ID: 2911yy

Mr. Gregory J. Vonderheide
Vice President Sales
Markets Unlimited Group, Inc.
P.O. Box 289
Conestoga, PA 17516

Dear Mr. Vonderheide:

This responds to your letter of March 6, l99l, asking for the "application(s) necessary for the Department of Transportation approval of a new product." The product is described only as a "Safety Light."

The Department has no authority to approve or disapprove items of motor vehicle equipment. Pursuant to the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration establishes the Federal motor vehicle safety standards that apply to motor vehicles and/or motor vehicle equipment, and which must be met by the manufacturers of any vehicles or equipment to which the standards apply.

Unless your product is intended to replace an existing light found on motor vehicles, it would not appear to be directly covered by Standard No. l08, which establishes Federal requirements for motor vehicle lighting. If indeed it is intended as an additional light, under Standard No. 108 supplementary lighting equipment is permissible as original equipment on motor vehicles provided that it does not impair the effectiveness of lighting equipment required by the standard. Supplementary lighting equipment is also permissible under the Act for vehicles in use, provided its installation by a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business does not render wholly or partially inoperative any element of design or device installed in accordance with any Federal motor vehicle safety standard. Without knowing more of your device, we can provide you only this general guidance.

The use of equipment on bicycles is under the authority of the Consumer Product Safety Commission, 5401 Westbard Avenue, Bethesda, Md. and we are unable to advise you of their requirements.

The use of supplementary lighting equipment is also regulated by the individual States. We are unable to advise you on these laws, and suggest you consult the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA 22203.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

ref:l08 d:3.29/9l

ID: 2912yy

Mr. B. Wendling-Malusev
Manager, Government Relations
Yugo America, Inc.
120 Pleasant Avenue
P.O. Box 730
Upper Saddle River, NJ 07458-0730

Dear Mr. Wendling-Malusev:

This responds to your letter of March 5, 1991, requesting an interpretation of Standard No. 103, Windshield Defrosting and Defogging Systems. Specifically, you requested an interpretation of the phrase "without manual assist" as used in section S4.3 of that standard.

You stated in your letter that Transport Canada interpreted the Canadian Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 103 in a way that is not used by U.S. testing facilities. Let me preface my discussion by stating that although the two standards may have identical wording, they remain different standards. Our interpretation relates only to the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 103 and has no bearing whatsoever on Transport Canada's interpretation of their own standard.

Section S4.3 of the standard, Demonstration procedure, incorporates the testing procedure of paragraphs 4.1 through 4.4.7 of SAE Recommended Practice J902 or J902(a) (J902). Paragraph 4.2.6 of J902 requires that the windshield wiper not operate during the test. Section S4.3(d) of Standard No. 103 is one of the listed exceptions to the J902 test procedure. S4.3(d) allows the use of windshield wipers during the test "if they are operated without manual assist."

Section S4.3(d) does not define "manual assist." When terms used by a regulation are not defined by the regulation, the terms are defined by their common, everyday use. The Random House Dictionary of the English Language defines "manual" as "involving or using human power, energy, etc." That same dictionary defines "assist" as "to give support, aid, or help to."

Given this definition, human power used to assist the functioning of the wipers, beyond turning the wipers on or off, is precluded by the standard. As your letter correctly states, prohibited "manual assist" would include such things as manually freeing the wipers of ice.

This interpretation is supported by a consideration of windshield wiper system designs in use in 1968, the year in which the standard was promulgated. At that time, some vacuum and air-assisted windshield wiper systems were still in use. Having less power than electric windshield wiper systems, vacuum and air-assisted wipers were more susceptible to drag caused by ice on the windshield. Ice-induced drag severely limited the frost-clearing effectiveness of these wipers. The "manual assist" provision was intended to prohibit the use of human energy to overcome this disadvantage. The "manual assist" provision was not intended to prohibit those wipers being turned on or off by use of human power, as the wipers were designed to be used. Even today, except for the very few windshield wiper systems that operate automatically when they sense water or frost on the windshield, the vast majority of windshield wiper systems require manual switching to initiate operation.

