ID: 1889y

Mr. Sadato Kadoya
Manager, Safety Engineering
Mazda (North America), Inc.
Research & Development Center
1203 Woodbridge Avenue
Ann Arbor, MI 48105

Dear Mr. Kadoya:

This is to provide you with a clarification of our letter to you dated November 3, l988, based upon your telephone conversation with Taylor Vinson of this Office.

Our letter advised you that Standard No. l08 did not preclude the use of replaceable bulb headlamps with adjustable reflectors. In reply, you have cited two provisions of the standard which appear in conflict with this interpretation. With respect to a headlamp equipped with one or two HBl light sources, S4.1.1.36(e)(l) states that "There shall be no mechanism that allows adjustment of an individual [HBl] or adjustment of reflector aim with two [HBls]." To similar effect with respect to HB3 and HB4 light sources is S4.1.1.36(f)(l). Standard No. l08 has been amended effective June 8, l989, and the corresponding requirements are now S7.5(d)(l) and (e)(l). Each has been revised to state "There shall be no mechanism that allows adjustment of an individual light source, or, if there are two light sources, independent adjustment of each reflector."

We believe that the revised wording of the new sections clearly allow the adjustment of single reflectors in single light source replaceable bulb headlamps, and dual reflectors in dual-light source replaceable bulb headlamps, provided that the reflectors are not capable of independent adjustment. Further, new S7.7.2.2 specifically addresses how moveable reflectors must operate.

The intent of these sections is to prohibit headlamp designs in which the bulb alone is adjusted to aim the headlamp since this is contrary to mechanical aim requirements, or, where there is more than one reflector in a headlamp, designs in which each reflector may be adjusted independently, since this is also contrary to achieving precise mechanical aim.

Thank you for bringing this matter to our attention.

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel

/ ref:l08 d:7/l0/89

ID: 2071y

Mr. Sadato Kadoya
Manager, Safety Engineering
Mazda (North America), Inc.
Research & Development Center
1203 Woodbridge Avenue
Ann Arbor, MI 48105

Dear Mr. Kadoya:

This is to provide you with a clarification of our letter to you dated November 3, l988, based upon your telephone conversation with Taylor Vinson of this Office.

Our letter advised you that Standard No. l08 did not preclude the use of replaceable bulb headlamps with adjustable reflectors. In reply, you have cited two provisions of the standard which appear in conflict with this interpretation. With respect to a headlamp equipped with one or two HBl light sources, S4.1.1.36(e)(l) states that "There shall be no mechanism that allows adjustment of an individual [HBl] or adjustment of reflector aim with two [HBls]." To similar effect with respect to HB3 and HB4 light sources is S4.1.1.36(f)(l). Standard No. l08 has been amended effective June 8, l989, and the corresponding requirements are now S7.5(d)(l) and (e)(l). Each has been revised to state "There shall be no mechanism that allows adjustment of an individual light source, or, if there are two light sources, independent adjustment of each reflector."

We believe that the revised wording of the new sections clearly allow the adjustment of single reflectors in single light source replaceable bulb headlamps, and dual reflectors in dual-light source replaceable bulb headlamps, provided that the reflectors are not capable of independent adjustment. Further, new S7.7.2.2 specifically addresses how moveable reflectors must operate.

The intent of these sections is to prohibit headlamp designs in which the bulb alone is adjusted to aim the headlamp since this is contrary to mechanical aim requirements, or, where there is more than one reflector in a headlamp, designs in which each reflector may be adjusted independently, since this is also contrary to achieving precise mechanical aim.

Thank you for bringing this matter to our attention.

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel

/ ref:l08 d:7/l0/89

ID: 2072y

Mr. Sadato Kadoya
Manager, Safety Engineering
Mazda (North America), Inc.
Research & Development Center
1203 Woodbridge Avenue
Ann Arbor, MI 48105

Dear Mr. Kadoya:

This is to provide you with a clarification of our letter to you dated November 3, l988, based upon your telephone conversation with Taylor Vinson of this Office.

