ID: Lapinskas.1

Mr. Cesar Lapinskas
Mr. Christofer Lapinskas
Lapinskas and Associates, Inc.
d/b/a Road Aire North America
P.O. Box 26077
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33320-6077

Dear Messrs. Lapinskas:

This responds to your October 14, 2003, letter in which you ask whether it is necessary to obtain a permit or other approval from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) prior to marketing your companys tire inflation systems for sale in the United States. Your letter and attached materials state that the system, which is designed for installation on commercial trucks and buses weighing over 15,000 pounds, contains both a tire pressure monitoring component and an electropneumatic inflation component. Through a series of hoses and tubes tied to the vehicles air brake system, your product allows a driver to supply air to any tire(s) that become under-inflated. I am pleased to have the opportunity to explain our regulations and to discuss how they may affect your product.

By way of background, NHTSA is authorized to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, nor do we issue permits. Instead, it is the responsibility of manufacturers to certify that their products conform to all applicable safety standards before they can be offered for sale. NHTSA enforces compliance with the standards by purchasing and testing vehicles and equipment, and we also investigate safety-related defects.

The agency does not have any regulations covering tire inflation/tire pressure monitoring systems for heavy vehicles. [1] However, because your system would be tied into a vehicles braking system, it may affect compliance with other safety standards.

If your device is installed as original equipment on a new vehicle, the vehicle manufacturer is required to certify that, with the device installed, the vehicle satisfies the requirements of all applicable Federal safety standards. If the device is added to a previously certified new motor vehicle, prior to its first sale, the person who modifies the vehicle would be an alterer of a previously certified motor vehicle and would be required to certify that, as altered, the vehicle continues to comply with all of the safety standards affected by the alteration. You will find the specific certification requirements at 49 CFR Part 567, Certification.

If your device is installed on a used vehicle by a business such as a garage, the installer would not be required to attach a certification label. However, a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or vehicle repair business may not knowingly "make inoperative" any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle in accordance with any FMVSS. 49 U.S.C. 30122. Thus, these entities could not install your tire inflation system if it would take the vehicle out of compliance with any existing safety standard. Although the "make inoperative" provision does not apply to equipment attached to or installed on or in a vehicle by the vehicle owner, NHTSA urges vehicle owners not to degrade the safety of any system or device in their vehicles.

In order to determine how installation of your tire inflation system could affect a vehicles compliance with applicable Federal safety standards, you should carefully review each standard contained in 49 CFR Part 571. However, there are certain standards (discussed below) of which you should be particularly aware.

One standard that may have implications for your product is FMVSS No. 121, Air Brake Systems, if your device is an integral part of the brake system. A related issue is whether certain parts of the device are considered brake hoses and are, therefore, subject to the requirements of FMVSS No. 106, Brake Hoses.

We do not have sufficient information about your device to specifically address these issues. I can advise you, however, that your device would not be considered part of the braking system if it were separated from the vehicles main braking system by a pressure protection valve in such a way that the main braking system would not be affected by a leakage failure in the device. Moreover, if your device is not considered to be part of the braking system, it would not be subject to Standard No. 106.

Beyond compliance with relevant Federal safety standards, manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment have additional responsibilities, including a requirement to notify NHTSA and purchasers about safety-related defects and to provide a remedy free of charge, even if their equipment is not covered by a safety standard. 49 U.S.C. 30118, 30120.

In addition, you should be aware that other governmental entities may have authority over your product. For example, the Department of Transportations Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) has jurisdiction over interstate motor carriers operating in the United States. You should contact FMCSA for further information about any FMCSA regulations that may apply to your system. In addition, States have the authority to regulate the use and licensing of vehicles operating within their jurisdictions. Therefore, you should check with the Department of Motor Vehicles in any State in which the equipment will be sold or used regarding any such requirements.

For your further information, I am enclosing a fact sheet we prepared entitled Information for New Manufacturers of Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Equipment. I hope you find this information useful. If you have further questions, please feel free to contact Eric Stas of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

Enclosure
ref:138
d.1/21/04





---

[1]NHTSA is currently in the process of rulemaking to establish FMVSS No. 138, Tire Pressure Monitoring Systems (TPMSs), which will set forth requirements for TPMSs that are installed in new passenger cars, trucks, multipurpose passenger vehicles, and buses with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of 10,000 pounds or less, except those vehicles with dual wheels on an axle. To the extent that your systems are installed only on vehicles with a higher GVWR, the standard would not apply. However, should your product be installed on a new light vehicle covered by FMVSS No. 138, vehicle manufacturers would need to certify that the vehicle meets the requirements of the standard.

