ID: 2347y

Mr. Cadwallader Jones
President
Jones Ford Inc.
P.O.Box 10267
North Charleston, SC 29411

Dear Mr. Jones:

This is in response to your letter to NHTSA in which you asked questions concerning the circumstances in which Ford vans with more than ten designated seating positions would be considered school buses for purposes of the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS). I apologize for the delay in this response.

Your letter asked whether the vans that you describe would be considered school buses if used to transport adult education students, college students, high school students (including athletic teams), playground teams with no connection to schools, day care center clients, or children transported by churches that do not have day schools, but occasionally transport children.

The starting point for the agency's analysis of when vehicles used in these circumstances would be required to comply with FMVSS requirements applicable to school buses is Section 102(14) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1391(14)). That provision defines "Schoolbus" as a "passenger motor vehicle which is designed to carry more than 10 passengers in addition to the driver, and which the Secretary determines is likely to be significantly used for the purpose of transporting primary, preprimary, or secondary school students to or from such schools or events related to such schools."

When interpreting this provision, the agency has always looked to the nature of the particular institution purchasing the buses. If its central purpose is the education of primary, preprimary or secondary students, the agency has determined that the buses purchased must comply with the FMVSS requirements for school buses. If the institution is concerned primarily with the education of post-secondary students, or serves a function that is custodial rather than educational, NHTSA has said that the buses need not comply with the school bus requirements.

The agency has already explained the application of this provision to several of the circumstances raised in your letter. On July 12, 1977, in a letter to Mr. Jim Thomason, the agency said that buses used to transport adults and other post-high school students to vocational training need not comply with the FMVSS school bus requirements because these passengers do not fall in the categories of "primary, preprimary or secondary students." However, that interpretation also noted that a bus used by a vocational school connected with a secondary school would fall within the scope of the school bus requirements.

The agency has also determined, in a March 17, 1976 letter to Mr. W.G. Milby (and reaffirmed several times since then), that buses used to transport college students need not comply with the standards for school buses. The same letter also includes our opinion that a bus used to transport school athletic teams to activities falls within the scope of the definition of school bus, and must comply with the applicable FMVSS.

A May 10, 1982 interpretation letter to Mr. Martin Chauvin determined that vehicles used to transport children to day care centers need not comply with the school bus standards. The rationale for this decision is based on the fact that these facilities serve an essentially custodial function, although they may have some educational components, and are not considered to be schools.

Your letter also asks about transportation of children by churches which do not operate day schools. In a November 20, 1978 letter to Mr. J. Perry Robinson, this office determined that the term "school" does not include church schools such as Sunday schools, or those providing other religious training. As noted in that letter, however, a normal preprimary, primary or secondary school operated under the auspices of a church would be required to comply with the the school bus requirements.

Finally, your letter asks whether vehicles used to transport "playground teams" with no connection to a school would be required to comply with the school bus requirements. The agency has not addressed this question in any past interpretations. However, it is my opinion that a bus used to transport "playground teams" that are organized independently of any school or educational organization would not be required to comply with the school bus standards. The term "school" cannot be construed to include athletic teams not connected with any school or educational organization.

I hope you have found this information helpful. If you have any further questions, please contact David Greenburg of this office at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel /ref:VSA#571 d:3/20/90

ID: 2348y

Mr. Thomas D. Turner
Manager, Engineering Services
Blue Bird Body Company
P.O. Box 937
Fort Valley, GA 31030

Dear Mr. Turner:

This responds to your letter seeking an interpretation of the meaning of the term "front outboard designated seating position," for the purposes of Standards No. 202, Head Restraints (49 CFR 571.202) and No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection (49 CFR 571.208). Specifically, you referred to a typical seating arrangement on a small bus your company manufactures. In this seating arrangement, the driver's seating position is located immediately to the rear of the left side of dashboard. There are no other seating positions in the same row as the driver's seat. Instead, a side entrance door and stepwell are to the right of the driver's seat with an unobstructed passage between the driver's seat and the entrance door. To the rear of the driver's seat, there are four rows of passenger seats on each side of the bus, separated by a center aisle that runs the length of the bus. You offered your opinion that the forwardmost passenger seating position on the right side of the bus, which is to the rear of the driver's seating position and the entrance door and stepwell, is not a front outboard seating position for the purposes of Standards No. 202 and 208. Your understanding is correct.