Our letter advised you that Standard No. l08 did not preclude the use of replaceable bulb headlamps with adjustable reflectors. In reply, you have cited two provisions of the standard which appear in conflict with this interpretation. With respect to a headlamp equipped with one or two HBl light sources, S4.1.1.36(e)(l) states that "There shall be no mechanism that allows adjustment of an individual [HBl] or adjustment of reflector aim with two [HBls]." To similar effect with respect to HB3 and HB4 light sources is S4.1.1.36(f)(l). Standard No. l08 has been amended effective June 8, l989, and the corresponding requirements are now S7.5(d)(l) and (e)(l). Each has been revised to state "There shall be no mechanism that allows adjustment of an individual light source, or, if there are two light sources, independent adjustment of each reflector."

We believe that the revised wording of the new sections clearly allow the adjustment of single reflectors in single light source replaceable bulb headlamps, and dual reflectors in dual-light source replaceable bulb headlamps, provided that the reflectors are not capable of independent adjustment. Further, new S7.7.2.2 specifically addresses how moveable reflectors must operate.

The intent of these sections is to prohibit headlamp designs in which the bulb alone is adjusted to aim the headlamp since this is contrary to mechanical aim requirements, or, where there is more than one reflector in a headlamp, designs in which each reflector may be adjusted independently, since this is also contrary to achieving precise mechanical aim.

Thank you for bringing this matter to our attention.

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel

/ ref:l08 d:7/l0/89

ID: nht89-2.33

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/12/89

FROM: GEORGE A. VAN STRATEN -- VAN STRATEN HEATED TAIL LIGHT CO

TO: STEPHEN P. WOOD -- ACTIVE CHIEF COUNSEL U.S. DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 08/11/89 FROM STEPHEN P. WOOD -- NHTSA TO GEORGE A. VANSTRATEN; REDBOOK A34; STANDARD 108; LETTER DATED 05/16/89 FROM STEPHEN P. WOOD -- NHTSA TO THOMAS C. GRAVENGOOD -- AGAPE PLASTICS

TEXT: Dear Mr. Wood:

I am writing to you in regard to the product which I have invented and received patents on, called the "Heated Tail Light". I developed this product to keep the tail lights on vehicles snow and ice free in the winter months, so signals are clearly visib le. Recently my wife Jill spoke over the telephone with Mr. Benson from your department, who said you could help with my problem and I should send this information to your attention.

We have been working with our State Representatives office in Lansing, Michigan and through them a company by the name of Agap'e Plastics, Inc. from Grand Rapids, Michigan had heard of my product. A gentleman by the name of Tom Gravengood from Agap'e ap proached me about buying my company. He said that he wanted to help me out with sending my product into your department, as he already had the right connections and it would surely speed things up. Now, with my sending Mr. Gravengood the sample "Heated Tail Lights" and customer letters we had received, along with other information, we were under the understanding that this was to be handled under my company name. Also, I was to receive copies of any correspondence from your office. After quite some time, Mr. Gravengood finally told me over the telephone that he did receive a letter from you and he was reading parts of the letter to me. I could tell that the letter was to him and not to my company. After repeatedly trying to receive a copy of the letter, it was finally sent to me, however, not by Mr. Gravengood, but by our State Representatives office. It was sometime in the middle of June when I received it. I have enclosed a copy of the letter for you.

What I would greatly appreciate is, if you would send me a copy of any incoming correspondence from Mr. Gravengood and also, a letter in duplicate to the one sent to Mr. Gravengood dated May 16, 1989, but addressed to myself and my company. With receivi ng interest at the O.E.M. level, customers do indeed want to see some proof that I have gone through your office. With this, I can show them that I have done so.

I have enclosed some information on the "Heated Tail Light" to familiarize you with the product again. If you have any questions about anything, please feel free to give me a call at either (906) 353-7131 or (906) 353-6490. Thank you very much.

Sincerely,

ID: nht71-4.8

DATE: 09/01/71

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; E. T. Driver; NHTSA

TO: Latham; Pickard and Ennis

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of July 30, 1971, inquiring whether your client, American Jenbach Corporation, is required to comply with the Tire Identification and Recordkeeping regulations (49 CFR Part 574). In your letter you state that American Jenbach is engaged in the distribution of portable air compressors and pneumatic tools, the former being purchased in Europe and delivered to the plant in Burlington where tires are added to the wheels and other modifications are made. You state further that American Jenbach also reconditions compressors, and may replace tires as part of this process.

