Jonathan Acton II, Assistant Attorney General

Maryland Department of Transportation

Motor Vehicle Administration

6601 Ritchie Highway, N.E.

Glen Burnie, Maryland 21062

Dear Mr. Acton:

This responds to your letter asking whether a can of tire sealant and a method for reinflating a flat tire, in lieu of a spare tire, should be considered under Maryland law a technological improvement that conforms with applicable federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS). As discussed below, we regret to inform you that we cannot answer your question since it is one of interpretation of state law that is not within the purview of this agency.

As you state in your letter, Maryland state law requires manufacturers to equip new cars sold in Maryland with a spare tire unless technological improvements, consistent with applicable [FMVSS], become available. Md. Code. Ann., Transp. 22-405.3 (2008). Your letter explains that a vehicle manufacturer is hoping to equip new vehicles with a can of tire sealant and a method for reinflating a flat tire in lieu of equipping the vehicle with a spare tire. You ask whether such equipment is a technological improvement that conforms with applicable [FMVSS].

Various FMVSS apply to spare tires. For example, all new spare tires must satisfy the requirements of FMVSS No. 109, New Pneumatic and Certain Specialty Tires (49 CFR 571.109), and be labeled in accordance with Part 574, Tire Identification and Recordkeeping (49 CFR Part 574). However, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not mandate that new vehicles must be equipped with a spare tire.

NHTSA could regulate the tire sealant as an item of motor vehicle equipment under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, 49 U.S.C. 30101 et seq. See 49 U.S.C. 30102(a)(7) (defining, in relevant part, the term motor vehicle equipment as any system, part, or component of a motor vehicle as originally manufactured or any similar part or component manufactured or sold for replacement or improvement of a system, part, or component, or as any accessory, or addition to a motor vehicle ). However, NHTSA does not have an FMVSS that addresses tire sealants, nor have we made an agency determination that a tire sealant plus inflator is a technological improvement over a spare tire.

We believe that your letter asks a State law question: whether Maryland should consider the tire sealant plus inflator a technological improvement over a spare tire, permitting the new vehicle to be sold with the sealant and inflator instead of a spare tire. Since it is a matter of interpreting what Maryland officials had in mind when enacting the technical improvement provision, it is a question that Maryland state officials should answer, rather than NHTSA.

If you have any questions about the applicability of specific FMVSS provisions, we would encourage you to write us in greater detail regarding those questions.

If you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact Sarah Alves of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely yours,

Stephen P. Wood

Acting Chief Counsel

ref:571

d.7/24/08

Mr. Charles I. Sassoon

Panor Corp.

125 Cabot Court

Hauppage, NY 11788

Dear Mr. Sassoon:

This responds to your letter regarding the permissibility of a combination Stop, Turn Signal, Taillamp (STT) and backup lamp under Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment (FMVSS). Based upon the information you provided the agency and the analysis below, we have concluded that your design incorporating 18 white Light Emitting Diodes (LEDs) on the outer perimeter of the STT would not be prohibited under FMVSS No. 108.

By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized to issue FMVSSs that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment (see 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301). NHTSA does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Instead, manufacturers are required to self-certify that their products conform to all applicable safety standards that are in effect on the date of manufacture. FMVSS No. 108 specifies requirements for original and replacement lamps, reflective devices, and associated equipment. NHTSA selects a sampling of new vehicles and equipment each year to determine their compliance with applicable FMVSSs. If our testing or examination reveals an apparent noncompliance, we may require the manufacturer to remedy the noncompliance, and may initiate an enforcement proceeding if necessary to ensure that the manufacturer takes appropriate action.

The lamp you have designed consists of two areas, an inner area containing what appear, from your illustrations, to be nine LEDs, and an outer ring containing 18 white, 8 millimeter LEDs, which will serve as a backup lamp. You ask if there is any provision of FMVSS No. 108 which would prohibit this configuration.

The standard does not prohibit this combination lamp, as long as when a specific function is activated, the lamp performs that function in a manner that meets the minimum performance requirements established by Standard No. 108. It is the manufacturers

responsibility to confirm that the lamp meets all FMVSS No. 108 requirements relative to the functions for which the lamp is certified. We note that these issues have been raised in a 1990 letter to Mr. Suichi Watanabe,[1] and a copy of that interpretation has been included for your convenience.

