ID: aiam4556

"Dear Mr. Ivie: This responds to your letter seeking information abou the labeling requirements in Standard No. 218, Motorcycle Helmets (49 CFR 571.218). You noted that Oregon recently enacted a mandatory helmet use law which adopted Standard No. 218 as the minimum standard for helmets. You correctly noted that section S5.6.1 of Standard No. 218 requires subject motorcycle helmets to be permanently and legibly labeled with specified information, including the symbol 'DOT' as a certification that the helmet complies with Standard No. 218. However, you stated that you have received reports that the labeling required by Standard No. 218 is not present on many helmets, either because it has fallen off or been removed by someone. You said that there is often no other identification of the manufacturer or brand name on the helmet. Accordingly, it is not possible for the owner of a helmet without the Standard 218 label present to contact a dealer or manufacturer for information about the helmet. You then asked several questions about the labeling requirements set forth in Standard No. 218. Before answering your specific questions, I would like to provide some general background information on Standard No. 218. Prior to October 3, 1988, Standard No. 218 applied only to helmets that could be placed on the size C headform. The helmet manufacturers estimated that approximately 90 percent of all motorcycle helmets were subject to Standard No. 218, because they could be placed on the size C headform. However, helmets manufactured before October 3, 1988 that could not be placed on the size C headform (these were typically smaller sizes of helmets) were not subject to Standard No. 218. Hence, manufacturers of helmets that could not be placed on the size C headform were not required by Standard No. 218 or any of our other regulations to label any information on these helmets. In fact, manufacturers could not label the DOT certification symbol on those helmets that were not subject to Standard No. 218. See the enclosed December 4, 1987 letter to Mr. Hoppe for more information on this subject. We published a final rule on April 6, 1988 that extended the requirements of Standard No. 218 to all motorcycle helmet sizes (53 FR 11280). This rule became effective on October 3, 1988. Accordingly, all motorcycle helmets manufactured on or after October 3, 1988 are subject to Standard No. 218 and must be labeled in accordance with the requirements of S5.6 of that standard. With this background, your question can be answered as follows. For the approximately 10 percent of helmets manufactured before October 3, 1988 that could not be placed on the size C headform, Standard No. 218 did not apply to them, so there was no requirement for any information to be labeled on these helmets. Any such helmets would not display a 'DOT sticker' because they were not required or permitted to display such a sticker when they were new, not because the sticker 'fell off' or was removed. However, Standard No. 218 applied to approximately 90 percent of all helmets manufactured before October 3, 1988 and applies to every motorcycle helmet manufactured on or after that date. For those helmets, S5.6.1 of Standard No. 218 requires that: 'Each helmet shall be permanently and legibly labeled . . .' with the manufacturers name or identification, the precise model designation, the size, the month and year of manufacture, the DOT certification mark, and warning instructions. (emphasis added) In an October 16, 1973 letter to the Cycraft Co., NHTSA stated that the requirement that helmets be permanently labeled prohibits the use of labels that can be removed easily by hand without tools or chemicals. You stated that you have heard of two reasons why helmets that originally had a DOT certification label would no longer have such a label. One of the reasons was that the affixed label was a 'sticker' and it 'fell off.' Standard No. 218 permits manufacturers to label the required information on the helmet by means of a 'sticker,' provided that the label is permanent and legible and contains all the information required by S5.6. A 'sticker' that falls off the helmet would not appear to be permanent within the meaning of Standard No. 218, so this would be an apparent noncompliance with the standard. If you have any evidence that 'stickers' are falling off helmets, please forward that information to our Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance at this address, and we will take appropriate actions. The second reason that you have heard for helmets no longer having the labeling required by Standard No. 218 is that someone removed the label to paint the helmet and failed to put the label back on the helmet. Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C 1397(a)(2)(A)) prohibits any manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair business from 'knowingly render ing inoperative 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.' In this case, the label on motorcycle helmets is a device or element of design installed on the helmet in compliance with Standard No. 218. If a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair business removed that label and failed to put it back on the helmet, then those entities would be rendering the label inoperative, in violation of Federal law. Again, if you have any evidence that violations of Federal law have occurred in your State, please forward that evidence to our Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance and we will take appropriate actions. Please note that Federal law does not prohibit the helmet's owner or any other person that is not a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair business from removing the label from motorcycle helmets. Thus, the owner of a motorcycle helmet is permitted to remove the label from his or her helmet for any reason without violating any provision of Federal law. The individual States are free to establish requirements for motorcycle helmets used in their State, and could prohibit an owner from removing the label. You suggested that the problem of missing labels could be solved if this agency were to require that the DOT symbol be embossed on or in the helmet. NHTSA considered and rejected this suggestion 15 years ago when it established Standard No. 218. In the August 20, 1973 preamble to the final rule that established FMVSS 218, we said: With respect to providing important safety information in the form of labeling, one comment recommended that, due to possible label deterioration, both the manufacturer's identification and the helmet model designation should be permanently marked by etching, branding, stamping, embossing, or molding on the exterior of the helmet shell or on a permanently attached component so as to be visible when the helmet is in use. The NHTSA has determined that the practical effect of this recommendation is accomplished by requiring each helmet to be permanently and legibly labeled. The method to be used to permanently and legibly affix a label for each helmet is therefore left to the discretion of the manufacturer. (38 FR 22391) You finally asked if other jurisdictions have informed NHTSA of similar problems and sought suggestions on methods to resolve the situation where an apparently undamaged helmet would be in compliance with the standard except that it is not properly labeled. As noted above, approximately 10 percent of the motorcycle helmets manufactured before October 3, 1988 were not subject to Standard No. 218 and were not required to be labeled. To my knowledge, no other jurisdictions have informed this agency of problems akin to those raised in your letter aside from more general questions about labeling. I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions or need some more information on this subject, please do not hesitate to contact Mr. Marvin Shaw of my staff at this address, or by telephone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel Enclosure";

ID: NCC-231121-001 Autoliv (Veoneer) Spotlight Interpretation 1

June 27, 2024

Richard Seoane 

VP Operations and Business Development 

Thermal Product Area 

Veoneer 

420 South Fairview Avenue Goleta, CA 93117 

Dear Mr. Seoane: 

This responds to your request dated October 10, 2016, concerning the application of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (“FMVSS”) No. 108, Lamps, reflective devices, and associated equipment, to a lighting system you describe in your letter. As I explain below, based on your description of the system we agree that it is supplemental lighting, but disagree with your assertion that it would not impair the effectiveness of any of the required lighting equipment. 

In responding to this request, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) notes that the contents of this letter do not have the force and effect of law and are not meant to bind the public in any way. This letter is only intended to provide clarity regarding existing requirements under the law at the time of signature. 

