ID: 2105y

Robert N. Levin, Esq.
Hudock & Levin
1101 Connecticut Avenue, NW
Suite 910
Washington, DC 20036

Dear Mr. Levin:

This responds to your letter on behalf of one of your clients, seeking information on how our law and agency regulations might affect the installation of sun roofs in vehicles. You stated that your client is an automobile repair facility. According to your letter, you recently discovered this agency's regulation (49 CFR /567.7) requiring vehicle alterers to affix to the vehicles they alter a label certifying that the vehicle as altered continues to comply with all applicable safety standards. You asked whether such certification labels must be affixed by your client to those vehicles on which it installs a sun roof. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain the requirements of our laws and regulations for you.

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.) authorizes this agency to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. Two of those safety standards could be relevant to a repair shop's installation of sun roofs on motor vehicles. Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials, (49 CFR /571.205) sets performance requirements for glazing materials installed in new motor vehicles and for new glazing materials for use in motor vehicles. Any glazing incorporated in a vehicle's sun roof would have to conform to the applicable performance requirements set forth in Standard No. 205. In addition, installation of a sun roof could affect a vehicle's compliance with Standard No. 216, Roof Crush Resistance - Passenger Cars, (49 CFR 571.216), which sets forth strength requirements for roofs of passenger cars.

Section 108(a)(1)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(1)(A)) specifies that, "No person shall manufacture for sale, sell, offer for sale, or introduce or deliver for introduction in interstate commerce, or import into the United States, any motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment manufactured on or after the date any applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard takes effect under this title unless it is in conformity with such standard ..." Because of this statutory requirement, any person or business that installs sun roofs in new motor vehicles must certify that the vehicle continues to comply with the requirements of all applicable safety standards, including Standards No. 205 and 216.

The form and contents for this certification are set forth in 49 CFR Part 567, Certification. Any manufacturer that installs a sun roof on a new motor vehicle is required by /567.4 or /567.5 to certify that the vehicle conforms to the requirements of all applicable safety standards. Any person or business that adds a sun roof to a previously certified new motor vehicle prior to its first sale for purposes other than resale would be required to certify the vehicle's continuing compliance with all applicable safety standards, in accordance with /567.7. Such a person or entity is an "alterer" for the purposes of Part 567. (Persons or entities that modify vehicles by using a "readily attachable component" or performing a "minor finishing operation" are not considered "alterers." Modifications involving a readily attachable component or a minor finishing operation are instead subject to the requirements of 49 CFR /567.6. However, NHTSA does not consider a sun roof to be a "readily attachable component" nor is the installation of a sun roof a "minor finishing operation." Hence, this exception is not relevant to your client's activities.).

In addition to these certification requirements, an "alterer" is considered a "manufacturer" for the purposes of the Safety Act. Among other things, this means an alterer is responsible for notification and remedy of defects related to motor vehicle safety and noncompliances with applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards arising from the alterations, as specified in sections 151-160 of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C 1411-1420). I have enclosed a general information sheet for new manufacturers that generally describes our statutory and regulatory requirements, and explains how to obtain copies of those statutes and regulations.

The certification and labeling requirements set forth in section 114 of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1403) and in Part 567 apply to vehicles only until the first sale of the vehicle for purposes other than resale. Thus, once a vehicle has been purchased by a consumer, persons that modify that vehicle for its owner (e.g., by installing a sun roof) are not required to certify or label the vehicle by this agency's statutes or regulations. A different statutory provision applies to modifications made by a repair shop to vehicles after the first purchase. Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)) provides that, "No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or in part, any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard, ..."

To comply with the obligations imposed by this "render inoperative" provision, your client should examine the sun roofs it installs and the means of installation for those sun roofs, and compare those with the requirements of Standards No. 205 and 216. After such an examination and comparison, your client should be able to decide if the sun roof installations it performs result in any apparent violations of the "render inoperative" provision of the Safety Act. If your client decides there is no apparent "render inoperative" violation, Federal law does not require any additional actions, such as labeling or certification, on your client's part in connection with the installation of sun roofs in vehicles after the first purchase of those vehicles. You should be aware that NHTSA may reexamine your client's decision and make its own determination of whether your client's sun roof installations may have violated the "render inoperative" provision in the Safety Act in the context of an enforcement proceeding.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any additional questions, please feel free to contact Mr. Marvin Shaw of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosures

/ref:567#205#216 d:ll/l/89

ID: 21063geninfosuzuki.df

Mr. Eugene Y. Suzuki
Representative of PPC
2-16-15 Oyamadai
Setagaya
Tokyo 158-0086, Japan

Dear Mr. Suzuki:

This responds to your fax to the Safety Assurance office of this agency, generally describing a product called the "Car Life Jacket" that you wish to export to the United States. You state that the Car Life Jacket "is a jacket type seat belt, made of proven one-piece seat belt, buckles, and back/front protections with fuses, for 2-5 year old children . . . ." Your letter has been referred to my office for reply.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) administers Federal requirements for the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles and items of new motor vehicle equipment. We are authorized to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards to reduce highway crashes and deaths and injuries resulting from crashes. Under that authority, we issued Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 213, Child Restraint Systems (49 CFR 571.213), which sets forth requirements which must be met by any device designed for use in a motor vehicle to restrain, seat or position children who weigh 50 pounds or less.

Your Car Life Jacket is a device that is designed to restrain children in motor vehicles. It is thus a "child restraint system" subject to the requirements of Standard No. 213. Based on your letter, we believe the Car Life Jacket is a type of child restraint system known as a "harness." Standard No. 213 requires, among other things, that child restraints provide protection in a 30 mile-per-hour (mph) crash, that the restraint meet the flammability resistance requirements of Standard No. 302, that the belts and buckles meet certain performance requirements, and that the manufacturer provide detailed instructions on the proper use of the restraint. I have enclosed an information sheet that describes how you can obtain copies of these standards.

Every child restraint system for use in motor vehicles sold in or imported into the United States must be certified as complying with Standard No. 213. The United States does not follow the European practice of requiring the manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment to deliver the equipment to specified institutes for testing before the product can be sold. For our purposes, the manufacturer itself must certify that the child restraint system fully satisfies all requirements of Standard No. 213. Further, this agency does not require that the manufacturer's certification be based on a specified number of tests. Although we recommend that a manufacturer selling child restraint systems in the United States test the systems according to the test procedures specified in the standard, it is up to the individual manufacturer to determine what data, test results, or other information it needs to enable it to validly certify that its child restraint systems comply with Standard No. 213. Once a manufacturer determines that its child restraints meet the requirements of Standard No. 213, it certifies that compliance by labeling that certification onto the child restraint, as specified in Standard No. 213.

For purposes of enforcement, this agency conducts spot checks of child restraints after they have been certified as complying with Standard No. 213, by purchasing and testing the child restraints according to the procedures specified in the standard. If the restraints pass the tests, no further steps are taken. If the child restraints fail the test and are determined not to comply with Standard No. 213, the manufacturer of the child restraint is subject to the recall responsibilities of our statute. Manufacturers must also ensure that their products are free of safety-related defects. Our statute specifies that, in the case of a child restraint which fails to comply with Standard No. 213 or contains a safety-related defect, the manufacturer must notify purchasers and either:

1. repair the child restraint, so that the defect or noncompliance is removed; or
2. replace the child restraint with an identical or reasonably equivalent child restraint which does not have the defect or noncompliance.

Whichever of these options is chosen, the child restraint manufacturer must bear the expense and cannot charge the child restraint owner for the remedy.

There are also two procedural regulations that you need to meet to import your child restraints into the United States. The first is 49 CFR Part 566, "Manufacturer Identification." This regulation requires a manufacturer (including an importer) of motor vehicle equipment to submit its name, address, and a brief description of the equipment it manufactures (or imports) to this agency within 30 days of the date the child restraints are first manufactured (imported into the United States).

The second regulation is 49 CFR Part 551, "Procedural Rules." Section 551.45 requires the actual manufacturer of foreign-manufactured child restraints to designate a permanent resident of the United States as the manufacturer's agent for service of process in this country. The designation of the agent for the service of process must contain the following six items in order to be valid under S551.45:

1. A certification that the designation is valid in form and binding on the manufacturer under the laws, corporate by-laws, or other requirements governing the making of the designation at the time and place where it is made;
2. The full legal name, principal place of business, and mailing address of the manufacturer;
3. Marks, trade names, or other designations of the origin of any of the manufacturer's products which do not bear its name;
4. A statement that the designation shall remain in effect until withdrawn or replaced by the manufacturer;
5. A declaration of acceptance duly signed by the agent appointed, which may be an individual, a firm, or a U.S. corporation; and
6. The full legal name and address of the designated agent.