ID: lawrence.2.ztv

Mr. Lon Lawrence
3305 Boyd Drive
Carlsbad, NM 88220

Dear Mr. Lawrence:

This is in reply to your recent fax to Richard Van Iderstine of this agency asking that we intervene on your behalf with the Attorney General of New Mexico so that she may inform "all New Mexico Law enforcement agencies that modulating headlamps [on motorcycles] are legal."

You reported that the New Mexico Motorcycle Riders Organization (NMMRO) has expressed an intent to draft a letter to the state Attorney General for an interpretation but that NMMRO had not yet done so. In the meantime, on July 24, 2003, the New Mexico State Police sent you a letter (which you also faxed to us) stating that it finds "no current legal foundation for your assertion that Federal Statues [sic] preclude local entities from citing you for the use of modulating headlamps," but then advises that the commander of the Roswell District has been instructed "to have his officers refrain from citing for the use of modulating headlamps."

We are not familiar with the laws of New Mexico. We know, however, that some States have objected to modulating motorcycle headlamps because, in their opinion, such headlamps "flash," in contravention of State laws that allow flashing lamps to be used only on emergency vehicles. I am enclosing copies of several of our most recent interpretations on State laws and modulating motorcycle headlamps: letters to Frank A. Schaub (March 24, 2003), relating to Connecticut law, to Michael L. Wagner (June 20, 2000), relating to Indiana law, and to Henry S. Winokur (January 21, 1999), relating to Maryland law. They may prove helpful to you and others in your contacts with the motor vehicle authorities of your State.

If you have any questions, you may call Eric Stas of this Office at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

Enclosures
ref:108
d.9/9/03

ID: LCDDVD.1

Mr. Harold R. Burke, Esq.
Philip Russell, P.C.
71 Lewis Street
P.O. Box 1437
Greenwich, CT06836

Dear Mr. Burke:

This responds to your letter of January 23, 2003, in which you describe an automobile crash in which your client, a rear seat passenger, suffered serious facial trauma resulting from impact with an LCD screen that was part of a DVD television system incorporated into the rear of the headrest of the front passenger seat. You state that this television system was an aftermarket installation. Your letter then asks five questions seeking clarification of 49 U.S.C. 30122 and Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 201, Occupant Protection in Interior Impact, in the context of this factual scenario.

Preliminarily, we note that it is the policy of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) not to express any views or advice on the ultimate questions raised in litigation of private incidents or controversies. However, a pending lawsuit will not affect our ability to interpret our statutes and regulations. Accordingly, the following restates each question presented in your letter and provides our response. Please note that we have reordered your questions so as to simplify our response.

1. Is an entity which installs aftermarket electronic components such as DVD television screens in automobiles considered "a motor vehicle repair business" under 49 U.S.C. Sec. 30122?

Although NHTSA does not have any safety standards specifically covering television receivers, it is possible that the installation of a television receiver could affect the compliance of a vehicle with some safety standards. 49 U.S.C. 30122 expresses a general prohibition on making safety devices and elements inoperative. Specifically, subsection (b) provides:

A manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business may not knowingly make inoperative any part of a device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable motor vehicle safety standard prescribed under this chapter [49 USC 30101 et seq.] unless the manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair business reasonably believes the vehicle or equipment will not be used (except for testing or a similar purpose during maintenance or repair) when the device or element is inoperative.

The statute defines "motor vehicle repair business" as "a person holding itself out to the public to repair for compensation a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment." 49 U.S.C. 30122(a). The term is further defined in NHTSAs regulations at 49 CFR 595.4 as including "businesses that receive compensation for servicing vehicles without malfunctioning or broken parts or systems by adding or removing features or components to or from those vehicles or otherwise customizing those vehicles." Status as a "motor vehicle repair business" is not dependent upon whether the vehicle or component was previously "broken" or needed to be "repaired," but, rather, it is based upon the commercial relationship between the vehicle owner and the individual or company performing the work on the vehicle or component. Any person who will accept compensation to repair a vehicle is a motor vehicle repair business.

To the extent that a commercial entity installs aftermarket electronic components in motor vehicles, that entity would be a motor vehicle repair business that would be prohibited from knowingly making inoperative features covered by any FMVSS under 49 U.S.C. 30122. This prohibition applies even if the modifications are to be made pursuant to the vehicle owners instructions. However, because we have not examined the vehicle in the present case, we express no opinion as to whether installation of the television system in question has precipitated a violation of section 30122.