Description of the Marking Light and the Request for Interpretation 

In your letter, you request an interpretation of FMVSS No. 108 as applied to an auxiliary light designed to prevent nighttime crashes (the Marking Light). As you describe it, the Marking Light consists of two auxiliary spotlights operated independently of the headlighting system. The spotlights are mounted symmetrically about the vertical centerline of the vehicle, below the headlamps, and pointed down at a fixed angle. The Marking Light operates independently of the upper and lower beam headlamps to produce a narrow, white-light beam pointed down to highlight the path to an object (such as a pedestrian) in or near the forward roadway so that the driver can see it. The Marking Light is activated and controlled by Autoliv’s Night Vision System, which has an infrared camera that detects pedestrian, bicyclist, and animal hazards up to 100 meters in front of the vehicle. The Night Vision System alerts the driver with in-vehicle 

Page 2
Richard Seoane 

visual (e.g., head-up display icon and/or dash icon) and audible signals indicating activation of the Marking Light and directs the Marking Light to illuminate the path over the ground to the hazard to visually alert the driver of the presence and location of the hazard. The system does not engage vehicle steering or brakes. The Marking Light cannot be activated manually by the driver or continuously operated; it is activated only by the night vision system when a hazard is detected to assist the driver in seeing the hazard but does not assist the driver in seeing the roadway. You state that the Marking Light is disabled in the presence of oncoming and preceding traffic so that it does not glare drivers on a wet or shiny roadway. 

You explain your position that the Marking Light is a supplemental lamp, not a required lamp such as a headlamp. You then make a variety of different arguments (and provide data) to support your view that the Marking Light does not impair the effectiveness of any of the required lighting. We summarize these arguments in more detail where relevant in the discussion below. 

Applicable Requirements 

FMVSS No. 108, which is codified at 49 C.F.R. § 571.108, sets requirements for vehicle lighting. The standard requires a variety of types of lighting, depending on vehicle type and size, and specifies requirements for these required lighting elements. The standard also sets requirements (referred to as “if equipped” requirements) for some non-mandatory lighting devices, such as daytime running lamps. 

Lighting devices that FMVSS No. 108 does not require or regulate as “if equipped” lighting devices are considered supplemental (or auxiliary) lighting devices. Supplemental lighting is generally permitted as long as it does not impair the effectiveness of any of the lighting equipment required by the standard. See FMVSS No. 108 S6.2.1 (also referred to as the “impairment” provision). 

FMVSS No. 108 applies only to original equipment and lighting equipment manufactured to replace original lighting equipment required by FMVSS No. 108. The standard does not directly apply to supplemental lighting devices sold in the aftermarket. Instead, supplemental lighting offered as an aftermarket accessory is subject to the “make inoperative” prohibition (49 U.S.C. § 301222), which prohibits certain specified commercial entities (such as dealers or repair shops) from taking a vehicle out of compliance with an FMVSS. In applying the “make inoperative” prohibition to aftermarket accessory lighting, NHTSA typically asks whether the accessory lighting would impair the effectiveness of any required lighting. Generally, if an item of accessory lighting would not be permitted as original equipment, commercial entities will not be permitted to install the lighting as an aftermarket accessory for a vehicle in use. 

While the vehicle manufacturer has the legal responsibility under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Safety Act) to certify that the vehicle complies with FMVSS No. 108 and all other applicable FMVSS, as a practical matter, vehicle manufacturers generally insist that equipment manufacturers provide assurance that their products meet federal standards. The judgment of impairment is one made, in the first instance, by the person installing the device. That decision, however, may be questioned by NHTSA if it appears clearly erroneous. 

Page 3
Richard Seoane 

Discussion 

The threshold issue presented by your request is whether the Marking Light is part of the required headlighting system and thus subject to the requirements applicable to headlighting systems, or supplemental lighting that is regulated by FMVSS No. 108’s impairment provision. We agree with you that the Marking Light would be considered supplemental lighting. 

FMVSS No. 108 requires vehicles to be equipped with one of several permissible headlighting systems.1 Headlighting systems are comprised of headlamps and associated hardware. The purpose of headlamps is primarily to provide forward illumination.2 In determining whether lighting equipment that provides forward illumination is part of the required headlighting system or supplemental lighting, NHTSA looks at several factors. These factors have included, among other things: (1) where the lamp directs its light; (2) whether it uses a headlamp replaceable light source to emit a beam that provides significantly more light flux than supplemental cornering lamps or fog lamps; (3) whether the lamp is intended to be used regularly, or is limited to more narrow driving conditions and situations; or (4) whether there is a manual on/off switch.3 

None of our previous interpretations appear to have addressed a frontal lighting concept precisely like the Marking Light. We agree with you, based on the information you have provided us, that it is supplemental lighting because it is not intended to be used regularly, but is instead a narrow beam that is activated only when there is a hazard forward of the vehicle such as a pedestrian or animal near the roadway. 

Because the Marking Light would be considered supplemental lighting, it is permitted as long as it does not impair the effectiveness of any lighting equipment required by the standard. In its previous interpretation letters, NHTSA has identified a number of different ways that a supplemental lamp could impair the effectiveness of the required lighting.4 

With respect to the Marking Light, there are two types of impairment that are potentially relevant. One is the potential to confuse other drivers arising from the Marking Light’s color, location, or activation pattern.5 The other potentially relevant type of impairment is the potential for glare to other road users due to the intensity of the Marking Light. We address each of these potential types of impairment below. 

1 FMVSS No. 108 Table I-a; S10.
2 FMVSS No. 108 S4 (“Headlamp means a lighting device providing an upper and/or a lower beam used for providing illumination forward of the vehicle.”).
3 See Letter from Jacqueline Glassman, Chief Counsel, to [Redacted] (Jan. 21, 2004). Prior to the 2004 interpretation letter, NHTSA issued several interpretations concerning auxiliary driving beams in which the agency treated those lamps as supplemental lighting without expressly considering the issue. See, e.g., Letter from Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel, to P. Soardo, Instituto Elettrotecnico Nazionale (May 22, 1987). If the lamps in question in those earlier interpretations would be considered supplemental lighting under the factors set forth in the 2004 interpretation, they may be consistent with that later interpretation. There is not, however, sufficient information about the lighting systems at issue in those earlier interpretation letters to allow application of the factors from the 2004 interpretation. In any case, the 2004 interpretation has been, to date, NHTSA’s view of the issue.
4 See, e.g., Letter from Jonathan Morrison, Chief Counsel, to Paul Schaye, Pedestrian Safety Solutions (Sept. 9, 2019).
5 See id. 