I hope that this information has been helpful. Please feel free to contact us if you have any further questions.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel /ref:103 d:3/29/9l

ID: 2913yy

DS America, Inc.
5110 Tollview Drive
Rolling Meadows, IL 60008
Attn: Messrs. Riani and Mitchell

Gentlemen:

This responds to your letter of March 6, "l990" with respect to your interest in importing for resale Volkswagen Beetles manufactured in Mexico. You've asked for information on "all relevant requirements for cars being imported to the United States."

A motor vehicle must conform with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) in order to be imported permanently into the United States. The authority for this requirement is The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of l966, as amended by the Imported Vehicle Safety Compliance Act of l988, which became effective January 31, l990. I enclose a copy of the l966 Act for your information; the amendments effectuated by the l988 Act are found at section l08 [1397], subsections (c) through (j).

In brief, a nonconforming motor vehicle may not be imported into the United States unless the Admininstrator of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has determined that the vehicle complies or is capable of conformance to the FMVSS. Determinations are made pursuant to petitions received from manufacturers or registered importers. A "registered importer" is one that NHTSA has officially recognized as capable of performing the conformance work. After an affirmative determination, the vehicle may be imported by the registered importer, or by any other person who has a contract with the registered importer to perform the conversion work. Certain performance bonds and fees payable to the government have been established. I enclose a copy of the most current list of registered importers. For the text of the FMVSS and other agency regulations, you may contact the outlet of the Government Printing Office closest to you, and obtain "Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations Parts 400-999 Effective October 1, l990". NHTSA regulations are parts 501-594 inclusive. You will be particularly interested in Parts 571 (the FMVSS), 591 (import regulation), 592 (registered importer requirements), 593 (vehicle eligibility determinations), and 594 (fees). The Administrator has made no determination with respect to the conformance capability of Mexican Beetles with the FMVSS. If you wish to petition for such a determination, you must either become a registered importer or contract with one to act in your behalf. NHTSA would be especially concerned about the capability of Beetles manufactured on and after September 1, l989, to be conformed to meet the automatic restraint requirements of FMVSS No. 208 (49 CFR 571.208), Occupant Restraint Systems.

You have asked for any information the Department may have about conformance problems. During the mid-l980s, Mexican Beetles were imported for resale by commercial enterprises in Texas and California. The Texas enterprise was able to satisfy the importation requirements that were effective before the stringent amendments of the l988 Act. The California enterprise was unable to meet our requirements. We do not view the Texas experience in conversion of vehicles as particularly relevant today in light of the extensive changes made by the l988 Act.

Finally, you have asked whether "documentation by Volkswagon of Mexico certifying these crash requirements can replace a crash tested vehicle or vehicles." Under our regulations, the registered importer must certify that the converted vehicle conforms to all applicable FMVSS, and, with the initial vehicle, provide NHTSA with documents in substantation. Certainly, if Volkswagen de Mexico had conducted successful barrier impact tests exactly in the manner set forth in the FMVSS, the test results would appear to afford a basis upon which the registered importer could certify compliance. But because conformance modifications could alter vehicle structure or weight, and hence potentially affect the test results previously obtained, your question cannot be answered simply yes or no. However, a registered importer is not legally obliged to conduct a crash test to demonstrate conformance, but could verify that the converted Mexican Beetles continue to conform with the Mexican test results through the use of computer simulations, engineering studies, or mathematical calculations.