2. Is the rear portion of a vehicles front headrest considered a "head impact area" pursuant to 49 C.F.R. Sec. 571.201S5?

The purpose of FMVSS No. 201 is to specify requirements designed to afford interior impact protection to vehicle occupants. Within that standard, paragraph S5.2 specifically deals with requirements for seat backs, providing:

Except as provided in S5.2.1 [provision applicable to school buses, not at issue here], when that area of the seat back that is within the head impact area is impacted in accordance with S5.2.2 by a 6.8 kilogram, 165 mm diameter head form at a relative velocity of 24 kilometers per hour, the deceleration of the head form shall not exceed 80g continuously for more than 3 milliseconds.

Paragraph S5.2.2 goes on to provide a demonstration procedure for seat backs. In conducting this test procedure, S5.2.2(d) provides, "For seats having head restraints installed, each test shall be conducted with the head restraints in place at its lowest adjusted position, at a point on the head restraint centerline." However, the requirements of this paragraph are only triggered once it has been determined that a portion of the seat back is within the "head impact area," as defined in the following section.

Under 49 CFR 571.3, Definitions, NHTSA defines the term "head impact area" as follows:

Head impact area means all nonglazed surfaces of the interior of a vehicle that are statically contactable by a 6.5-inch diameter spherical head form of a measuring device having a pivot point to "top-of-head" dimension infinitely adjustable from 29 to 33 inches in accordance with the following procedure, or its graphic equivalent:

(a)At each designated seating position, place the pivot point of the measuring device

(1)For seats that are adjustable fore and aft, at

(i)The seating reference point; and

(ii)A point 5 inches horizontally forward of the seating reference point and vertically above the seating reference point an amount equal to the rise which results from a 5-inch forward adjustment of the seat or 0.75 inch; and

(2)For seats that are not adjustable fore and aft, at the seating reference point.

(b)With the pivot point to "top-of-head" dimension at each value allowed by the device and the interior dimensions of the vehicle, determine all contact points above the lower windshield glass line and forward of the seating reference point.

(c)With the head form at each contact point, and with the device in a vertical position if no contact points exists [sic] for a particular adjusted length, pivot the measuring device forward and downward through all arcs in vertical planes to 90 each side of the vertical longitudinal plane through the seating reference point, until the head form contacts an interior surface or until it is tangent to a horizontal plane 1 inch above the seating reference point, whichever occurs first.

It is possible that the rear portion of a front headrest could fall within the "head impact area" as defined within NHTSAs regulations. Such determination would be made by undertaking the necessary calculations under paragraph S5.2.2 of FMVSS No. 201. However, because we have not examined the vehicle in question, we do not express any opinion as to whether the rear of the headrest in the present case is within the "head impact area" under the standard.

3. Is the rear portion of a vehicles front headrest considered to be a seat back pursuant to 49 C.F.R. Sec. 571.201S5?

NHTSAs regulations do not define the term "seat back." However, as noted above, under paragraph S5.2.2(d) of FMVSS No. 201, the test procedures clearly contemplate the presence of a headrest when conducting the necessary calculations related to seat backs. Additionally, FMVSS No. 202, Head Restraints, requires motor vehicle manufacturers to install head restraints at each front outboard seating position of light passenger vehicles. In light of the purpose of FMVSS No. 201, it is appropriate to include headrests within the scope of the standards protection, to the extent that they fall within the zone covered under the standard. Consequently, in conducting its enforcement activities, NHTSA has considered head restraints to be part of the seat back when calculating the "head impact area" under FMVSS No. 201.

4. Is the padded rear portion of a vehicles front headrest considered a "part of a device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable motor vehicle safety standard?"

In order for a vehicle component to be considered a "part of a device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable motor vehicle safety standard," thereby triggering the "make inoperative" provision of 49 U.S.C. 30122, it must be covered by an existing FMVSS. As discussed in the responses to questions #2 and #3 above, our review of existing FMVSSs suggests that FMVSS No. 201 may be applicable to the rear portion of a headrest, depending upon vehicle design.

However, because we have not examined the specific vehicle in question and have not conducted the necessary calculations under FMVSS No. 201, we cannot express any opinion as to whether the padded rear portion of a vehicles headrest is a plan view location covered under any FMVSS, and thereby subject to the "make inoperative" provision of 49 U.S.C. 30122.