The Tire Identification and Recordkeeping regulations apply to manufacturers, brand name owners, retreaders, distributors, and dealers of new and retreaded tires for use on motor vehicles manufactured after 1948, and to manufacturers and dealers or motor vehicles manufactured after that date (49 CFR @ 574.4). Whether the regulations apply to American Jenbach depends on (1) whether the portable air compressors are motor vehicles under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq., hereinafter the Act) and (2) whether American Jenbach is a manufacturer, brand name owner, retreader, distributor, or dealer of new or retreaded tires, or a manufacturer or dealer of motor vehicles.

Section 102 of the Act (15 U.S.C. 1391) defines motor vehicle to mean "any 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." Without additional information, such as pictures of the vehicles in question, we cannot give you a precise determination as to whether they are motor vehicles under the Act. However, the agency has determined

that portable compressors of the type that are mounted on tires for purposes of being towed on public highways are motor vehicles under the Act, and has classified them as trailers under the motor vehicle safety standards and regulations issued pursuant to the Act. As such, they are subject to the Tire Identification and Recordkeeping regulations.

Based upon your letter, it appears that American Jenbach Corporation is an importer of new portable compressors (trailers) and must meet the Tire Identification and Recordkeeping requirements applicable to motor vehicle manufacturers (section 574.10). In addition, under the Act American Jenbach may also be a distributor or dealer of these trailers and, if so, must also comply with the Tire Identification and Recordkeeping requirements applicable to dealers (section 574.9). Finally, American Jenbach would appear to be a tire dealer as to those tires that it replaces on reconditioned compressors and would be required to comply with the requirements applicable to tire dealers (section 574.7) with respect to those tires.

If the vehicles in question are motor vehicles, American Jenbach is required to comply with certain requirements in addition to the Tire Identification and Recordkeeping regulations. Trailers must conform to the requirements of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, which deals with lighting requirements, and must be certified as conforming to all applicable standards in accordance with section 114 of the Act, and the Certification regulations. As of October 1, 1971, American Jenbach must also comply with the Defect Reports regulations (49 CFR Part-573). Copies of these requirements and a copy of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act are enclosed for your guidance.

If you have additional questions, please write to us.

Enclosures

ID: nht75-3.32

DATE: 05/22/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; James B. Gregory; NHTSA

TO: Aslan Truck Service

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Thank you for your letter of April 15, 1975, explaining your reasons for not purchasing bulk agricultural commodity trailers that conform to the requirements of Standard No. 121, Air brake systems. You said that you expect that the new systems will be disabled or destroyed by rough usage in the fields, and that you intend to manufacture trailers that do not conform to the standard.

We have no reason to believe that the new axle systems will be more susceptible to field hazards than are present systems. Most antilock systems are designed so that the outboard sensor is enclosed in the hub and the wiring harness is routed inside the axle to the antilock module. There are antilock systems that incorporate the antilock module and air valve in the same location as the relay valve found on pre-121 vehicles. We therefore expect little change in the susceptibility of these vehicles to field hazards.

You stated that you intend to manufacture air-braked trailers for your own use which do not comply with Standard No. 121. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1391, et seq.) prohibits the manufacture of non-complying vehicles after the effective date of an applicable standard as follows:

@ 1397 (a) (1) No person shall --

(A) manufacture for sale, sell, offer for sale, or introduce or deliver for introduction in interstate commerce, or import into the United States, any motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment manufactured on or after the date any applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard takes effect under this subchapter unless it is in conformity with such standard except as provided in subsection (b) of this section; . . .

From your description, your plans to build vehicles which would subsequently be introduced in interstate commerce (i.e., driven on the public highway) would appear to be in violation of this section. Civil penalties of up to $ 1,000 per violation can be assessed under @ 1398 of the Act.

I am interested in hearing from you on your experience with Standard No. 121 if you choose to purchase any complying vehicles. In any case, I would like to assure you that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is in the process of monitoring the standard's economic impact. The NHTSA will attempt to identify any modifications that would lower the standard's cost while achieving comparable levels of safety.

SINCERELY,

April 15, 1975

James B. Gregory, Administrator U.S. Dept. of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Received your letter of March 31, 1975, in regards to the Standard No. 121, Air brake System.

I understand very well your reasons for denying my request for exempting agriculture trailers from the new brake law No. 121. It is impossible for us to comply with the new regulations. We see nothing but trouble with them in the fields, after we have dropped them to the roadside of the ranches where the farmer is harvesting. He will drag them through the field with his own farm tractor, which has no air. He will pull them over weeds, tomato vines, grain fields and many other types of field harvesting in plowed ground. Our feeling is that it will create nothing but trouble with the brakes locking and not working.