In addition, the designation must be signed by one with authority to appoint the agent, and the signer's name and title should be clearly indicated beneath his or her signature. This designation should be mailed to the address shown in section 551.45(b).

I have enclosed an information sheet that briefly describes the responsibilities of manufacturers of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. In addition, enclosed is a copy of a March 5, 1999 final rule that amended the head excursion requirement of Standard No. 213 and that added a requirement for an independent means of attaching to a child restraint anchorage system in vehicles. (See also the first part of our response to petitions for reconsideration of the rule, 64 FR 47566, copy enclosed.) These requirements affect primarily child restraints other than harnesses. However, as part of your responsibility as a manufacturer, we urge you to keep current on the requirements of Standard No. 213.

I hope this is helpful. If you have any further questions, please contact Ms. Deirdre Fujita of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
Enclosures
ref:213
d.3/30/00

ID: 21065.ztv

Mr. John Newton
Pajant UK Ltd.
8 Danesleigh Gardens
Leigh-on-Sea
Essex SS9 4NL
England

Dear Mr. Newton:

This is in reply to your fax of December 9, 1999, to Barbara Rhea of this agency, enclosing information on a "progressive brake light" system. We are providing our views as to the acceptability of the system under the Federal motor vehicle lighting laws of the United States which this agency establishes and administers.

As you describe it, "the device will consist of a single unit containing four banks of lights which would sequentially illuminate depending upon the vehicle deceleration. It is intended that the device would replace the third high mounted central brake light currently in use." Specifically, the outer lamps would illuminate each time the brake pedal is pressed. The additional lights would illuminate towards the center depending on deceleration. "If maximum deceleration were detected the entire cluster would become illuminated, with the two centre banks pulsing."

I am sorry to inform you that this device would not be permitted by our laws, either as original or replacement equipment. The device could not substitute for the center high mounted stop lamp because it does not meet performance specifications we have adopted for stop lamps including the center lamp. To cite two examples: we require all stop lamps to be activated when the brake pedal is depressed, and not sequentially. Further, the stop lamps must be steady burning, and may not pulse.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
ref:108
d.2/29/2000

ID: 21066.ztv

Mr. Jay C. Ackerman
Vice President - Operations
G & C, Inc.
500 W. Southgate
Enid, OK 73701

Dear Mr. Ackerman:

This is in response to your e-mail of December 10, 1999, to Steve Wood, Assistant Chief Counsel for Rulemaking.

You describe a parking brake system you wish to install on a low-speed vehicle that you intend to manufacture, and have asked whether the system is allowable under Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 500, Low Speed Vehicles.

At the present time, Standard No. 500 simply requires a low-speed vehicle to be equipped with a parking brake (S5(b)(7)). We have adopted no performance specifications for a parking brake on a low-speed vehicle. We define "parking brake" as "a mechanism designed to prevent the movement of a stationary motor vehicle" (Sec. 571.3(b)). Therefore, any device or mechanism installed on a low-speed vehicle that performs the function stated in the definition would be acceptable as a parking brake.

If we decide that specific parking brake performance requirements should be adopted for low-speed vehicles, we will first publish a notice of a proposed rule so that you and other interested persons may comment on it. We anticipate that parking brake performance requirements for low-speed vehicles would be similar to those specified in Standards Nos. 105, Hydraulic and Electric Brake Systems, and 135, Passenger Car Brake Systems, for faster motor vehicles. These standards specify a parking brake system of a friction type with a solely mechanical means to retain engagement. Your hydraulic-type parking brake system would not be acceptable if we propose and adopt the same type of parking-brake specification for low-speed vehicles. We do not favor hydraulic-type parking brake systems because, if a leak in the system caused the pressure to drop, the vehicle could roll away. This would not necessarily be prevented by your additional feature that will disengage the electrical drive system when the line-lock system is engaged.

Because it appears that G&C is a new manufacturer of motor vehicles, I enclose an information package that we provide, explaining our laws and regulations. We particularly call your attention to Part 565, Vehicle Information Number Requirements, and Part 566, Manufacturer Identification.

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

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
Enclosures
ref:500
d.3/15/2000

ID: 21067.ztv

John F. Letchford, Esq.
Dilworth Paxson LLP
3200 Mellon Bank Center
1735 Market Street
Philadelphia, PA 19103-7595

Dear Mr. Letchford:

This is in reply to your letter of November 30, 1999, with respect to whether "a device that causes the backup lamps to steadily burn for a few seconds upon actuation of the horn would violate" 49 CFR 571.108 ( Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108).

