ID: Xiao.1

Mr. Xiaoda Xiao
President & CEO
ZX, Invention
135 Belchertown Road
Amherst, MA 01002




Dear Mr. Xiao:

This responds to your letter seeking an evaluation of your product (the Vector Blind Spot Mirror enclosed with your letter), in order to determine whether the mirror, when properly installed, blocks the front windshield or shakes during driving. Because, we do not conduct certification testing or offer product endorsements, we are unable to provide such an evaluation. The following discussion briefly explains how our Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) operate and how they may pertain to your product.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized to issue FMVSSs that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Instead, it is the responsibility of manufacturers to certify that their products conform to all applicable safety standards (see 49 CFR Part 571) before they can be offered for sale. NHTSA enforces compliance with the standards by purchasing and testing vehicles and equipment, and we also investigate safety-related defects.

As you are probably aware, FMVSS No. 111, Rearview Mirrors, sets forth requirements for mirrors on new passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, buses, school buses, and motorcycles in order to provide a clear and reasonably unobstructed view to the rear (49 CFR 571.111). New vehicles must be certified as complying with the requirements of FMVSS No. 111, as well as all other applicable standards.

However, the packaging and descriptions of your product suggest that it would not be installed on the vehicle as original equipment, but instead, it would be sold as aftermarket equipment. Accordingly, we believe that your product would be a supplemental mirror that is not covered by FMVSS No. 111, so you would not have any corresponding certification responsibilities under our standards.

With that said, there are certain limitations on aftermarket installation of motor vehicle equipment. For example, a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or vehicle repair business may not knowingly "make inoperative" any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle in accordance with any FMVSS. 49 U.S.C. 30122. Although the "make inoperative" provision does not apply to equipment attached to or installed on or in a vehicle by the vehicle owner, NHTSA urges vehicle owners not to degrade the safety of any system or device in their vehicles.

Beyond compliance with relevant federal safety standards, manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment have additional responsibilities, including a requirement to notify purchasers about safety-related defects and to provide a remedy free of charge, even if their equipment is not covered by a safety standard. 49 U.S.C. 30118-30120.

In addition, States have the authority to regulate the use and licensing of vehicles operating within their jurisdictions. Therefore, you may wish to check with the Department of Motor Vehicles in any State in which the equipment will be sold or used regarding any such requirements.

For your further information, I am enclosing a fact sheet we prepared titled Information for New Manufacturers of Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Equipment. I hope you find this information useful. We are also returning to you the sample mirror provided with your letter. If you have further questions, please feel free to contact Eric Stas at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

Enclosures
ref:111
d.4/14/05

ID: 1985-04.24

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 11/15/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Jean Paul Turgeon

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Jean Paul Turgeon Security and Legality Manager Prevost Car Incorporated Ste-Claire, Quebec, Canada GOR 2VO

Dear Mr. Turgeon:

This responds to your August 12, 1985 letter to Administrator Steed regarding Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 217 Bus Window Retention and Release. Your letter has been referred to my office for reply. We apologize for the delay in our response.

Your questions concerned paragraph S5.3.2, Which applies to buses other than school buses. You asked whether the requirements of paragraph S5.5.2 may be met by: (1) release mechanisms located within the area defined by Figure 1 of the standard that are operated by a rotary or straight type of motion; and by (2) release mechanisms located within the area defined by Figure 2 operated by a straight type of motion.

Your understanding is correct. Rotary type motions may be used for release mechanisms located in regions of low force application as shown in Figures 1 or 3 of the standard. Straight motions may be used for release mechanisms located in regions of low force application shown in Figures 1 and 3, and in regions of high force application shown in Figures 2 and 3.

Your second question asked whether the force application for a release mechanism operated by a rotary motion is limited by S5.5.2 to 20 pounds. The answer is yes. Release mechanisms may be operated by a rotary type of motion in locations shown in Figure 1 or Figure 3 for low-force application. The magnitude of the force application must not be more than 20 pounds.