5. Would a manufacturer of aftermarket equipment which is installed in accordance with the manufacturers instructions subject the manufacturer to liability under 49 U.S.C. 30122 if 49 C.F.R. Sec. 571.201S5 is violated in the process?

If NHTSA determines that a business has violated the "make inoperative" provision, it may assess a civil penalty in the amount of $5,000 per violation (not to exceed $15,000,000 in the aggregate). 49 U.S.C. 30165(a)(1). However, the applicability of 49 U.S.C. 30122 to a particular business is dependent upon the product or services that the business provides. As noted above, manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and motor vehicle repair businesses that install a product in a motor vehicle would be subject to 49 U.S.C. 30122.

In contrast, we have consistently held that producers of equipment, whether or not that equipment is used in a system designed to comply with a particular FMVSS, are component suppliers; as such, they are neither directly subject to the requirements of the standard, nor accountable under the "make inoperative" prohibition of 49 U.S.C. 30122. Consequently, a manufacturer of aftermarket electronic components would not be liable under 49 U.S.C. 30122, if it did not install the equipment alleged to have violated any FMVSS. However, manufacturers of motor vehicle replacement equipment are subject to the notification and remedy requirements for products with defects related to motor vehicle safety (49 U.S.C. 30118-30121). (See 49 U.S.C. 30102(a)(7) for the definition of "motor vehicle equipment," and 49 U.S.C. 30102(b)(1)(D) for the definition of "replacement equipment.")

In the present case, we have neither examined the television system in question nor have we investigated the incorporation of that system into this specific motor vehicle. In addition, we do not have any information on the manufacturers intended use for the television system (i.e., whether it is recommended for installation in motor vehicles). Consequently, we do not express any opinion as to whether the system is motor vehicle equipment.

If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Eric Stas of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:201
d.4/18/03

ID: LEDlamp.1

Mr. Takayuki Amma
Manager, Regulation & Certification
Koito Manufacturing Co. , Ltd.
4-8-3, Takanawa
Minato-kuTokyo
Japan




Dear Mr. Amma:

This responds to your letter, in which you seek clarification as to whether your proposed headlighting system would meet the requirements for a "combination headlighting system" under Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment. Specifically, your letter explained that you wish to combine an "integral beam lower beam headlamp" that uses LEDs (wired in series), with a "replaceable bulb upper beam headlamp". As discussed below, we believe that your proposed design with an LED array would be permissible, provided that it meets the applicable photometric requirements of the standard.

As an initial matter, we note that your letter was in the first instance submitted under a request for confidentiality, but the agency denied that request in a separate letter dated June 20, 2005. In a July 13, 2005 e-mail to Eric Stas, you stated that you would not be appealing that determination.

By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized to issue FMVSSs that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment (see 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301). NHTSA does not provide approval of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, and we do not determine compliance of a vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment outside the context of an actual enforcement proceeding. Instead, manufacturers are required to self-certify that their products conform to all applicable safety standards that are in effect on the date ofmanufacture. FMVSS No. 108 specifies requirements for original and replacement lamps, reflective devices, and associated equipment. The following represents our opinion regarding the applicability of our regulations on your proposed product based upon the facts set forth in your letter and your demonstration of the lamp in a meeting at NHTSA headquarters in Washington, D.C.

Your letter described a proposed vehicle front lighting system with two headlamps, which you consider to be a "combined headlighting system" under S7.6 of our standard. Your letter stated that this system design would include all of the forward lighting equipment required by FMVSS No. 108 and that it would meet the relevant requirements of the standard for each item (e.g. , meeting S7.4 for the integral beam headlamp and meeting S7.5 for the replaceable bulb headlamp).

We understand that your proposed system would include an array of six LEDs that would provide the lower beam headlamp illumination and that you believe it would meet the standards lower beam photometric requirements. We also understand that the LED portion of the lower beam would remain activated and contribute toward meeting the standards upper beam photometric requirements. Your letter stated that the upper beam portion of the lamp would have an independent reflector and a replaceable light source, while sharing the same lens and housing with the LED lower beam lamp.

