This responds to your letter asking about Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 113, Hood Latch Systems. You asked whether a design for a front-opening hood you are considering for production would comply with section 54.2 of the standard. According to your letter, the front-opening hood would be a service access feature integrated into the overall design of a rear opening hood system. The latch system would consist of two separate latches, one on each size at the front corner of the access hood. A s discussed below, a front-opening hood with two secondary latch systems would meet the requirements of section S4.2.

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 or equipment comply with applicable standard;. The following represents our opinion based on the facts provided in your letter.

Section 54.2 states:

A front opening hood which, in any open position, partially or completely obstructs a driver's forward view through the windshield must be provided with a second latch position on the hood latch system or with a second hood latch system.

You cited an interpretation letter issued in 1972, which stated that while the agency favors a system in which two complete operations are necessary, a system which employs two latches having a single operation will meet the requirements of the standard. You stated that since your design incorporates two separate latches and requires two complete operations to latch the hood, you believe the system meets both the intent and the legal requirements of the standard.

As discussed in the preamble to the final rule, section 54.2 permits the following types of installation; a single latch system with two positions, two separate primary latch systems, or separate primarily and secondary latches. 33 FR 6470-71, April 27, 1968 ( copy enclosed). Thus, designs for front-opening hoods with two separate latch systems were specifically contemplated by the agency in establishing section 54.2 and would comply with that requirement.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Enclosure

Ms. Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

March 6, 1987

Dear Ms. Jones:

Navistar International Corporation is considering the design and production of a new front opening hood and requests your interpretation as to compliance of the hood latching mechanism with FMVSS-113, Hood Latch Systems. As shown in the attached photogra phs, the front-opening hood in question is a service access feature integrated into the overall design of a rear opening hood system.

Section 4.2 of FMVSS-113 states, "A front opening hood, which in any open position, partially or completely obstructs a driver's forward view through the windshield, must be provided with a second latch position on the hood latch system or with a second hood latch system."

The latch system design for our new front opening hood consists of two separate latches, one on each side at the front corner of the access hood, see example of the latch in the enclosed pictures.

We have researched the interpretation file on Standard 113 and find only one letter from the Agency that seems to be relative, copy enclosed. This letter dated June 15, 1972, concerns a Chevrolet hood latch system wherein the Agency stated that "While... we favor a system in which two complete operations are necessary, a system which employs two latches having a single operation will meet the requirements of the standard."

Our design incorporates two separate latches and requires two complete operations to latch the hood. We therefore believe this system meets both the intent and legal requirements of Standard 113 and would appreciate receiving your formal concurrence. Sin ce this is a priority design issue, we would appreciate an expeditious reply. Please call me if additional information is needed.

Very truly yours,

Farrel L. Krall Manager, Technical Legislation 219/461-1008

ID: nht87-2.12

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/17/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: MMC Services Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Nobuyoshi Takechi Technical Manager MMC Services Inc. 3000 Town Center Suite 1960 Southfield, MI 48075

Dear Mr. Takechi:

This is in reply to your letter of April 24, 1987, with reference to the legality of a proposed concealed headlamp design. As we understand the proposed design, the headlamp could be used in the "concealed" position as a forward warning (which you believ e "is similar to the daytime running light principle" and "is useful to avoid accidents") and in the unconcealed position as a headlamp to provide visibility of the roadway ahead. A portion of the vehicle body in front of the concealed headlamp would be clear, allowing the beam from the concealed lamp to shine through it. The steady burning forward warning signal would be given by pulling a spring-loaded switch. Releasing the switch would turn off the headlamp. Thus, the concealed headlamp would not, as a practical matter, be used for providing visibility of the roadway ahead but as an alternative to the vehicle's audible warning device, the horn. The proposed use would be a visual "horn." Finally, you state that the beam pattern and intensity of the l amp "is corresponding to the headlamp's," although you do not explain how this is possible, given the potential for interference from the vehicle's body.