If you have further questions, we shall be pleased to consider them.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

Enclosures

/Ref. 59l d:4/l/9l

ID: 2914yy

Mr. Rick Weisbrod
Vice President Marketing
Independent Mobility Systems, Inc.
4100 West Piedras Street
Farmington, New Mexico 87401

Dear Mr. Weisbrod:

This responds to your letter of March 5, 1991 concerning the requirements of Standard No. 301. According to your letter and information provided in a telephone conversation with John Rigby of this office on March 7, 1991, your company uses the Chrysler mini-van as a base vehicle for modification for use by drivers or passengers in wheelchairs. This modification is normally performed before the first sale of the vehicle to a consumer. However, the modification is sometimes performed after sale of the vehicle to a consumer. During the modification, the position of the fuel tank is altered by moving it behind the rear axle, the fuel filler tube is modified to reach the new location, and new structure is added to the rear of the vehicle. To ensure compliance with Standard No. 301, your company had front, rear, and side impact tests performed on a modified vehicle. You believe that this crash testing is appropriate, but have been told by "various entities" that no such testing is required. Below I will explain the requirements applicable (1) when your company modifies a vehicle before the first sale to a consumer and (2) when your company modifies a vehicle after its sale to a consumer.

As you know, a manufacturer of new motor vehicles must certify that its vehicles conform to the requirements of all applicable motor vehicle safety standards. Under the NHTSA regulation on certification (49 CFR Part 567), a person who modifies a vehicle prior to its first sale to a consumer is considered an "alterer," if the modifications involve more than the addition, substitution, or removal of "readily attachable" components. An alterer is required to certify that the vehicle, as altered, conforms to all applicable safety standards (49 CFR 567.7). When your company modifies a vehicle by relocating the fuel tank and making the other changes listed above before first sale to a consumer, it would be considered an alterer. Your company, therefore, would have to certify that every vehicle it alters complies with all applicable safety standards affected by the alteration, including Standard No. 301.

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Safety Act; 15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.) does not expressly require alterers and manufacturers to conduct testing in accordance with the procedures set forth in the safety standards. Instead, the Safety Act requires alterers and manufacturers to exercise "due care" in certifying that a vehicle complies with all safety standards (15 U.S.C. 1397). It is up to the alterer or manufacturer, in the first instance, to determine how he or she will establish that due care was exercised in making the certification. NHTSA itself must precisely follow the crash test procedures in Standard No. 301 when the agency conducts its compliance testing. Manufacturers or alterers may establish due care by conducting crash testing in accordance with the procedures set forth in Standard No. 301. Alternatively, manufacturers or alterers may use other procedures for assuring themselves that their vehicle complies with Standard No. 301, such as computer simulations or engineering analyses. Of course, the agency recognizes that conducting crash tests in accordance with the procedures in Standard No. 301 may be the simplest and most reliable way for an alterer to assure itself that the altered vehicles comply with the standard.

When your company modifies a vehicle after that vehicle has been sold to a consumer, it would be affected by section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)). That section provides, in part, that:

No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or 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. . . .

Thus, your company (or any other manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business) making the modifications you described in your letter must ensure that those modifications do not "render inoperative" the compliance of the vehicle with any safety standard, including Standard No. 301. Again, the crash testing described in your letter would be a very effective way of ensuring that the modifications do not "render inoperative" compliance with Standard No. 301.

While your letter only concerned compliance with Standard No. 301, I would note that the modifications you discussed may affect compliance with other safety standards. Other safety standards that could be affected by the modifications include (1) Standard No. 204, Steering Control Rearward Displacement, (2) Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, (3) Standard No. 212, Windshield Mounting, and (4) Standard No. 219, Windshield Zone Intrusion.

I hope this information is useful to you. I also would like to express my appreciation for your company's interest in and commitment to motor vehicle safety. If you have any further questions, please contact John Rigby of this office at 202-366-2992.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

Ref:301 d:4/l/9l

ID: 2915yy

Mr. Mark A. Pacheco
Vice President
Innovative Industries
of Tampa, Inc.
5126 Le Tourneau Circle
Tampa, FL 33610

Dear Mr. Pacheco:

This responds to your letter in which you asked about the application of Federal regulations to your client's product. This product, called a "Walk Machine," looks like a two-wheeled scooter, with a small 37cc engine attached to it. You stated that this product is designed for off-road use.