In your letter, you also expressed your opinion that the LED lower beam portion of the lamp constitutes a single, simultaneously-aimable light source unit, which is part of an "integral and indivisible optical assembly" which includes the lens, reflector, and LED light source. As discussed in the meeting with NHTSA staff, you stated that you consider the array of LEDs to constitute a single light source, because they are wired in a series, such that failure of a single LED causes all of the LEDs to cease operation. You further stated that because the lower beam lamp is an integral beam headlamp, the entire lamp would need to be replaced in the event of a burned out or damaged LED. Furthermore, referencing the definition of "integral beam headlamp" contained in S4 of Standard No. 108, your letter stated that "[t]here is no restriction on the number of light sources useable for the headlamp".

As you are aware, paragraph S7, Headlighting Requirements, of FMVSS No. 108 requires vehicles to be equipped with one of several permissible headlighting system options, whose specifications are set forth in the standard (i.e. , systems conforming to the requirements of S7.3, 7.4, 7.5, or S7.6). Of relevance here, paragraph S7.6, Combination Headlighting System, provides that such systems "shall be comprised of either two headlamps designed to conform to the requirements of S7.6.2, or any combination of four headlamps designed to conform to the requirements of S7.3.7, S7.4, or S7.5 of this standard".

Paragraph S7.6.2 states that for combination headlighting systems consisting of two headlamps, each headlamp shall be designed to conform to Figure 17-1 (Photometric Test Point Values for Mechanical Aim Headlighting Systems) or Figure 17-2 (Photometric Test Point Values for Visual/Optical Aim Headlighting Systems) and shall be a combination of two different headlamp types chosen from the following types: a Type F headlamp, an integral beam headlamp, and a replaceable bulb headlamp. A portion of the headlamp that contains an integral beam headlamp must be designed to conform to the requirements of S7.4(c) through (h) of this standard. A portion of the headlamp that contains a replaceable bulb headlamp must be designed to conform to the requirements of S7.5.

Under paragraph S4, "integral beam headlamp" is defined as "a headlamp (other than a standardized sealed beam headlamp designed to conform to paragraph S7.3 or a replaceable bulb headlamp designed to conform to paragraph S7.5) comprising an integral and indivisible optical assembly including lens, reflector, and light source, except that a headlamp conforming to paragraph S7.8.5.2 or paragraph S7.8.5.3 may have a lens designed to be replaceable". The definition of the term "integral beam headlamp" does not place a limitation on the number of light sources in such lamp. However, under S7.4(b), there are locational requirements which correspond to whether each headlamp has one or two light sources. As we explained in our December 30, 1992 letter of interpretation to Mr. T. Kouchi, we have previously considered lamps with LEDs (which as a practical matter always have multiple LEDs) to have multiple light sources, with each LED constituting a single light source.

However, the situation where a number of LEDs are wired in series, such that they would operate or fail as a single unit, is different than the ones we have previously addressed. Because you have wired the LEDs as a series, failure of one LED would cause all of the LEDs to cease functioning. Thus, in such cases, we agree that the entire array of LEDs is a single light source, regardless of the hardware involved. Therefore, we believe that a combination headlighting system with an integral beam lower beam headlamp using LEDs would be permissible, if such LEDs are wired in series and allow the headlamp to meet the photometric requirements of the standard.

We also note that it may be possible for a lower beam headlamp with LEDs to meet the requirements of a different alternative under paragraph of S7.4, Integral Beam Headlighting System, by using beam contributors, each of which would contribute to meeting the headlamps photometric requirements (see S7.4(a)(2) and (d)).

Your letter also requested clarification regarding what constitutes the "optical center" of a lower beam headlamp, which you suggest should be the geometric center of the portion of the lens that is illuminated by the LED light sources. You argued that this approach would provide the appropriate geometric reference for measuring the "distance to floor and between the lamps" and that it would also serve as an "optical axis" to ensure proper horizontal and vertical aiming of the headlamp, as well as determine a correct alignment to the photometer axis. You seek confirmation that in determining the relative location of the lower beam and upper beam light sources, the "optical center" of the LED lower beam headlamp shall be used and that a design where the optical center of the LED lower beam headlamp is placed most outboard and above the upper beam light source, such lamp would be considered to conform to the requirements of S7.4(b) and (c), as well as S7.5(d)(2) and (3).

We agree that for LED lower beam headlamps with a clear lens (i.e. , where light passes through the lens without being optically redirected), the optical center should be determined as the geometric center of the portion of the lens that is illuminated by the LED light sources. Over the last several decades, the agency has replied many times to requests for interpretation regarding the center of lamps, but requests have all involved filament bulb lamps. We note that in a 1984 final rule responding to petitions for reconsideration under FMVSS No. 108, the agency referred to "optical center" as the reference center during photometric measurement (see 49 FR 20818 (May 17, 1984)), and in our January 14, 1976 letter of interpretation to the Department of California Highway Patrol, we stated that the center of the emitted light is always taken to be the center of the optical axis.