Page 4
Richard Seoane 

Color and Location 

The impairment provision prohibits auxiliary lamp colors that are likely to confuse other road users.6 For auxiliary lamps located on the front of the vehicle, colors that could cause confusion include red (which could be confused with a tail lamp), green (which could be confused with a traffic signal), and blue (which could be confused with a law enforcement vehicle).7 

You state that because the Marking Light is white, it cannot be confused with a turn signal and would not conflict with the emergency (hazard) lamps or parking lamps. 

We agree that because the Marking Light is white and mounted below the headlamps, it would not likely be confused with the front turn signal (which is amber8) and would not conflict with the vehicle hazard warning (which consists of all required turn signal lamps flashing simultaneously9) or the parking lamps (which must be white or amber10). I therefore agree that the color and location of the Marking Light would not cause confusion with the vehicle’s signal lamps. 

Activation Pattern 

FMVSS No. 108 requires that all auxiliary lamps be steady burning except for auxiliary lamps that supplement required lamps that flash, such as turn signals.11 This requirement means that the lamp must be steady burning when activated, not that it is prohibited from being activated or deactivated automatically.12 However, the (de)activation of the lamp cannot be so frequent or random that the lamp would distract or confuse other road users. For example, a lamp that activates and deactivates on an extremely short time interval due to sensitivity to slight changes in conditions would not be considered steady-burning.13 NHTSA has also interpreted the steady- 

6 Id.
7 Id.
8 FMVSS No. 108 Table I-a.
9 Id. S6.6.2; S4 (definition of vehicle hazard warning signal flasher).
10 Id. Table I-a.
11 See, e.g., Letter from Jonathan Morrison, Chief Counsel, to Paul Schaye, Pedestrian Safety Solutions (Sept. 9, 2019); Letter from Anthony Cooke, Chief Counsel, to Kerry Legg, New Flyer, Inc. (Feb. 21, 2008). Before 2007, FMVSS No. 108 included an explicit requirement that, with certain exceptions (e.g., turn signal lamps), all lamps on a vehicle, including auxiliary lamps, must be steady burning. In 2007, NHTSA implemented an administrative rewrite of FMVSS No. 108 which, among other things, converted the blanket “steady burning” requirement (and its exceptions) into individual activation requirements for each type of required lamp. See 72 FR 68234 (Dec. 4, 2007). Although the reorganized rule no longer includes a blanket “steady burning” requirement, NHTSA stated in the preamble to the reorganized rule that its “rewrite of FMVSS No. 108 is considered administrative in nature because the standard’s existing requirements and obligations are not being increased, decreased, or substantively modified.” Id. Moreover, NHTSA continues to believe that flashing auxiliary lamps would impair the effectiveness of required lamps by distracting or confusing other road users.
12 See Letter from Jonathan Morrison, Chief Counsel, to Paul Schaye, Pedestrian Safety Solutions (Sept. 9, 2019).
13 See id. 

Page 5
Richard Seoane 

burning requirement to mean that headlamp intensity may modulate, but only if the changes in intensity are not detectable by the human eye.14 

You state that the Marking Light is steady burning in that it does not flash (cycle on and off). You state that the Marking Light is activated when the night vision system identifies a pedestrian, bicyclist, or large animal in or near the forward roadway as a hazard. When the object is no longer deemed a hazard, the night vision system switches off the Marking Light. We also understand that the intensity of the Marking Light does not modulate. 

We agree that, based on the facts represented to us in your letter, the Marking Light is steady burning and would therefore not violate the impairment provision in this respect. This conclusion assumes that the Marking Light does not activate and deactivate frequently (which could confuse or distract other road users) or change intensity while activated in a way that is detectable to the human eye. 

Brightness (Photometric Intensity) 

Supplemental lighting can also impair the effectiveness of the required lighting if it is so intense that it glares other road users15 or, relatedly, masks any of the required signal lighting.16 As a point of reference, we note that FMVSS No. 108 specifies two upper beam (or high beam) maxima, at H-V and 4D-V.17 The magnitude of the specified maxima depends on the type of upper beam system; for the purposes of this letter, we will compare the Marking Light to the highest specified maxima at each test point, which are 75,000 candela (cd) at H-V and 12,000 cd 

14 See, e.g., Letter from Stephen Wood, Acting Chief Counsel, to Kiminori Hyodo, Koito Manufacturing Co., Ltd. (Nov. 5, 2005); Letter from John Womack, Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA, to Joe De Sousa (Mar. 10, 1994) (stating, in the context of a modulating motorcycle headlamp, that “there is no failure to conform if the modulating light from the lamp is perceived to be a steady beam”).
15 See, e.g., Letter from John Womack, Acting Chief Counsel, to Yoshiaki Matsui, Stanley Elec. Co., Ltd. (Sept. 20, 1995) (fog lamp supplementing lower beam) (“Finally, as a cautionary note, we believe that Stanley should evaluate the glare potential of the headlamp when the fog lamp and lower beam are operating simultaneously, as it is important to safety that oncoming drivers not be distracted or discomforted in the operation of their vehicles.”). Cf. Letter from Jacqueline Glassman, Chief Counsel, to Rusty Riggin, Willow Development (Aug. 2, 2002) (explaining that a supplemental rear cornering lamp could violate the impairment provision if it was so intense that it “create[d] distracting glare”).
16 See, e.g., Letter from Jonathan Morrison, Chief Counsel, to Paul Schaye, Pedestrian Safety Solutions (Sept. 9, 2019) (“NHTSA has in the past stated that auxiliary lamps that were so bright as to ‘mask’ adjacent required turning signal lamps would be prohibited due to impairment.”); Letter From Samuel Dubbin, Chief Counsel, to Richard Russell (Dec. 22, 1995) (“[W]e would regard the vehicle manufacturer’s certification as negated if the brightness and location of the auxiliary lamps were such as to affect an oncoming driver’s ability to perceive the front turn signals.”).
17 FMVSS 108 Table XVIII. The photometry requirements specified in Table XVIII consist of test points at which the intensity of the light is measured. The requirements at each test point consist of minima and/or maxima. The test points are defined with respect to an angular coordinate system relative to the headlamp. Thus, H-V identifies a test point zero degrees up and zero degrees down relative to the headlamp, and 4D-V identifies a test point 4 degrees down relative to the headlamp. See also Letter from Erika Jones, Chief Counsel, to Byung Soh, Target Marketing Systems (Sept. 13, 1988) (“Effectiveness may be impaired if the device creates a noncompliance in the existing lighting equipment or modifies its candlepower to either below the minima or above the maxima permitted by the standard.”); Letter from Erika Jones, Chief Counsel, to George Ziolo (Sept. 12, 1988) (vehicle equipped with two upper beam headlamp systems would violate the impairment provision because it would exceed the upper beam maxima at H-V and 4D-V). 

