ID: 1985-02.40

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/07/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Jeffrey R. Miller; NHTSA

TO: Mr. M. Mizuguchi

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. M. Mizuguchi Ashimori Industry Co., Ltd. 12, 4-chome Yokobori, Higashi-ku Osaka, Japan

Dear Mr. Mizuguchi:

Your letter of February 28, 1985, was forwarded to my office for reply. You asked whether the webbing attached to a buckle you intend to use must meet the webbing width requirement of S4.2 of Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies. The webbing is enclosed in a plastic sheath. As explained below, the webbing must meet the width requirement of the standard.

S4.2 of Standard No. 209 provides that the "width of the webbing in a seat belt assembly shall be not less than 1.8 inches, except for portions that do not touch a 95th percentile adult male with the seat in any adjustment position and the seat back in the manufacturer's nominal design riding position when measured under the conditions prescribed in S5.1(a)." The purpose of S4.2 is to ensure that belt webbing which comes into contact with an occupant has a minimum width that spreads the load imposed by the belt in a crash. By requiring webbing to spread rather than concentrate the load, the belt width requirement helps minimize the possibility of webbing-caused injury.

In the case of your design, the webbing is enclosed in a tightly-fitting plastic sheath. You state that the webbing/sheath combination can come into contact with an occupant. The sheath enclosed with your sample is made from an easily deformable plastic. Thus, when the crash loads are imposed by the belt, the sheath will deform and the crucial factor in concentrating the load on an occupant is the width of the belt. Since the webbing/sheath combination can contact and impose crash loads on an occupant, the agency concludes that the webbing must meet the minimum width requirement of S4.2.

If the webbing were encased in a reinforced sheath that did not appreciably deform under loading, the agency would consider both the width of the webbing and its encasing sheath in determining whether the requirement of S4.2 was met.

I have enclosed the sample of your product sent with your letter. If you have any further questions, please let me know.

Sincerely,

Jeffrey R. Miller Chief Counsel

Enclosure

Ref. No M/M02-28 Osaka Feb, 28, 1985

Messrs. Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Washington, D. C. 20590, U. S. A.

Attn: Mr. Francis Armstrong Director Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance Enforcement

Dear Mr. Francis Armstrong,

We'd like to ask you the following question. Recently, we are trying to make a soft and flexibility seat belt system, and then the enclosed buckle is one of our sample. This sample is composed of narrow webbing and a little solid plastic boot. However, according to FMVSS NO. 209 item 4.2 (a) "webbing width" describing it's width should be not less than 1.8 inches (about 46mm), the problem of elongation and etc, it is very difficult for us to judge whether our sample does conform to regulation N0.209 on the view of interpretation of the Law or not. Of course, this assembly does meet with the requirement of seat belt assembly prescribing in NO. 209. When this sample is located in vehicle, we are afraid that this sample will touch slightly or enough to person's body. Here, we enclosed please find our sample of buckle side of seat belt assembly herewith. So could you pleases inform us of your official comments very soon. Your earliest written answer will be highly appreciated.

Yours faithfully,

Ashimori Industry Co., Ltd.