In the case of a clear lens LED headlamp, we believe that your recommended approach is consistent with these prior statements. Although not referenced in our standards, we note that the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) standard J1889, L.E.D. Lighting Devices, provides two options for determining the "LED lighting device light center". The first option is to determine the geometric center of the total illuminated area of the lamp, and the second option is to determine the geometric center of all of the individual LED light source centers. However, the agency does not believe that the second option is a valid method for measuring the optical center, because it may not correlate to the actual photometric output of the lamp (e.g. , different LEDs could have varying intensities).

If you have any further questions, you may call Mr. Eric Stas of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Wood
Acting Chief Counsel

ref:108
d.12/21/05

ID: lees

ID: Legg1

ID: Lewis.2

Mr. William Heath Lewis
Automotive Manufacturing Group, Inc.
d/b/a A.M.G.
20479 Via Marisa
Boca Raton, FL 33498

Dear Mr. Lewis:

This responds to your July 29, 2004, e-mail to George Feygin in which you ask whether your companys products, truck clearance lamps with "clear application" (presumably emitting a white light), meet the requirements of the regulations of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) and how you would go about obtaining DOT approval for those products. Your e-mail attached four photographs of trucks that have a series of lamps on the cab roof, immediately above the windshield. As these depicted vehicles are equipped with both clearance lamps and identification lamps, this letter addresses the requirements for both types of lamps. I am pleased to have the opportunity to explain our regulations and to discuss how they may affect your products.

By way of background, NHTSA is authorized to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, nor do we issue permits. Instead, it is the responsibility of manufacturers to certify that their products conform to all applicable safety standards before they can be offered for sale (see 49 CFR Part 571). NHTSA enforces compliance with the standards by inspecting and testing vehicles and equipment, and we also investigate possible safety-related defects.

The requirements for lighting equipment are contained in FMVSS No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment (see 49 CFR 571.108). The standard sets performance requirements for clearance and identification lamps, including color. Specifically, Table I requires multipurpose passenger vehicles (MPVs), trucks, trailers, and buses that are 80 or more inches in overall width to be equipped with 2 amber clearance lamps and 2 red clearance lamps. Table I also requires those vehicles to be equipped with 3 amber identification lamps and 3 red identification lamps. These lamps must emit amber or red light, respectively.

Table II of FMVSS No. 108 specifies location requirements for clearance and identification lamps. Specifically, the standard requires two amber clearance lamps on the front and two red clearance lamps on the rear to indicate the overall width of the vehicle. The clearance lamps must be located, one on each side of the vertical centerline, at the same height, and as far apart as practicable.

Table II also requires covered vehicles to be equipped with identification lamps on the front and rear of the vehicle. The standard requires three amber lamps on the front and three red lamps on the rear of the vehicle. The identification lamps are to be located as close as practicable to the top of the vehicle, at the same height, as close as practicable to the vertical centerline, and with lamp centers spaced not less than 6 inches or more than 12 inches apart. Alternatively, the front lamps may be located as close as practicable to the top of the cab.

These requirements related to the color of clearance and identification lamps apply to both original equipment and replacement (aftermarket) lighting equipment. Paragraph S5.8.1 of the standard provides that " each lamp, reflective device, or item of associated equipment manufactured to replace any lamp, reflective device, or item of associated equipment on any vehicle to which this standard applies shall be designed to conform to this standard. "

In light of the above and based upon the location of the lighting equipment in the photographs accompanying your correspondence, the standard requires your clearance lamps (or identification lamps) to emit amber light. However, we note that manufacturers are not required to use an amber lens to comply with the color requirements for an amber lamp. Rather, they may use any plastic material that complies with the requirements of paragraph S5.1.2, as long as the light emitted from the completed lamp complies with the applicable color requirements.

