ID: 2773y

Mr. William Walters
7709 Wallace Street
Merrillville, IN 46410

Dear Mr. Walters:

This is in reply to your letter of October 8, l990, to Ms. Erika Jones, formerly Chief Counsel of this agency. You have asked that we review the enclosures to your letter, and provide "the reason why this system is not being used."

The primary material you enclosed is a patent granted May 1, l990, for an "Automobile Warning Light Improvement." The purpose of the "Improvement" is to enhance existing rear signal lamps by sending an advance warning of driving situations which have the potential of impeding the flow of traffic. The device activates the center highmounted stop lamp under situations other than when the brake pedal is applied. According to the patent, the device causes the center lamp to operate in a steady-burning mode when a vehicle is in reverse gear, and in a flashing mode when the turn signals are operating. When activated under these conditions, the center lamp will be deactivated when the accelerator is depressed.

The reason why this system cannot presently be used is that its installation would create a noncompliance with existing requirements. The performance of the center highmounted stop lamp is specified by Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. l08, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment. Paragraph S5.5.4 of the standard specifically states that "The highmounted lamp on passenger cars shall be activated only upon application of the service brakes." In addition, the effect of paragraph S5.5.10 is to require all stop lamps to be steady burning when in use. Activation of the center lamp by means other than application of the brake pedal (such as putting the vehicle into reverse gear, or activating the turn signals), and in a mode other than steady burning (flashing with the turn signals) is prohibited by Standard No. l08.

The reason why this system is unlikely to be used in the future is that it appears to have little if any potential for improving motor vehicle safety. Backup lamps, turn signal lamps, and center stop lamps have specific and different tasks to perform. Use of the center lamp to assist the other lamps in performing their tasks has the potential for creating confusion. The red center lamp used alone sends an unmistakable message: this vehicle is braking, with a deceleration that may lead to a stop. It is a message to which the motoring public is accustomed. Use of the center lamp when the backup lamps are on sends a false signal that the vehicle may be decelerating in a forward motion or stopped when, in fact, it may be proceeding in a reverse motion. Use of a flashing stop lamp, mounted on the centerline of the car, in conjunction with a turn signal lamp that is flashing either to the right or left of the centerline, has the potential also to create confusion as to the intent of the driver, and distracts attention from the message sent by the turn signal that the vehicle is changing lanes or preparing to turn.

We appreciate your interest in safety and in bringing this invention to our attention.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

ref:l08 d:l2/3/90

ID: 2774y

Mr. Malcolm B. Mathieson
Vice President, Engineering
Thomas Built Buses, Inc.
P.O. Box 2450
High Point, NC 27261

Dear Mr. Mathieson:

This responds to your letter to former Chief Counsel Erika Jones concerning the application of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 217; Bus Window Retention and Release to school buses. I apologize for the delay in responding to your inquiry.

Your letter expressed concern about a recent opinion from the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) which states that school buses used in interstate commerce and thus subject to FHWA's Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSR's) are required by the FMCSR's to comply with the provisions in Standard No. 217 applicable to buses other than school buses. Your letter included copies of a recent letter from Thomas Buses to FHWA on this issue, as well past interpretations by FHWA and this agency.

As you are aware, Standard No. 217 contains specific emergency exit requirements for school buses, as well as requirements for other buses. As noted in your letter to FHWA, and in our past interpretations, including the July 5, 1984 letter to Ron Marion that you enclosed, it is NHTSA's position that all buses sold as school buses must comply with the school bus requirements in Standard No. 217. We recognize that this position may conflict with FHWA's interpretation of their regulations, and we are seeking resolution of this issue with FHWA to resolve any inconsistencies between the FMVSS's and the FMCSR's.