NHTSA has the authority under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A); Safety Act) to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. Section 102(3) of the Safety Act defines "motor vehicle" as:

[A]ny vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power manufactured primarily for use on the public streets, roads, and highways, except any vehicle operated exclusively on a rail or rails.

NHTSA has interpreted this language as follows. Vehicles that are equipped with tracks or are otherwise incapable of highway travel are plainly not motor vehicles. Further, vehicles designed and sold solely for off-road use (e.g., airport runway vehicles and underground mining devices) are not considered motor vehicles, even though they may be operationally capable of highway travel.

On the other hand, vehicles that use the public highways on a necessary and recurring basis are motor vehicles. For instance, utility vehicles like the Jeep are plainly motor vehicles, even though they are equipped with special features to permit off-road operation. If a vehicle's greatest use will be off-road, but it will spend a substantial amount of time on-road, NHTSA has found the vehicle to be a "motor vehicle." Further, if a vehicle is readily usable on the public roads and is in fact used on the public roads by a substantial number of owners, NHTSA has found the vehicle to be a motor vehicle. This finding was made with respect to dune buggies and regardless of the manufacturer's stated intent regarding the terrain on which the vehicles were to be operated.

Your letter did not indicate whether the "Walk Machine" would be designed and sold solely for off-road use, or whether it would be used on-road for a substantial amount of time. However, based on your letter, this vehicle would not be a "motor vehicle" even if it is regularly used on the public roads. This is because NHTSA has stated in many previous interpretations that vehicles that regularly use the public roads will not be considered "motor vehicles" if such vehicles have a maximum attainable speed of 20 miles per hour (mph) and have an abnormal configuration which readily distinguishes them from other vehicles. The information provided for the "Walk Machine" indicates that it has a top speed of 16 mph and a configuration that would readily distinguish it from motorcycles and other two-wheeled vehicles.

Because this vehicle is not a "motor vehicle," none of this agency's standards apply to it. You may wish to contact the Consumer Product Safety Commission to learn if they have any Federal safety regulations that would apply to this vehicle. Their address is: Office of the General Counsel, U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, 5401 Westbard Avenue, Bethesda, Maryland 20207. You may also wish to consider the possible application of State laws to your client's product. For additional information on State laws, you may contact the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators at: 4200 Wilson Blvd., Suite 600, Arlington, Virginia 22203.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel /ref:VSA d:4/l/9l

ID: 2945o

Mr. Steve Zlotkin
Overland Parts, Inc.
48368 Milmont Dr.
Fremont, CA 94538

Dear Mr. Zlotkin:

This is in response to your letter seeking an interpretation of Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials (49 CFR 571.205). Specifically, your letter stated that your company would like to import some non-laminated windshields into the United States. I apologize for the delay in our response. As explained below, your company is prohibited by Federal law from importing or selling this type of windshield because it does not comply with the requirements of Standard No. 205.

Standard No. 205 establishes performance and marking requirements for all glazing installed in motor vehicles. The standard incorporates by reference the requirements of Standard ANS Z-26, "Safety Code for Safety Glazing Materials for Glazing Motor Vehicles Operating on Land Highways," of the American National Standard Institute. Standard ANS Z-26 requires that glazing materials for windshields must pass a specified group of test requirements. ANS Z-26 specifies that glazing materials that comply with these test requirements for windshields must be marked AS-1. To date, the only glazing materials that have been marked AS-1 have been laminated safety glass. Unless your non-laminated windshields can meet the requirements for AS-1 glazing and are marked AS-1, they do not comply with the requirements for windshields specified in Standard ANS Z-26 or Standard No. 205. You also should be aware that Standard No. 205 permits glass-plastic glazing.