M. Mizuguchi

encl. sample of bucket seat

ID: aiam0301

Dear Mr. McDonald: This is in reply to your letter of February 4, 1971, in which yo submitted for our review a draft of a label that you intend to use on your Bobby-Mac baby chair in accordance with paragraph S4.1 of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 213. We have restated the parts of your label whose compliance with the requirements of S4.1 is questionable, followed by our comments.; >>>1. 'In each position, reclining to upright, Bobby-Mac exceed Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 213 requirements for child seating systems.'<<<; We assume that you intend this statement to be your certification pursuant to Section 114 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, that the Bobby-Mac seat complies with Standard No. 213. While certification is not required to be placed on the label by S4.1, placing it there is not inconsistent with either Section 114 of the Act of Standard No. 213. However, we do not consider the statement you have used to be an adequate certification statement. This is because when read literally, the statement deals only with the static force requirements of the standard, as the other requirements, such as those for labeling (S4.1), providing instructions (S4.2), adjustments (S4.3), and others, are neither concerned with the 'position' of the child seat nor can they be 'exceeded.' You must certify compliance with all the requirements of the standard, and your statement should be changed accordingly. Should you wish to use it, the following statement, for child seats manufactured on or after April 1, 1971, would be satisfactory: 'This child seating system conforms to all Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to it on the date of manufacture shown below.'; >>>2. 'Bobby-Mac can only be used in cars with standard auto seat bel which must be used to secure Bobby-Mac safely on front or rear auto seat. In vehicles with seats more elevated from floor than usual passenger auto, thereby not permitting sufficient length in auto seat belt to loop around Bobby-Mac, or if for any reason auto seat belt is short, auto dealer or auto belt manufacturer can supply belt lengthener.'<<<; You have apparently placed this statement on the label to comply wit paragraph S4.1(e) of the standard which requires a statement describing in general terms the types of vehicles and designated seating positions in those vehicles in which the system is recommended or not recommended for use. It is your responsibility under the requirement to make certain that the types of vehicles you recommend have seat belts that are long enough to use the Bobby-Mac as recommended. You have stated that the Bobby-Mac can be used with a standard auto seat belt, but you have also indicated that there are types of vehicles or belt conditions with which the Bobby-Mac should not be used without some modification. We believe that your exceptions should be stated more objectively, such as prescribing the minimum belt loop length above the seat cushion that is required, so that a consumer can more accurately determine whether you are recommending the Bobby-Mac for use in his vehicle.; With reference to your recommendation concerning seat belt lengthener if these lengtheners are not available by April 1, 1971, your label would not comply with the requirement. If they are available your label should describe them in sufficient detail, such as by part number, so that consumers will know precisely what they must obtain in order to properly install the Bobby-Mac seat. Your seat would be required to meet the force requirements of the standard when tested in the vehicles in which you recommend it for use and using any of the seat belt modifiers that you recommend for use with it.; >>>3. 'When Bobby-Mac is used for older, taller youngster, it must b used on auto seat whose seat back or head restraint extends at least 6 inches above top of Bobby-Mac seat bucket.'<<<; In this case, you indicate that a child of a certain height must b placed at only certain seating positions. In order to provide consumers with some objective criteria by which they can determine whether Bobby-Mac is appropriate for their vehicles, the minimum height of the child that needs the additional head restraint protection should be provided, rather than describing him as merely 'older' or 'taller.' In addition, it would be preferable if you specified the total seat back height above the seat cushion that is necessary for the children you have in mind, rather than indicating this measurement as the distance from the top of the child seat bucket. The information would be more useful to consumers, as it would allow them to determine the appropriateness of the Bobby-Mac without first obtaining one.; >>>4. Finally, based upon the photographs submitted with your letter the Bobby-Mac seat does not appear to be a rearward-facing child seat. If this is the case, the statement, 'For use only on forward-facing vehicle seats,' as required by S4.1(g), must be included on the label.<<<; Please write if you have further questions. Sincerely, Lawrence R. Schneider, Acting Chief Counsel

ID: aiam4355

Dear Mr. Chen: This is in reply to your letter of June 5, 1987, asking whether certai rear lighting arrangements are acceptable under Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.; You have submitted a diagram showing four lamps on either side of th vertical centerline of the rear of the car. The most inboard lamps, denoted 'R', are the backup lamp system. Yue Loong contemplates four different functions for the remaining three systems of lamps, 'A', 'B', 'C', and 'D', 'E', 'F' (inboard to outboard) and asks about acceptability.; >>>1. In the first system, ABC or DEF will serve the respective tur signal functions. All lamps would serve as hazard warning signal lamps and stop lamps. Standard No. 108 generally does not prohibit lamp clusters from performing multiple functions. This system is permissible as long as ABC and DEF will serve the respective turn signal functions. All lamps would serve as hazard warning signal lamps and stop lamps. Standard No.108 generally does not prohibit lamp clusters from performing multiple function. This system is permissible as long a ABC and DEF meet all Standard No. 108's requirements for turn, hazard warning, and stop signals when tested in those modes. Your diagram, however, does not indicate which, if any, of these lamps provide the taillamp functions that Standard No. 108 also requires for the rear of motor vehicles. Therefore, lamps ABC and DEF would have to meet the taillamp requirements as well.; >>>2. The second system differs from the first in that the hazar warning system would not operate through the two most outboard lamps. This system is permissible, as Standard No. 108 does not mandate use of all turn signal lamps for the hazard warning signal mode, requiring only 'at least one' on each side of the vehicle, front and rear.; >>>3. The third system differs from the second in that the two mos outboard lamps would no longer be part of the stop lamp system. We view this arrangement as permissible. Standard No. 108 requires that stop lamps, turn signal lamps, and taillamps be located 'as far apart as practicable'. In a literal sense this would appear to require stacking the lamps vertically at the outboard edges of the vehicle, but NHTSA has not adopted a design-restrictive interpretation of this requirement. The determination of practicability is initially that of the manufacturer, but it is subject to review and comment by this agency in instances where such a determination appears clearly erroneous. Where the turn signal system (or part of it) is located at the outboard edges of the vehicle, and the stop lamps and taillamps are adjacent to it, or to each other, we view the 'practicability' requirement as met.; >>>4. The fourth system differs from the third in that the stop lam system would be either that of the systems discussed in items 2 and 3 above, and operating according to Section 3 of your letter. Either system would be acceptable, subject to the operational restriction with turn signal lamps that I shall discuss in my response to section 3.; Next, you have presented four kinds of flashing arrangements for th turn signal lamps. You ask (a) which could meet Standard No. 108, and (b) which could meet Standard No. 108 assuming a flash cycle of 104 seconds. With respect to (a), all four would appear to be acceptable. The standard allows multiple turn signal lamps either to flash simultaneously, or sequentially in the direction of the turn. With respect to (b), Standard No. 108 specifies that a turn signal flasher provide not less than 60 and not more than 120 cycles per minute. This translates to not less than 1 and not more than 2 cycles per second. This requirement would have to be met by all lamps in arrangement (d), i.e. where all lamps operate simultaneously. When operating sequentially, each lamp individually would be subject to the restrictions with the result that the inclusive cycle for a three lamp system would be not less than 3 seconds and not more than 6 seconds. Therefore, arrangements (a), (b), and (c) would meet this requirement assuming a flash cycle of 4 seconds, by arrangement (d) would not, being restricted to a cycle of 2 seconds maximum.; In your third question, or Section 3 as you term it, you have combine the condition of your first two questions and attached a table of 'detailed operating states' of the rear lamps, which incorporated three attached figures, with the question whether it would comply with Standard No. 108. Two of the Operating States illustrated denote the stop lamp 'on' and, individually, the right or left turn signal as 'on'. Standard No. 108 does not allow simultaneous activation of the stop lamp and turn signal lamp when the stop signal is optically combined with the turn signal. In that event, the circuit must be such that the stop signal cannot be turned on in the turn signal which is flashing (paragraph 4.2, SAE Standard J586c *Stop Lamps*, August 1970, incorporated by reference in Standard No. 108). Our other comment concerns 'Fig. a', 'Fig. b', and 'Fig. c' depicting flash cycles of the turn signal lamps. As we noted earlier, the individual lamps are subject to the cycle minima and maxima of 1 to 2 cycles per second, and none of the rates depicted in the three Figures appears to meet the minimum requirement of 1 second. Otherwise, the 'Operating State' table appears acceptable.; I hope that this answers your questions. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam4094