For your further information, I am enclosing a fact sheet we prepared titled Information for New Manufacturers of Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Equipment. I hope you find this information useful. If you have further questions, please feel free to contact Eric Stas of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

Enclosure
ref:108
d.9/23/04

ID: Lewis.3

Mr. Walter J. Lewis
Manager, Regulatory Affairs
Porsche Cars North America, Inc.
980 Hammond Drive, Suite 1000
Atlanta, GA30328




Dear Mr. Lewis:

This responds to your letter asking about the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 205, Glazing Materials. You ask: (a) whether Item 4A glazing "may continue to be used in the "C" pillar of vehicles and between the B and D pillars in hearses if those locations meet the criteria for Item 4A glazing"; and (b) if Item 4A glazing may be used in certain locations rearward of the B-pillar on the Porsche Cayman S and Porsche 911 GT2 and GT3 vehicles. As explained below, in answer to both questions, we cannot interpret the standard as permitting Item 4A glazing in side windows in locations other than rearward of the "C" pillar.

S5.5, "Item 4A Glazing," of FMVSS No. 205 states:

Item 4A glazing may be used in all areas in which Item 4 safety glazing may be used, and also for side windows rearward of the "C" pillar.I.e., Item 4A glazing may be used under Item 4A paragraph (b) of ANSI/SAE Z26.11996 only in side windows rearward of the "C" pillar.

"Item 4A paragraph (b)" of ANSI/SAE Z26.11996 states that Item 4A glazing may be used in the following locations: "In a vehicle whose rearmost designated seating position is forward-facing and cannot be adjusted so that it is side or rear-facing and, the forwardmost point on the visible interior surface of the glazing, is rearward of the vertical transverse plane that passes through the shoulder reference point (as described in Figure 1 of 49 CFR 571.210 Seat belt assembly anchorages) of that rearmost seating position".

You believe that FMVSS No. 205 permits the use of Item 4A glazing in side windows anywhere in the vehicle as long as the provisions of "Item 4A paragraph (b)," above, are met. You state that the preamble to an August 12, 1996 final rule permitting Item 4A glazing adopted criteria (in former S5.1.2.11) equivalent to those of Item 4A paragraph (b), above, and that the preamble allowed for a wide application of the glazing.You quote the following from the preamble adopting S5.1.2.11:

Since the adopted criteria do not limit Item 4A installation to locations between the "C" and "D" pillars in station wagons and hatchbacks, they permit Item 4A glazing installation in any vehicle location that can meet that approach. Thus, Item 4A glazing could be installed in the "C" pillar of vehicles and between the "B" and "D" pillars in hearses (funeral coaches) if those locations met the criteria. (61 FR 41739)

Discussion

We cannot agree that S5.5 permits Item 4A glazing in side windows in locations other than rearward of the C pillar. The wording of S5.5 is clear that Item 4A glazing may be used only in side windows rearward of the C pillar. The regulatory history of S5.5 also illustrates that the reference to the C pillar was not inadvertent, as explained below.

FMVSS No. 205 incorporates by reference the American National Standard Institutes (ANSI) Safety Code for Safety Glazing Materials for Glazing Motor Vehicles Operating on Land Highways (ANSI Z26.1). In July 2003, NHTSA amended FMVSS No. 205 to update the reference from the then-referenced 1977 version of ANSI Z26.1 to the 1996 ANSI standard (July 25, 2003; 68 FR 43964). At the time, the agency believed that the requirements for Item 4A glazing were adequately presented in the 1996 version of ANSI Z26.1, and accordingly deleted S5.1.2.11 that had specified the locations in which Item 4A glazing may be used. The agency subsequently realized that the 1996 ANSI standard does not contain the location restriction for Item 4A glazing that the agency sought to have. NHTSA published a correction to the final rule (68 FR 55544; September 26, 2003) to add S5.5 to the standard "to make clear that Item 4A glazing is only permitted for use in side windows rearward of the C pillar." The September 26, 2003 final rule takes precedence over the preamble of the August 12, 1996 final rule. In light of the 2003 correction, which reflected the agencys view of the standard as permitting Item 4A glazing only in side windows rearward of the C pillar, ^[1] we cannot interpret S5.5 as you suggest.

We note further that even the August 12, 1996 final rule whose preamble you quote placed the regulatory text permitting Item 4A glazing under the heading, "S5.1.2.11 Test procedures for Item 4ARigid Plastic for Use in Side Windows Rearward of the "C" pillar" (emphasis added). Thus, even S5.1.2.11 did not permit Item 4A glazing to be used forward of the C pillar.