If you have any more questions, please contact Ari Scott of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Anthony M. Cooke

Chief Counsel

Enclosure

d.3/5/07

ref:108

Mr. Harley Holt

Harley Holt & Associates, Inc.

1704 Random Stone Court

Reston, VA 20190-3251

Dear Mr. Holt:

This responds to your request for an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 126, Electronic Stability Control Systems. You asked when a manufacturer is required to certify compliance with this standard if it passes the small volume manufacturer threshold of 5,000 vehicles in the middle of one of the September 1 to August 31 phase-in years. As discussed below, a manufacturer is subject to the regular phase-in requirements for the entire phase-in year if it manufactures more than 5,000 vehicles in that period.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA does not, however, approve or certify any vehicles or items of equipment. Instead, the Safety Act establishes a self-certification process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards. This letter interprets FMVSS No. 126 based on our understanding of the information you have provided.

You stated that you represent an importer of all-electric vehicles, and explained that the manufacturer of the vehicles has not yet begun to produce vehicles for the U.S., but will begin production sometime during 2009. You stated that the manufacturer did not anticipate producing more than 5,000 units during the first production year, i.e., September 1, 2008 through August 31, 2009. However, you stated further that production is expected to exceed 5,000 units sometime during the period from September 1, 2009 and August 31, 2011. You asked, therefore, on what date a manufacturer is required to certify compliance with FMVSS No. 126 if it exceeds the small volume limit of 5,000 units produced sometime during a production year from September 1 through August 31 of any of the three years of the phase-in period for that standard.

Paragraph S8.7 of FMVSS No. 126, Small volume manufacturers, states that

Vehicles manufactured during any of the three years of the September 1, 2008 through August 31, 2011 phase-in by a manufacturer that produces fewer than 5,000 vehicles for sale in the United States during that year are not subject to the requirements of S8.1, S8.2, S8.3, and S8.5.

49 CFR 571.126, S8.7. Thus, small volume manufacturers producing less than 5,000 vehicles for sale in the United States in a given phase-in year are not subject to the S8 phase-in requirements. However, if a manufacturer exceeds the 5,000 unit threshold for a phase-in year, it does not qualify as a small volume manufacturer for purposes of S8.7, and it is subject to the regular phase-in requirement for the entire phase-in year.[1] The 5,000-unit threshold was chosen to ensure that only manufacturers that are truly small volume are excluded from the phase-in requirements for ESC.

If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Rebecca Yoon of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely yours,

Anthony M. Cooke

Chief Counsel

ref:126

d.1/16/09

Mr. Steffen Lorenz

Webasto AG

Kraillinger Straβe 5

D-82131 Stockdorf

Germany

Dear Mr. Lorenz:

This responds to your e-mail in which you requested confirmation as to the permissibility of your sunroof design under our regulations, specifically one incorporating a number of solar cells intended to power a ventilator to help cool the occupant compartment. As shown in the attachment to your e-mail, we understand that your company intends to produce a sunroof with Item 2 glazing, which is tempered by a glazing manufacturer according to the specifications of the American National Standard for Safety Glazing Materials for Glazing Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Equipment Operating on Land Highways Safety Standard ANSI Z26.1 (ANSI Z26.1) and which exhibits light transmissibility of greater than 70 percent. You further stated that crystalline solar cells enveloped in a laminate film would then be attached to the inner side of the glass panel, which would effectively diminish the light transmissibility of the glazing to zero percent. In addition, you stated that the sunroof design is such that the sunshade is affixed to the glass panel, thereby preventing occupants from touching the glass/laminate portion of the sunroof from the inside of the vehicle. Although we have not had the opportunity to examine your product in operation, from the information provided in your letter, we are of the opinion that it would be permissible, so long as it meets the applicable requirements of our safety standard on glazing materials. As discussed below, placement of opaque solar cells on the sunroof would not be prohibited, because there are no light transmittance requirements for sunroofs, since roof glazing is not in an area requisite for driver visibility.

By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. To clarify, NHTSA does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, nor do we issue permits. Instead, it is the responsibility of manufacturers to certify that their products conform to all applicable safety standards before they can be offered for sale. The requirements concerning vehicle certification may be found at 49 CFR Part 567, Certification, and for items of glazing themselves, a prime glazing manufacturer certifies its glazing by marking it with the symbol DOT and the manufacturers code mark assigned by NHTSA (see 49 CFR 571.205 S6). NHTSA enforces compliance with the standards by purchasing and testing vehicles and equipment, and we also investigate safety-related defects.