Dear Mr. Martin: Thank you for your letter of July 30, 1985, to Administrator Stee concerning the requirements of Standard No. 210, *Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages*. Your letter was referred to my office for reply. I regret the delay in our response.; You asked the agency to reconsider its interpretation of th requirements of S4.1.1 of the standard which requires the installation of '(s)eat belt anchorages for a Type 2 seat belt assembly' at certain positions in motor vehicles. You specifically asked that we issue a new interpretation that S4.1.1 is satisfied by installation of safety belt anchorages utilized by a safety belt meeting the occupant protection requirements of Standard No. 208, *Occupant Crash Protection*. You also asked that if a new interpretation could not be issued, then the agency should treat your letter as a petition for rulemaking. As discussed below, the agency believes that the change you seek can only be made by a rulemaking proceeding. Therefore, as you requested, we will treat your letter as a petition for rulemaking, which is granted.; You offered several arguments in support of your view that the existin language of S4.1.1 is satisfied if a passenger car is equipped with anchorages for safety belts meeting the occupant protection requirements of Standard No. 208. You noted that the definition of a Type 2 safety belt assembly set forth in S3 of Standard No. 209, *Seat Belt Assemblies*, is based solely on the existence of pelvic and upper torso restraints and does not differentiate between manual and automatic belts. You also noted that S4.3(j) of Standard No. 209 applies to Type 1 and Type 2 belts and that the agency has interpreted section S4.3(j) to apply to both automatic and manual safety belts.; You also argued that redundant anchorages would not be used since a owner would not purchase an aftermarket manual belt intended to be anchored in the vehicle 'B' pillar, if a door-anchored safety belt were available from the manufacturer. You said this would be particularly true of the door-mounted detachable automatic safety belts General Motors intends to use. In addition, you pointed out that the agency's April 1985 proposal to require dynamic testing of manual belts also supports the elimination of the requirement for additional anchorages. You noted that the agency proposed that dynamically-tested manual belts would be exempt from the anchorage location requirements of Standard No. 210. Thus, a manufacturer may have anchorages outside of Standard No. 210 location zones, but the automatic belts attached to the anchorages would meet the occupant protection requirements of Standard No. 208. You said that a manual belt attached to anchorages within Standard No. 210's zone might not meet Standard No. 208's occupant protection requirements.; Finally, you said that the cost impact of providing the additiona anchorages is not minimal. You said that 'the cost penalty to General Motors customers would be approximately $6,000,000 annually when all vehicles were redesigned assuming that the vehicles were required to incorporate automatic restraints.'; While we believe that you have raised a number of important issue concerning the current requirements of Standard No. 210, we believe that given the specific language of S4.1.1, any change to those requirements can only be made through a rulemaking proceeding. Standard No. 210, as currently written, specifically refers to providing anchorages for a Type 2 safety belt. The agency has consistently recognized a distinction between Type 2 belts and automatic belts. That distinction is based on a comparison of the design features of a two point automatic belt with those of a Type 2 lap/shoulder safety belt. Standard No. 209 defines a seat belt assembly as 'a strap, webbing, or similar device' used to secure a person in a crash. Under Standard No. 209, a Type 2 seat belt assembly is defined as a strap, webbing or similar device which provides 'pelvic and upper torso restraint.' Thus, a Type 2 safety belt provides webbing to restrain both the pelvis and upper torso and requires three anchorages to be installed. In contrast, an automatic belt can use webbing to provide upper torso restraint, which would require two anchorages to install, and not have webbing to restrain the pelvis. Instead, a two point automatic belt relies on non-belt technology, such as a knee bolster, to restrain movement of the pelvis.; The agency recognized the design distinctions between Type 2 belts an automatic belts by specifically providing a separate definition of automatic belt in S4.5.3 of Standard No. 208. In addition, the agency recognized a distinction between automatic and Type 2 belts by specifying in Standard No. 208 that an automatic belt may be used 'in place of any seat belt assembly otherwise required by' S4 of the standard. The other seat belt assemblies required by S4 are Type 1 and Type 2 systems. To further contrast the distinction between automatic belts and Type 2 belts, S4.5.3.1 of Standard No. 208 specifically provides that 'an automatic belt that provides only pelvic restraint may not be used...to meet the requirements of any option under S4 and in place of any seat belt assembly otherwise required by that option.'; Given these distinctions between a Type 2 and an automatic belt, w believe that the reference to a Type 2 belt in S4.1.1 of Standard No. 210 requires us to retain our current interpretation of that provision. However, we do believe you have raised important questions about whether that provision should be changed. We expect to begin rulemaking shortly on this issue.; Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam0347

