ID: 86-2.26

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/21/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Robert R. Clark

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your letter dated October 21, 1985, inquiring about the certification responsibilities under federal law of your client, a new car dealer. You stated in your letter that your client plans to convert new automobiles into limousines. These limousines would then be sold wholesale to dealers.

The relevant federal statute is the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, as amended (15 U.S.C. 1391 et seq.). Under section 103 of the Act, this agency issues Federal motor vehicle safety standards and regulations applying to motor vehicles and their equipment.

As we understand the facts stated in your letter, the automobiles will be completed by the original manufacturer who will certify that they meet all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. Your client plans to alter the automobiles prior to their first purchase for purposes other than resale.

Your client's plan to convert automobiles would make him an alterer, subject to the requirements of 49 CFR Part 567.7, Certification. An alterer is a person who alters a previously certified vehicle by means other than the addition, substitution, or removal of readily attachable components or minor finishing operations, or in such a manner that the vehicle's stated weight ratings are no longer valid. If the alteration is performed before the first purchase of the vehicle for purposes other than resale, the alterer must supplement the certification label by affixing an additional label stating that the vehicle as altered conforms to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards and containing the firm or individual name of the alterer.

An alterer is also considered a manufacturer for the purposes of notification and recall for defects or noncompliance under the Act and is subject to the requirements of 49 CFR Part 573, Defect and Noncompliance Reports.

In addition, please note that your client should take care in making the conversions not to harm the vehicles' safety features. Under section 108 of the Act, a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business must not knowingly render inoperative, in whole or in part, any device or element of design which is installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard. Your client would be subject to this prohibition which applies both before and after the first purchase of a motor vehicle for purposes other than resale.

I hope this information is helpful to you.

SINCERELY,

TABBERT & CAPEHART ATTORNEYS AT LAW

October 21, 1985

Jeffrey R. Miller, Esqu. Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Mr. Miller:

On Tuesday, October 15, 1985, I telephoned your office and spoke with Mr. Steve Oeshch regarding a client of this firm who wishes to convert fully assembled automobiles into limousines. After speaking with Mr. Oeshch, he suggested that I write to your office and request a formal interpretation in regard to this matter, in view of the facts as discussed.

The client is a new car dealer in Anderson, Indiana. He desires to purchase fully assembled new automobiles from the manufacturer and subsequently convert them into limousines. The limousines will in turn be sold wholesale to dealers.

I wish to know which federal Department of Transportation statutes must be complied with and how to classify the client, i.e. dealer, manufacturer or remanufacturer.

Could you kindly at your earliest convenience render an opinion regarding this matter. Any assistance you might give me would be greatly appreciated. Thank you.

SINCERELY, Robert R. Clark

ID: 86-2.27

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/21/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Ernest Farmer -- Director of Pupil Transportation, Tennessee Dept. of Education

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Ernest Farmer Director of Pupil Transportation Tennessee Department of Education Nashville, Tennessee 37219-5335

This responds to your February 19, 1986 letter to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) asking whether Federal motor vehicle safety standards prohibit commercial businesses from using fiberglass on the exterior of school buses. As explained below, the answer to your question is no.

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act authorizes NHTSA to issue minimum performance standards for school buses. Our safety standards do not specify the materials to be used for the exterior of school buses. However, the materials chosen by a manufacturer must be strong enough to enable the bus to meet the requirements of those standards. Among those requirements are the rollover protection ones of Standard No. 220, fuel system requirements of Standard No. 301, and strength requirements of Standard No. 221, School Bus Body Joint Strength, for body panel joints on school buses with gross vehicle weight ratings over 10,000 pounds. Manufacturers of new school buses using fiberglass for school bus exteriors must certify that their vehicles conform to the requirements of all applicable school bus safety standards.