Of particular relevance here, FMVSS No. 205, Glazing Materials, specifies, inter alia, strength and light transmittance performance requirements for various types of glazing used in motor vehicles, including sunroof applications. As you are aware, FMVSS No. 205 incorporates by reference ANSI Z26.1. Accordingly, prior to sale, a manufacturer must certify compliance of its product with the requirements of FMVSS No. 205, including those requirements incorporated from ANSI Z26.1.

Turning to the specifics of your sunroof design, we would first note that under FMVSS No. 205, Item 2 glazing is permitted to be used anywhere in the vehicle except the windshield, provided that it meets the relevant requirements incorporated under ANSI Z26.1. In order to sell the glazing or incorporate it in a new vehicle offered for sale in the United States, the manufacturer must self-certify that the glazing complies with Standard No. 205. As to placement of solar panels on the sunroof glazing, the standard would not prohibit such an application. FMVSS No. 205 contains no light transmittance requirements applicable to your glass sunroof because roof glazing is not in an area requisite for driver visibility.

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

Sincerely,

Anthony M. Cooke

Chief Counsel

ref:205

d.10/17/06

Mr. Steffen Lorenz

Webasto AG

Kraillinger Straβe 5

D-82131 Stockdorf

Germany

Dear Mr. Lorenz:

This responds to your e-mail in which you requested confirmation as to the permissibility of your sunroof design under our regulations, specifically one incorporating a number of solar cells intended to power a ventilator to help cool the occupant compartment. As shown in the attachment to your e-mail, we understand that your company intends to produce a sunroof with Item 2 glazing, which is tempered by a glazing manufacturer according to the specifications of the American National Standard for Safety Glazing Materials for Glazing Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Equipment Operating on Land Highways Safety Standard ANSI Z26.1 (ANSI Z26.1) and which exhibits light transmissibility of greater than 70 percent. You further stated that crystalline solar cells enveloped in a laminate film would then be attached to the inner side of the glass panel, which would effectively diminish the light transmissibility of the glazing to zero percent. In addition, you stated that the sunroof design is such that the sunshade is affixed to the glass panel, thereby preventing occupants from touching the glass/laminate portion of the sunroof from the inside of the vehicle. Although we have not had the opportunity to examine your product in operation, from the information provided in your letter, we are of the opinion that it would be permissible, so long as it meets the applicable requirements of our safety standard on glazing materials. As discussed below, placement of opaque solar cells on the sunroof would not be prohibited, because there are no light transmittance requirements for sunroofs, since roof glazing is not in an area requisite for driver visibility.

By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. To clarify, NHTSA does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, nor do we issue permits. Instead, it is the responsibility of manufacturers to certify that their products conform to all applicable safety standards before they can be offered for sale. The requirements concerning vehicle certification may be found at 49 CFR Part 567, Certification, and for items of glazing themselves, a prime glazing manufacturer certifies its glazing by marking it with the symbol DOT and the manufacturers code mark assigned by NHTSA (see 49 CFR 571.205 S6). NHTSA enforces compliance with the standards by purchasing and testing vehicles and equipment, and we also investigate safety-related defects.

Of particular relevance here, FMVSS No. 205, Glazing Materials, specifies, inter alia, strength and light transmittance performance requirements for various types of glazing used in motor vehicles, including sunroof applications. As you are aware, FMVSS No. 205 incorporates by reference ANSI Z26.1. Accordingly, prior to sale, a manufacturer must certify compliance of its product with the requirements of FMVSS No. 205, including those requirements incorporated from ANSI Z26.1.

Turning to the specifics of your sunroof design, we would first note that under FMVSS No. 205, Item 2 glazing is permitted to be used anywhere in the vehicle except the windshield, provided that it meets the relevant requirements incorporated under ANSI Z26.1. In order to sell the glazing or incorporate it in a new vehicle offered for sale in the United States, the manufacturer must self-certify that the glazing complies with Standard No. 205. As to placement of solar panels on the sunroof glazing, the standard would not prohibit such an application. FMVSS No. 205 contains no light transmittance requirements applicable to your glass sunroof because roof glazing is not in an area requisite for driver visibility.

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

Sincerely,

Anthony M. Cooke

Chief Counsel

ref:205

d.10/17/06