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

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

/ref:217 d:l2/3/90

ID: 2775y

Mr. Donald W. Vierimaa
Vice President-Engineering
Truck Trailer Manufacturers Association
1020 Princess Street
Alexandria, Virginia 22314

Dear Mr. Vierimaa:

This is in response to your association's request that this office review the most recent revision of the Truck Trailer Manufacturers Association's (TTMA) Recommended Practice Number 56, "Trailer Vehicle Identification Number." After that review, we have the following comments. Please note, however, that these comments do not constitute any sort of NHTSA approval or endorsement of the TTMA's Recommended Practice.

The TTMA Recommended Practice appears to provide correct information about NHTSA's vehicle identification number (VIN) requirements, as set forth in 49 CFR Part 565, Vehicle Identification Number-Content Requirements and Standard No. 115, Vehicle Identification Number-Basic Requirements (49 CFR 571.115). However, in several instances, the Recommended Practice goes beyond what is required by NHTSA's VIN regulations to recommend one particular means be used to assign a section of the VIN, when NHTSA's regulations leave the assignment of that section to the discretion of the vehicle manufacturer. Examples of the TTMA recommendations going beyond the NHTSA regulations may be found in the explanations provided in Part 13.0 on the Vehicle Descriptor (Second) Section Code, Part 14.0 Check Digit (Third) Section Code, and Part 15.0 Vehicle Indicator (Fourth) Section Code. While TTMA is free to make these recommendations, it may be helpful for your members to recognize the distinction between VIN information that is required by NHTSA, and therefore must follow an exact format according to Federal law, as opposed to matters that are within the discretion of the assigner of the VIN, and for which the TTMA provides one suggested means by which the requirement(s) may be fulfilled.

We offer the following comments on particular sections of this recommended practice: Part 6.0 Definitions

The definitions of "body type," "line," "make," and "series" are not identical to the definitions in Title 49 CFR Part 565. In addition, since this section of your recommended practice states that the definitions in Part 6 "are used in NHTSA regulations," you may wish to note that NHTSA does not define the terms "production sequence," and "type of trailer" in its regulations.

Part 9.1 Location

This part should note that 49 CFR Part 567.4(d) requires certification labels (which must include VINs) to be affixed "to a location on the forward half of the left side, such that it is easily readable from outside the vehicle without moving any part of the vehicle."

Part 11.0 VIN Content

You may wish to note that the content requirements in this part of the recommended practice are a paraphrase and explanation of NHTSA's VIN content requirements, set forth at 49 CFR Part 565 Vehicle Identification Number-Content Requirements.

16.0 References

Please note that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has issued a VIN system information bulletin dated July 1985. I am enclosing a copy of it. Please feel free to reproduce this information and provide it to your members. They may also receive it directly from NHTSA by writing to us.

If there are any further questions or concerns, please contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

Enclosure ref:ll5#565 d:l2/3/90

ID: 2776y

AIR MAIL

Mr. M. Iwase General Manager Technical Administration Department Koito Mfg. Co. Ltd. Shizuoka Works 500, Kitawaki Shimizu-Shi, Shizuoka-Ken Japan

Dear Mr. Iwase:

This is in response to your letter of November 20, l990 with respect to "interpretation and/or petition" concerning combination headlighting systems.

Koito has asked about the permissibility of two or four lamp headlighting systems in which the upper beam would be provided by integral beam headlamps, and the lower beam by replaceable bulb headlamps.

The systems you describe would not be permissible under Standard No. l08, which allows only the three types of headlighting systems that you mention. Integral beam headlighting systems must be comprised of integral beam headlamps which, by definition, are headlamps other than sealed beam or replaceable bulb headlamps. Replaceable bulb headlighting systems are those that incorporate the standardized replaceable light sources listed in Standard No. l08.

We are transmitting your request to the Office of Rulemaking, for consideration as a petition for rulemaking.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel ref:108 d:l2/l3/90

ID: 2777y

Mr. Fred Ciampi
Fred's Welding Service
Route 86, Box 85
Jumping Branch, WV 25969-0085

Dear Mr. Ciampi:

This responds to your letter requesting information concerning Federal requirements governing the manufacture of utility trailers. Your letter indicated that you plan to manufacture trailers.