Page 6
Richard Seoane 

at 4D-V. We consider the upper beam maxima as proper comparators because the Marking Light, like the upper beam, is designed to activate when no other cars are nearby.18 Just as upper beam headlamps are subject to maximum intensity limits, even though they are designed to turn off in the presence of oncoming traffic, the same concerns apply to forward-facing auxiliary lighting. 

You argue in your letter that the Marking Light will not glare other road users or mask any of the required signal lighting. You state that the Marking Light is disabled in the presence of oncoming traffic, so that its downward angle does not glare other drivers on a wet or shiny roadway. You also state that because the Marking Light is low to the ground and produces very little light above the horizontal plane of the headlamps, it cannot glare another driver or pedestrians. You state that because of these features, the Marking Light does not impair an oncoming driver’s ability to perceive the front turn signals. In a meeting with our office, you also indicated that the spotlamps on each side of the vehicle are generally not additive (combined). 

You also provided data on the intensity of the Marking Light (an iso-candela plot) based on on-vehicle measurements at a test laboratory. The photometric testing indicates that the Marking Light’s maximum intensity is 113,440 cd (at approximately four degrees down). You noted that the test setup resulted in higher estimated light intensities than what would be more accurately estimated by a goniometric component test conducted in a properly designed component lamp goniometry facility with appropriate stray light control. 

We believe that the Marking Light would violate the impairment provision because it would exceed—dramatically—the maximum permissible brightness of upper beams at 4D-V. This extreme intensity is a concern even if the Marking Light beam is aimed at a downward angle and the system is designed so that the light is disabled in the presence of oncoming and preceding vehicles, because it could still glare other motorists if the vision system does not correctly detect an oncoming or preceding vehicle and prevent the Marking Light from activating. This glare could happen, for example, if the vehicle crests the top of a hill when another vehicle is approaching, the vehicle encounters another vehicle at an intersection without detecting the other vehicle approaching from the side, or if the Marking Light reflects off wet pavement. 

We recognize that the photometric test setup led to overestimates of the Marking Light’s intensity. Nevertheless, the Marking Light is so intense that a more accurate estimate would likely still greatly exceed the upper beam maximum. We also note that the Marking Light’s intensity dramatically exceeds not only the upper beam maximum at 4D-V (12,000 cd), but also the maximum allowed for any individual upper beam headlamp (75,000 cd at H-V). This intensity presents a risk that other road users could be subject to significant glare. 

Conclusion 

I conclude that the Marking Light would be prohibited by the impairment provision in FMVSS No. 108 with respect to the Marking Light’s intensity at 4D-V.
18 FMVSS No. 108 S4 (upper beam defined as “beam intended primarily for distance illumination and for use when not meeting or closely following other vehicles”). 

Page 7
Richard Seoane 

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

Sincerely,
ADAM RAVIV
Adam Raviv Chief Counsel

Dated: 6/27/24
Ref: Standard No. 108

ID: 15-004254 WayRay Glazing_sb_3

ID: 571-208--low risk deployment--Toyota

ID: nht92-6.42

DATE: May 22, 1992

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Larry Nunn -- President, Automotive Lighting Technologies, Inc.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 4/10/92 from Larry Nunn to Office of Chief Council, NHTSA (OCC 7224)

TEXT:

This responds to your request for information on laws and regulations administered by this agency that would apply to an aftermarket product you have under development. Since your product constitutes "motor vehicle equipment," your product would be subject to NHTSA's jurisdiction as follows.

Your letter described your product, called "LeLite," as a lighting system designed to be attached to motorcycle helmets. The system is intended to increase rider visibility by providing the equivalent of a center high mounted stop lamp for motorcyclists. A drawing you enclosed depicts the "LeLite" as attached to the rear of the helmet, and you state that the "LeLite" includes a stop/running lamp with two amber turn signals.

You state that the lighting system is powered by a cord that connects to a "simple harness unit" mounted at a motorcycle location chosen by the motorcyclist. You further state that the harness is designed to attach directly into the motorcycle's brake/running lamp wires feeding from the battery terminal, enabling the system to light up in conjunction with the brake/running lamps on the vehicle.

In a telephone conversation with Dorothy Nakama of my staff, you stated that the "LeLite" is to be sold separately from the motorcycle helmet and is designed to be readily attachable and detachable by the motorcyclist.

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Safety Act) authorizes this agency to regulate "motor vehicles" and items of "motor vehicle equipment." Section 102(4) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1391(4)) defines "motor vehicle equipment," in part, 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 ... or intended for use exclusively to safeguard motor vehicles, drivers, passengers, and other highway users from risk of accident, injury, or death.

In your letter, you stated that the "LeLite" is intended to increase motorcyclist visibility by providing the equivalent of a center high mounted stop lamp. Increased motorcyclist visibility on the road would lessen the possibility of the motorcyclist's being hit by others who may not see the motorcyclist in time to avoid an accident. Thus, we would consider the "LeLite" as "motor vehicle equipment" since it is intended for use exclusively to safeguard motorcyclists from risk of accident, injury, or death.

You provided no information about the degree of difficulty involved in connecting the "LeLite's" harness into the motorcycle brake/running lamp wiring system. As previously stated, your intention apparently is that the individual user installs the "LeLite." However, please be aware that if installation into the wiring system should prove difficult for some users, and the "LeLite" should be installed into the motorcycle or motorcycle helmet by a commercial business, Section 108 (a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act could affect your product. That section of the Act requires manufacturers, distributors, dealers and motor vehicle repair businesses to ensure that they do not knowingly render inoperative 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 (FMVSS). As you may be aware, FMVSS No. 108; Lamps, reflective devices, and associated equipment, specifies requirements for lamps on motor vehicles, and FMVSS No. 218; Motorcycle helmets, establishes minimum performance requirements for motorcycle helmets.

The above-named businesses could sell the "LeLite" but could not install it if the installation would adversely affect the vehicle or helmet's compliance with any of the FMVSS's. In the first instance, it would be the responsibility of these entities to determine whether there is any possibility of such an effect. The prohibitions of Section 108 (a)(2)(A) do not apply to the actions of a vehicle owner in adding to or otherwise modifying his or her vehicle or motorcycle helmet. Thus, a motorcyclist would not violate the Act by installing ,the "LeLite" even if doing so would adversely affect some safety feature in his or her motorcycle or motorcycle helmet.

However, please note that it is this agency's policy to discourage motorcycle helmet users from modifying their helmets. Section S5.6.1 of FMVSS No. 218; Motorcycle helmets requires that the following instruction be placed on helmets: "Make no modifications..." We are concerned that attaching the "LeLite" to a motorcycle helmet may cover the symbol "DOT" that constitutes the helmet manufacturer's certification that the helmet complies with the FMVSS's. Also, Standard No. 218 limits "rigid projections" outside the helmet's shell to those required for operation of essential accessories, and that do not protrude more than 5 millimeters. Based on your letter, the "LeLite" may constitute a "rigid projection." If so, it is not clear that the "LeLite" can meet the restrictions on "rigid projections" outside of the helmet's shell. For these reasons, the agency's policy would be to discourage motorcyclists from modifying their helmets by attaching any device that protrudes beyond the standard.

Manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment such as the "LeLite" are also subject to the requirements in sections 151-159 of the 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 the "LeLite," your company as the manufacturer must notify purchasers of the safety-related defect and must either:

(1) repair the product so that the defect is removed; or (2) replace the product with identical or reasonably equivalent products 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.

For your information, I have enclosed a copy of the Safety Act, and an information sheet describing how you can obtain copies of our motor vehicle safety standards and any other NHTSA regulation. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht91-1.23

DATE: January 15, 1991

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: John K. Roberts -- Vice President, Muth Advanced Technologies

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 11-29-90 to Richard Van Iderstine from John K. Roberts (OCC-5511)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of November 29, 1990, to Richard Van Iderstine of this agency. You are developing a "Stop Turn Mirror" (STM) which you intend to be used "in combination with (or possibly in place of) center high-mounted stop lamps (CHMSL's). The STM is so designed that it appears as a mirror to a vehicle operator, but as a stop and turn signal indication system to the operator of a following vehicle.

You have not provided us with a picture of the STM, and we are unable to tell from your letter and description sheet whether the STM is intended to be mounted as an interior rear view mirror, or as an exterior one. As a surrogate for the CHMSL, it would appear to be intended for installation as an interior rear view mirror. However, as a stop and turn signal system, the STM would appear more appropriate as two exterior mirrors mounted on either side of the vehicle. Nevertheless, we shall try to answer your questions on the basis of the information available to us.

Your first question is:

"(1) If the STM satisfies the current explicit requirements of FMVSS 111 and 108, is there further NHTSA approval we should seek before fielding the device?"

NHTSA does not "approve" or "disapprove" items of motor vehicle equipment such as the STM. It will advise whether the equipment is permitted or not permitted by Federal laws, standards, or other regulations. If the equipment is permitted, then it may be manufactured and sold. However, it is the inquirer's responsibility to determine if there are any State and local restrictions on use of the equipment.

For the reasons expressed below, we have serious reservations whether the STM could meet the requirements of Standard No. 108. There is no requirement that a CHMSL be mounted on the rear of a vehicle or in the rear window. STM theoretically could fulfill the requirements for CHMSL's if combined with an interior rear view mirror conventionally placed in the center of the windshield area. In this location, it would appear to be mounted on the vertical centerline of the vehicle as seen from the rear, as the standard requires. The STM will not be perceived by the driver as anything but a mirror; however it must also fulfill the requirement that light from it falling on the rear glazing not reflect back into the mirror, or, in the words of Standard No. 108 that means have been "provided to minimize reflections from the light of the lamp that might be visible to the driver when viewed directly or indirectly in the rear view mirror." Most importantly, the STM must fulfill the photometric requirements and visibility requirements of center high-mounted stop

lamps. Compliance with these requirements is determined with the lamp mounted on or in the vehicle. Because of the different designs of back windows and adjacent "C" pillars in cars, and the distance of the STM from the back window, we believe that compliance with all applicable requirements would be difficult, if not impossible, to achieve.

Standard No. 108 does prohibit the physical combination of the required CHMSL with any other lamp or reflective device. A mirror is not a "reflective device" for purposes of Standard No. 108. Thus the question would be whether the turn signal functions of the STM are clearly separated from the stop function so that the question does not arise as to whether they are combined.

If the STM iS intended to be mounted as one or both exterior rear view mirrors it would not meet the location requirement, and could not be used as a substitute for the required CHMSL. Under Standard No. 108 it would be permissible as supplementary lighting equipment as long as it did not impair the effectiveness of lighting equipment that the standard requires. In this instance, in its role as a supplementary stop/turn signal lamp system, we do not consider that the STM would impair the effectiveness of the original stop/turn signal lamp system.

"(2) Would it be reasonable for us to apply for a variance or to seek a change in FMVSS 108, if the STM doesn't meet the letter of FMVSS 106 in certain applications, but demonstrably meets or exceeds the intent of the standard."

"Variances", or exemptions from one or more requirements of a Federal motor vehicle safety standard are only granted to manufacturers of motor vehicles. We have no authority to exempt an equipment manufacturer.

As for seeking a change in Standard No. 108, while any person may file a petition for rulemaking to change a standard, I have no reason to believe that the agency would look favorably on allowing the CHMSL to be combined with a turn signal lamp, or require use of the STM as standard equipment in place of the present CHMSL.

"(3) Before a pickup truck standard is published, would it be possible to certify the STM as a compliant device and ensure that the wording of the new rule doesn't needlessly prohibit utilization of STM's?"

It is a legal impossibility to certify something as a compliant device before the requirements for that device have been formally adopted, and the effective date established for compliance. We anticipate the "pickup truck standard" as you call it will be published sometime in January 1991. If you find that it prohibits utilization of the STM you may file a petition for reconsideration of the rule with the agency within 30 days after its publication.

" (4) Is it possible that someone at NHTSA would like to see this thing or test it before we go too far in our development and larketing? It may be a useful development in vehicle safety devices with importance to industry and the public. It also may be a ready solution to the difficult issue of requiring CHMSL's on pick-up trucks. We would be happy to support

any such investigative effort by supplying a model, information, etc.

We appreciate but decline your offer. The agency is satisfied that its forthcoming rule achieves a reasonable solution to the issue of CHMSL's on pickup trucks. The agency's resources are limited, and must be deployed in areas where there is a reasonable possibility that a mandatory safety standard may result as a consequence of its investigative efforts. Given the facts that the STM addresses an area of safety that is already covered by the CHMSL, and that any safety benefits of the STM remain speculative while those of the CHMSL are well demonstrated, there is no reasonable possibility that the STM would become a mandatory requirement of this agency.

ID: nht91-7.39

DATE: December 10, 1991

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA; Signature by K. Weinstein)

TO: Frank Vestergaard -- M-CO Denmark

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 10-16-91 from Frank Vestergaard to NHTSA (OCC 6641)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter requesting information regarding legal requirements with which your company must comply before selling your item of motor vehicle equipment, the "Warn-Mill," that warns of the presence of halted vehicles. As explained below, your device must conform with the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 125, Warning Devices (49 CFR S571.125), if it is to be imported into the United States.

In your letter, you stated that the "Warn-Mill" is intended to warn of the presence of halted vehicles, and is intended as a supplement to the "statutory warning triangle." Although no size dimensions were provided, you provided a description of the "Warn-Mill" as a "strong reflecting white triangle, surrounded by red frame, mounted at a magnet foot to be placed at the roof of a halted vehicle." I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our law and regulations to you.