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

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

February 19, 1986

Ms. Deadra Holm U. S. Department of Transportation NHTSA 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D. C. 20590

Dear Ms. Holm,

We have discovered the presence of fiber glass in the outer skin of the Van Conversions manufactured by the Collins Industries Inc. of Hutchinson, Kansas. While, admittedly, we see little if any, safety hazard associated with the practice, we do forsee the possibility of legal actions "down the road" if children are seriously injured and the presence of this material is exposed.

Our school bus specifications require compliance with the National Minimum School Bus Standards as well as all Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards applicable to the manufacture, sale and operation of pupil transportation equipment. My question is: Does the use of fiberglass in the manufacture of Type II school buses conflict with any known FMVSS?

An early response will be appreciated.

Sincerely yours,

Ernest Farmer Director of Pupil Transportation

ID: 86-2.28

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/21/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: William Shapiro -- Manager, Regulatory Affairs, Volvo Cars of North America

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

William Shapiro, P.E. Manager, Regulatory Affairs Volvo Cars of North American Rockleigh, NJ 07647 Dear Mr. Shapiro: Thank you for your letter of November 14, 1985, requesting an interpretation of Standard No. 210, Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages. You explained that Volvo is planning to voluntarily add an extra anchorage for type 2 safety belt in the middle rear designated seating position, which is already equipped with two anchorages for a Type 1 safety belt. You asked whether the third anchorage point would have to meet the anchorage location requirements set forth in S4.3.2 of the standard. As explained below, the additional anchorage would not have to comply with the location requirements of the standard. As you correctly pointed out, S4.1.2 allows manufacturers the option of installing anchorages for either a Type1 or Type 2 safety belt at the center rear designated seating position. Thus, by providing anchorages for a Type 1 belt at that seating position. Thus, by providing anchorages for a Type 1 belt at that seating position, Volvo has met the installation requirement of S4.1.2 The agency has stated in past interpretations, such as in a March 1, 1979 letter to Ford, that systems are not required to meet Federal safety standards, provided the additional components or systems do not destroy the ability of required systems to comply with the standards. Thus, you may install a third anchorage if it does not affect the ability of the required anchorages to meet the standard. Sincerely, Original Signed By Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

11/14/85

Re: Request for Interpretation Std. 210 Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages

Dear Ms. Erika Jones:

FMVSS #210 specifies that seat belt anchorages for Type 2 seat belt assembly shall be installed for each forward-facing outboard designated seating position in passenger cars other than convertibles, The standard goes on to require that seat belt anchorages for a Type 1 or a Type 2 seat belt assembly shall be installed for each designated seating position, except a passenger seat in a bus, or a designated seating position for which seat belt anchorages for Type 2 seat belt assembly are required by S 4.1.1.

Volvo is planning to voluntarily add an extra anchorage for a Type 2 seat belt in the middle rear designated seating position. This is in addition to the two (2) anchorage points for a Type 1 seat belt that are used to meet the requirements of S.4.1.2.

We interpret that this voluntary third anchorage point does not have to meet the requirements in S.4.3.2 Location. Please confirm this interpretation as soon as possible.

If additional information is required on this matter, don't hesitate to contact me.

Sincerely,

William Shapiro, P.E. Manager, Regulator Affairs Product Planning and Development Volvo Cars of North America

ID: 86-2.29

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/21/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Mr. S. Elvin-Jensen