Dear Mr.Jones: The 'Flash Notice' that you forwarded to us on April 23, 1971, and you telephone conversation of May 10 with Mike Peskoe of my staff have raised certain questions concerning your interpretation of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 117, 'Retreaded Pneumatic Tires.'; On page 1 of the 'Flash Notice' you state, 'But, so far as testin goes, it's apparent the risk for retreaders not to do their own testing to prove compliance is substantially greater than anticipated.' You proceed to discuss whether manufacturers should test their own tires in order to prove 'due care.' As part of this discussion you refer to the statement in the preamble in the Notice of March 5, 1970, concerning what could suffice for a valid certification, and state that we have told you that this preamble is 'still basically valid.'; There is evidently some confusion as to the purpose and meaning of 'du care' under the National Traffic and Motor vehicle Safety Act, and also as to the difference between compliance and certification.; A manufacturer of a retreaded tire that did not comply with th standard but who used due care in manufacturing the tire to comply with the standard cannot be subject to a civil penalty. The answer to your hypothetical question on page 3, 'What if due care is used, but the tire doesn't comply' is that the manufacturer cannot be subject to a civil penalty in this situation. (He may, however, be required to send defect notification letters and be urged to recall.) We do not agree that one is 'guilty until proven innocent.' A finding of noncompliance must first be made by the agency. Once the agency, through testing or otherwise, discovers a noncompliance, it is then up to the manufacturer to show that he exercised due care. Although the issue of due care is one that is ultimately decided by a court, the agency, in determining whether to seek a civil penalty, will make a preliminary determination on this issue.; You asked in your conversation of May 10 that we amplify what is mean by 'due care.' 'Due care' is a legal concept embodying the care that would be exercised by a reasonable man under the circumstances, and the circumstances of each situation must be considered in determining whether due care has been exercised. The set of circumstances set forth in the preamble of March 5, 1970, might constitute 'due care' in a large number of situations. To be sure, a manufacturer who tests his own tires might be considered in some cases to have exercised more care to insure that his tires complied with the standard than one who relied on tests by a third person on other tires that were similarly manufactured. Each potential case would be considered, and decided, by the agency on the facts peculiar to it.; The 'Flash Notice' also motions 'certification' in such a way tha clarification of the term is indicated. First, all tires manufactured after the standard's effective date must be certified. Certification is accomplished, as you know, by placing the symbol 'DOT' on the tire in a prescribed location. In practice, all tires will have the symbol 'DOT' affixed to them after January 1, 1972, as manufacturers could not manufacture these tires without placing the mark on them. The answer to your question on page 3, 'What if one certified does not comply' is that even if the tire fails to comply, if the manufacturer has exercised due care, in the view of the court, in manufacturing the tires to comply to the standard, his certification will not be considered 'false or misleading,' and no civil penalty can be imposed. The same 'due care' that will suffice for compliance will suffice for purposes for certification. Manufacturers' efforts should be directed to manufacturing tires that conform to the standard.; Your 'Flash Notice' also incorrectly explains certain provisions of th standard. First, with reference to which tests a particular tire must pass, S5.1.1 requires each tire to be able to pass every test, but when a single tire, during the agency testing, is subject to one of the groups of tests specified in S5.1.1, that particular tire will not be tested further. As indicated to you on the phone, this is similar to the test procedure of Standard No. 109. It merely reflects that fact that certain test, such as strength, normally destroy the tire.; Your statement on page 4 concerning the labeling requirements, tha retreaders can 'buff off the labeling required in retreading without worry, since it is displayed in other areas,' is unclear to us. The standard requires each item of information required by Standard No. 109 to be retained in at least one location (Standard No. 109 requires each item to be on both sidewalls) on the complete retreaded tire. Retreaders must therefore take care that each tire retains the original marking to this extent.; Finally, with reference to the physical dimensions requirements o S5.1.2, the 10 percent tolerance refers only to the maximum dimension, with respect to the section width specified in the tables of Standard No. 109. Your reference on page 4 to '10% under' is incorrect, since no minimum measurement is stated in the standard. However, the section width is a variable in computing the size factor which must be at least the minimum specified for the tire in the tables in the Appendix.; If you have further questions, please let us know. Sincerely, Lawrence R. Schneider, Acting Chief Counsel