Standard No. 108 prohibits covers or other styling features in front of a required headlamp when it is being used for purposes such as illuminating the roadway ahead or increasing the visibility of the vehicle in conditions of reduced visibility. We do n ot consider this prohibition applicable when a headlamp is being used, in all likelihood momentarily, for forward signalling as described. Further, use in this manner would not appear to impair the lighting equipment required by the standard. Additionall y, headlamps may be wired to flash for signalling purposes, as you have proposed, however, we are unable to advise you whether operation of this device is acceptable under the laws of the individual States. Your letter does not indicate whether the beam utilized is the upper beam or the lower beam; some jurisdictions such as the District of Columbia and Virginia prohibit use of the upper beam for signaling purposes. Others may restrict use of headlamps or a portion of them during daylight hours; we expe ct to learn more about this in comments to the docket on the daytime running lamp proposal. In the meantime, I would advise you to write the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 1201 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20036, for its views on State laws.

You have stated that this use "is similar to the daytime running light principle." However, as proposed by the Government of Canada, and by the U.S. Government in the Federal Register (52 FR 9316) such "DRLs" would be automatically energized, and not ene rgized at the driver's choice as is your device. Therefore, we do not view the operation of your device as similar to the daytime running light principle.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

April 24, 1987

Ms. Erika Jones, Chief Counsel NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION U. S. Department of Transportation 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Ms. Jones:

MMC has been developing concealed headlamps for application to our future models. (See attached). In this design, a portion of the body in front of the concealed headlamps is replaced with a clean material. This will allow the driver to give a steady-state forward warning without having to open the headlamp. The driver gives a forward warning by pull ing a spring-loaded switch, such as the headlamp upper/lower beam changing lever, and the headlamps are turned off by release of this switch. The photometric performance (beam pattern and intensity) is corresponding to the headlamp's.

We believe this function is similar to the daytime running light principle, is useful to avoid accidents, and we find no regulations prohibiting such system.

Please provide us with your opinion as to the legality of this system.

If you have any questions, please contact me at (313) 353-5444. Very truly yours,

Nobuyoshi Takechi Technical Manager

NT/sg MMC SERVICES, INC.

Enclosure

ID: nht87-2.13

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/17/87

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA CHIEF COUNSEL

TO: C.M. METHA -- AUTOLITE[INDIA] LIMITED

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 02/23/87 FROM C.M. MEHTA TO NHTSA RE DOT APPROVAL ON HEADLAMPS, DRIVING LAMPS ETC FOR MARKETING IN USA

TEXT: Dear Mr. Mehta:

This is in reply to your letter of February 23, 1987, to the Department of Transportation. You mentioned an earlier letter dated January 9, 1987, enclosing a copy of your product catalogue, but I regret to say that this Office has not received it.

As a producer of motor vehicle lighting equipment, you have asked for answers to the following questions:

"1. Details of DOT/SAE approval required in marketing our Headlamp Units 7", 5 3/4" (Round) and Rectangular small and large".

In the United States no "approval" is required to import the headlamps that you mention. However, the manufacturer must assure itself that the headlamps comply with the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Dev ices, and Associated Equipment (essentially those of the SAE for round and rectangular sealed beam headlamps), and certify each one as meeting all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. This certification is a DOT symbol on the headlamp lens .

"2. Can we market those lamps as referred in Para. No. 1 fitted with 9004, 9005 and 9006 Bulbs. If there is any specifications/technical details available with you, please send us a copy."

The headlamps discussed in paragraph 1 are sizes traditionally associated with sealed beam headlamps, rather than with replaceable bulbs such as the DOT HB1 (9004), HB3 (9005), and HB4 (9006). However, it is permissible to produce headlamps in these siz es, which incorporate replaceable light sources that are specified by Standard No. 108. However, such headlamps must meet all the requirements of the standard applicable to replaceable bulb headlamps. I enclose a copy of Standard No. 108 for your infor mation.

"3. We understand that the use 9004, 9005, 9006 bulbs are permitted on Headlamps with Lens and Reflectors made of Plastic. Kindly advise, if we can use these Reflector made of metal?"

Yes, a headlamp may have a reflector of either plastic or metal.

"4. Details of approval required for High Beam Driving Lamps to be used for off-road vehicles."

"5. The details of specifications for Driving Lamps to be used on Cars, Trucks, etc."

Standard No. 108 does not require vehicles to be equipped with driving lamps and it establishes no requirements for them. If there are any specifications or approvals required, they are those of the individual States in which these lamps would be sold a nd used. For further information on State requirements you should write: American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators (AAMVA), 1201 Connecticut Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C.