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

April 21, 1986 Mr. S. Elvin-Jensen Safety Transport Inter (Pty) Ltd. P.O. Box 1513 Dassenberg 7350 SOUTH AFRICA Dear Mr. Elvin-Jensen: This responds to your letter dated August 28, 1985, asking whether a child booster seat marketed by your company complies with Standard No. 213, Child Restraint Systems. I regret the delay in replying to your letter. The descriptive materials accompanying your letter indicate that your child seat is secured by a vehicle's belt system, and has no harness of its own. Standard No. 213 applies to all child restraint systems. Those except Type II seat belts, designed for use in a motor vehicle to restrain, seat, or position children who weigh not more than 50 pounds." The information enclosed with your letter states that the child booster seat is intended to seat children weighing from 15 to 32 kg., which is equivalent to 33 to 70.5 pounds. This weight range includes children who weigh up to 50 pounds. Therefore, Standard No. 213 would apply to your product if it is marketed in this country. You ask if Standard No. 213 requires child restraint systems to have their own harness. The answer is no. the specific requirements of the standard on child restraint harness systems only apply if a manufacturer provides belts as a part of the system. Thus, for example, section 5.4.3.3 does not require that each child restraint be equipped with a harness meeting the requirements of that section. Instead, it provides that "each child restraint system...that has belts designed to restrain the child" must comply with those requirements. (Emphasis added.) Under S6.1 of the standard, your child booster seat would be tested with a Type I safety belt (i.e., lap belt) attached. Although abdominal loading is not specifically measured in the test, the agency is concerned that when a vehicle lap belt is used with a child restraint system to restrain a child, the belt be positioned so that it does not apply impact loads to the abdomen of the child. The abdomen is, of course, the area of the body most vulnerable to the forces imposed by the belt in a crash. thus, the agency believes that the lap belt should be held in place by the child restraint so that it passes over the pelvis and thighs of a child, areas of the body best able to withstand the forces imposed by the vehicle belt. Based on the photograph of your child booster seat, we are concerned that the vehicle lap belt may not be properly positioned and securely held by the restraint. Instead, the lap belt may allow submarining and may apply impact loads to the abdomen, unless the seating surface of the restraint is designed to prevent submarining. The agency is also concerned that the lap belt should be properly positioned and securely held so that no substantial inertial loads of the booster seat are applied to the child. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (the Act), as amended, 15 U.S.C. 1391, et seq., under which Standard No. 213 was issued, provides for self-certification by manufacturers instead of the type-approval or homologation process used in Europe and elsewhere. Under the Act, manufacturers are responsible for certifying that their items of motor vehicle equipment, such as child seats, comply with the requirements of any applicable safety standard. If you plan to market your child safety seat in this country, you should ensure that your child safety seat complies with all of the applicable requirements of the standard, including the certification requirements of S5.5. Under the Act and our regulations, manufacturers also have the responsibility to conduct notification and remedy campaigns for safety related defects or noncompliances in their products (sections 151-159). The Act defines a manufacturer as "any person engaging in the manufacturing or assembling of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, including any person importing motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment for resale." In the event that neither the importer nor the assembling manufacturer met an obligation imposed on a "manufacturer" by the Act or our regulations, the agency would consider taking enforcement action against both parties. Any such obligation, however, could be satisfied by either party. In addition, there are two other regulations which affect manufacturers. Those regulations require manufacturers to provide the agency with certain identifying information (49 CFR Part 566), and, in the case of foreign manufacturers, to designate an agent for the service of process (49 CFR Part 551). Copies of Standard No. 213, the Act, Part 566, Part 551, 19 CFR 12.80 and an instruction sheet for new manufacturers are enclosed. I hope this information is helpful to you. Sincerely, Original Signed By Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel Enclosures

ID: 86-2.3

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/03/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: The Honorable Bobbi Fiedler

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

The Honorable Bobbi Fiedler House of Representatives 1607 Longworth House Office Building Washington, D.C. 20515

Dear Ms. Fiedler:

Thank you for your letter enclosing correspondence from your constituent, Mr. William Griffiths of Newbury Park, who asked several questions about our regulations for safety belts on passenger motor vehicles, buses and school buses. Your letter has been referred to my office for reply.

Your constituent asked why safety belt designs vary between different seating positions and among different types of motor vehicles. He observes that some vehicles have a combination of pelvic and upper torso restraints ("lap and shoulder belts") in the front seats, while providing only lap belts for the rear seats. He further notes that safety belts are not required for passengers in buses and school buses. Apparently Mr. Griffiths believes that shoulder belts are uncomfortable and feels that they should not be installed in the front seats of passenger motor vehicles.