ID: aiam5195

"Dear Mr. Banner: This responds to your request for an interpretatio of how NHTSA's regulations would apply to some manufacturing operations you are contemplating. I apologize for the delay in this response. In a telephone conversation with Dorothy Nakama of my staff, you explained that you would like to start producing vehicles based on Ford pickup truck chassis. Some of these Ford chassis would come from wrecked vehicles that you would strip down to the frame, and others would be new chassis that you would purchase directly from Ford. You would then install new bodies on top of some of these chassis and offer them for sale as completed vehicles. You also would like to offer some of these bodies and chassis for sale as 'kit cars.' In the 'kit car' version, you would sell the body and chassis to the purchaser of the kit, and the purchaser of the kit would have to furnish some other parts in order to complete the vehicle. This agency's Federal motor vehicle safety standards apply to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. Federal law does not require motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment to continue to comply with the safety standards after the first purchase of the vehicle or equipment item in good faith for purposes other than resale. However, Federal law does prohibit any manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair business from knowingly 'rendering inoperative' compliance with a safety standard for a vehicle or item of equipment. See 15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(1)(A), (a)(2)(A), and (b)(1). 1. New Body on New Chassis. All vehicles you produce by installing a new body on a new chassis would be considered new vehicles. You would have to certify that each of those vehicles conformed to all applicable safety standards. You would be considered a 'final stage manufacturer' of the vehicles, as that term is used in 49 CFR Parts 567 and 568. 2. New Body on Used Chassis. We cannot say from the information you have provided whether the vehicles you produce by installing a new body on a stripped, wrecked Ford pickup would be treated as a new vehicle, and have to be certified as complying with the applicable safety standards. The answer depends on how extensively you modify the Ford pickup chassis. To allow vehicle modifiers to determine when the modifications to a used chassis are so extensive that the resulting vehicle will be considered new for the purposes of the Federal safety standards, NHTSA has established specific criteria at 49 CFR 571.7(e), Combining new and used components. That section reads as follows: When a new cab is used in the assembly of a truck, the truck will be considered newly manufactured . . . unless the engine, transmission, and drive axle(s) (as a minimum) of the assembled vehicle are not new, and at least two of these components were taken from the same vehicle. This provision means that if you leave the frame, engine, transmission, and drive axle in place from the wrecked vehicle, and place a new body on top of it, we would consider that vehicle to be a used vehicle, which would not have to be certified by you as complying with applicable safety standards. On the other hand, if you were to remove all the drive components from the frame of the Ford pickup chassis, and add new drive components or rebuilt drive components from different vehicles, the vehicle would be a new vehicle and would have to be certified by you as complying with all applicable safety standards. 3. Kit cars. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, a 'motor vehicle' is defined, in part, as one that is 'driven by mechanical power.' See 15 U.S.C. 1391(3). We have interpreted this provision to mean that a unit would be considered only an assemblage of motor vehicle equipment, and not a motor vehicle, until such time as a power source is added. None of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards apply to assemblages of motor vehicle equipment, or to used equipment items in the assemblage (items used on a vehicle previously in service on the public roads). However, certain of the safety standards would apply to new equipment items included in the assemblage. It would be a violation of Federal law if your kit car includes any new brake hoses, brake fluid, lighting equipment, tires, glazing, or seat belt assemblies that do not comply with the applicable safety standards. If you ship your kit cars with all parts needed to produce a completed motor vehicle, including the power source, this agency will treat the kit car as a motor vehicle, not an assemblage of motor vehicle equipment, regardless of the state of completion of the kit. You would be required to certify that the kit car conformed to all applicable safety standards if it were treated as a new vehicle under the rules set forth in 1. and 2. above, but not if it were treated as a used vehicle under those rules. I have enclosed for your information a general information sheet for manufacturers of new vehicles. This sheet highlights the relevant Federal statutes and regulations and explains how to obtain copies of them. I have also enclosed a brochure titled 'Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards' that briefly describes each of the safety standards. I hope this information is useful. If you have any further questions or need further information, please contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at (202) 366- 2992. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel Enclosure";

ID: 571.108--Supplement beam--Boykin--16-0884

Mr. Marcus Boykin

B-G Innovative Safety Systems, LLC

79 Pasture Road

Lexington, TN 38351

Dear Mr. Boykin:

This responds to your letter asking about the application of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 108, “Lamps, reflective devices, and associated equipment,” to a lighting system your company has developed.  In your letter and phone conversation with John Piazza of my staff, you describe your product as “an auxiliary vehicle lamp operating system” for use both as original equipment (OE) and as aftermarket equipment.