While NHTSA has never specifically defined "front" seating positions, the agency has used that term to refer to the driver's seating position and all other seating positions in the same transverse or lateral row as the driver's seating position. In the small bus described in your letter, the forwardmost passenger seat on the right side of the bus is not in the same transverse row as the driver's seat; it is to the rear of that row. Therefore, the forwardmost passenger seat on the right side of your bus would not be a "front" seat for the purposes of Standards No. 202 or 208.

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel /ref:202#208 d:3/20/90

ID: 23491ogm

Mr. Michael Crocker
President
JB Enterprises
P.O. Box 21
Grover, NC 28073





Dear Mr. Crocker:

This responds to your letter concerning a device for which your company has acquired "patent pending" status known as the "Safety Belt Latch." Although your letter does not describe the "Safety Belt Latch," you have indicated in telephone conversations with Otto Matheke of my staff that the "Safety Belt Latch" is intended to relocate the shoulder portion of a lap and shoulder seat belt and position this portion of the belt so it does not contact the neck or collarbone of vehicle occupants. Your letter indicates that the "Safety Belt Latch" will be marketed as an aftermarket product and will therefore not be installed on new vehicles. You request that this agency confirm your understanding that Federal safety standards do not apply to an aftermarket product such as the "Safety Belt Latch."

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has the authority to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. The agency does not approve, certify or endorse any vehicles or equipment. Instead, manufacturers are required to certify that their vehicles and equipment meet all applicable standards. The following represents our opinion based on the facts you provided.

Your belief that no current Federal motor vehicle safety standard (FMVSS) applies to your product is correct. At this time, NHTSA does not have a standard or regulation for seat belt positioners. However, in a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) published in the Federal Register on August 13, 1999 (64 FR 44164) (copy enclosed), we proposed to adopt a consumer information regulation for seat belt positioners. In the NPRM, we proposed to define "seat belt positioner" as "a device, other than a belt-positioning seat, that is manufactured to alter the positioning of Type I and/or Type II belt systems in motor vehicles." Among other things, the NPRM proposed to require the devices to be labeled as not suitable for children of a certain age, e.g., under 6 years old, or a certain height.

It appears that the "Safety Belt Latch" would be considered a seat belt positioner under the proposed definition. If we issue a final rule adopting a consumer information regulation in this area, the rule's definition of "seat belt positioner" could be the same as the definition in the NPRM or a logical outgrowth of the proposed definition. We anticipate announcing a final decision on the NPRM in the near future.

While no FMVSS currently applies to your product, your device is considered to be an item of motor vehicle equipment. Manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment are subject to the requirements of 49 U.S.C. 30118-30121 concerning the recall and remedy of products with safety related defects. I have enclosed an information sheet that briefly describes those and other manufacturer responsibilities. In the event the manufacturer or NHTSA determines that your 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. We encourage you to undertake a complete evaluation of your product to determine if its use would degrade the performance of safety belts.

In addition, manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and motor vehicle repair businesses are subject to 49 U.S.C. section 30122, which prohibits them from installing the device if the installation "makes inoperative" the vehicle's compliance with any safety standard. It appears unlikely from the nature of your product that it would be placed in vehicles by commercial businesses instead of consumers. If your product were to be installed by a commercial business, the business must ensure that its installation does not compromise the safety protection provided by the vehicle belt system. The prohibition of section 30122 does not apply to the actions of vehicle owners in adding to or otherwise modifying their vehicles or items of motor vehicle equipment.

I hope this information has been helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Otto Matheke of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-5253.

Sincerely,

John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosure
ref:208
d.10/25/01

ID: 23498.ztv

Harry Zembillas, Esq.
Gasparis & Zembilla
301 South Main Street
Crown Point, IN 46307





Dear Mr. Zembillas:

This is in reply to your email of July 27, 2001. You have installed aftermarket all-clear taillamps on your 1995 Nissan Maxima, and report that you have been informed by a traffic officer that the lamps are illegal. You cite two Indiana statutes and state that "any help would be greatly appreciated."

You described the original rear lamps on your car as follows: "yellow plastic on the top outer edge, red plastic on the bottom outer edge, white/clear on the upper trunk lens, and red plastic on the bottom trunk lens." You informed us that you have now "installed clear outer lenses with amber bulbs on the top outer half and red bulbs on the bottom outer half." As you informed us, the lenses you bought are shown at www.autodynamic.com as replacements for original equipment on 1995-97 Nissan Maxima passenger cars, and we have downloaded a photo of the lamps you bought (see enclosed photo).