I am pleased to have this opportunity to clarify our requirements for your constituent. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is responsible for developing safety standards for all new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, establishes performance requirements for the protection of vehicle occupants in crashes. Under FMVSS No. 208, motor vehicle manufacturers must provide lap and shoulder belts for front outboard passenger positions in order to comply with the standard. Since persons in the front seating positions of an automobile should be protected from rigid structures forward of those positions, such as the windshield pillars, He believe that an upper torso restraint of some kind is necessary. Our requirements differ for the rear seating positions, where only a lap belt need be provided, because the area forward of those positions does not contain the relatively hard surfaces found in the areas surrounding the front seats.

As Mr. Griffiths has noted, our safety standards for buses and school buses do not require safety belts for passengers. NHTSA does not require safety belts for transit-type buses because the crash forces experienced by those vehicles are less severe than those of lighter vehicles in similar collisions. Also, the safety record for transit buses is good Accordingly, we believe that revising our requirements for their seating systems would not reduce injuries substantially. Safety belts are not required for passengers in large school buses because those vehicles are required to provide high levels of occupant crash protection through a concept called :"compartmentalization." Compartmentalization requires that the interior of large school buses by constructed so that children are protected without the need to use safety belts. The seating improvements include higher and stronger seat backs, additional seat padding, hand improved seat spacing and performance.

Your constituent might be interested to know that we have addressed his concern regarding the discomfort some passengers experience with safety belts equipped with shoulder restraints. We have taken steps to improve the comfort and convenience of safety belt Systems by a recent amendment to our safety standards. A copy of the amendment is enclosed.

I hope this information is helpful. Please do not hesitate to contact my office if you have further questions.

Sincerely,

Original Signed By

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Enclosure

Congress of the United States House of Representatives Washington D.C.

Dec. 20 1985

Nancy Miller Department of Transportation

Sir:

The attached communication is sent for your consideration. Please investigate the statements contained therein and forward me the necessary information for reply, returning the enclosed correspondence with your answer.

Yours truly,

M. C.

Please Return ATTN: Louise Gessford 1607 Longworth

Rep Fiedler

Why do the car manufacturers have different seat belt configurations, with the belt in the front seats going around the waist and over the shoulder and the back seat only around waist, some have front seat only around waist?

Why do the city buses not have seat belts for the passengers? Also school buses?

We the people are the testing area for the car industry.

These are a few of the negative views after talking to many people about new seat belt law.

Have they thought about people who have had heart surgery, and other people having surgery who still have very tender areas, also women with large breasts, the only relief is to ride with your hand under the belt in these irritating areas in order to obey the law. This seems quite stupid.

Summation: There definitely should be more research done on this problem: either have the car manufacturers install waist belts in all cars or resort to air bags.

Will await your reply

William Griffith 815 492-5432

ID: 86-2.30

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/21/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Continental Products Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Peter Hofmann Product Manager Continental Products Corporation 1200 Wall Street West Lyndhurst, NJ 07071

Dear Mr. Hofmann:

This responds to your letter, asking three questions about any National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) requirements for labeling tires as "all-season" tires. I will answer your questions in the order they were presented in your letter.

1. Is there a definition issued by NHTSA regarding mud and snow tire tread design characteristics?

No, NHTSA has not issued any such specifications. For all of our tire regulations, except the Uniform Tire Quality Grading Standards (UTQGS: 49 CFR 5575.104), a tire is subject to the same requirements, regardless of its specific design characteristics. That is, all new passenger car tires must satisfy the requirements of Standard No. 109 and be labeled in accordance with Part 574. This is true whether the new passenger car tire is a mud and snow tire, all-season tire, high speed-rated tire, temporary spare tire, or a normal highway service tire. Accordingly, the agency has had no reason to define particular characteristics of a mud and snow tire for any regulation or standard besides the UTQGS, and the agency has not done so.