The second part of your question stated, "In case of straight motion, the force application is limited to 60 pounds." This statement is not entirely correct. If the release mechanism is located in the low-force application areas shown in Figures 1 or 3, S5.3.2 specifies that the force applications must not exceed 20 pounds.

Your third question concerned the type of motions that are required to operate the release mechanisms. The first part of this question asked whether a rotary motion "implies a rotation of the hand and twisting of the arm as for turning a door knob." Standard No. 217 does not restrict you from using the particular type of rotary motion you described, provided that all other requirements of the standard can be met.

The second part of this question asked whether a straight motion means "a straight pull perpendicular to the emergency exit surface." Paragraph S5.3.2(b) describes the direction of a straight high-force application as "perpendicular to the undisturbed exit surface." Your understanding, therefore, appears to be in accordance with S5.3.2.

The final part of this question asked whether "a pull reasonably perpendicular, i.e., at 70 degrees instead of 90 degrees, would be acceptable " The answer to your question depends on whether one or two force applications are necessary to release the emergency exit. If only one force application is necessary, the direction of the application must meet the 90 to 180 degree directional requirement of S5.3.2. No variation from the requirements of the standard is permissible. However, paragraph S5.3.2 permits the use of two force applications for a single opening. Only one of the two force applications is required to differ by 90 to 180 degrees from the direction of the initial push-out motion of the emergency exit.

Your final question asked whether a particular type of push out window in your buses would comply with FMVSS No. 217. As you know, this agency does not pass approval on the compliance of any motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment with a safety standard before the actual events that underlie certification. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, each manufacturer is required to determine whether its products comply with all applicable safety standards and regulations, and to certify its products in accordance with that determination. Therefore, the following only represents the agency's opinion based on the information provided in your letter.

You asked whether a push out window with a mechanism that can be released by a pull not exceeding 60 pounds in a direction opposite to the direction of the opening would meet the requirements of S5.3.2. The answer to your question depends on the location of the release mechanism. If it is located in the regions shown in Figures 1 or 3 for mechanisms released by low-force applications, the magnitude of the force application must not exceed 20 pounds. Release mechanisms located in regions of high force application must be capable of operation by force applications not more than 60 pounds. Of course, the other requirements in FMVSS No. 217 pertaining to emergency exits and release mechanisms must also be met.

I hope this information is helpful. Please contact this office if you have further questions.

Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

August 12, 1985

U. S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADM. 2100 Second Street S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590 U.S.A.

Attention: Mrs. Diane K. Steed Acting Administrator

Dear Mrs. Steed:

We are looking for your comments on our interpretation of F.V.M.S.S. 217 on bus window retention and release in connection with a new design to be released in 1986 or 1987.

Our interpretation of S5.3.2 is as follows:

1. Choice of occupant's action for release:

The manufacturer has a choice of two (2) types of force application: a) Either rotary motion (or straight) for location fig. 1. b) or straight motion for location fig. 2.

2. Force of application:

- For a rotary motion, the force application is to be limited to 20 lb. - In case of straight motion, the force application is limited to 60 lb.

3. Type of motions:

A rotary motion implies a rotation of the hand and twisting of the arm as for turning a door knob.

- A straight motion means a straight pull perpendicular to the emergency exit surface.

A pull reasonably perpendicular, i.e. at 70o instead of 90o would be acceptable.

In brief, one could say that a bus push out window with a lock that can be released by a pull not exceeding 60 lb. in a direction opposite to the direction of the opening would meet the requirements of S5. 3.2 of standard F.M.V.S.S. 217.

We do realize that you do not as a rule give approval but we trust that you can comment on our interpretation. Yours very truly, JEAN PAUL TURGEON Security and Legality Manager

ID: nht91-5.46

DATE: September 12, 1991

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Y. Endo -- Meiji Rubber & Chemical Co., Ltd.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 6-26-91 from Y. Endo to Office of Chief Counsel, NHTSA (OCC 6187)

TEXT:

This responds to your June 26, 1991 letter (your reference ME-0172) asking about S5.3.4 (tensile strength requirement) of Standard 106, Brake Hoses. I am pleased to be of assistance.