First, please be aware that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has authority to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and certain items of motor vehicle equipment. For purposes of this authority, trailers are considered motor vehicles. NHTSA does not approve motor vehicles or equipment, nor does the agency endorse any commercial products. Instead, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act establishes a certification process under which each manufacturer must certify that its product meets agency safety standards, or other applicable standards. Periodically, NHTSA tests whether vehicles or equipment comply with these standards, and may investigate alleged safety-related product defects.

The following Federal safety standards apply to trailers: Safety Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment, Safety Standard No. 115, Vehicle identification Number--Basic Requirements, and Safety Standard No. 119, New Pneumatic Tires for Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars. The content requirements for the vehicle identification number are found at 49 CFR Part 565. In addition, depending on the type of braking system used, trailers must meet Safety Standard No. 106, Brake Hoses, Safety Standard No. 116, Motor Vehicle Brake Fluids, and Safety Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems. All of these standards are found in 49 CFR Part 571.

In addition, as a manufacturer of motor vehicles, you would be required to submit identification information to this agency in accordance with 49 CFR Part 566, Manufacturer Identification. You would also be required to certify that each trailer complies with all applicable Federal safety standards. This certification procedure is set out in 49 CFR Part 567. You may find a copy of 49 CFR at a Federal Depository Library in your State. If you so choose, you may purchase a copy of Title 49 from the United States Government Printing Office (GPO), Washington, D.C. 20402, (202) 783-3238. With respect to laws governing trailer manufacture, the principal statute is the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. You may obtain a copy of this Act from GPO. You may wish to note especially 151 of the Act, which requires a manufacturer of a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment to conduct notice and recall campaigns if you or this agency find that your product has a safety-related defect.

There may be State regulations that apply to trailer manufacture and use. In many states, a person cannot register a new vehicle unless he or she has a statement or certificate of origin. I understand that the Recreation Vehicle Industry Association will supply a small quantity of form statements or certificates upon request. You may contact that organization by writing them at 1896 Preston White Drive, Reston, VA 22090; or calling (800) 336-0154. You may wish to contact the local Department of Transportation or Motor Vehicle Administration in the states for which you have an interest for further information on state requirements.

I hope you find this information helpful. Please do not hesitate to contact this office at (202) 366-2992 if you have specific questions.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

ref:57l d:l2/24/90

ID: 2778y

Herr T. Spingler
Abt. K2/ELE2
Robert Bosch GmbH

FAX 07121/35-1792

Dear Herr Spingler:

This is in reply to your FAX of July l9, l990, to Richard Van Iderstine of this agency asking for confirmation of an oral interpretation provided you by Jere Medlin, Office of Rulemaking, with respect to replaceable bulb headlamps.

Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. l08, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment, defines (section S3) a replaceable bulb headlamp as "a headlamp comprising a bonded lens and reflector assembly and one or two standardized replaceable light sources." In Europe you fix the lens to the reflector assembly with a rubber seal and clips. For the U.S. market you propose to add "silicone-glue at four places between lens and housing to prevent removal of the lens." Mr. Medlin informed you that this would be a "bonded lens and reflector assembly."

The standard does not define "bonded", but the intent of the definition is that, once the lens is joined to the reflector assembly, it shall not be separable. Any method of adhesion that accomplishes this would be a sufficient bond for purposes of the definition. If the application of silicone glue at four places between the lens and the reflector assembly is sufficient to prevent manual separation of the lens from the assembly, then it would be a sufficient bond.

I hope that this answers your question.

Sincerely,,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

ref:l08 d:l2/24/90

ID: 2779y

Satoshi Nishibori, Vice President
Industry-Government Affairs
Nissan Research and Development
Suite 902
750 17th St., N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20006

Dear Mr. Nishibori:

This responds to your letter seeking to confirm your understanding of the scope and application of the "captive import" definition set forth at 49 CFR 533.4(b)(2), and used in specifying light truck CAFE standards.