It is the position of this Department that any headlamp unit which is capable of replacing a passenger car headlamp must meet the applicable requirements of Standard No. 108, even if it may also be used on off-road vehicles.

You have also asked for copies of "SAE F-80 Front Fog Lamps" and SAE-J-79 Motor Cycle Headlamps". We are not familiar with these materials and advise you to write: Society of Automotive Engineers, Inc., 400 Commonwealth Drive, Warrendale, Pa. 15096. As for "Specification for Driving Lamps Using H3 Bulb", this appears to be a European specification unknown to us, as the H3 bulb is one that is not widely used in the United States.

The following is a listing of those requirements that must be completed before shipments begin. You must:

1. Appoint an agent for service of process in accordance with Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 551 (49 CFR 551).

2. Provide information as specified in 49 CFR 566, "Manufacturer Identification."

If you determine in good faith that any lamp manufactured by you does not conform with Standard No. 108 or contains a safety-related defect, section 151 (15 USC 1411) of the Act requires that you furnish notification to the Secretary and to owners in acc ordance with section 153 (15 USC 1413) and to remedy without cost the failure to conform or defect in accordance with 154 (15 USC 1414). Details are contained in 49 CFR 573, 576 and 579.

We are enclosing the following pertinent publications:

1. The Act 2. 19 CFR 12.80, "Regulations for Motor Vehicle "Importation" 3. 49 CFR 551, "Procedural Rules" 4. 49 CFR 573, "Defect and Noncompliance Reports" 5. 49 CFR 576, "Record Retention" 6. 49 CFR 579, "Defect and Noncompliance Responsibility" 7. Information for New Manufacturers of Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Equipment

If we may be of further assistance, please let us know.

Sincerely,

Enclosures

ID: nht87-2.14

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/18/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: The Honorable William Proxmire

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

The Honorable William Proxmire United States Senate Washington, DC 20510

Dear Senator Proxmire:

This is in reply to your recent inquiry on behalf of your constituent, Todd Suer of Janesville.

Mr. Suer, in his letter to you of April 15, 1987, refers to cars "that have extra clear head lights besides the ones that are built in" and asks if there is a law against them.

We are not familiar with the lighting equipment that Mr. Suer mentions. It is not part of the front lighting equipment required by the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. It appears to be aftermarket, accessory equipment, and as such, its use is subj ect to regulation under State law. We suggest that Mr. Suer direct his complaint to State or local authorities.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Todd Suer Rt Dunbar Road Janesville, Wi. 53545

April 1, 1987

The Honorable William Proxmire United States Senate

Dear Senator Proxmire

I am writing to you about people that drive cars that have extra clear head lights besides the ones that are built in. Is there a law against them? If they have them they should only be on when the brights are on. When they have there dims on they should be off. The little lights are ok. Some people have fog littles on all the time, they should only be used in the fog. Some people have there dims on, and they shine right in your face.

I think the police should stop people that have these light problems because they blind you. Please inform me of this problem. Thank you very much.

Yours truly,

Todd Suer

ID: nht87-2.15

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/18/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Joe Rutman -- Travelite Division

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

ATTACHMT: 5/12/86 letter from Erika Z. Jones to Mary Fulton (Std. 108); 1/12/87 letter from Erika Z. Jones to Fred E. Maynard

TEXT:

Mr. Joe Rutman Travelite Division Pathway, Ltd. BOX 195 Grand Rapids, MI 49508

This is in reply to your letter of February 11, 1987, providing information about the electronic message display known as "Tellite" which has been developed by Pathway Limited.

I enclose copies of two recent agency interpretations on electronic message displays similar to yours. You will see that under Federal law such displays may not be used as original equipment, or as replacement equipment on passenger cars that carried cen ter highmounted stop lamps as original equipment. Whether they are acceptable as aftermarket equipment on other vehicles depends on the laws of the individual States there the display will be sold and operated.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Enclosures

(See 5/12/86 and 1/12/87 NHTSA letters to Mary Fulton and Fred E. Maynard

Re: Pathway Limited

Dear Ms. Jones:

This is in response to your letter of January 7, 1987, regarding the electronic message display known as "Tellite" which has been developed by Pathway Limited.