I have two hundred and fifty bulk agriculture trailers in the field during harvest season, and I do not have the time and the extra help to keep these trailers in working order if the brakes lock up. With our present trailers we do not have any trouble of any sort and that is the way we are going to continue to operate.

We had an order, for the 1975 season, 100 more new trailers to be able to meet the volume of the additional acreages that are being planted this year. Unfortunatly, we had to cancel our order and are buying as many of 1973-74 trailers that we can find and what we cannot find we will build ourselves.

You said that the major concern is that these trailers could be used in the winter months. It is impossible for us to use these bulk trailers for anything other than bulk harvesting. There are no floors, no stake pockets and the fiberglass bulk tanks cannot haul anything else but raw food products, which are grown and harvested during the May, June, July, August, September, October, and November months.

In regard to the petition filed by Utility Trailer Co., our opinion is that all of the Anti-Skid Standard No. 121 brake law should be excluded from the 1975 harvest season so the manufactures can have one year to try it in various localities to see if it will work satisfactory. Otherwise, I do not believe any of the truckers, including myself, will be interested in buying any trailers that are not guaranteed to be trouble free.

Our company, which happens to be one of the largest bulk haulers in California, will not buy or use any trailers with the new 1975 Standard No. 121 brake system. Up until the time it can be proven to me that it will be absolutaly trouble free, we do not dare to take the chance. I sure do not want to invest an extra one hundred and fifty thousand dollars to find out; our costs are high enough now.

A. L. Aslan

ASIAN TRUCK SERVICE

ID: nht73-4.35

DATE: 06/28/73

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Crown Coach Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of June 1, 1973, concerning Standard No. 217, "Bus Window Retention and Release." You raise two questions regarding the standard: the first concerns the incompatibility of the standard with buses designed to transport convicts or other persons under physical restraint; the second, the possibility that the standard may preclude the use of a push-button release mechanism for emergency exits which you apparently presently use in many buses you manufacture.

We have received other communications regarding the incompatibility of Standard No. 217 with buses designed to transport convicts and are presently considering requests that these buses be exempted from the standard.

With respect to the use of push-button emergency exit release mechanisms, Standard No. 217 does not specify the design of emergency exit release mechanisms but, rather, specifies requirements which these release mechanisms, regardless of design, are required to meet. These requirements essentially specify the magnitude and direction of release forces necessary to operate the emergency exit release mechanism. If these requirements do preclude the use of a push-button release mechanism you wish to use, the appropriate procedure for you to follow is to petition for rulemaking to amend the standard, in accordance with NHTSA regulations (49 CFR @@ 553.31 et seq., copy enclosed). We recommend that you include detailed information on the type of release you wish to use as part of any such petition.

ENC.

Crown COACH CORPORATION

June 1, 1973

U. S. Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Admin.

Attention Office of Legal Counsel

We at Crown Coach Corporation are currently in the process of bidding on several bus units for GSA for the Atomic Energy Commission. We also are in the process of working on future bids for Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department, and the California State Department of Corrections. Some of these vehicles must have maximum security as they transport people who are dangerous criminals and we are of the belief that an exemption should be granted on Motor Vehicle Standard #217. If we are forced to comply with this Standard, we may as well not install any security measures on the vehicles because with the least effort all the prisoners would push out the side windows and escape.

We have been building maximum security vehicles for approximately 18 to 20 years, and last year we delivered our first two units to the U. S. Government.

We currently have two maximum security vehicles approximately four to five weeks away from completion for the U. S. Bureau of Prisons.

Our question would be can we consider these maximum security vehicles as exceptions, as they are not being used as a passenger bus in the true sense of the word in that they are not transporting people for hire. It is my understand from communications that we have had with GSA, at our request, several weeks ago that this question was put before you people in regard to the above questions.

A further question. There are several manufacturers of buses, including Crown, who use bus sash that are not push-out type sash. This type is not mentioned in #217. We currently are producing buses with this type sash for the Federal Government, and for sightseeing purposes and charter use for use within the United States, including Alaska and the Hawaiian Islands. We are using large fixed by-pass sash where we exceed the number of square inches escape opening as set forth in Standard #217, Section S5.2 "Provision of Emergency Exits".