Under Federal law, lighting equipment on motor vehicles must be designed to comply with 49 CFR 571.108 Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment. The manufacturer of each vehicle must certify that the vehicle complies with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards, including Standard No. 108. The original rear lighting configuration of the 1995 Maxima consisted of a combination lamp mounted on the body, with a red and amber lens, and a backup lamp and a second red-lensed lamp (or reflex reflector) mounted on the deck lid. The original body-mounted rear lamps on your car incorporated amber and red lenses to provide the amber and red colors required by Standard No. 108 to provide turn signal and stop/taillight functions. They may also have incorporated red reflex reflectors to comply with additional requirements of Standard No. 108 that a vehicle be equipped with red rear and rear side red reflex reflectors (see enclosed photo).

Paragraph S5.8.1 of Standard No. 108 specifies 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 [Standard No. 108] applies shall be designed to conform to this standard." This means that a replacement item must be designed to conform to the same standard to which the vehicle manufacturer certified compliance with the original equipment installed. The manufacturer of your Nissan designed its rear body-mounted lamp with a lens incorporating red reflex reflectors, a red lens, and an amber lens. You have replaced this with a lamp that is white instead of amber and red, and which does not incorporate red reflex reflectors. Therefore, the lamp fails to meet the requirement of S5.8.1 that replacement equipment be designed to conform to Standard No. 108. The sale of such a lamp or its installation by a manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or motor vehicle repair business is prohibited by Federal law, and several importers are currently recalling these types of lamps. However, whether it is legal to use a noncomplying item of replacement equipment such as this lamp is not a matter of Federal law but of State law, that is to say, the statutes of Indiana. I am sorry, but we do not provide interpretations of State laws.

Sincerely,

John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosures
ref:108
d.3/1/02

ID: 23499.ztv

Mr. Galen Chen
Marketing Department
Maxzone Vehicle Lighting Corp.
5100 Walnut Grove Avenue
San Gabriel, CA 91776





Dear Mr. Chen:

This is in reply to your email of August 6, 2001. You wrote:

Some of the performance type corner lamps installed on cars are not street legal because of the white and clear color on them. Another word, they are lacking the amber color reflector. If these corner lamps are packaged with a reflector to be installed on the 2 side of the front bumper, can they be sold as street legal lamps?

We are uncertain what you mean by a "corner lamp;" no such lighting device is required or defined by Federal law. We surmise that the lamp to which you refer is one that is intended to replace a lamp that is original equipment on a motor vehicle, and that the original lamp incorporated an amber reflex reflector intended as a side reflex reflector mounted at the front side of a motor vehicle. The replacement lamp you refer to would not incorporate an amber reflex reflector but the package would include a separate amber reflector.

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment, establishes requirements for motor vehicle lighting and for replacement lighting equipment. All motor vehicles are required to be equipped with an amber reflex reflector located on the front side of a vehicle. For purposes of this interpretation, we shall assume that the reflex reflector pictured in the attachment to your email is one that is certified as conforming to Standard No. 108. The question your letter presents, then, is whether, whether a replacement lamp must incorporate all the functions of the original equipment lamp it is intended to replace..

Paragraph S5.8 of Standard No. 108, Replacement equipment, requires 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 [Standard No. 108] applies, shall be designed to conform to [Standard No. 108]. (S5.8.1).

We do not read this requirement as allowing a package containing a lamp and a separate conforming reflector, when the original equipment lamp and reflector comprised an integrated unit. If the original equipment lamp incorporated a reflex reflector designed to conform to Standard No. 108, then the replacement lamp must also incorporate a conforming reflex reflector in order to satisfy S5.8.

Sincerely,

John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel

ref:108
d.12/14/01

ID: 2349y

AIR MAIL

Mr. T. Chikada Manager, Automotive Lighting Engineering Control Dept. Stanley Electric Co., Ltd. 2-9-13, Nakameguro, Meguro-ku Tokyo 153, Japan

Re: Decorative Supplemental Lighting Devices Not Specified by Standard l08 (Motorcycles)

Dear Mr. Chikada:

This is in reply to your letter with respect to two types of decorative lighting devices intended for installation "on the rear face, and at the top of optional motorcycle rear trunks respectively." I regret the delay in responding.