In your letter (with accompanying photographs), you discussed the Porsche Cayman S and Porsche 911 GT2 and GT3 vehicles. The vehicles do not have rear designated seating positions. You ask if Item 4A glazing is permitted for side windows forward of the C pillar "[u]sing the same logic applied to the hearse case discussed in the 1996 final rule (i.e., that there is no opportunity for head contact with this piece of glazing) ." Interpreting S5.5 as you suggest would render meaningless the agencys statements in the September 26, 2003 document, discussed above, that made clear that Item 4A glazing is only permitted for use in side windows rearward of the C pillar. Accordingly, for the reasons discussed above, we cannot interpret the standard as permitting Item 4A glazing in side windows in locations other than rearward of the C pillar.

If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact us at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Wood
Acting Chief Counsel

ref.205
d.4/25/06





---

^[1] In a July 12, 2005 document further correcting S5.5, the agency reiterated that it had corrected the standard after discovering that the incorporation of the 1996 version of ANSI/AE Z26.1 "inadvertently permitted item 4A glazing to be used in side windows rearward of the B pillar".

ID: lieberman.ztv

Edward Lieberman, P.E.
President
KLD Associates, Inc.
300 Broadway
Huntington Station, NY 11746

Dear Mr. Lieberman:

This is in reply to your letter of February 11, 2003, containing a proposal to conduct a field evaluation of a supplementary motor vehicle lighting system. This system is called the "Sunlight Safety System" and was developed by Harold Caine. You have requested "a variance of FMVSS 108."

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has authority to exempt a vehicle only from complying with one or more of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards at the time it is manufactured. When a vehicle has been sold and is in use on the public roads, it becomes subject to applicable State laws, and, if it is a commercial vehicle used in interstate commerce, the regulations of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration. You should consult these authorities to determine whether use of this supplemental lighting system is legal on state and interstate highways.

NHTSA has had occasion over the years to comment on Mr. Caines lighting systems. I enclose a copy of our letter of November 16, 1999, to Mr. Terry Wagar of the Department of Motor Vehicles, State of New York, which represents the agencys most recent views on the subject.

If you have any questions, you may call Taylor Vinson of this Office (202-366-5263).

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

Enclosure

cc: FMCSA
ref:108
d.5/27/03

ID: loadbind.rm

Allen F. Brauninger, Esq.
Office of the General Counsel
Consumer Product Safety Commission
Washington, D.C. 20207

Dear Mr. Brauninger:

This responds to your May 30, 1997, letter asking whether a load binder is motor vehicle equipment. From the information you sent us, load binders appear to be some type of strap or chain used to secure cargo to flat bed trucks. If so, then the answer to your question is yes.

As you are aware, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. Section 30102(a)(7) of 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301 (the "Safety Act"), defines, in relevant part, the term "motor vehicle equipment" as:

(A) any system, part, or component of a motor vehicle as originally manufactured [or] (B) any similar part or component manufactured or sold for replacement or improvement of such system, part, or component, or as an accessory or addition to a motor vehicle... (emphasis added).

In determining whether an item of equipment is considered an accessory, NHTSA applies two criteria. The first criterion is whether a substantial portion of the expected use of the item is related to the operation or maintenance of motor vehicles. We determine a product's expected use by considering product advertising, product labeling, and the type of store that retails the product, as well as available information about the actual use of the product. The second criterion is whether the product is intended to be purchased or otherwise acquired and used principally by ordinary users of motor vehicles. If the product satisfies both criteria, then the product is considered an "accessory," and thus is subject to the provisions of the Safety Act.

Applying these criteria to load binders, it appears that the item would be an accessory and thus an item of motor vehicle equipment under the Safety Act. Based on our understanding of the product, a substantial portion of the expected use of load binders relates to motor vehicle operation. The system is intended to hold cargo secure aboard flatbed trucks during transit. Also, the product would be purchased by and principally used by commercial truck drivers, ordinary users of motor vehicles.

While load binders are an item of motor vehicle equipment, NHTSA has not issued any standards for such a device. Nevertheless, the product's manufacturer is subject to the requirements in 49 U.S.C. sections 30118-30120 concerning the recall and remedy of products with defects related to motor vehicle safety. In the event that the manufacturer or NHTSA determines that the product contains a safety related defect, the manufacturer would be responsible for notifying purchasers of the defective equipment and remedying the problem free of charge. I have forwarded your letter to our Office of Defects Investigation for its consideration.

Additionally, load binders used for transporting cargo in interstate commerce are subject to regulation by the Federal Highway Administration. Accordingly, we will forward your correspondence to the Chief Counsel of that agency for further review.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Ms. Rebecca MacPherson of my office at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
ref:VSA
d.7/28/97