2

Our by-pass sash have an emergency button that is operated to obtain the required increased emergency exit opening at each window. We have three different sizes of sash, depending on the customer's requirements, all of which exceed your requirements in S5.2 for emergency exits opening without the kickout feature.

We would like to request your opinion on the above questions and if we are not clear we would be more than pleased to answer any questions you have and send photographs or drawings showing the type of product that we are talking about, and the individual items upon request.

We will be looking forward to an early reply to the above as this affects a current bid for a considerable number of buses for the U. S. Government, and can also mean further savings to the U. S. Government on maximum security vehicles and other types.

Kay Partman Vice President-Engineering

ID: 22405.drn

William D. Cowan, CEO
Eflare Corporation
3731 West Warner Avenue
Santa Ana, CA 92704





Dear Mr. Cowan:

This responds to your request for an interpretation on whether your battery-operated LED-based warning device, the "Eflare 2000," must meet Standard No. 125, Warning devices, or any other National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) requirement. As explained below, because the Eflare 2000 has a self-contained energy source, Standard No. 125 does not apply to this product. However, since your product is "motor vehicle equipment," your company, Eflare Corporation, is subject to NHTSA's requirements as the manufacturer of the equipment.

You write that you expect the "Eflare 2000" to be carried in all types of vehicles, and that "[t]hey will be used to warn approaching traffic when vehicles are disabled and stopped in or by the side of the road." Your website at www.eflarecorp.com provides the following information. The "Eflare 2000" was designed to meet "professional" demands for a device to replace pyrotechnic road flares and supplement road safety reflective triangles. To deploy the device, one has to insert batteries, turn the device on, and set it on the side of the road. The website describes the "Eflare 2000" as a "highly visible flashing light," with the following features:

• visibility up to one mile (2 kilometers) in darkness, with 360 radial visibility
• effective in fog and smoke
• available in red, blue, amber and white
• fluoro-colored base is easy to see in daylight
• does not impair night vision

NHTSA is authorized to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. Unlike the practice in many countries, NHTSA does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Instead, manufacturers are required to certify that their vehicles and equipment meet applicable standards.

Effective October 31, 1994, NHTSA amended Standard No. l25 so that the standard applies only to warning devices that are designed to be carried in buses and trucks that have a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) greater than 10,000 pounds. (See 59 FR 49586; September 29, 1994, copy enclosed.) Moreover, Standard No. 125 specifically applies to "devices, without self- contained energy sources." (See S1. Scope.) Since the Eflare 2000 is battery-powered, it has a "self-contained energy source." Therefore, Standard No. 125 does not apply to the Eflare 2000.

Please note, however, that even if not covered by Standard No. 125, we have determined that the Eflare 2000 is "motor vehicle equipment," and is subject to various provisions of 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301, "Motor Vehicle Safety." "Motor vehicle equipment" is defined at 49 U.S.C. Section 30102(a)(7) as:

(A) any system, part, or component of a motor vehicle as originally manufactured;

(B) any similar part or component manufactured or sold for replacement or improvement of a system, part, or component, or as an accessory or addition to a motor vehicle; or

(C) any device or an article or apparel (except medicine or eyeglasses prescribed by a licensed practitioner) that is not a system, part, or component of a motor vehicle and is manufactured, sold, delivered, offered, or intended to be used only to safeguard motor vehicles and highway users against risk of accident, injury or death.

In determining whether an item of equipment is considered an "accessory ... to the motor vehicle," NHTSA analyzes two criteria. The first criterion is whether a substantial portion of the expected uses of a product are related to the operation or maintenance of motor vehicles. NHTSA determines expected uses by considering product advertising, product labeling, and the type of store that retails the product, as well as available information about the actual use of the product. The second criterion is whether the product is purchased or otherwise acquired, and principally used, by ordinary users of motor vehicles (e.g., items normally used by professional vehicle repair and maintenance personnel would not qualify).

Applying these two criteria to the Eflare 2000, NHTSA concludes that although the device may have non-motor vehicle-related applications, a substantial portion of the expected use of the Eflare 2000 is related to motor vehicles. Your website shows that the Eflare 2000 is marketed for use primarily in conjunction with motor vehicles, to be deployed on the side of the road in the event a vehicle is disabled. Further, you are marketing the product to ordinary motor vehicle owners and drivers for their purchase. For these reasons, we conclude that your product is an item of motor vehicle equipment.