Before answering your specific question, I would like to provide some background on our agency. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) administers Federal regulations for the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles and certain new items of motor vehicle equipment (including brake hoses) sold in or imported into this country. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act establishes a "self-certification" process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS's). This process requires each manufacturer to determine in the exercise of due care that its products meet all applicable requirements. NHTSA tests vehicles and equipment sold to consumers for compliance with the FMVSS's and investigates defects relating to motor vehicle safety. If a manufacturer or NHTSA determines that a noncompliance or safety-related defect exists, the manufacturer must notify purchasers of its product and remedy the problem free of charge. (Note that this responsibility is borne by the vehicle manufacturer in cases in which your hoses are installed on a new vehicle.) Any manufacturer which fails to provide notification of or remedy for a noncompliance or defect may be subject to a civil penalty of up to $1,000 per violation.

You ask about S5.3.4 as applied to certain multi-section hydraulic hose assemblies. Each of these multi-section assemblies includes either two or three sections of hose, which are connected end-to-end. The sections of hose are connected to each other by an intermediate metal fitting. It is not clear from your letter whether the intermediate metal fitting is a single fitting or two fittings which are joined together. As discussed below, however, this would not affect the answer to your question with regard to tensile testing.

S5.3.4 states: "A hydraulic brake hose assembly shall withstand a pull of 325 pounds without separation of the hose from its end fittings." You state in your letter that there is a difference of opinion in your company as to this requirement. You believe that the requirement applies separately to each part of the multi-section assembly. Stated differently, you believe that the tensile test should be conducted for each section of hose with fittings at the ends. In contrast, others are of the opinion that the tensile test is conducted on the complete

combination assembly. Those persons believe that only the ends of the complete multi-section assembly, and not those of individual parts, need be fixed to the tensile test machine.

We agree with your view that each of the fitting-to-hose connections should meet the tensile strength requirement. The purpose of the tensile strength requirement is to ensure that a brake hose does not separate from its end fittings while in service. Under S5.3.4, all hydraulic brake hose assemblies must meet the tensile requirement. S4 of the standard defines "brake hose assembly" as: "a brake hose, with or without armor, equipped with end fittings for use in a brake system...." Each portion of the multi-section assembly which consists of a section of hose with fittings is considered a separate brake hose assembly under that definition. This is true regardless of whether the intermediate fitting is a single fitting or two fittings joined together. (In the former case, the single fitting would be considered an end fitting for each of two sections.) Thus, each such portion of the multi-section assembly must meet the tensile strength requirements. Requiring each individual portion to meet the requirements guards against assembly failures due to the separation of the hose from any of the fittings.

However, technically speaking, the test may be conducted by applying the load to either the complete assembly or to each of the intermediate hose and fitting assemblies. Both of the test methods would provide equivalent results. Under either test, the requisite tensile load would be applied to each of the fitting-to-hose junctures.

ID: 86-4.42

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/14/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Ralph Hitchcock for Barry Felrice; NHTSA

TO: Harry H. Kazakian -- President, Corleone International Traders, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Harry H. Kazakian President Corleone International Traders, Inc. P.O. Box 3417 Los Angeles, Calif. 90028

This is in reply to your letter of April 29, 1986 to which was attached a "Magic Eyes Brake Light". This device consists of two small lamps. whose primary functions are to flash automatically upon catching light within safety range and when the car's brake is in use" The purpose of the device is to reduce rear end collisions. The artwork the package shows the lamps mounted at the base of the rear window on either side of the vehicle's vertical centerline. You asked that your letter be treated as a petition for rulemaking to require the device as original equipment, or for the aftermarket.

I regret that we have decided to deny your petition that the device be required as original equipment. The agency's research has shown that the most effective device for reducing rear end collisions is the single center high-mounted stop lamp, and the agency now requires that device to be installed as original equipment on passenger cars. You have presented no facts that demonstrate that an amendment of the nature you have requested is necessary. Although the agency has specified no requirements for aftermarket supplementary stop lamps (other than those that replace original equipment), on the basis of the agency's research, we believe that aftermarket equipment should meet as closely as possible the specifications for original equipment. Therefore, we are also denying your petition for aftermarket equipment.