The UTQGS apply to all new passenger car tires with a few exceptions. One of the groups of new passenger car tires not subject to the UTQGS is "deep tread, winter-type snow tires." When all- season tires were first introduced, several manufacturers asked whether all-season tires qualified as deep tread, winter-type snow tires. The agency responded to these questions with an explanation of what the UTQGS means by the phrase "deep tread, winter-type snow tires." This discussion appeared at 44 FR 30140, May 24, 1979, and reads as follows:

"While all-weather tires may share some characteristics of snow tires under industry categorization systems, they are not limited in acceptable use to winter periods by virtue of their construction. The qualifying language 'deep tread, winter-type' indicates NHTSA's intention to except only a strictly limited class of tires, the deep tread rubber and tread design of which makes year round use on passenger automobiles inadvisable. Since all-weather tires are designed with a tread depth which permits and is in fact intended for safe operation throughout the year, they do not qualify as 'deep tread, winter-type snow tires' for purposes of the applicability of the UTQG Standards."

Hence, for the purposes of the UTQGS, it is the manufacturer who must, in the first instance, determine if a passenger car tire design incorporates a tread depth and design such that the tire qualifies as a deep tread, winter-type snow tire. A manufacturer making such a determination is not required to label the tire as a mud and snow tire; instead, the manufacturer simply is not required to comply with the UTQGS requirements for that tire design. In the course of its compliance enforcement for tires, the agency may reexamine the question of whether a particular tire design is a deep tread, winter-type snow tire. This is the only context in which the agency has ever addressed the issue of what constitutes a snow tire.

2. Can a tire have a paper label affixed stating that it is a mud and snow tire even if the symbol for a mud and snow tire is not molded into the tire sidewall?

NHTSA has no regulatory requirements specifying how or that a tire be labeled as a mud and snow tire. Therefore, your company may label mud and snow tires in any manner you wish without violating any NHTSA requirements.

It is possible that the Federal Trade Commission has established some requirements for the marketing of a tire as a mud and snow tire, under its authority to prevent "unfair or deceptive" marketing practices. To learn if the Federal Trade Commission has any requirements, you may write to: Division of Marketing Practices, Bureau of Consumer Protection, Federal Trade Commission, Sixth Street and Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20580.

You may also wish to learn if there are any voluntary industry standards for the labeling of mud and snow tires. The American standardization organization for tires is the Tire and Rim Association, Inc. You may contact them at 3200 West Market Street, Akron, Ohio 44313. Naturally, the decision of whether to follow those voluntary industry standards is left to the discretion of your company.

3. Can a tire be labeled as an all-season tire even if no marking showing it is a mud and snow tire or all-season tire is molded into the sidewall?

The answer to this question is identical to the answer given above for question number 2. NHTSA has no regulations specifying that an all-season tire must be so labeled on the sidewall, so your company will not violate any NHTSA requirements by marketing the tire as an all-season tire without molding information into the sidewall. You may wish to contact the Federal Trade Commission to learn if they have any requirements and the Tire & Rim Association to learn if there is any voluntary industry practice in this area.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

March 13, 1986

Mrs. Erika Jones Chief Council - NOA-3O NHTSA 400 7th Street, SW Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Mrs. Jones:

We have the following questions regarding All Season tire labeling:

- Is there a definition in existence regarding M + S tread design characteristics issued by the NHTSA?

- Can a tire be labeled with M + S (paper sticker), even though the M + S is not embossed in the sidewall?

- Can we label a tire -All Season- even though no marking referring to M + S or All Season is embossed in the sidewall?

We would appreciate an answer to the above as soon as possible, as we are about to introduce new product lines in the All Season category.

Sincerely,

Peter Hofmann Product Manager

PH/emp

ID: 86-2.31

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/22/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: S.H. Jacobs

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. S. H. Jacobs Product Manager Robert Bosch Corporation P.O. Box 4601 North Suburban, IL 60198

Dear Mr. Jacobs:

This responds to your letter dated December 6, 1985, inquiring whether any Federal motor vehicle safety standards apply to spark plugs. regret the delay in responding to your inquiry.

Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, as amended, 15 U.S.C. 1391, et seq. (the Act), this agency has the authority to establish safety standards for motor vehicles and their equipment. At this time, none of these standards is applicable to spark plugs.

You should note that under Part B of the Act and our regulations, manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment, such as spark plugs, have the responsibility to conduct notification and remedy campaigns for safety-related defects in their products. I have enclosed an information sheet outlining our defect and other regulations.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Enclosure

Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Office of Chief Consul Washington, D.C. 20590

December 6, 1985

Subject: DOT/NHTSA Standards and Requirements for the Sale of Spark Plugs

Dear Sirs,

As per our letter dated October 9, 1985, it is our understanding there are not any DOT/NHTSA standards and/or regulations governing the sale of spark plugs (copy attached). However, we require a written reply from your department confirming the non-existence of any DOT/NHTSA standards and/or regulations regarding the sale of spark plugs.

Our customer requires a written confirmation as soon as possible. Your immediate attention to this matter will be appreciated.

Sincerely, Attachment

S.H. Jacobs Product Manager

cc: ASD - L. Milligan

Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Office of Chief Consul Washington, D.C. 20590 October 9, 1985

Subject: DOT/NHTSA Standards and Requirements for the Sale of Spark Plugs

Dear Sirs,

The Robert Bosch Corporation sells spark plugs through K-Mart stores across the country. One of the conditions for this sale is that our product conforms in all respects with all applicable federal, state and local laws, orders and regulations, including but not limited to those regarding occupational safety and health".

After conversations with various DOT and NHTSA personnel, It is our understanding there are not any DOT/NHTSA standards and/or regulations covering the sale of spark plugs.

Enclosed is a copy of the letter from K-Mart requesting such documentation for your review.

We request a written reply confirming the non-existence of any DOT/ NHTSA standards and/or regulations regarding the sale of spark plugs.

Your prompt attention to this matter is appreciated.

Sincerely,

S. H. Jacobs Product Manager

cc: AMA J. Crowley ASD L. Milligan

ID: 86-2.32

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/23/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Chih-Lo Hwang

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Chih-Lo Hwang Tetley, Inc. 7 High Street Spring Valley, N.Y. 10977

Dear Chih-lo Hwang:

This is in reply to your letter of March 3, 1986, stating that you are a manufacturer of the "center high-mounted collision avoidance lights", and have heard from AAMVA that there is a law prohibiting any selling of a safety device that has not been "DOT" approved. You have asked for a copy of this law.

We are not familiar with the AAMVA position with regard to center high-mounted stop lamps, but we will provide you with our views. First, the phrase "DOT approved" is frequently and mistakenly used to refer to equipment that must be certified as complying with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard. The Department neither "approves" nor "disapproves" motor vehicles and equipment. However, motor vehicles and certain motor vehicle equipment must be certified by their manufacturers as complying with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards.

With respect to the center high-mounted stop lamp, all passenger cars manufactured on or after September 1, 1985, must be equipped with a center high-mounted stop lamp as original equipment and any center high-mounted stop lamp that is manufactured to replace this original equipment must be certified as complying with Federal requirements. If the replacement lamp is not manufactured to comply and certified as complying. then its sale is a violation of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. I am enclosing a copy of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 which contains the requirements for center high-mounted stop lamps.

On the other hand, if the center high-mounted stop lamp is intended for sale in the aftermarket, to be used on a passenger car manufactured before September 1, 1985, which never had one as original equipment, it does not have to be manufactured to and certified as complying with Federal requirements. Nevertheless we encourage aftermarket manufacturer to voluntarily meet the Federal requirements. The lamp, however, may be subject to "approval" by the laws of the State in which the lamp pill be sold or used.

If you have any further questions, we shall be pleased to answer them.

Sincerely.