NHTSA's regulations define a "captive import" as a light truck which is "not domestically manufactured but which is imported in the 1980 model year or thereafter by a manufacturer whose principal place of business is in the United States." The agency adopted this definition beginning with the 1980 model year in order to prevent the standards from encouraging the increased importation of these vehicles and exportation of domestic jobs. See 43 FR ll996, March 23, l978.

Your letter explains that you do not believe that the light trucks manufactured in the U.S. by Nissan's U.S. manufacturing subsidiary (NMM, which is jointly-owned by the parent Nissan Motor Co. Ltd. (NML) in Japan and its wholly-owned U.S. importation and distribution subsidiary (NMC)), should be classified as captive imports. Your letter also states that light trucks imported by NMC should not be classified as captive imports. As explained below, I have concluded that neither the light trucks imported by your U.S. subsidiary, nor trucks manufactured by your U.S. manufacturing operation should be considered "captive imports."

Section 501(8) of the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act (the Act) defines the term "manufacturer" as meaning "any person engaged in the business of manufacturing automobiles. . . ." The term "manufacture" is then defined in section 50l(9) as meaning to "produce or assemble in the customs territory of the United States, or to import."

Under these definitions, which are also used in Part 533, NMC is a manufacturer of light trucks imported for the parent company. Since NMC's principal place of business is in the U.S., one might initially conclude that all of Nissan's imported light trucks should be classified as captive imports. However, that is not a necessary conclusion since there may be more than one manufacturer of these vehicles.

NHTSA has concluded in the past that a second person may be regarded as a manufacturer of a vehicle manufactured by another person if that second person has a sufficient role in the manufacturing process that it can be deemed the "sponsor" of the vehicle. See, for example, the enclosed February 19, 1987 interpretation to a confidential addressee.

For Nissan's imported light trucks, the act of importation is the key manufacturing activity under the statute. While NMC does the actual importing, NML is responsible for the creation and production of the vehicles imported to the U.S. It designs models specifically for the U.S. market, and created NMC for the purpose of importing and marketing these vehicles. NML can be seen as "sponsoring" the importation of Nissan light trucks. Moreover, applying basic principles of the law of agency, NML, as sponsor, may be considered the principal. It is therefore our opinion that NML and NMC are both importers of the Nissan vehicles being brought into the U.S., and hence both are manufacturers under the statute. This situation is obviously distinguished from circumstances where the importer is not connected with the foreign manufacturer, e.g., so called grey market importers.

NHTSA believes it is appropriate, in determining whether the vehicles are "captive imports," to look at the totality of the circumstances surrounding the production, importation and marketing of the vehicles. In this case, NML controls all aspects of the Nissan light trucks imported into the U.S. Further, NML exercises complete control over NMC, and created NMC for the purpose of importing and marketing NML's products in the U.S. Indeed, NMC exists primarily to serve NML as a conduit into the U.S. market.

I note that this relationship is clearly distinguished from the circumstances of the typical captive import. In lieu of producing certain vehicles in this country, a domestic manufacturer imports and markets in this country vehicles (captive imports) supplied by a foreign manufacturer with which it has a special relationship. In such a case, the domestic manufacturer is not under control of the foreign company. Moreover, the domestic manufacturer does not serve primarily as a conduit to the U.S. market for the imported vehicles.

Since NML has its principal place of business in Japan, and exercises complete control over NMC, I conclude that vehicles manufactured by NML and imported into the U.S. by NMC are not captive imports. Moreover, since almost all foreign manufacturers utilize U.S. subsidiaries to import vehicles into the U.S., any other conclusion would have the effect of making virtually all imports "captive imports," a result which would clearly be inconsistent with the agency's intent in establishing the captive import category.