You state that your product, which adapts to the existing headlight wiring harness, provides a supplemental lower beam from the existing upper beam when the lower beam fails.  We understand that, when the lower beam is not in a failed state, the headlight system, controls, and telltales function normally.  If the lower beam is selected and has failed or does fail, your system provides a supplemental lower beam from the existing upper beam.  You state that the lighting on the converted upper beam is “diffused down to the same output illumination as” the lower beam.  If the upper beam is selected, the upper beam will continue to function normally. 

We further understand that, with respect to the OE version of your product, you contemplate a dashboard warning to warn the driver that the normal lower beam is not functioning.  In the aftermarket version of your product, once the vehicle’s lower beam has failed and your device is providing a supplemental lower beam, every time the engine is started the headlights will flash three times to warn the driver that the original equipment lower beam is not operating and that your device is providing a supplemental lower beam.  You state that you are seeking “interpretation and approval” of your device.

As we explain below, while NHTSA does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment and does not make compliance determinations outside of an agency compliance proceeding, we are able to provide you with our interpretation of how NHTSA’s statute and regulations would apply to your product as you have described it to us.  We believe that your product would be considered supplemental lighting.  As such, it may be installed as original equipment as long as it does not impair the effectiveness of any required lighting.  If your product is offered as aftermarket equipment, it would not be directly subject to FMVSS No. 108 but would be subject to the Safety Act’s make inoperative prohibition.

Background

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized by the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Safety Act), 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301, to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment.  NHTSA does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment and does not make determinations as to whether a product conforms to the relevant FMVSS outside of an agency compliance proceeding.  Instead, the Safety Act requires manufacturers to self-certify that their products conform to all applicable FMVSSs.  Manufacturers must also ensure that their products are free of safety-related defects.

This letter provides you with our interpretation of how the statute and regulations administered by NHTSA would apply to your product as you have described it to us, based on our understanding of the information provided.  This is not an “approval” of your product.

Vehicle lighting sold as OE is regulated under FMVSS No. 108.  (All references in this letter are to subsections of FMVSS No. 108 unless otherwise noted.).  FMVSS No. 108 requires vehicles to be equipped with certain types of lamps (known as “required” lamps), which must meet very specific and detailed performance standards.[1]  All other lamps are considered “supplemental” lamps.[2]  Unlike OE required lamps, OE supplemental lamps are not required to meet any specific performance requirements.  However, they are required to comply with certain generally-applicable provisions of FMVSS No. 108.  One of these provisions is set forth in S6.2.1, which states: “No additional lamp, reflective device, or other motor vehicle equipment is permitted to be installed that impairs the effectiveness of lighting equipment required by this standard.”

Both OE and aftermarket vehicle lighting are subject to the Safety Act’s “make inoperative” prohibition (49 U.S.C. § 30122), which prohibits a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, rental company, or motor vehicle repair business from knowingly making 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 FMVSS.  While this “make inoperative” prohibition does not apply to individual vehicle owners, NHTSA encourages vehicle owners not to remove or otherwise tamper with vehicle safety equipment.  Also, any modifications made by a vehicle owner would have to comply with applicable state law. 

Discussion

FMVSS No. 108 requires vehicles to be equipped with one of several permissible headlighting systems.  Headlighting systems are comprised of headlamps and associated hardware.  The purpose of headlighting is primarily to provide forward illumination.[3] 

The threshold issue presented by your request is whether your product is part of the required headlighting system, and thus subject to FMVSS No. 108’s requirements applicable to headlighting systems or, instead, supplemental lighting that is regulated by FMVSS No. 108’s impairment provision.   

In determining whether lighting equipment that provides forward illumination is part of the required headlighting system or, instead, supplemental lighting, NHTSA looks at several factors.  These include: (1) where the lamp directs its light; (2) whether it uses a headlamp replaceable light source to emit a beam that provides significantly more light flux than supplemental cornering lamps or fog lamps; (3) whether the lamp is intended to be used regularly, or is limited to more narrow driving conditions and situations; (4) whether the vehicle’s complete lighting system, not including the lamp in question, would include all of the forward lighting equipment required by FMVSS No. 108;  (5) whether there is a manual on/off switch; and (6) whether the lighting feature is one that activates only upon the failure of an element of the required headlighting system and acts as a temporary backup of that lighting element.[4] 

The last of these factors is most relevant to your product.  Prior agency interpretations have found that a lighting feature that activates an upper beam light source when the lower beam fails or a lower beam headlamp upon the failure of an upper beam headlamp is supplemental lighting.[5]  The system you describe activates a back-up beam only upon the failure of the required lower beam.  Accordingly, we believe it is supplemental lighting. 

Since you contemplate selling your supplemental lighting device as original and/or aftermarket equipment, we will consider the requirements affecting each of these.