Enclosed with this letter, you will find the following:

1. A letter from the Company's engineers, explaining certain material features of the display, and

2. Drawings of the display and the handheld keyboard which is used to activate the display.

It should be pointed out that the display can be read from directly behind the vehicle, but cannot be read from the side. You should also be aware that the handheld keyboard only activates the display, and does not program messages.

I am also enclosing the 16 messages with which it is currently intended that every chip will be programmed.

If you require anything further, please advise.

Sincerely,

PATHWAY LTD. Joe Rutman

February 9, 1987

Mr. Joe Rutman President Travelite Division of Pathway, Ltd. P.O. Box 88111 Grand Rapids, MI 49508

Subject: U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION LETTER OF INQUIRY

In regards to the questions raised in the aforementioned letter:

1. light emitted by the brake-light portion of the display will pass through the message portion, as the light sources for both portions originate from the same printed circuit board. Red L.E.D.'s are used for the brake-light and yellow L.E.D.'s are used for the message display.

2. The brake-light circuit overrides the message display by disabling and blanking out any message displayed at the time the brake-light is turned on.

I hope the above answers are satisfactory. If you have any other questions, feel free to call.

FRANK HOCKEBORN, PROPRIETOR

SEE DIAGRAMS...

TELLITE MESSAGES

1. CAUTION. CHANGING LANES LEFT.

2. CAUTION. CHANGING LANES RIGHT.

3. PLEASE DIM YOUR LIGHTS...THANK YOU.

4. PLEASE DON'T FOLLOW SO CLOSE...THANK YOU.

5. I AM OUT OF GASOLINE...PLEASE SEND HELP.

6. DEAD BATTERY...I NEED A JUMPER.

7. I HAVE A FLAT TIRE...PLEASE SEND HELP.

8. MY CAR WILL NOT START...NEED HELP.

9. SORRY.

10. PLEASE SEND A WRECKER...THANK YOU.

11. MY CAR IS STUCK...PLEASE SEND HELP.

12. GO AROUND...I AM WAITING FOR A PARKING PLACE...THANK YOU.

13. THANK YOU.

14. CAUTION...SLOWING TRAFFIC...ROAD REPAIRS? ACCIDENT?

15. ILLNESS...HELP...HELP...HELP.

16. PLEASE CALL POLICE...SEND AN AMBULANCE.

ID: nht87-2.16

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: JUNE 18, 1987

FROM: MARY F. BARRAS -- SALES ASSISTANT, CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION, M.A.N. TRUCK & BUS

TO: MICHAEL W. VORIS -- BUS PROCUREMENT SUPERVISOR, METRO

TITLE: CONTRACT NO. T/F 19-84 REAR EMERGENCY WINDOW

ATTACHMT: MEMO DATED 2-23-88, TO JAY COSTA, FROM ERIKA Z. JONES, STD 271, REDBOOK A31; MEMO DATED 7-1-87, TO ERIKA Z. JONES, FROM JAY COSTA; MEMO DATED 6-25-87, CONTRACT NO. T/F 19-83 REAR EMERGENCY WINDOW

TEXT: In response to your letter of June 16, 1987 I am providing the following information in regard to converting the rear emergency window to a non-openable type window.

According to FMVSS 217, a total of 4,355 square inches is required for this bus. Please see the attached FMVSS information provided in regard to the computations used to arrive at this figure. Our bus has 19 windows, including the rear window, which totals 536 square inches per window. The bus also has 3 roof hatches which total 506.25 square inches per hatch. Therefore, the computations are listed below: 536 sq. ins. x 19 windows, including rear = 10,184 sq. ins. 506.25 sq. ins. x 3 roof hatches = 1,519 sq. ins. *11,703 sq. ins. * This total can be considered the accountable square inches on the bus in regard to safety requirements set forth by FMVSS 217. Also, 1,742 square inches (40%) of one side of the bus is unobstructed thereby, complying with this standard.

Therefore, the rear emergency window may be changed and the bus will remain within the FMVSS 217 boundries.

May we suggest that Metro directly contact the window manufacturer in regard to any modification to be made to this window so that warranty provisions do not become void. Please feel free to contact Mr. Mike Hurtekant at Excel Industries at (219) 264 -2131 in Elkhart, Indiana. ATTACHMENTS