I also agree with the statement in your letter that light trucks manufactured in the U.S. by NMM are not captive imports. While we understand that these vehicles are not "domestically manufactured" as that term is defined in the statute, neither are they imported. The term "import" is defined in section 502(l0) of the Act as meaning "to import into the customs territory of the United States." Since these vehicles are not imported, it is impossible for them to be considered captive imports.

Your letter also enclosed a copy of a letter you sent to EPA, requesting that agency's interpretation of portions of EPA's fuel economy calculation regulations at 40 CFR Part 600. You sought clarification from EPA on the apparent inconsistency between EPA's regulations, which provide separate treatment for "domestically produced" and "not domestically produced" light trucks, and NHTSA's classification regulations, which distinguish only between "captive imports" and "others." You requested this agency's comments on the issues raised in the letter to EPA.

I am not in a position to comment on EPA's regulations, or on that agency's interpretation of its regulations. I will confirm, however, that NHTSA intended for different procedures to be applied to the determination of CAFE for light trucks than those for passenger cars. The primary distinction is that under the statute, passenger cars are divided into "domestically manufactured" and "not domestically manufactured" fleets. The statute contains no comparable distinction for light trucks. However, under NHTSA's regulations, light trucks are divided into captive imports and "others," which encompasses all light trucks which are not captive imports. This issue is discussed in some detail in the final rule establishing the captive import definition. See, 43 FR 11995, 11998-9, March 23, 1978.

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

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

Enclosure ref:CSA#533 d:12/21/90

ID: 2780y

Mr. Mitch L. Williams
President, Hella Inc.
P.O. Box 1064
Cranford, NJ 07016

Dear Mr. Williams:

This is in reply to your letters of November 1 and 8 to Richard Van Iderstine of this agency.

In your letter of November 1 you ask "How would NHTSA view the addition of a rear spoiler with integrated third rear brake light to a vehicle already originally equipped with a third rear brake light?"

There are two relevant provisions of Standard No. 108 that deal with your question. The first is relevant if installation of the spoiler prevents the original lamp from meeting the photometric or visibility requirements of Standard No. l08. If this occurs, compliance may be maintained by installing another center high-mounted lamp that meets all requirements of Standard No. l08. See S5.3.1.1. Presumably, the lamp in the spoiler is designed, or could be designed, to comply to all applicable requirements.

A further question is whether two center high-mounted stop lamps are permissible. An auxiliary lamp is prohibited by S5.1.3 if it impairs the effectiveness of the lighting equipment required by Standard No. l08. One example of impairment is when the auxiliary lamp creates confusion as to the function of the original lamp. The motoring public is used to seeing only one center lamp in operation. Although we cannot reach a definitive conclusion that an auxiliary center stop lamp would impair the effectiveness of the original center stop lamp, it would probably be prudent to ensure that there is only one center stop lamp in operation. Thus, if the spoiler lamp complies with Standard No. l08, the original lamp may be disconnected. If the spoiler lamp does not comply with Standard No. l08 and the original lamp remains in compliance with Standard No. 108, the question of impairment arises. On balance, it would appear unlikely that impairment would result from this configuration.

In your letter of November 8 you ask several questions with respect to the installation of center high-mounted stop lamps on pickup trucks. On May 31, l990, NHTSA proposed that the lamp be installed on pickup trucks and some other types of vehicles as well. We anticipate publishing a final rule on this issue in the Federal Register in the near future. The preamble to the rule will address your questions on location of the lamp.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

ref:l08 d:12/24/90

ID: 2781y

Mr. Gordon Bonvallet
1686 Lighthouse Hill Road
Homer, NY 13077

Dear Mr. Bonvallet:

This is in reply to your letter of October 5, l990, with respect to a prospective headlighting system. It is contemplated that the lower beam on the system would be furnished by a gaseous discharge headlamp, an "integral beam" headlamp under Standard No. l08. The upper beam would be furnished by a replaceable bulb headlamp using an HB3 light source.

You comment that a combination system such as this is not specifically addressed by Standard No. l08, and you ask for confirmation of your opinion that the photometric requirements of Figure l5 would apply to both the upper and lower beam headlamps.