Supplemental lighting installed as original equipment

Supplemental lighting installed as OE (i.e. before sale to first purchaser other than for resale) is permitted if the lighting does not impair the effectiveness of any lighting equipment required by FMVSS No. 108 (S6.2.1).  If you are the manufacturer of original lighting equipment required by FMVSS No. 108, but not the manufacturer of the vehicle on which it is installed, the vehicle manufacturer, and not you, has the legal responsibility under the Safety Act to certify that the vehicle complies with FMVSS No. 108 and all other applicable FMVSSs.  Accordingly, the vehicle manufacturer must certify that supplemental lighting installed as OE complies with S6.2.1.  Effectiveness may be impaired if, among other things, the device creates confusion with the signal sent by another lamp, or functionally interferes with it, or modifies its candlepower to either below the minima or above the maxima permitted by the standard.[6] 

Table XIX has specific photometry requirements (maxima and minima) for lower beams.  Activation of an upper beam light source when a lower beam source fails raises considerations of glare.  The lower beam maxima are meant to ensure that other roadway users are not glared.  If your device produces a supplemental beam that exceeds the lower beam photometric maxima, we would consider that to impair the effectiveness of the headlighting system.  Accordingly, your device needs to modify the upper beam to ensure that the lower beam photometric maxima are not exceeded. [7]  Because your device is supplemental lighting, it would not be required to provide sufficient illumination to meet or exceed the photometric minima required for a lower beam headlamp.  However, we note that by reducing the output illumination of the upper beam to that of the lower beam, the reduced upper beam would provide only a limited amount of illumination that may not be sufficient to usefully illuminate the road. 

For your information, we also point out below several other requirements of which you should be aware in designing and manufacturing your product.  (Note that it is the responsibility of manufacturers, and not NHTSA, to identity all FMVSSs applicable to their products and certify the compliance of their products with the standards.)

• Your product must not interfere with the activation and operation of the upper beam.    
•  It may not impair the effectiveness of the upper beam headlamp indicator required by S9.5.  When your device is providing a supplemental lower beam, it should do so in a way that the upper beam indicator is not activated.  Also, when the driver (or vehicle, if it has a semiautomatic headlamp beam switching device, or automatic headlights) has activated the upper beams, the upper beams must be activated and the upper beam indicator must be activated.  
• S9.4 requires that “the lower and upper beams must not be energized simultaneously except momentarily for temporary signaling purposes or during switching between beams.” 
• The headlamps must be steady burning, except that they may be flashed for signaling purposes.[8]  We would not consider your system’s momentary flashing function as violating this requirement because it is similar to a signaling function and would not be likely to confuse other motorists because it only flashes upon start-up.  
• The device generally should not function in such a way that it would be likely to confuse other motorists (for example, it should not mask the ability of other drivers to perceive the front turn signal).
• If a telltale or control is offered as original equipment, it must comply with any relevant requirements in FMVSS No. 101, “Controls and displays.”

We wish to point out that Table I-a requires that “[t]he wiring harness or connector assembly of each headlighting system must be designed so that only those light sources intended for meeting lower beam photometrics are energized when the beam selector switch is in the lower beam position[.]”  Although it may appear that a device such as yours might not meet this requirement, NHTSA has interpreted the requirement otherwise. 

This issue arises if the lower beam is activated (with the beam selector switch in the lower beam position) and then fails, after which a system (such as yours) activates a modified upper beam as a backup lower beam.  If the backup lower beam utilizes upper beam light sources that are not normally used for meeting lower beam photometrics, the backup lower beam might be viewed as violating this requirement.[9]  However, prior interpretations have concluded that this Table I-a requirement does not apply to a failure condition in which a supplemental beam supplements a failed lower or upper beam, assuming the supplemental light does not otherwise impair the effectiveness of any required lighting.[10]  Applying that line of reasoning, we believe that your system would not create a noncompliance with the Table I-a requirement.

Supplemental lighting offered and installed as aftermarket equipment

Supplemental lighting offered as aftermarket equipment (accessory lighting) is not directly subject to FMVSS No. 108, which applies only to original equipment and lighting equipment manufactured to replace original lighting equipment required by FMVSS No. 108.  Section 30122 of the Safety Act, however, prohibits a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, rental company, or motor vehicle repair business from knowingly making inoperative, in whole or in part original required lighting equipment.  In applying the make inoperative prohibition to accessory lighting we typically ask whether the accessory lighting would impair the effectiveness of any required lighting.  Generally, if an item of accessory lighting would not be permitted as original equipment, commercial entities will not be permitted to install the lighting as an aftermarket accessory for a vehicle in use.  Thus, the make inoperative analysis is generally the same as the impairment analysis we applied above in the context of supplemental lighting installed as original equipment.  We observe that, due to varying headlamp designs throughout the vehicle fleet, there may be potential compatibility issues with the product you describe and certain vehicles.  In addition, manufacturers of aftermarket lighting accessories are subject to the Safety Act’s defect notification and remedy requirements discussed above.    