We would like to advise you that there are no Federal restrictions on the importation and sale of "Magic Eyes". However, any State may impose its own restrictions on the use of this lamp on roads within its borders, and you should consult these laws before selling the device.

As a final note, the copy for model JA 201 on the package states "To comply with latest United States' regulations, this single lamp lights on automatically upon catching light within safety range and when the car's brake is in use". Please delete the reference to United States regulations on your packages. The single lamp required by the United States is steady burning and has but one function, to indicate application of the brake pedal. It cannot be combined with any other light or device. In comparison, your lamp has two functions, and appears to flash in each.

As an accessory item of motor vehicle equipment, your lamp is subject to the notification and remedy provisions of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. This means that if a safety related defect occurs in the lamp, the manufacturer or importer is obligated to inform dealers, distributors and purchasers to repair, repurchase, or replace the item. We are returning your device with this letter.

Sincerely,

Barry Felrice Associate Administrator for Rulemaking

Enclosure

APRIL 29, 1986

OUR REF. COR/030886 BANKERS: CALIFORNIA OVERSEAS BANK

INTERPRETATION CHIEF COUNCIL NATIONAL TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION Rm. # 5219 # 400, 7th St. South West Washington D.C. 20590

ATT: Erika Z Johns

Dear Erika,

In response to our conversation with Mr. Bob Nikelson in Department of Traffic Safety after a long conversation over the phone about the "Magic Eyes Brake Lights" we were advised to get your attention with this safety device,which could reduce a large quantity of rear endings, help saving lives in U. S. highways an street roads and at the mean time be helpfull financially. Therefore we would certainly appreciate to get your precious time and attention, if you would, to explain about this safety device after a small brief about our business.

Corleone International Traders Inc. is known as well established incorporation in U. S. A. with many satisfied customers. We have relations all over the world, we specialize medical items, auto accessories, foodstuff and many novelties. We also represent variety of manufacturers overseas on exclusive basis.

We would like to take this opportunity to introduce you one of our new sophisticated low coast brake light system which was invented and made with few of our engineers to reduce tail gating and rearending in U.S. highways. This magnificent system is "The Third Brake Light" of the car which has a built in sensor device. This system flashes automatically upon catching light within safety range and when the car's brake is in use.

Our main goal is to see less rear endings in U.S. highways. Therefore we would like to have this sophisticated light activated sensors to be included in every auto's brake system is being built in U.S.A.

We sincerely would like to ask to have this "Safety Device" to be treated as a petition for rule making to require this device or permited originally or after market "Vehicle Safety Standard Cod- -108."

For your research and study we are including a sample of this device on the back of the carton explains product No."JA 101 WARNING LIGHTS" and "JA 105 MAGIC EYE SENSOR".

Dear Chief Council, we are taking this opportunities very seriously and depending on your full research and your answer.

At the mean time we are at your disposal for any information you may need or any questions you may ask. We are sincerely thanking you for your time and your attention at this matter and hoping to hear from you soon about your opinion, until than we remain

HARRY H. KAZAKIAN PRESIDENT

HHK/mb/lb

ID: HoganHartson

ID: nht88-1.83

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/01/88

FROM: MICHAEL M. FINKELSTEIN -- ASSOCIATE ADMINISTRATOR FOR RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT

TO: CARL KAPLAN -- EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT M. S. GOLDKLANG & COMPANY, INC.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 03/07/88, FROM ERIKA Z. JONES -- EPA TO ASSOCIATE ADMINISTRATOR FOR RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT, RE ACCEPTABILITY OF ADVANCED BRAKE LIGHT DEVICE AS AN AFTERMARKET UNIT; LETTER DATED 11/30/81, FROM FRANK BERNDT, TO KENNETH G. MOYER; LE TTER DATED 05/02/84, FROM FRANK BERNDT TO LAWRENCE F. HENNEBERGER

TEXT: Dear Mr. Kaplan:

We enjoyed our meeting with you, Mr. Shapira and Mr. Eckstein, and the demonstration of the Advanced Brake Light Device (ABLD).