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.; the Safety Act) gives this agency the authority to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. This agency has exercised this authority to establish Standard No. 125. S3 of Standard No. 125 states that the standard "applies to devices, without self-contained energy sources, that are designed to be carried in motor vehicles, and used to warn approaching traffic of the presence of a stopped vehicle, except for devices designed to be permanently affixed to the vehicle."

It appears that the "Warn-Mill" would be subject to the requirements of Standard No. 125. The "Warn-Mill" has no self-contained energy source and is designed to be carried in motor vehicles. You state that it is to be used to warn of the presence of a stopped vehicle. The "Warn-Mill" is not designed to be permanently affixed to the vehicle because your letter states that it is designed to fall off the vehicle if the vehicle is driven with the "Warn-Mill" still attached.

I note from your letter that your company intends the "Warn-Mill" as a supplement to the "statutory warning triangle." This agency does not recognize such supplements. Since the "Warn Mill" fulfills the applicability criteria of Standard No. 125, it is a "warning device," within the meaning of the standard, and it must comply with all applicable requirements of that standard. From the enclosed copy of Standard No. 125, you will see that some of the specific requirements with which the "Warn-Mill" must conform include minimum size, durability,

material, container, labeling, configuration, color, reflectivity, luminance, and stability. Based upon the information provided in your letter, it does not appear that the "Warn Mill" complies with the stability requirements in S5.6, because the stability testing is done by placing the warning device on a horizontal brushed concrete surface.

When the agency has issued an applicable safety standard, section 108(a)(1)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(1)(A)) provides that no person shall "manufacture for sale, sell, offer for sale, or introduce or deliver for introduction in interstate commerce, or import into the United States" any new motor vehicle or new item of motor vehicle equipment unless the vehicles or equipment are in conformity with all applicable standards and are covered by a certification issued under section 114 of the Safety Act. Unlike jurisdictions in which the vehicles and items of equipment to be offered for sale must be delivered to a governmental entity for testing and approval before they can be sold, the Safety Act gives this agency no authority to approve, endorse, or offer assurances of compliance to any commercial product.

Instead, section 114 of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1403) establishes a self-certification process under which every manufacturer is required to certify that each of its products meets all applicable Federal safety standards. The manufacturer's certification need not be based on actual tests in accordance with the standard. United States law only requires that the manufacturer's certification be made with the exercise of "due care" on the part of the manufacturer. It is up to the individual manufacturer in the first instance to determine what test results, engineering analyses, computer simulations, or other information it needs to certify compliance with the applicable safety standards. Once the manufacturer has made this determination and certified its product in accordance with the applicable standard, it is free to offer the product for sale in the United States. The agency periodically tests vehicles and items of equipment that have been certified by the manufacturer to ensure that they do, in fact, comply with the safety standards. NHTSA also investigates alleged defects related to motor vehicle safety.

Please also note that the Safety Act establishes a civil penalty of $1,000 for each violation of a safety standard and a maximum penalty of $800,000 for a series of violations. In addition, the Act requires manufacturers to notify purchasers and remedy any items of motor vehicle equipment, such as warning devices, that do not conform with any applicable safety standards.

You should also be aware of two other provisions of our regulations. One is 49 CFR S551.45, Service of process on foreign manufacturers and importers, which requires manufacturers and importers of motor vehicle equipment, before offering such items for importation into the United States, to designate an agent in the United States upon whom service of all legal notices may be made. The other is 49 CFR Part 566, Manufacturer Identification, which requires manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment to submit to this agency identifying information and a description of the items of motor vehicle equipment produced. I am, for your information, enclosing copies of both of these regulatory provisions.

I have also enclosed an information sheet for new manufacturers of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment that briefly summarizes our laws and regulations and explains how to get copies of those laws and regulations. If you have any further questions or need additional information on this subject, please feel free to write to me.

Attachments

Copy of 49 CFR Ch. V (10-1-90 Edition) pertaining to Sections:

571.125: Standard No. 125: Warning devices and Accelerator control systems; 551.45: Service of process on foreign manufacturers and importers; 552: Petitions for rulemaking, defect, and noncompliance orders; 566: Manufacturer identification; and 567: Certification

Copy of the NHTSA information sheet dated September, 1985 entitled Information for New Manufacturers of Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Equipment.

Copy of the NHTSA information sheet dated September, 1985 entitled Where to Obtain Motor Vehicle Safety Standards and Requlations

(Text of attachments omitted.)

ID: nht90-2.74

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/05/90

FROM: STEPHEN P. WOOD -- ACTING CHIEF COUNSEL NHTSA

TO: RAYMOND D. STRAKOSCH PRESIDENT SAFETY PREMIUMS

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 04/25/90 WITH COMPANY BROCHURE ON AUTOMOBILE TRIANGLE DEVICE, FROM RAYMOND D. STRAKOSCH -- SAFETY PREMIUMS TO JOHN MESSERA -- NHTSA

TEXT: Thank you for your letter to John Messera, of our Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, seeking an interpretation of Standard No. 125, Warning Devices (49 CFR @ 571.125). You indicated that you have for many years produced and sold a "Signal Glo Car Door Mirror Clip On," which you described as a "dangling safety tag which attaches to the car mirror to alert passersby of emergency needs." These warning devices are made of a reflective plastic material designed with a clip attachment, and come in eight di fferent shapes, including a triangular configuration. These products are slightly more than four inches high.

You also stated that, pursuant to a request from a customer, your company has developed a larger size warning triangle for mounting on a car mirror. You have provided a prototype of this new larger size "Lite at Nite" Reflective Auto Triangle, that is a pproximately 6" at the base and 5 1/2" in height. You stated that, as your warning triangle gets larger, you "wish to make sure it is not confused with the roadside truck version described in Standard No. 125." Additionally, you stated that you wanted t o be certain that the instructions for this larger size warning triangle "in no way conflict with the standard." I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our law and regulations to you.

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.; the Safety Act) gives this agency the authority to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. This agency has exercised thi s authority to establish Standard No. 125. Section S3 of Standard 125 states that the standard "applies to devices, without self-contained energy sources, that are designed to be carried in motor vehicles, and used to warn approaching traffic of the pre sence of a stopped vehicle, except for devices designed to be permanently affixed to the vehicle." (Emphasis added.)

2

This language in S3 of Standard No. 125 makes clear that the standard's requirements are not limited to devices used by large trucks; that is, Standard No. 125 does not apply only to a "roadside truck version" of a warning device. Instead, the standard a pplies to all devices designed to be carried in any motor vehicle, from the smallest motorcycle to the largest truck, if the device satisfies the other conditions set forth in S3 of the standard.