Specifically, the device would cause the upper beam of a vehicle's headlamps to flash and "backup lights to illuminate and burn steadily" for three seconds or less, when the vehicle's horn is sounded. The purpose of the device is to provide a visual warning to others in front of or behind a vehicle of a potential danger or threat requiring an audible warning, i.e, use of the horn. You have cited S5.5.10(b) of Standard No. 108 which permits headlamps to be wired to flash for signaling purposes, but you are concerned with S5.5.10(d) that requires all other lamps to be wired to be steady burning.

S4 of Standard No. 108 defines "flash" as a "cycle of activation and deactivation of a lamp by automatic means . . . ." We would not regard a backup lamp that illuminated steadily for three seconds or less to be a lamp that is not steady burning within the meaning of S5.5.10(d), or flashing, within the definition of S4. However, the determinative question is whether a backup lamp can be used for purposes other than to indicate a reverse movement of the vehicle. The answer is no. See SAE Standard J593c, Backup Lamps, February 1968, which Tables I and III of Standard No. 108 incorporate by reference (copy enclosed). Paragraph 2 of Installation Requirements states that "Backup lamps shall not be lighted when the vehicle is in forward motion." It is clear that the device you discuss is intended to be used under normal operating conditions of the vehicle on the public roads, and that its installation would create a noncompliance with Standard No. 108.

We appreciate your client's interest in motor vehicle safety and regret that we cannot provide the letter you requested.

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

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
Enclosure
ref:108
d.3/30/2000

ID: 21068.ztv

Mr. Seymour Hanks
Rt. 1 Box 144
Medora, IL 62063

Dear Mr. Hanks:

This is in reply to your letter of December 10, 1999, asking for our views on the issues that you raise.

In the first case that concerns you, Sun International Racing Corp. is reported as importing and certifying for sale in the United States niche cars otherwise unavailable, such as the Renault Sport Spider and Lotus Elise. You have asked whether either car can "be disassembled overseas imported into the U.S. and re-assembled by Sun Int'l as a complete vehicle?"

The Renault and Lotus have never been certified by their original manufacturers as complying with the U.S. Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS). Nevertheless, uncertified vehicles may be imported for resale under certain conditions specified by 49 U.S.C. 30141 and 49 CFR Part 593. These vehicles may be imported if, as is the case here, "there is no substantially similar United States motor vehicle [and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) decides that] the safety features of the vehicle comply with or are capable of being altered to comply with" the FMVSS (49 U.S.C. 30146(a)(1)(B), and "the vehicle is imported by a registered importer" (Section 30146(a)(2)). We make these decisions either on our own initiative, or upon the petition of the manufacturer or a "registered importer" (RI). RIs are entities that we have recognized as being capable of performing conformance work and are the only entities permitted to import nonconforming vehicles for resale after conformance to the FMVSS.

Thus, a RI could import nonconforming vehicles (either assembled or disassembled), provided they are covered by a NHTSA conformance capability decision, and provided that the RI conforms and certifies conformance of the vehicles before sale to a member of the public. However, we have made no such conformance capability decision with respect to either the Renault or the Lotus, and thus a RI could not legally import either the Renault or the Lotus for resale. The vehicles, however, could be imported temporarily, as provided by 49 CFR Part 591, for purposes other than resale, such as for participation in competitive racing events.

In the second case, you refer to an article listing Ameritech as the manufacturer of a U.S. version of the McLaren F1. You have asked if your understanding is correct, that the vehicle must be imported through DOT's RI program and EPA's independent commercial importer (ICI) program.

As I explained in my answer to your first question, a non-conforming vehicle imported for resale must have been the subject of a conformance capability decision, imported by a RI, and then be brought into conformity with our standards by the RI. Ameritech, which was not a RI, entered several McLaren F1s into a "foreign trade zone," modified and certified them to U.S. standards, and entered them as "Ameritech" vehicles. All these actions took place before we were aware of them. Properly, the vehicles should not have been imported in the absence of a conformance capability determination under Part 593, and then only through the RI program. We have directed Ameritech to cease such importations and have advised the U.S. Customs Service that it should not allow them.

You have asked "who is the manufacturer of the vehicles in Case 1 and Case 2."

A "manufacturer" of motor vehicles is defined by 49 U.S.C. 30102(a)(5) both as a person manufacturing or assembling motor vehicles, as well as a person who imports motor vehicles for resale. In both cases, the vehicles were originally manufactured in one stage. Therefore, we consider the entity that assembled these vehicles to be the manufacturer, that is to say, Lotus, Renault, and McLaren. I note also that any person importing these motor vehicles for resale is also a "manufacturer" for Federal safety purposes.