Manufacturers of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment must ensure that their products are free of safety-related defects. If you or NHTSA should determine that your product contains a safety-related defect, you would be responsible for notifying purchasers of the defective equipment and remedying the problem free of charge. (This responsibility would be borne by the vehicle manufacturer in cases in which the Eflare 2000 devices are installed on a new vehicle by or with the express authorization of that vehicle manufacturer.)

You should also note that the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), another agency of the U.S. Department of Transportation, has jurisdiction over interstate motor carriers operating in the United States. FMCSA was established on January 1, 2000, and was formerly a part of the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). You should contact the FMCSA for an opinion as to whether that agency's requirements apply to your product. You may contact:

John McGowan, Director
Office of Bus and Truck Standards and Operations
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
400 Seventh Street, SW, Room 3107
Washington, DC 20590
Telephone: (202) 366-4012

In addition, the states regulate the use of vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. Some states may regulate the warning devices that operators of vehicles may or must use when a vehicle is stopped. Each state in which you sell your product can provide information on whether there are any requirements in that state for warning devices to be used with motor vehicles.

Lastly, we have the following comments clarifying several of your statements. You write that "in explaining the regulatory situation to our U.S. customers," you wish to state the following about the Eflare 2000:

1. Have been designed to ensure that they do not conflict with the standards and regulations of the U.S. Department of Transportation.

2. May be used in the U.S. as warning devices for vehicles with gross vehicle weight ratings under 10,000 pounds, when the vehicle is disabled or stopped.

3. May be used in the U.S. as supplementary warning devices for trucks and buses over gross vehicle weight ratings of 10,000 pounds, provided they are used with triangles, fusees, or liquid-burning flares as required in DOT Safety Standard No. 125.

We are concerned that these statements and others in your literature give the impression that the product meets NHTSA standards. As previously explained, even though the Eflare 2000 falls within our statutory definition of "motor vehicle equipment," none of the FMVSSs apply to it. In your marketing efforts, you must avoid implying that your product is subject to or meets Standard No. 125 or any other Federal motor vehicle safety standard (FMVSS) or NHTSA regulation. Further, you must avoid any impression that NHTSA has approved your product.

Regarding the second and third statements, as noted above, simply because Standard No. 125 does not apply to your product does not mean that the product "[m]ay be used in the U.S. as a warning device." We urge you to check with the FMCSA and review the laws of the various states to determine whether use of your product would be permitted.

I hope this information is helpful. 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.

Sincerely,

Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel

Enclosure
ref:125#VSA102(4)
d.1/12/01

ID: babcock1.ztv

Mr. Robert Babcock
Manager, Corporate Affairs
Hyundai America Technical Center, Inc.
5075 Venture Drive
Ann Arbor, MI 48108

Dear Mr. Babcock:

This is in reply to your letter of July 1, 2003, relating to my response of May 2, 2003 to a question you asked regarding possible preemption of a California statute relating to the distance between the front turn signal lamp and fog lamps (California Title 13, Section 691) by Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 108.

In brief, fog lamps are not required items of lighting equipment under FMVSS No. 108. Thus, if California were to preclude fog lamps, FMVSS No. 108 would not preempt such an action. Similarly, California can address the spacing between fog lamps and turn signal lamps. However, California could not regulate fog lamps in a manner that would be inconsistent with the functioning of front turn signal lamps, which we do regulate. Based on available information, we concluded that FMVSS No. 108 did not preempt the California statute.

You have expressed concern that your inquiry did not provide the full scope and context of your questions, and requested a further interpretation. You also requested our confirmation that "the California requirements would be preempted should that state fail to waive the inconsistent portions of its requirements in favor of FMVSS 108." We have been provided a copy of a letter sent to you on July 11, 2003, by the Department of California Highway Patrol (CHP) in reply to your letter to it of July 1, 2003 "regarding the spacing required between turn signal lamps and other forward-facing lighting devices." The CHP concluded that "the spacing requirements contained in 13 CCR for turn signal lamps in relation to fog lamps and passing lamps are, therefore, not identical to those contained in FMVSS 108." The CHP then cited California Vehicle Code (VC) Section 26103(b) which states, in effect, that the provisions of FMVSS No. 108 covering the same aspect of performance shall prevail over those that California has adopted. Then, the CHP concluded that "Any device complying with the FMVSS, with respect to any aspect of performance prescribed by the FMVSS, but in conflict with the VC or 13 CCR, is lawful in this state."