We also note that manufacturers of equipment to which an FMVSS applies must meet the manufacturer identification requirements set out in 49 CFR Part 566.  For these and other requirements, you may consult NHTSA’s New Manufacturers Handbook, available at https://www.nhtsa.gov/sites/nhtsa.dot.gov/files/manufacturer_information_march2014.pdf.

If you have any further questions, please contact John Piazza at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jonathan Morrison

Chief Counsel

Dated: 5/17/19

Ref: FMVSS No. 108

[1] The standard’s performance requirements also apply to lamps that are “for replacement of like equipment on vehicles to which this standard applies.”  On a related matter, we note that you state that “drivers with a failed light are out of compliance.”  This is incorrect, as FMVSS No. 108 does not regulate lighting in use.  Therefore, if a headlamp fails in operation, the vehicle is not “out of compliance” with the Federal standard (state laws may apply to in-use performance).

[2] NHTSA also uses the term “auxiliary” lamps.

[3] S4 (“Headlamp means a lighting device providing an upper and/or a lower beam used for providing illumination forward of the vehicle.”) (Formatting in original.)

[4] Letter to [Redacted] (Jan. 21, 2004) ((1)-(5)), available at https://isearch.nhtsa.gov/files/swivelinglamp.3.html (last accessed June 20, 2018); letter to L. W. Camp, Ford Motor Company (July 15, 1998) ((6)), available at https://isearch.nhtsa.gov/files/18080.ztv.html (last accessed June 20, 2018). 

[5] Letter to L. W. Camp, supra (lower beam backing up upper beam); letter to Ian Goldstein, Safe Passage Technologies (July 21, 1998) (upper beam backing up lower beam), available at https://isearch.nhtsa.gov/files/18164.ztv.html.

[6] See, e.g., letter to Byung M. Soh, Target Marketing Systems, Inc. (Sept. 13, 1988), available at https://isearch.nhtsa.gov/gm/88/nht88-3.100.html (last accessed June 20, 2018).

[7] Letter to Ian Goldstein, supra (“Because headlamps are primarily operated on the lower beam, activation of an upper beam light source when a lower beam source fails raises considerations of glare . . . the upper beam in this instance ideally should be activated at a markedly reduced intensity such that it does not impair the effectiveness of required lighting devices [S6.2.1], or, more specifically, that, as a lower beam substitute[] it does not compromise turn signal visibility.”)

[8] Table I-a.

[9] Whether this would occur depends on the design of that particular headlighting system.  For example, this would not be the case if the headlighting system used the same light sources for both the lower and the upper beams.

[10] Letter to L. W. Camp, supra (lower beam supplementing failed upper beam).  See also letter to Ian Goldstein, supra (modified upper beam supplementing failed lower

ID: nht94-9.3

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: January 11, 1994

FROM: Don Vierimaa -- Truck Trailer Manufacturers Association

TO: Pat Boyd -- NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 2/7/94 from John Womack to Don Vierimaa (A42; Std. 108)

TEXT:

A customer has requested that a 4 inch (100 mm) wide retroreflective sheeting be placed along the side of a trailer he is ordering. The manufacturer is reluctant to provide this width of sheeting since the rule states in S5.7.1.3(d) that Grade DOT-C2 sheeting shall have a width of 50 mm. This provides no tolerance nor does it provide a minimum.

May a manufacturer install 4 inch (100 mm) wide retroreflective sheeting instead of 2 inch (50 mm) sheeting on the side of new trailers?

ID: nht94-1.18

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: January 11, 1994

FROM: Don Vierimaa -- Truck Trailer Manufacturers Association

TO: Pat Boyd -- NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 2/7/94 from John Womack to Don Vierimaa (A42; Std. 108)

TEXT:

A customer has requested that a 4 inch (100 mm) wide retroreflective sheeting be placed along the side of a trailer he is ordering. The manufacturer is reluctant to provide this width of sheeting since the rule states in S5.7.1.3(d) that Grade DOT-C2 sh eeting shall have a width of 50 mm. This provides no tolerance nor does it provide a minimum.

May a manufacturer install 4 inch (100 mm) wide retroreflective sheeting instead of 2 inch (50 mm) sheeting on the side of new trailers?

ID: nht91-3.6

DATE: April 1, 1991

FROM: John Marcum -- Chairman, Electric Vehicles, S.A.

TO: Administrator -- NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 4-22-91 from Paul Jackson Rice to John Marcum (A37; VSA Sec. 108(2); Part 591); Also attached to letter dated 12-14-90 from John Marcum to Administrator, NHTSA

TEXT:

In reviewing our correspondence, we note that we apparently have not yet received a response to our December 14, 1990 request for a temporary exemption for the EVSA prototype electric minibus. Although the circumstances have changed somewhat since our letter, we would still appreciate your consideration of whether this exemption could be granted. I am attaching a copy of the letter for your convenience.

Please let us know if you need further information.