One of the conditions set forth in S3 is that the device must be designed to be used to "warn approaching traffic of a stopped vehicle." Devices that are not intended to warn approaching traffic of a stopped vehicle, but only to alert passing traffic of the stopped vehicle's need for assistance, are not subject to Standard No. 125. Examples of such devices include a rag tied on a radio antenna and a "HELP" message printed on a folding cardboard sunshade. By the time approaching traffic sees one of the se non-warning devices, the traffic would already be aware that the vehicle displaying such a device was stopped.

Your "Signal Glo Car Door Mirror Clip On" product appears to be designed and to function in the same way other non-warning devices do; i.e., it does not appear to be intended to warn approaching traffic of a stopped vehicle, but to alert passing traffic that the stopped vehicle needs assistance. If this is the case, the "Signal Glo Car Door Mirror Clip On" would not be subject to Standard No. 125.

However, the larger "Lite at Nite" Reflective Auto Triangle may be designed to be used to "warn approaching traffic of a stopped vehicle." It appears from the promotional material enclosed in your letter that this larger triangle is intended to serve the same purpose as what you call "truck warning triangles." We assume that you are describing warning devices that are certified as complying with Standard No. 125. If your larger triangle is to serve this function, it would be subject to Standard No. 125 and would have to conform to all the requirements of the standard. From the enclosed copy of Standard No. 125, you will see that some of the specific requirements with which the larger triangle must conform include minimum size, durability, material, c ontainer, labeling, configuration, color, reflectivity, luminance, and stability.

When the agency has issued an applicable safety standard, section 108(a)(1)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(1)(A)) provides that no person shall "manufacture for sale, sell, offer for sale, or introduce or deliver for introduction in interstate c ommerce, or import into the United States" any new motor vehicle or new item of motor vehicle equipment unless the vehicles or equipment are in conformity with the applicable standard. Further, the Safety Act provides that NHTSA has no authority to appr ove, certify, or otherwise endorse any commercial product. Instead, section 114 of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1403) establishes a self-certification process under which every manufacturer is required to certify that each of its products meet all applicab le Federal safety standards. To comply with any applicable legal obligations, especially in connection with the manufacturer of the larger size warning triangle, I suggest that you carefully examine the requirements of Standard 125 and consider the desi gn, marketing, and intended use of the new larger warning triangle.

3

You should also be aware that the Safety Act establishes a civil penalty of $ 1,000 for each violation of a safety standard and a maximum penalty of $ 800,000 for a series of violations. In addition, the Act requires manufacturers to notify purchasers a nd remedy any items of motor vehicle equipment, such as warning devices, that do not conform with any applicable safety standards.

I have also enclosed an information sheet for new manufacturers of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment, that briefly summarizes our laws and regulations and explains how to get copies of those laws and regulations. If you have any further questio ns or need additional information on this subject, please feel free to contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

ENCLOSURES

ID: nht89-1.62

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/03/89

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL NHTSA

TO: LES SCHREINER -- FRESIA ENGINEERING INC.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 02/01/89 FROM LES SCHREINER TO NHTSA, OCC 3193

TEXT: Dear Mr. Schreiner:

This responds to your letter asking whether some vehicles you plan to import into the United States are subject to the Federal motor vehicle safety standards set forth in 49 CFR Part 571. These vehicles consist of snow removal vehicles and aircraft towi ng vehicles. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our statute and regulations to you.

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.; the Safety Act) authorizes this agency to issue safety standards for new "motor vehicles" and new items of "motor vehicle equipment." Accordingly, Fresia's vehicles are subject to the safety standards only if those vehicles are "motor vehicles" within the meaning of the Safety Act. Section 102(3) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1391(3)) defines a "motor vehicle" as

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

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

On the other hand, vehicles that use the public roads 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 treated it as a motor vehicle. Further, if a vehicle is readily usable on the public roads and is in fact used on the public

2

roads by a substantial number of owners, NHTSA has treated the vehicle as a motor vehicle. This finding was made with respect to dune buggies, notwithstanding the manufacturers' statement that the vehicles were not intended to be used on the public road s.

NHTSA has also stated that in many prior interpretation that even vehicles that will regularly be used on the public road will not be considered "motor vehicles" for the purpose of the Safety Act, if the vehicles have a maximum attainable speed of 20 mil es per hour (mph) or less and have an abnormal configuration that readily distinguishes them from other vehicles on the road.

Applying these principles to the vehicles shown in the brochures enclosed with our letter yields the following tentative conclusions.

1. The vehicles identified as "aircraft towing tractors" would not appear to be motor vehicles, assuming that these vehicles are designed and sold solely for use off the public roads.

2. The vehicles identified as "snow removal equipment" appear to fall into two categories.

a. One of the categories consists of the models identified as the "F10 NF" and the "Vomero TO-TB-TA-TR," "Fresa Laterale," and "Fresa Integrale HP 200-170" models. These vehicles would not appear to be motor vehicles, because their maximum speed app ears to be 20 mph or less and they have a configuration that readily distinguishes them from other vehicles on the road.

b. The second category consists of all the other vehicles identified as "snow removal equipment." All the vehicles in this category look like conventional trucks with either snowplow blades or snowblowers attached to the front of the truck and appear capable of speeds greater than 20 mph. We have consistently stated that trucks with snow blowers or snowplow blades on the front end are motor vehicles, and are subject to all of our safety standards applicable to trucks. For your information, I have enclosed an April 7, 1983 letter to Mr. Takeo Shimizu on this subject.

I have identified our conclusions as tentative for several reasons. The Safety Act places the responsibility for classifying any particular vehicle in the first instance on the vehicle manufacturer. Accordingly, NHTSA does not approve or endorse any ve hicle classifications before the manufacturer itself has classified the vehicle. HNTSA may reexamine the manufacturer's classifications in the course of any enforcement actions. The agency does, however, tentatively state how it believes vehicles shoul d be classified for the purpose of the safety standards.

Additionally, the tentative opinions expressed in this letter are based on the literature enclosed with your letter. We may change the tentative opinions expressed in this letter if we have occasion to examine the vehicles themselves or otherwise acquir e additional information about the vehicles.

Since you are considering importing some vehicles that would appear to be "motor vehicles" into the United States, I have enclosed some additional

3

materials for your information. One is an information sheet for new manufacturers of motor vehicles, which highlights the relevant statutes and regulations that apply to such manufacturers and explains how the manufacturer can get copies of the relevant statues and regulations. The other item is a booklet entitled "Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards and Procedures." This booklet summarizes the basic requirements of our safety standards and shows which standards apply to trucks.