Type A and Type B would be installed on the same motorcycle. Type A would be installed at the top of the trunk. It consists of an elongated device, illuminated by LEDs when the taillamp is on. Type B is installed on the motorcycle itself. It is a rectangular device, illuminated by an incandescent bulb, which is mounted on the vertical centerline and is flanked by the tail and stop lamps. The distance between the center of the light sources on the two devices is 290mm. (approximately ll 1/2 inches). Both devices emit red light, and their maximum intensity is less than the minimum intensity of the taillamp.

You have asked whether it is permitted to equip a motorcycle with the Type A and Type B accessory lamps. If the answer is affirmative, you have asked whether an LED could be used as the light source for Type B. You have also asked whether the maximum intensity of each device separately should be less than the minimum intensity of the tail lamp, or whether the combined maximum intensity of both devices should be less than the minimum intensity of the tail lamp.

Paragraph S5.1.3 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. l08 (formerly S4.1.3) permits the installation of these lamps if they do not impair the effectiveness of the lighting equipment required by the standard. In this instance, the question to be asked is whether the devices, activated with the taillamps, impair the effectiveness of the taillamps, or the stop lamps. The devices are, in effect, supplemental taillamps, and as such, arguably do not appear to impair the effectiveness of the taillamps required by the standard no matter what their intensity is.

The diagram of Type B indicates that the stop lamps and taillamps are in the same compartment, presumably incorporating a dual filament bulb. Although the stop lamps when activated are brighter than the taillamps, their proximity to the supplemental devices Type A and Type B, each of which are emitting a red light, leads to the possibility that the stop signal would not be as effective as it would be were there no other red lights in the vicinity, and hence impaired within the meaning of S5.1.3. A stop signal must be instantly perceived so that a following driver may determine appropriate action to take. However, we note that this configuration is similar to other stop/taillamp configurations on many vehicles in use on the highways. This would indicate that such configurations do not result in impairment. Thus, the answer to your first question is that both Types of devices are permitted under the standard.

Your second question is whether LEDs are acceptable light sources for Type B. Since there is no restriction on light sources for a lighting device not required by Standard No. l08, you may use the LEDs as light sources.

Your third question is whether the maximum intensity of Type A and Type B, separately, should be less than the minimum intensity of the taillamp. Even though Type A and Type B are optional devices, in the configuration depicted where Type B is immediately flanked on both sides by a taillamp, the appearance of the three lamps would be that of a multicompartment lamp, even though they may actually be separate. To help assure that impairment of either the taillamp or stop lamp does not occur, the intensity of Type B should be identical with that of the taillamps. Otherwise, observers may assume that Type B (which you intend to have an intensity less than a taillamp) is actually the taillamp, and the actual taillamps (which you intend to have an intensity greater than Type B) might appear to be stop lamps that are continually on. This would be deemed impairment since there would be three intensity levels, increasing the possibility of confusion of the intent of the lamps.

As for Type A, its vertical separation decreases the possibility for confusion. If the light sources are LEDs, the color would be a different shade of red that the stop and taillamps. Thus, the intensity is less important. However, it functions as an auxiliary taillamp and should be within the same intensity range as the original equipment taillamps. Finally, you asked whether the combined maximum intensity of both devices would be less than the minimum intensity of the taillamps. Again, this would create three levels of intensity, and could cause confusion in understanding the intent of the lamps. As noted above, the individual intensities should be similar to the intensity of the taillamps.

I hope that this answers your questions.

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel

/ ref:l08 d:3/20/90

ID: 2350y

Mr. Hank Kmiecik
Steerable Carriages
P.O. Box 211
Little York, NJ 08834

Dear Mr. Kmiecik:

This responds to your January 5, 1990 letter requesting our review of your rear wheel steering system for trucks, buses and special application vehicles. This system is intended to replace one rear axle on these vehicles, and when activated, enables the axle to rotate slightly on its vertical axis. It is intended to improve the maneuverability of these vehicles in low-speed situations such as making sharp turns.

During a February 9, 1990 telephone conversation with David Greenburg of this office, you explained that, while your product uses air from the vehicle's compressed air suspension system to operate the axle, it is isolated from the air brake system. You also explained that, as a result of this design, a failure in the air system connected to your product would not affect the operation of the vehicle's braking system.

By way of background information, NHTSA has no authority to approve, endorse or offer assurances of compliance for any motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment. Instead, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 makes manufacturers of motor vehicles or items of motor vehicle equipment responsible for certifying that each of its products conforms with all applicable safety standards.