The ABLD appears to have some potential for reducing the incidence of rear-end crashes, and it appears that you are addressing the problem of false indications of braking action with some success. As noted during the discussions, the choice of the pedal release speed threshold for early activation of the braking signal does present an interesting problem in setting the trade between reducing false alarms and maximizing the number of early indications of braking. Too, there is the question of how much incremental benefit is obtainable beyond that provided by the current stoplamp system including the Center High Mounted Stoplamp.

We would be interested in seeing data which may bear on the question of the effectiveness of the ABLD. The testing you have commissioned the UMTRI staff to perform appears to be a step toward the goal of obtaining such data. If the results of the work at UMTRI staff to perform appears to be a step toward the goal of obtaining such data. If the results of the work at UMTRI confirm your representations the next step would be a serious fleet study.

There is always the possibility of NHTSA funding of a project to test a concept such as you propose, however, our research budget is now particularly constrained because of recent cuts in funding levels, and the process of developing a particular project as part of an agency accepted plan of research can be lengthy. Data obtained through privately funded research performed by competent, recognized, objective investigators is accepted for review in the evaluation of a concept by the agency.

The required magnitude of a fleet study to demonstrate the effectiveness of a concept such as the ABLD depends upon several

factors which include, for example, the pretest crash rate of the fleet to be used in the study, the amount of change or difference which is to be detected, the desired degree of assurance that an observed change or difference is not a chance event and t he desired degree of assurance that a real difference would be detected in the study. As an example, you suggest that the use of the ABLD would reduce annual rear-end crashes in the U.S. from approximately 2.6 million to 1.1 million. Assuming your data to be for the year 1984, and a figure of 1,716,768 million vehicle miles of travel for that year, this is a reduction of approximately 58% from a calculated crash rate of 1.55 to .65 crashes per million miles. If it is desired to be fairly sure that an y difference observed in the study would occur by chance only 5% of the time and that a real difference would be detected 95% of the time, a sample of 41.35 crashes is required for each of the experimental and control groups of cars. Consequently, at 1. 55 crashes per million vehicle miles, a sample of 26.73 million vehicle miles would be required. Assuming that the vehicles travel 10,000 miles per year, 2673 vehicles equipped with the ABLD, and a similar number of control vehicles without the device, would be required for a 1 year study.

If any of the values chosen for the computations are changed, of course, the result may be radically different. In this context I would like to note that it appears that your estimate of the effectiveness of the ABLD may be overly optimistic and the bas eline crash rate too high. You should note that 5400 vehicles, half with and half without CHMSL, were included in the second fleet test of the CHMSL. This number was selected on the basis of estimates of crash rate and effectiveness lower than those yo u presented. To demonstrate the effect of changes in such assumptions, the required sample size was recalculated with the assumption that the ABLD would reduce crashes by 20% rather than 58%. In addition, the stringency of the statistical criteria was r educed to allow the possibility that a difference would be observed in the study would occur by chance 20% of the time when there was no real difference and that a real difference would be detected 80% of the time. In this case 5897 vehicles equipped wi th the ABLD and the same number of control vehicles would be required for a one year study.

I am enclosing copies of several documents in response to your requests during our meetings at the NHTSA and with Pat McCann in Senator Lautenberg's office. The SAE paper will provide you with an overview of the technical history of the Center High Mount ed Stoplamp (CHMSL). The two technical reports of the fleet tests of the CHMSL will give you an idea of the sample size and exposure needed to establish the effectiveness of the device. In addition, I have enclosed copies of some pages from

a report which describe statistical considerations in defining the size of sample required in a defined project. The Regulatory Impact Analysis will give you some idea of the rational background prepared before taking regulatory action. Cost/benefi t analysis of a device to be used in addition to the current stoplamp system would be based on incremental effectiveness beyond that provided by the currently required system. The pages from the Code of Federal Regulations will give you the information about the petitioning process as well as current requirements for stoplamps.