I would like to note here that the vehicle import laws have been amended since the articles that concern you were written. We are now authorized to allow permanent entry of nonconforming vehicles for "show or display." Under regulations we adopted in mid-1999, an importer for "show or display" must demonstrate that the vehicle is of technological or historical interest. If we approve an entry on this basis, the vehicle may not accumulate more than 2,500 miles a year on its odometer until it is 25 years old.

Your final question is whether "a completed motor vehicle [can] be disassembled then shipped into the U.S. as parts, and then re-assembled here in the U.S. as a motor vehicle listing a different manufacturer than the original manufacturer."

A disassembled vehicle that was not certified by its original manufacturer as being in compliance with our standards is subject to the same import restrictions as an assembled one; i.e., it must have been the subject of a conformance capability determination, and be imported, reassembled, and brought into compliance by a RI, which must certify its conformance with our standards. In this event, there are two manufacturers of the vehicle, the original manufacturer whose marque name should appear on the vehicle, and the RI, which, under 49

U.S.C. 30102(a)(5), is a "manufacturer" for purposes of notification and remedy in the event that a safety-related defect or noncompliance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard is determined to exist in the reassembled vehicle.

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

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
ref:571
d.2/22/2000

ID: 21069.ogm

Mr. Mac Yousry
Global Vehicle Services, Corp.
1238 West Grove Avenue
Orange, CA 92865

Dear Mr. Yousry:

This responds to your request for information whether a vehicle that is capable of operating on water as well as land may be classified as a "multipurpose passenger vehicle."

Please note that under the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's (NHTSA's) statutory authority (49 U.S.C. Chapter 301, Motor Vehicle Safety) the vehicle's manufacturer is responsible in the first instance for classifying a particular vehicle. NHTSA does not approve or endorse any vehicle classification before the manufacturer itself has classified a particular vehicle. NHTSA may reexamine the manufacturer's classification during the course of an enforcement action.

"Multipurpose passenger vehicle" (MPV) is defined in our regulations at 49 CFR 571.3 as "a motor vehicle with motive power, except a trailer, designed to carry 10 persons or less which is constructed either on a truck chassis or with special features for occasional off-road operation."

Your letter indicates that the vehicle in question is intended to be used on the water forty to sixty percent of the time. You ask if a vehicle which is intended primarily to operate on public highways but also has the capability to operate on water, has special features for occasional off-road operation.

It is not clear from your description if the vehicle is designed to carry fewer than 10 persons or is constructed on a truck chassis. As your inquiry requests the agency's view on whether the vehicle may be properly said to be capable of occasional off-road operation, we will assume that it is not built on a truck chassis and is designed to carry 10 persons or fewer.

Part of the "multipurpose passenger vehicle" definition is that the subject vehicle has "special features for occasional off-road operation." We note that you describe the vehicle as "amphibious," i.e., having the capability to operate independently on land and in the water. The amphibious capability of such a vehicle indicates that it would possess special features for off-road operation. Therefore, based on the information you have provided, it appears that the vehicle in question would, for the purpose of classifying the vehicle for application of Federal motor vehicle safety standards, qualify as a multipurpose passenger vehicle.

For further information, please feel free to contact Otto Matheke of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-5253.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
ref.571
d.2/11/2000

ID: 2106y

Mr. John K. Moody
Moody & Moody Enterprises
1027 Lochmont Drive
Brandon, FL 33511

Dear Mr. Moody:

This is in reply to your letter of August 30, l989, to Taylor Vinson of this Office with respect to your forward direction brake application indicator.

The device will be available as an aftermarket kit. The two front turn signal lamps are wired to be activated in a steady-burning mode when the brake pedal is depressed. If the turn signals are activated when the brake pedal is depressed, the lamp indicating the direction of the turn will switch from the steady-burning mode to the turn signal mode, while the other turn signal lamp remains steady-burning. This will provide an indication at the front of a motor vehicle as to whether or not the driver is attempting to apply the brakes. You have asked whether vehicles equipped with the device would be in conflict with the existing vehicle lighting standards of this agency.