In this instance, there are no specific provisions in the safety standards that set forth requirements for steerable rear axles. Thus, your company as the manufacturer of such a product would not have to certify that a steerable rear axle complies with any safety standard before offering it for sale to the public. However, the addition of a steerable rear axle to a vehicle before its first sale to the public could affect the vehicle's compliance with various safety standards. In such a case, the manufacturer or alterer that installed this product on a new vehicle would have to certify that the vehicle, with the steerable rear axle installed, complied with all applicable safety standards. For example, installation of the steerable axle could affect the vehicle's compliance with the applicable braking standard (Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 121; Air brake systems) or the tire and rim selection standard (FMVSS No. 119; New pneumatic tires for vehicles other than passenger cars).

Of course, you will need to consider other safety effects that operation of the steerable axle system could have. Among these considerations would be ensuring that the trailer's gross axle weight rating (GAWR) is not exceeded when the steering system is in operation and the the trailer is supported by only the steerable axle instead of by both the steerable and fixed axles.

Although we do not have any standards that directly apply to your product, we do have several statutory provisions that could affect it. Manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment such as your steerable rear axle are subject to the requirements in sections 151-159 of the Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1411-1419) concerning the recall and remedy of products with defects related to motor vehicle safety. The Safety Act specifies that if either your company or this agency determines that a safety-related defect exists in your product, your company as the manufacturer must notify purchasers of the safety-related defect and must either:

(1) repair the parts so that the defect is removed; or

(2) replace the parts with identical or reasonably equivalent parts which do not have a defect.

Whichever of these options is chosen, the manufacturer must bear the full expense and cannot charge the owner for the remedy if the equipment was purchased less than 8 years before the notification campaign.

In addition, the use of your product could be affected by section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)). That section prohibits any manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or repair business from knowingly "rendering inoperative" any device or element of design installed on or in a vehicle to comply with an applicable safety standard. To avoid a "rendering inoperative" violation, the above-named parties should examine the proposed installation instructions for the steerable rear axle and compare those instructions with the requirements of our safety standards, to determine if installing the steerable rear axle in accordance with those instructions would result in the vehicle no longer complying with the requirements of the safety standards. If the installation of the steerable rear axle would not result in a rendering inoperative of the vehicle's compliance with the safety standards, the product can be installed by dealers, distributors, and repair shops without violating any Federal requirements.

The Safety Act places the initial responsibility for determining whether the installation of this steerable rear axle on vehicles would result in a "render inoperative" violation on your company. This agency may reexamine your determination in the context of an enforcement action. For your information, I have enclosed a copy of an information sheet for new manufacturers of motor vehicles and new motor vehicle equipment. This sheet gives a brief description of our regulations and explains how to obtain copies of those regulations. You should also be aware that State laws may apply to your product.

I hope this information is helpful. Please feel free to contact this office if you have any further questions or need additional information.

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosure /ref:VSA d:3/l5/90

ID: 2351y

Mr. Satoshi Nishibori
Nissan Research & Development, Inc.
750 17th Street N.W., Suite 902
Washington, D.C. 20006

Dear Mr. Nishibori:

This responds to your January 16, 1990 letter to Mr. Robert Hellmuth, the Director of this agency's Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, seeking an interpretation of Standard No. 120, Tire Selection and Rims for Motor Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars (49 CFR 571.120). Specifically, S5.1.2 of Standard No. 120 provides that when a passenger car tire is used on vehicles other than passenger cars, the tire's load rating shall be reduced by dividing it by 1.10 before calculating the sum of the load ratings of all of the original equipment tires on the vehicle. S5.3.2 through S5.3.5 establish requirements for certain information about the tires and rims to be labeled on the vehicle. S5.3.2 sets forth lettering size and format requirements for the labeling. S5.3.3 through S5.3.5 require the labeling to provide the following information: the "size designation of tires....appropriate (as specified in S5.1.2) for the GAWR" be given on the label; the size and type designation of rims "appropriate for those tires", and the "cold inflation pressure for those tires".

Your question was whether the cold inflation pressure set forth on the label in response to S5.3.5 of Standard No. 120 must reflect the 1.1 reduction factor set forth in S5.1.2 for passenger car tires. You suggested in your letter, and in your January 18, 1990 meeting with agency staff, that S5.3.5 does not require the 1.1 reduction factor to be taken into account when determining the cold inflation pressure to be specified. Instead, you suggested that Standard No. 120 requires the vehicle manufacturer to specify an inflation pressure that is adequate to support the tire's share of the gross axle weight rating (GAWR), without regard to the 1.1 reduction factor. I cannot agree with your suggested interpretation.