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

7 HIGH STREET SPRING VALLEY NEW YORK 10977 TEL.(914)352-6803

March 3 1986

Ms.Erika Z Jones Chief Counselor of National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 7 Street S, W. Washington D.C. 20590

Dear Ms Jones:

We are the manufacturer of the center high mounted collision avoidance lights. We have heard from AAMVA there is such law that Prohibited any illegal selling of this safety device item which have not been "DOT" approved, but unfortunately most our buyers do not familiar with this law. We like to prove it to them. Would you kind enough to send us a copy of this law? Your early respond would be deeply appreciated. Thank you.

Very Truly Yours, Tetley Inc.

Chih-Lo Hwang

ID: 86-2.33

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/23/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: ANONYMOUS

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Dear

This is in reply to your letter of October 31, 1985, asking for confirmation of your interpretation that the location of a proposed motorcycle rear turn signal system meets the requirements of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

Table IV of Standard No. 108 requires motorcycle turn signal lamps to be located "at or near the rear" and to have "a minimum horizontal separation distance (centerline to centerline of lamps) of 9 inches." Further, the "minimum edge to edge separation distance between lamp and tail or stop lamp is 4 inches." The diagram you have attached shows that the minimum horizontal separation distance between the turn signal lamps is 12 inches, and therefore complies with that requirement of Standard No. 107. However, the turn signal lamps are not mounted adjacent to the stop/taillamp which is on the rear of the vehicle on what appears to be the body but forward of it so that in a two-dimensional side elevation the edge to edge separation distance of the stop/taillamp and the turn signals is 3.75 inches. A plan view indicates that the horizontal separation distance between edge to edge is 2 inches. The actual edge to edge separation distance as measured by a continuous straight line is 5 inches, and you believe that this satisfies the standard's requirement for a minimum edge-to-edge separation of 4 inches.

We do not agree with this interpretation since it is premised on a frame of reference different from that used in Table IV to express the location requirements for turn signals. The frame of reference used in Table IV is that of a rear elevation in which the motorcycle is bisected by a vertical centerline. This is the appropriate frame of reference since it implements the safety rationale giving rise to the location requirement. Standard No. 108 specifies a minimum separation distance to minimize the possibility that an observer will be confused as to a lamp's function. A motorist approaching directly from the rear will perceive an edge-to-edge separation distance between the stop/tail and turn signal lamp of only 2 inches if your configuration is used. Therefore, each turn signal lamp must be relocated 2 inches further outboard if it is to comply with Standard No. 108.

Your request for confidentiality is honored, to the extent that the copy of this letter made publicly available will include neither the identification of you and your company, nor the diagram you provided.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

ID: 86-2.34

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/23/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Rudi Haenisch -- Manager Sales, Brisson Development, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Rudi Haenisch Manager Sales Brisson Development, Inc. 13845 Nine Mile Road Warren, Michigan 48089

Thank you for writing on March 19, 1986, and telling me about your strobe lamp which plugs into cigarette lighter sockets and which is intended to serve as a supplementary warning device. I assume that you want to know our views as to its legality.

This type of aftermarket accessory is not covered by Standard No. 108. the Federal motor vehicle safety standard on motor vehicle lighting, and there are no Federal restrictions on its sale or use. This means that its permissibility must be determined by the laws of each jurisdiction in which it is to be sold and/or used, and it is our impression that many States may restrict the use of strobe lamps to defined emergency vehicles engaged in emergency missions.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

March 19, 1986

Mrs Erika Z. Jones - Chief Council National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Room 5219 400 Seventh Street S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Mrs. Jones;

On March 18, 1986, I talked by phone with Mr. Steve Oesch and he informed me to send this letter to you.

Brisson Development Inc. has designed two different 'Emergency Strobe Lights' for the auto aftermarket geared toward the owners of Light trucks and automobiles. They are designed to be magnetically mounted on the vehicle and just plug into the cigarette lighter receptacle. Thereby providing additional safety warning to traffic and in some cases the only warning (if the vehicles OEM flashers have failed) that the vehicle is a hazard to other traffic.