There is no Federal motor vehicle safety standard that applies to aftermarket lighting equipment of the nature that you describe. However, installation of the device would involve modifications to a vehicle certified as meeting the Federal standards, most particularly Standard No. l08, the vehicle lighting standard. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, a vehicle owner may alter his vehicle with impunity; however, modifications to certified vehicles by manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and motor vehicle repair businesses are subject to the restriction that they not render inoperative, in whole or in part, equipment installed pursuant to a Federal motor vehicle safety standard.

We have two comments on your device. The first is that you have not described its effect, if any, on the hazard warning system. This system operates through the turn signal lamps, and is activated by a switch that is separate from the turn signal switch. When activated, the hazard warning switch causes the front and rear turn signal lamps to flash. The front turn signal lamps in the hazard warning system, when activated, must flash, even when the brake pedal is applied. If they do not do so when your device is installed, they would be "inoperative" within the meaning of the prohibition. Our second comment concerns the fact that in the turn signal mode the unused turn signal lamp would continue to be illuminated when the brake pedal is applied. Thus, an observer would see a flashing turn signal and a steady burning one, whereas with an ordinary vehicle, the observer would see only the flashing turn signal. Whether the presence of the steady burning turn signal on the side of the vehicle opposite the flashing turn signal would detract from the effectiveness of the flashing turn signal, and by obscuring its message make it "partially inoperative", is difficult to judge. Certainly, when a vehicle is signaling a turn, it does not appear necessary to also indicate, to the front, that it is stopping.

These remarks also serve as some comments of this Office as to "safety benefits" that might result from vehicles equipped with your device. Certainly, no standard lighting equipment on vehicles today indicate from the front that the brake pedal is being applied. This is an interesting concept, and we appreciate your interest in enhancing motor vehicle safety.

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel

ref:l08 d:ll/l/89

ID: 21078.ztv

M. Guy Dorleans
International and Regulatory Affairs Mgr.
Valeo
34 rue Saint-Andre
93012 Bobigny
France

Dear M. Dorleans:

This is in reply to your letter of December 17, 1999, asking for confirmation that a new headlamp design is in conformance with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

The headlamp incorporates three replaceable light sources. The upper beam is provided by two bulbs called "HB nb1" and "HB nb2." The lower beam is also provided by two bulbs, the first being "LB nb1" (the same bulb as "HB nb1") and by bulb "LB nb2." The headlamp meets the photometric requirements of Table 17-2 in each beam mode.

Paragraph S4 Definitions of Standard No. 108 defines a "replaceable bulb headlamp" in pertinent part as "a headlamp comprising . . . one or two replaceable light sources . . . ." Because the Valeo design incorporates three replaceable light sources, it does not comply with the definition, and thus is not a replaceable bulb headlamp design allowed by Standard No. 108.

We are, however, considering amending the definition of "replaceable bulb headlamp" to allow more than two light sources. On November 12, 1998, we proposed a revision of Standard No. 108 (63 FR 63258). With respect to proposed S7.4.5 Arrangement and marking of upper and lower beams, and S7.5.3 Arrangement and marking of upper and lower beams, we remarked (at 63260) that these paragraphs anticipate "future headlamp designs with an array of light sources . . . ." But we overlooked proposing a corresponding amendment to "replaceable bulb headlamp" which would define it as comprising one or more light sources. Because the proposal presented the issue of multiple-bulb replaceable bulb headlamps, we will consider for purposes of a final rule including a redefinition of "replaceable bulb headlamp" that would accommodate headlamps such as Valeo's. We plan to announce a decision during 2000.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
ref:108
d.3/10/2000

ID: 2107y

Mr. Karl-Heinz Faber, Vice President
Product Compliance
Service and Parts
Mercedes-Benz of North America, Inc.
P.O. Box 350
Montvale, NJ 07645-0350

Dear Mr. Faber:

This is in reply to your letter of August 9, l989, with respect to the interpretation of the word "headlamp" as it appears in paragraph S7.2 of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. l08.

In pertinent part, this paragraph specifies that certain markings shall be placed on the lens of each headlamp, with "each headlamp" to be marked with the voltage and part or trade number. Noting that "headlamp" is not a defined term but "replaceable bulb headlamp" is, you have asked for confirmation that marking the lens, the reflector, or the light source with the voltage would be in compliance with paragraph S7.2.

The agency intends that the voltage be indicated on the exterior of the headlamp. If the manufacturer does not wish to put it on the lens, Standard No. l08 will permit, as of December 1, l989, voltage marking to be on an exterior part of the headlamp body, but not on the light source.

I hope that this answers your question.

Sincerely

Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel / ref:l08 d:ll/l/89