The importation and sale of noncomplying glazing would be a violation of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act ("Safety Act"), the statute under which Standard No. 205 was issued. Section 108(a)(1)(A) of the Safety Act provides:

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 standard takes effect under this title unless it is in conformity with such standard... Your letter set forth two interpretations of the law under which you suggested that your company might be able to import noncomplying windshields. Your first interpretation relied on the fact that these windshields can only be installed in vehicles that were manufactured between 1953 and 1967. Since Standard No. 205's requirements for windshields did not become effective until January 1, 1968, you suggested that the provisions of section 108(a)(1)(A) of the Safety Act might not apply, because no safety standards were applicable to these vehicles. This suggestion is incorrect.

All windshields manufactured on or after January 1, 1968 must comply with the requirements of Standard No. 205, regardless of the year of manufacture of the vehicle on which the windshield is designed to be installed. In fact, safety standards relating to components such as brake hoses, lighting equipment, tires, glazing materials, seat belt assemblies, and wheel covers are applicable to components manufactured on or after January 1, 1968, even if those components are manufactured for motor vehicles manufactured before that date. In a January 16, 1987 interpretation letter to Mr. Peter Cameron-Nott (copy enclosed), the agency stated that the above listed component parts including glazing materials that were manufactured on or after January 1, 1968, would have to comply to the relevant safety standards (in the case of glazing, Standard No. 205) even though the underlying motor vehicle was a 1965 Jaguar.

Assuming that the non-laminated windshields that were the subject of your letter were in fact manufactured after January 1, 1968, Standard No. 205 applies to those windshields. As already noted, Section 108(a)(1)(A) of the Safety Act prohibits your company from importing any windshields that are subject to Standard No. 205 that do not comply with that standard.

Your second suggestion is that your company would be willing to place a sticker on these windshields to warn purchasers that the windshields do not comply with Standard No. 205. The Safety Act contains no exception to section 108(a)(1)(A)'s prohibition for noncomplying equipment, even if it were to be labeled as noncomplying. Hence, section 108(a)(1)(A) prohibits the importation of noncomplying windshields without regard to any warning labels on the windshields.

I hope this information is helpful.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Enclosure ref:205 d:9/l2/88

ID: 2946o

Mr. Robert Daugherty
Quality Assurance Manager
Safety Rehab Systems, Inc.
147 Eady Court
Elyria, OH 44035

Dear Mr. Daugherty:

This is a response to your letter of February 5, 1988, in which you sought an interpretation of Standard 213, Child Restraint Systems (49 CFR 571.213). I regret the delay in this response. Specifically, your letter stated that your company manufactures wheelchairs for severely handicapped children. Your letter stated that your company believes that Standard 213 does not apply to "durable medical products (wheelchairs, positioning systems)" and asked if this belief is correct. As explained below, your belief is not entirely correct.

Section S3 of Standard No. 213 specifies that "this standard applies to child restraint systems for use in motor vehicles and aircraft." Section S4 of the standard defines a child restraint system as "any device except Type I or Type II seat belts, designed for use in a motor vehicle or aircraft to restrain, seat, or position children who weigh 50 pounds or less." No exception is made for restraints designed for use by physically handicapped children who weigh 50 pounds or less. Further, paragraph S6.1.2.1.1 of Standard No. 213 includes the following language: "A child harness, booster seat with a top anchorage strap, or a restraint designed for use by physically handicapped children shall be installed at the center seating position of the standard seat assembly in accordance with the manufacturer's instructions provided with the system pursuant to S5.6." This language makes clear that restraints designed for use by physically handicapped children are subject to the requirements of Standard No. 213.

Under these criteria, wheelchairs, strollers, and so forth would not be "child restraint systems" within the meaning of Standard No. 213 because these devices are designed to transport children outside of a motor vehicle or aircraft. Therefore, wheelchairs, strollers, and similar devices are not child restraint systems within the meaning of S3 of Standard No. 213. Such devices may be subject to regulation by the Food and Drug Administration, under its authority to regulate medical "devices." However, the devices described in your letter as "positioning systems" are child restraint systems subject to the requirements of Standard No. 213. Your "Safety Plus Model 501" includes a "removable positioning unit" that is designed to restrain and position a child riding in a motor vehicle. Your "900 Series Transporter" is designed so that the rear wheels can be folded under to allow the device to be used to restrain and position a child riding in a motor vehicle. Therefore, these devices are "child restraint systems" within the meaning of S3 of Standard No. 213, and must be certified as complying with the requirements of the standard. NHTSA has said in the past that, since it is possible to offer handicapped children the same level of crash protection afforded to all other children, there is no reason to permit handicapped children to be offered a lesser degree of safety protection in the event of a crash. (See the enclosed October 16, 1986 letter I sent to Mr. Terry Woodman on this subject.)