During our meetings we briefly discussed the issue of the use of your device as an aftermarket system. We asked for an interpretation of the pertinent regulations by the Chief Counsel and a copy of her response is enclosed. As you can see from the memo randum, her opinion is that the device is illegal as either original or replacement equipment. You or any other individual or group, of course, can petition the agency to change the regulations to permit the use of the device. A more immediate problem for you, however, is that this opinion limits your options for the conduct of fleet tests to evaluate the ABLD.

One option is to equip a fleet to be operated outside the United States. In this case you would have to conform to any relevant regulations of the country in which you conducted the fleet test. A second option would be to identify a vehicle manufacture r interested in the use of the device, who could petition the agency for a temporary exemption from the regulations on the grounds that it would promote the development and field evaluation of an innovative safety device. Such an exemption would cover 2 500 vehicles a year. This approach would lengthen the probable time required to conduct a fleet test, but appears to be necessary if you desire to conduct a fleet test in this country.

I hope I have provided you with the information you need. If we can be of further help, please don't hesitate to call me or Dr. Bishop.

Sincerely,

ENCLOSURES

ID: nht89-2.68

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/11/89

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

TO: GEORGE A. VAN STRATEN -- PRESIDENT VAN STRATEN HEATED TAIL LIGHT CO. INC.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 07/12/89 FROM GEORGE A. VANSTRATEN -- VAN STRATEN HEATED TAIL LIGHT; OCC 3732; LETTER DATED 05/16/89 FROM STEPHEN P. WOOD -- NHTSA TO THOMAS C. GRAVENGOOD -- AGAPE PLASTICS

TEXT: Dear Mr. Van Straten:

This is in reply to your letter of July 12, 1989, to this Office, requesting a copy of any agency correspondence with Thomas Gravengood, well as an interpretation of Federal requirements as they apply to heated motor vehicle lamps produced by your compan y. Your company manufactures "heated lights" which are intended to melt snow that accumulates on them in the winter months. In Mr. Gravengood's letter of April 3, 1989, to us he stated:

"All lights, lenses, and materials to assemble the heated safety lights have already been certified and passed the Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. We have been advised by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration that there is no moto r vehicle safety standard no. for heated lights. In order for us to do business at the O.E.M. level we require a letter of approval from you to us that we may pass on to our customers so they may start ordering and we may start producing."

We have no authority to "approve" or "disapprove" items of motor vehicle equipment. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, an equipment manufacturer "approves" each of its own products that are subject to a Federal motor vehicle safety standard by certifying that it meets all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards, or (if it is a vehicle manufacturer), that the vehicle on which the lamp is installed, complies with the standards. However, we can advise you of the relationshi p of your product to Standard No. 108. This should prove helpful in dealings at the O.E.M. level.

There are two types of O.E.M. lighting equipment: lamps that are required by Standard No. 108, and supplementary lamps that do not come under its coverage. Although your product literature indicates that the highmounted heated taillamp supplements the or iginal equipment lamp, it is not clear whether the heated signal lamp serves as the required signal lamp or is a supplement to the original equipment. Accordingly, this

letter discusses how Standard No. 108 treats both original required and original supplemental lighting equipment.

If you are the manufacturer of original lighting equipment required by Standard No. 108, but not the manufacturer of the vehicle on which it is installed, the vehicle manufacturer, and not you, has the legal responsibility under the Act and Standard No. 108 of ensuring that the equipment complies with the standard, and of certifying that the vehicle meets all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. As a practical matter, however, vehicle manufacturers generally insist that equipment manufact urers provide assurance that their products meet Federal standards, but the "certification" they may insist upon is not required by the Act. You are correct that there is no standard that applies to heated lamps as such. The Federal standard that appli es is the one imposed by Standard No. 108 for the particular equipment item (taillamps or signal lamps in this instance).