As a result of its conclusion, the CHP informed you that "turn signal lamps may be mounted closer to fog lamps and driving lamps than specified in 13 CCR, provided they comply with all requirements contained in FMVSS No. 108," and that it "accepts the manufacturers certification regarding compliance with the FMVSS . . . ."

CHPs letter indicates to us that it has acceded to Hyundais request for a favorable interpretation of California law relating to the spacing between fog lamps and turn signal lamps. In a telephone conversation with Taylor Vinson of this Office on August 8, 2003, you confirmed that you interpret CHPs letter as resolving any issue you may have had with the State relating to the spacing between fog lamps and turn signal lamps. Therefore, we regard your request of July 1 for a further interpretation as mooted by CHPs letter of July 11.

Different fact situations may arise in the future in which you would like us to provide an opinion on the relationship between California law and FMVSS No. 108 as it affects Hyundai, and we would be willing to consider them at that time.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:108
d.8/12/03

ID: 20178.ztv

ECIE
Via Comune Antico, 43
20125 Milano
Italy
Attn: Mara Migliazza

Dear Ms. Migliazza:

We are replying to your emails of June 18, 1999, to Kenneth Weinstein of this agency, and of July 8, 1999, to Taylor Vinson of this Office. We apologize for the delay in responding to you.

In your first email, you have told us that your company manufactures lighting equipment for motorcycles and that you "have the certificate of compliance and test report of our device with tests according to your FMVSS 108." You have asked whether the certificate of compliance is "always acceptable for you or have we to remake all the test to obtain another certificate after some year?" You reference a headlamp that meets the 1992 version of Standard No. 108 and is molded with a "92DOT" symbol, which is supported by "the test report and the certificate of compliance of 1992."

First, a clarification. We believe that you are using the term "certificate of compliance" to mean the statement by a test laboratory that the lighting device that it has tested meets the specifications of Standard No. 108, as indicated by the accompanying test report. However, under our laws, a "certificate of compliance" is the indication by a manufacturer that its lighting product meets Standard No. 108, such as the DOT symbol on a headlamp lens.

Each item of motorcycle lighting equipment covered by Standard No. 108 must comply with the standard, and be certified by its manufacturer as conforming to the standard. A test report based on proper testing can verify that the particular lamp tested conforms to Standard No. 108, and can afford a reasonable basis for the manufacturer to certify compliance, by concluding that identical lamps, if tested, would also conform to Standard No. 108. However, human and mechanical errors in production (such as failure to account for variations in tolerances) can result in the production of non-complying products. Therefore, we believe that a manufacturer of lighting equipment should test its product pursuant to a quality control program after the lighting item is produced to assure itself that the product as manufactured conforms to Standard No. 108.

In your email of July 8, 1999, you ask if we can write "what is the US right procedure for lighting device certification." We are pleased to provide you with this information. The lens of each headlamp (other than a motorcycle headlamp) must be certified by marking it with the DOT symbol (S7.2(a) of Standard No. 108), whether the headlamp is original or replacement equipment. Other items of replacement lighting equipment, including motorcycle headlamps, may be certified either by marking with the DOT symbol (S5.8.10), or "by a label or tag on the equipment or on the outside of the container in which the equipment is delivered" (49 U.S.C. 30115). Other than headlamps, no certification is required for lighting items installed on a motor vehicle as original equipment; the manufacturer of the vehicle attaches a label to the vehicle certifying that it complies with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards, and this includes certification to the requirements of Standard No. 108. Of course, the vehicle manufacturer should obtain test reports and other quality-related assurances from the lighting equipment manufacturer that the equipment complies before it affixes its vehicle certification label.

There is no need to "register" a certificate of compliance with NHTSA or any other entity. However, a manufacturer located outside the United States is required to designate an agent in the United States who can receive official correspondence (49 CFR 551.45). Further, all manufacturers of equipment covered by Standard No. 108 are required to file an identification statement with us (49 CFR 566).

I hope that this answers your questions.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
ref:108
d.10/28/99