You also asked if there are any standards applicable to "tie-downs" used on school buses. These "tie-downs" are straps designed to restrain wheelchairs and their occupants in a motor vehicle in the event of a crash. Since wheelchairs are not subject to Standard No. 213 or any other of this agency's regulations, as explained above, we have no standard applicable to "tie-downs" or other devices used to position wheelchairs in motor vehicles. I explained this in detail in the enclosed July 31, 1987 letter to Mr. Richard Maher.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have further questions or need more information on this subject, please feel free to contact Ms.Joan Tilghman of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Enclosures

ref:213 d:9/6/88

ID: 2947o

Mr. Davis Thekkanath
Sr. Supervising Engineer
Oshkosh Truck Corporation
P.O. Box 2566
2307 Oregon Street
Oshkosh, WI 54903-2566

Dear Mr. Thekkanath:

This responds to your letter requesting an interpretation of Safety Standard No. l2l, Air Brake Systems. Section S5.l.l of the standard requires trucks and buses to have an air compressor of sufficient capacity to bring the pressure in the supply and service reservoirs from 85 psi to l00 psi within a specified time. You inquired about the meaning of this requirement in the context of a truck with a trailer behind it. You particularly asked whether the air compressor capacity requirement includes the volume of service reservoirs for the trailer. As discussed below, only the truck reservoirs need to be considered for this requirement.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration does not provide approvals for motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, it is the responsibility of the manufacturer to ensure that its vehicles and equipment meet applicable standards. The following represents our opinion based on the facts provided in your letter.

Sections S5.l and S5.l.l of Standard No. l2l read as follows:

S5.l Required equipment--trucks and buses. Each truck and bus shall have the following equipment:

S5.l.l Air Compressor. An air compressor of sufficient capacity to increase air pressure in the supply and service reservoirs from 85 pounds per square inch (p.s.i.) to l00 p.s.i. when the engine is operating at the vehicle manufacturer's maximum recommended r.p.m. within a time, in seconds, determined by the quotient

(Actual reservoir capacity x 25)/Required reservoir capacity.

The reference in section S5.l.l to "supply and service reservoirs" refers only to the supply and service reservoirs in the truck or bus subject to the requirement. Similarly, the term "actual reservoir capacity" refers only to the actual reservoir capacity of that truck or bus, and the term "required reservoir capacity" refers only to the reservoir capacity required for that truck or bus. Thus, for a truck designed to tow an air-braked trailer, only the truck's reservoirs need to be considered for this requirement. For purposes of testing, the towing vehicle protection system would be activated.

While Standard No. l2l does not specify air compressor capacity for towing vehicles in terms which address towed vehicles, we assume that manufacturers of vehicles designed to tow air-braked vehicles will design them to have sufficient air compressor capacity to ensure safe braking performance under conditions of reasonably forseeable use, including when they are towing air-braked vehicles.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

ref: 121 d:9/l2/88

ID: 2953o

Mr. George Ziolo
DOT Paperwork Processor
234l7 Everett Place
Ramona, CA 92065

Dear Mr. Ziolo:

This is in reply to your letter of April 20, 1988, asking about the acceptability under Safety Standard No. l08 of modifying imported vehicles so that they are equipped with two Type 2D1 and two Type 1C1 headlamps. You have been informed by the agency's Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance that this is impermissible "because they are 'nonconforming' 'headlight systems'." You disagree because you believe that the minimum requirements of the Standard are satisfied by the Type 2D1 lamps, and that "S4.4 appears to permit such a combination."