As I am sure you are aware of the many different types of vehicle emergency aid devices available on the market today. Ranging from reflectors, which for some reason people like to run over, to mechanical triggered standard light bulb devices, which have about the same reliability of a flashlight that has not been in use for six months and when you need it it does not work. I personally, and people I know, have bought and tried just about every emergency aid type device and have really not been happy with any of them. That is why at Brisson we are looking to make a quality emergency light that will be reliable after long periods of time that it has not been used or tested and then function properly in any kind of weather.

Why a strobe light instead of making just another me to item?

1. Reliability of the electronic circuit - the strobe light was designed from conception to provide high candle power flashing lights from short to Long time usage.

2. No mechanical parts to wear out, corrode, or malfunction.

3. High candle power output with low electric current draw as compared to regular bulbs and their flasher unit.

4. Low cost of unit per candle power.

5. Many emergency and road work vehicles have and are changing to strobe units.

6. The fast high intensity light flash of strobes triggers an attentive response from the human brain and points out a hazardous condition.

7. Strobes are new on the highway market, and have not created a mental block as some other emergency devices, just look at the average life of a road construction or work sign, we may look at designing a spaced strobe for this problem also.

Descriptions of the two emergency strobe units are as follows:

SL 70 K Emergency Strobe Light - Puts out 70,000 candlepower of light. Comes with a cigarette lighter plug and just over ten feet of twenty guage wire insulated cord.

A strong magnet has been put in the bottom of the unit so it can be mounted anywhere on the outside of the vehicle and not fall or get blown off. An amber high strength plastic lens has been provided since amber is a universal emergency color. A high strength plastic bottom has been chosen for its non-corrosive qualities. The top lens and bottomhousing screw together for ease of service should anything happen to the top lens for replacement. The top amber lens has a refractive design to diffuse the light evenly. Provides a full 360 degree field of vision, especially in situations where a vehicle has been parked at an angle to the road where its OEM flashers cannot be seen from the road. The bulb flashes at a rate of four times per second and is a clear xenon gas filled type. A polished reflective surface has been put on the inside just below the bulb to reflect all the Light through the amber Lens. Dimensions are 41/2 inches high by a 3 inch round diameter with a rounded dome top.

SL 140 K Emergency Strobe Light - Puts out 140,000 candlepower of light. Comes with a cigarette lighter plug and a twenty five guage, ten foot coilable, insulated cord. Three high strength magnets have been put on the bottom (saving weight) and providing stability so the unit can be mounted anywhere on the outside of the vehicle and will not fall or get blown off. An emergency yellow high strength plastic lens has been provided since it is a universally accepted emergency color. A high strength plastic bottom has been chosen for its non-corrosive qualities. The top lens and bottom are held together by three evenly spaced phillips heads screws coming up through the bottom casing and screwing into the out top lens and do not show, and thereby making the unit easily serviced. The top emergency yellow lens has a refractive design to difuse the light evenly. Provides a full 360 degree field of vision, especially in situations where a vehicle has been parked at an angle to the road where its OEM flashers cannot be seen from the road. The bulb flashes at a rate of two times per second and is a clear xenon gas type. Future units may have two bulbs instead of one. A polished reflective surface has been put on the inside just below the bulb to reflect all the light through the yellow Lens. Dimensions are Top Lena 2 3/8 inches tall by 3 5/8 inches round diameter with a flat top; Bottom Casing is 1 1/2 inches tall by 4 3/4 inches round diameter; Total height is 3 5/8 inches since the top lens and bottom casing slightly overlap.

The above two emergency lights were designed cosmetically to meet the different conditions they will be functioning in, but also to be pleasing to the buying public.

In the future, after more research has been done, I might be interested in discussing the possibility of manufacturing strobe Lights as OEM emergency flashers for automobiles and light trucks, and also new concepts for the heavy trucking industry.

Thank you for your valuable time. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at the above address, or by phone (1-800-824-5106).

Sincerely,

Rudi Haenisch Manager Sales

RH/DC