You asserted that S5.3.5 merely requires the label to include the "cold inflation pressure for those tires," without referring to S5.1.2 and its 1.1 reduction factor. You contrasted this requirement with that in S5.3.3, which expressly refers to S5.1.2 and the 1.1 reduction factor. You asserted that this difference in wording showed that the 1.1 reduction factor need not be considered when specifying the cold inflation pressure on the label in response to S5.3.5. This argument is not persuasive.

The load-carrying capability of a tire generally varies with the inflation pressure of that tire; i.e., a tire can carry a greater load at a higher inflation pressure and a lesser load at a lower inflation pressure. Hence, a reference to inflation pressure alone, without any corresponding load-carrying capability to which that inflation pressure applies would be meaningless. If S5.3.5 of Standard No. 120 were interpreted to require the manufacturer to specify some inflation pressure, without regard to any load that must be borne by the tire at that inflation pressure, the vehicle manufacturer could specify an extremely high or low inflation pressure. Such a specification would be useless or even dangerous for the consumer, and contrary to the purposes of the labeling requirements.

You implicitly recognize that such an interpretation is unacceptable when you argue on page 1 of your January 16, 1990 that S5.3.5 of Standard No. 120 must be interpreted to require the manufacturer to recommend an inflation pressure "that will permit the tires to safely carry Gross Axle Weight Rating loads and will provide good vehicle ride characteristics." In other words, Nissan agrees that the inflation pressure specified in response to S5.3.5 cannot be an extreme value such as 1 psi; instead, it must be determined with reference to some load that the tires will carry.

The question then becomes what loading must be considered to determine if the specified inflation pressure complies with S5.3.5. This question is answered by reading the labeling requirement of S5.3.5 in connection with the other labeling requirements in S5.3, instead of considering S5.3.5 in a vacuum. S5.3.2 sets forth the format and lettering size for the labels to be placed on all vehicles manufactured on or after December 1, 1984. The information that must appear on such labels is set forth in S5.3.3, S5.3.4, and S5.3.5 of Standard No. 120. S5.3.3 specifies that the label shall include information on "the size designation of tires (not necessarily those on the vehicle) appropriate (as specified in S5.1.2) for the GAWR." (Emphasis added). On any reading of this emphasized language, it is beyond dispute that the 1.1 reduction factor set forth in S5.1.2 must be considered when specifying the appropriate tire size designation pursuant to S5.3.3. Following this, S5.3.4 requires information on the size and type designation of rims "appropriate for those tires" to appear on the label. The reference to "those" tires in S5.3.4 indicates that the tires are the tires previously specified in S5.3.3. Similarly, when S5.3.5 requires the cold inflation pressure for those tires to appear on the information label, the language is referring back to the tires specified in S5.3.3. Since NHTSA agrees with your statements that S5.3.3 incorporates the 1.1 reduction factor of S5.1.2 to determine compliance with S5.3.3, and since S5.3.5 refers to the tires specified in S5.3.3, the 1.1 reduction factor set forth in S5.1.2 must be considered to determine ocmpliance with S5.3.5 of Standard No. 120.

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel /ref:120 d:3/l5/90

ID: 2352y

Mr. T. Chikada
Manager, Automotive Engineering
Lighting Control Dept.
Stanley Electric Co. Ltd.
2-9-13, Nakameguro, Meguro-ku
Tokyo 153, Japan

Dear Mr. Chikada:

This is in reply to your letter of August 9, l989, to the former Chief Counsel, Erika Jones. You have asked for an interpretation of two of the amendments of May 9, 1989, to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. l08. We have delayed answering you until action could be taken on petitions for reconsideration of the May 9 amendments. This action was taken on February 8, 1990 (copy of Federal Register notice enclosed), and the new amendments adopted then, effective March 12, l990, include definitions of "Direct reading indicator" and "Remote reading indicator."

Section S7.7.5.2(a)(l)(iii) states in pertinent part that each graduation on a Vehicle Headlamp Aiming Device (VHAD) "shall indicate a linear movement of the scale indicator of not less than 0.05 in. (1.27 mm) if a direct reading analog indicator is used," and "if a remote reading indicator is provided, it shall represent the actual aim movement in a clear, understandable format." Your letter depicts two devices identified as a "direct reading analog indicator" and a "remote reading indicator", and you ask for confirmation that each conforms with the requirements of the section.