Paragraph S4.4 is not applicable to the situation you present as it refers to combinations of lamps serving different functions; in your discussion, the lamps serve the identical function of headlighting. Given the fact that the Type 2D1 sealed beam 7" diameter headlamps fulfill the headlighting requirements of the Standard, your question must be viewed as whether a supplement to the headlighting system is permissible under Standard No. l08.

Paragraph S4.l.3 of Standard No. l08 permits the addition of nonrequired lighting equipment provided it does not impair the effectiveness of the equipment that the standard requires. The two Type 1C1 5 3/4" diameter sealed beam lamps in a four lamp headlighting system form the major portion of an upper beam headlighting system. The two Type 2D1 lamps in a two lamp headlighting system form the whole of an upper beam headlighting system. Thus, a vehicle furnished with the systems you posit would be equipped with more than one upper beam headlighting system. The Type 2D1 system must be designed to conform to the photometric requirements of SAE Standard J579c DEC79 "Sealed Beam Headlamp Units for Motor Vehicles." The SAE Standard establishes at two test points, H-V and 4 D-V, maximum allowable candela of 75,000 and 5,000 respectively for each Type 2D1 headlamp. This means that the maximum allowable candela for headlighting systems at these test points is 150,000 and l0,000 candela. The Type 1C1 headlamps will also be designed to conform to SAE J579c. Corresponding maxima at test points H-V and 4 D-V for Type 1C1 systems are 60,000 and 5,000. Thus, a vehicle equipped with the lamps you have described could emit a total of 270,000 candela at test point H-V (when only 150,000 is permitted), and 20,000 at 4D-V (when only l0,000 is allowable).

Agency research has shown that candela readings in excess of 150,000 greatly increase the potential for glare with little increase in seeing ability. This glare would be visible both to the driver of an oncoming car, and the driver of the modified vehicle itself through creation of a "veiling" glare. The addition of the Type 1C1 headlamps would therefore impair the effectiveness of the Type 2D1 headlighting system, and is forbidden by S4.1.3.

We appreciate your interest in safety.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

ref:108 d:9/12/88

ID: 2954o

Mr. M. Iwase, Manager
Technical Administrative Department
Koito Mfg. Co., Ltd.
Shizuoka Works
500, Kitawaki
Shimizu-shi, Shizuoka-Ken
Japan

Dear Mr. Iwase:

This is in reply to your letter of February 22, 1988, asking whether location of a stop and taillamp on a deck lid would comply with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. l08. In your opinion this is acceptable because the vehicle complies with the trunk lid closed. You have also asked, alternatively, whether the deck lid is an acceptable location for turn signal lamps.

Section S4.3.1 of Standard No. 108 requires lighting devices to be mounted on "a rigid part of the vehicle...that is not designed to be removed except for repair". In past interpretations the agency has stated that a deck lid is "a rigid part of the vehicle", and that compliance with the standard will be determined with the deck lid closed. Thus, it may be used for mounting lamps and reflectors required by Standard No. 108. However, Table IV specifies the location for rear lamps. Stoplamps, taillamps, rear turn signal lamps, and rear reflex reflectors must be mounted "as far apart as practicable". Although the determination of practicability is initially made by the vehicle manufacturer, the agency in its enforcement efforts would consider whether lighting equipment mounted on the deck lid meets the requirements of Table IV. On the other hand, the separation requirement is not specified for backup lamps and license plate lamps.

I have enclosed for your information a copy of a l980 interpretation that addressed a similar question. As you will note, the agency raised some safety concerns in that letter which could also pertain to your design.

Operation of a motor vehicle in the United States is subject to the laws of the individual States, some of which may prohibit operation of a vehicle when its turn signals and stop lamps are not visible. In summary, we urge you to consider the issues described above, including those raised in the l980 letter, in deciding whether to proceed with this design.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Enclosure

ref: 108 d:9/l5/88