Your letter also indicated that your company would be interested in any "approval procedure or testing process NHTSA would administer" to get your company's vehicles on a qualified products list. NHTSA has no authority to approve or endorse any motor ve hicles or motor vehicle equipment. Instead, the Safety Act establishes a "self-certification" process under which each manufacturer is itself responsible for certifying that each of its products complies with all applicable safety standards. NHTSA peri odically tests vehicles and items of equipment to ensure their compliance with the safety standards, and also investigates other alleged defects related to motor vehicle safety.

I hope this information is helpful. Please let me know if you need any additional information.

Sincerely,

ENCLOSURES

ID: nht87-3.28

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 11/18/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Paul Autery -- President, Auto Accessories, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Paul Autery President Auto Accessories, Inc. P.O. Box 10044 New Iberia, LA 70561

This responds to your letter to Mr. John Messera, of our Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, concerning the installation of your company's armrest in certain Volvo models. Specifically, you propose to have dealers remove the part of the front seat belt assembly that contains the buckle for the belt, straighten a metal guide that ensures that the buckle portion of the seat belt assembly will remain accessible to passengers, and discard a spacer washer that is provided with the seat belt assembly. The sp acer washer would be replaced by the armrest mounting bracket, which you stated is the same thickness as the spacer washer it would replace. You asked us whether this procedure would be permissible under the law and our regulations. As explained below, a ny dealers that follow your proposed installation procedures might violate Federal law.

Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection (49 CFR S571.208) sets forth minimum requirements for occupant protection. Additionally, section S7.2 sets forth an accessibility requirement for safety belt latch mechanisms that reads as follows:

S7.2 Latch mechanism. A seat belt assembly installed in a passenger car, except an automatic belt assembly, shall have a latch mechanism (a) Whose components are accessible to a seated occupant in both the stowed and operational positions; ...

Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, as amended (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)) provides that: "No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or in part , any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle ... in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard ..." This statutory prohibition might be violated by any dealer that followed your proposed installation proce dures for your armrest.

For example, it may be that Volvo installed the metal guide on its front seat safety belts for the purpose of complying with section S7.2 of Standard No. 208. If this were the case, any dealer that straightened that metal guide, in accordance with your i nstallation instructions, might render inoperative a device (that metal guide) that was installed in the vehicle in compliance with Standard No. 208. In this situation, whether the dealer actually renders inoperative the metal guides by straightening the m depends on whether the buckle portion of the seat belt assembly no longer complies with section S7.2 (which requires the buckle to be accessible to the front seat occupant) after the installation.

Section 109 of the Safety Act specifies a civil penalty of up to $1000 for each violation of section 108(a)12)(A), up to a maximum of $800,000 for a related series of violations. We would consider each installation of your armrest by a dealer that render s inoperative the vehicle's compliance with Standard No. 208 to be a separate violation. Accordingly, a dealer might be liable for a civil penalty of $1000 multiplied by the number of vehicles in which the dealer had installed armrests in accordance with your instructions.

Please do not misconstrue this letter as suggesting that this agency either approves or disapproves the proposed installation instructions for your armrests. The Safety Act does not give NHTSA any authority to approve or endorse any products. Instead, th e Safety Act places the initial responsibility for determining whether your proposed installation instructions violate a legal or regulatory requirement on your company. The agency may reexamine your initial determination in the context of an enforcement action.

To comply with your legal obligations, I suggest that you carefully reexamine the proposed installation instructions and compare those instructions with the requirements of Standard No. 208, to determine if installing your armrests in accordance with you r installation instructions would result in the vehicle no longer complying with Standard No. 208. If it would do so, you will have to devise some other means of installing your armrests, so that dealers would not be instructed to render inoperative the vehicle's compliance with Standard No. 208. If your proposed installation instructions do not result in a rendering inoperative of the vehicle's compliance with Standard No. 208, dealers can follow those instructions without violating any provisions of t he law.

Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

ATTN: JOHN MESSERA REG: CENTER ARMREST INSTALLATION ON VOLVO 240 SEDAN.

I WOULD LIKE AN INTERPRETATION AND/OR ADVISE ON THE MODIFICATION OF THE SEAT BELT LATCH ASSEMBLY WHICH IS NECESSARY TO INSTALL OUR ARMREST. OUR A/R IS A AFTERMARKET ACCESSORY WHICH HAS BEEN ON THE MARKET FOR 6 YEARS NOW. THE A/R WAS DESIGNED TO INSTALL I NTO PRE-EXISTING HOLES ON THE TUNNEL OF THE CAR. AT THE TIME OF DESIGN AND UP UNTIL THIS YEAR THE HOLES WERE LEFT BLANK ON THE AMERICAN MODELS BUT USED IN SOME EUROPEAN COUNTRY'S. THE VOLVO CAR CORP. OF SWEDEN HAS A VARIETY OF DIFFERENT SEAT BELT LATCHES AVAILABLE. STARTING IN MID 87 VOLVO AMERICA SWITCHED SAME DESIGN USED IN EUROPE WHICH INSTALLS INTO THE HOLES OUR ARMREST WAS DESIGNED TO GO IN.

OUR ARMREST CAN STILL BE INSTALLED INTO THE HOLES IF YOU REMOVE A LARGE WASHER FROM THE SEAT BELT ASSEMBLY AND REPLACE THE WASHER WITH OUR ARMREST MOUNTING BRACKET, WHICH IS THE SAME THICKNESS .

THE LARGE WASHER THAT WOULD BE REMOVED IS A SPACER THAT IS USED TO SHOULDER UP THE BOLT TO THE FLOOR OF THE TUNNEL WHICH IS BELOW THE SAME THICKNESS OF CARPET.

THE ACTUAL SEAT BELT LATCH PIVOTS ON THE BOLT WHICH HOLDS IT IN PLACE. SO AS YOU WILL BE ABLE TO SEE FROM SAMPLES I'VE SENT AND FROM THE ILLUSTRATIONS, THAT EXCHANGING THE WASHER, FOR THE A/R MOUNTING BRACKET, WHICH IS THE SAME THICKNESS, WON'T AFFECT TH E PERFORMANCE OF THE SEAT BELT LATCH.

I'VE ENCLOSED THE PROPOSED INSTALLATION INSTRUCTIONS FOR YOU TO REVIEW. THE PROCEDURE WILL BE DONE BY QUALIFIED MECHANICS AT THE INDIVIDUAL DEALERSHIPS AROUND THE COUNTRY.

WE DO A LOT OF BUSINESS WITH SEVERAL VOLVO DEALERS IN YOUR AREA, AND COULD EASILY ARRANGE FOR A DEMO OF THE INSTALLATION IF THIS WOULD BE OF ANY ASSISTANCE.

WE 15 EMPLOYEES AT AUTO ACCESSORIES WILL BE EAGERLY AWAITING YOUR INTERPRETATION AND/OR ADVISE.

SINCERELY YOURS PAUL AUTERY PRESIDENT AUTO ACCESSORIES, INC.