At the present time, such a hybrid headlighting system is impermissible under Standard No. l08. The standard establishes separate requirements for integral beam headlighting systems (S7.4), and for replaceable bulb headlighting systems (S7.5). Though "integral beam headlighting system" is not specifically defined by Standard No. l08, such a system would appear to be one that consists of integral beam headlamps. Standard No. l08 does define "integral beam headlamp", and that definition specifically excludes "a replaceable bulb headlamp" such as one containing an HB3 light source. Similarly, a "replaceable bulb headlamp system" is one that consists solely of headlamps containing HB1, HB2, HB3, HB4, or HB5 light sources.

It is true that Figure l5 is one of three lower beam photometric options that apply to an integral beam headlamp, such as one producing illumination through gaseous discharge. However, under the language of the standard, Figure l5 applies when the lamp is used in a four headlamp integral beam headlighting system (S7.4(a)(l)(i)). It is also true that the upper beam photometrics of Figure 15 apply to an HB3 replaceable bulb headlamp (S7.5(e)(3)(ii)), but only when used in a four lamp headlighting system in which each headlamp contains a single replaceable light source.

As you know, the policy of this agency for the last decade has been to reduce design restrictions on headlighting systems. Removal of the implicit prohibition against hybrid headlighting systems would be a further step in this direction. If your client is seriously considering such a system, it may submit a petition for rulemaking at the appropriate time.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

ref:l08 d:12/24/90

ID: 2782y

Stanley S. Zinner, Esq.
Greene & Zinner, P.C.
202 Mamaroneck Avenue
White Plains, NY 10601

Re: FMVSS No. 123

Dear Mr. Zinner:

This is in reply to your FAX letter of December 4, l990, requesting an interpretation of section S5.2.4 of 49 CFR 571.123 Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 123 Motorcycle Controls and Displays. Specifically, you wish an opinion "as to the meaning, purpose, and intent" of that section.

Section S5.2.4 Stands states that "A stand shall fold rearward and upward if it contacts the ground when the motorcycle is moving forward." As Taylor Vinson of this Office explained to you, this requirement was one of the original provisions in Standard No. 123 when it became effective in l974. However, unlike many other requirements in the standard, it was both proposed and adopted without any discussion of its meaning, purpose, and intent in the preambles to both these rulemaking actions other than the bare remark that the notices contained a requirement for stands. Furthermore, in the l6 years that the requirement has been in effect, the agency does not appear to have issued a single legal opinion relating to section S5.2.4.

However, the agency has issued two interpretations of section S5.2.5 which we believe are relevant to an understanding of S5.2.4. In pertinent part, S5.2.5 Footrests states that "Each footrest for a passenger other than an operator shall fold rearward and upward when not in use." In a letter of February 16, l982, to American Honda Motor Co., Inc., with respect to a proposed footboard design, the then Chief Counsel commented that "We consider that the purpose of S5.2.5 is to prevent accidents caused by rigid footrests contacting the ground in a banking turn." In a letter of October 26, l973, also to American Honda, the then Assistant Chief Counsel commented that S5.2.5 did not require automatic folding but only the direction in which the footrests shall retract "so that if they are inadvertently left down when not in use they will fold rearward and upward should they hit an obstacle while the motorcycle is travelling forward." I enclose a copy of each of these letters for your information. The meaning of S5.2.4 is, we believe, clear and unambiguous: if a stand is left down, it shall fold rearward and upward if it contacts the ground (which includes the roadway) while the motorcycle is moving forward. Because both sections S5.2.4 and S5.2.5 require motorcycle equipment "to fold rearward and upward", we further believe that the purpose and intent of both sections are the same, and that S5.2.4 could be substituted for S5.2.5 in the sentences of the two letters quoted in the preceding paragraph.

I hope that this is responsive to your request.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

Enclosures ref:l23 d:12/24/90