Preliminarily, we observe that your drawings do not depict how the devices are determined to be "direct" and "remote". Our interpretation of your "direct indicator" is that the location of the bubble is proportional to the slope of the surface and the adjustment, i.e., as the angle of aim changes, so does the location of the bubble, and its location relative to the graduations changes in proportion to the angle of aim. Our interpretation of your "remote indicator" is that the location of the bubble represents the difference between the correct setting and the actual setting of the adjustment, and the reading may or mau not be proportional to the difference. Based on these interpretations, either device would appear to be capable of meeting the recently adopted definitions of direct and remote reading indicators.

For example, if either device were mounted in its entirety on the headlamp to sense vertical attitude, the devices would both appear to be capable of directly reading the aim of the headlap and also appear to be capable of accommodating variations in floor slope. In this case, each device would meet the definition of a "direct reading indicator". And if either device were mounted in whole or in part elsewhere than on the headlamp or its aiming or mounting equipment (e.g., mounted on the firewall, inner fender panel, instrument panel), and linked mechanically to the headlamp such that its vertical aim was correctly displayed on the indicator, each device would also appear to meet the definition of a "remote reading indicator".

Paragraph S7.7.2 requires in pertinent part that each headlamp aiming mechanism allow aim inspection and adjustment, and be accessible for such uses "without removal of vehicle parts, except for protective covers removable without the use of tools." You have asked whether the protective cover mentioned includes the cover to protect the spirit level when it is a component of the VHAD. The answer is no. The protective cover mentioned is one intended to shield the entire VHAD, or a cover that is not transparent and inhibits the proper aim inspection and adjustment. A transparent cover or transparent portions of a cover protecting the indicator (in your case, the spirit level of your direct reading indicator) is not required to be removable. However, if your remote reading indicator has a transparent protective cover, it would be required to be removable without the use of tools to gain access to the dial indicator, if the indicator is not adjustable with the cover in place.

I hope that this answers your questions.

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosure ref:l08 d:3/l5/90

ID: 23532.ztv

Mr. Daniel Watt
280 Lindo Court
Unit A
Morgan Hill, CA 95037





Dear Mr. Watt:

This is in reply to your email of August 22, 2001, to Michael Cole of this agency.

You related having seen trucks using light emitting diodes (LEDs) instead of incandescent bulbs for their taillamps, and asked whether "red LEDs installed in place of a bulb [in] a clear taillight meet the color 'red' requirements. Or would that be a non-compliance because the housing was not certified for use with LEDs?"

Under Federal law, lighting equipment on motor vehicles must be designed to comply with 49 CFR 571.108 Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment. The manufacturer of the vehicle then certifies that the vehicle complies with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards including Standard No. 108. The original rear lamps on the trucks that you saw were equipped with incandescent bulbs.

Paragraph S5.8.1 of Standard No. 108 specifies that "each lamp, reflective device, or item of associated equipment manufactured to replace any lamps, reflective device, or item of associated equipment on any vehicle to which [Standard No. 108] applies shall be designed to conform to this standard." This means that a replacement item must be designed to conform to the standard in the same manner as the vehicle manufacturer certified compliance with the original equipment installed. A rear replacement lamp equipped with LEDs would not be designed to conform to the standard in the same manner as the original equipment, and would therefore not comply with S5.8.1. Whether it is legal to use replacement equipment such as the LEDs on the public roads is not a matter of Federal law but of State law. We are not conversant with state laws and cannot advise you about this. You might want to contact the California Department of Highway Patrol for its views on this subject.

Substituting LEDs into a lamp that was designed to incorporate incandescent light sources raises safety concerns. An incandescent light source emits light when an electric current passes through a resistant metallic wire (filament). The position and shape of the filament, along with other design elements, define the unique electrical and photometric characteristics of the light source. Lamp designers incorporate these characteristics into the original optical design of the lamp. Thus, substitution of the original light source with one of a different design may negatively impact the photometric performance of a lamp below the minimum required for compliance with Standard No. 108. In addition, other functions required by Standard No. 108 may be affected by substitution of an LED, such as operation of the illuminated turn signal pilot indicator (S5.5.6).

Sincerely,

John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel

ref:108
d.2/4/02