If you are manufacturing a lamp as an original equipment supplement to required original lighting equipment, the burden remains on the vehicle manufacturer who installs it. The only restriction on a supplementary lamp that Standard No. 108 imposes is th at it not impair the effectiveness of the required lighting equipment (paragraph S5.1.3, formerly paragraph S4.1.3). Your lamps "splice into" the wiring for the taillamps and "marker lamps", according to your product literature. Therefore, it is incumb ent upon the vehicle manufacturer to ensure that this installation does not negatively affect the performance of the required taillamps and signal lamps, or otherwise impair its effectiveness. If the vehicle manufacturer determines that no impairment ex ists, then it may certify that its vehicles comply with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards.

Observing that the product literature depicts the heated taillamp installed in the upper corners of a school bus body, we must also call attention to an additional provision of Standard No. 108. The location depicted is one that is frequently used for t he clearance lamps required by Standard No. 108. Paragraph S5.4 of Standard No. 108 (formerly S4.4) forbids the optical combination of clearance lamps and taillamps. Thus, your lamp cannot optically combine these two functions if it is to be used as ne w vehicle equipment.

Other enclosures to your letter indicate that at present the heated lamp is being installed on buses in use, that is to say, as non-original equipment. The requirements imposed by Standard No. 108 and the Act for aftermarket manufacturers of lighting eq uipment differ from those for original equipment. If the lamp you produce is intended to replace an original equipment certified lamp, it is considered replacement equipment. As a manufacturer of a replacement taillamp or signal lamp, the legal obligati on to produce a complying equipment item falls squarely upon you, as does the certification responsibility. If the lamp is intended only to replace a supplemental lamp, you are not required to certify. However, there may be instances in which your lamp is interchangeable with original certified equipment, and even though you may not intend it as replaceable lighting equipment, you may encounter

questions from state and federal authorities if it is not manufactured and certified in accordance with Standard No. 108.

Finally, you should be aware of your responsibilities under the Act in the event that your products do not comply with Standard No. 108, or incorporate a safety related defect (an example would be the inability of the lens to withstand the heat produced during the lamp's operation without warping or cracking). If you or this agency determine that a noncompliance or safety related defect occurs in any item of replacement equipment that you manufacture, you have the obligation to notify purchasers, and t o remedy the problem through repair, repurchase, or replacement of the item. With respect to original equipment, this obligation falls upon the manufacturer of the vehicle on which it is installed.

If you have any further questions we shall be happy to answer them. As you requested, we are enclosing a copy of Mr. Gravengood's letter of April 3.

Sincerely,

ID: 1977y

Mr. George A. Van Straten
President
Van Straten Heated Tail Light Co. Inc.
Route l, Box 224
Baraga, MI 49908

Dear Mr. Van Straten:

This is in reply to your letter of July 12, l989, to this Office, requesting a copy of any agency correspondence with Thomas Gravengood, as well as an interpretation of Federal requirements as they apply to heated motor vehicle lamps produced by your company. Your company manufactures "heated lights" which are intended to melt snow that accumulates on them in the winter months. In Mr. Gravengood's letter of April 3, l989, to us he stated:

"All lights, lenses, and materials to assemble the heated safety lights have already been certified and passed the Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. l08. We have been advised by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration that there is no motor vehicle safety standard no. for heated lights. In order for us to do business at the O.E.M. level we require a letter of approval from you to us that we may pass on to our customers so they may start ordering and we may start producing."

We have no authority to "approve" or "disapprove" items of motor vehicle equipment. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, an equipment manufacturer "approves" each of its own products that are subject to a Federal motor vehicle safety standard by certifying that it meets all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards, or (if it is a vehicle manufacturer), that the vehicle on which the lamp is installed, complies with the standards. However, we can advise you of the relationship of your product to Standard No. l08. This should prove helpful in dealings at the O.E.M. level.

There are two types of O.E.M. lighting equipment: lamps that are required by Standard No. l08, and supplementary lamps that do not come under its coverage. Although your product literature indicates that the highmounted heated taillamp supplements the original equipment lamp, it is not clear whether the heated signal lamp serves as the required signal lamp or is a supplement to the original equipment. Accordingly, this letter discusses how Standard No. l08 treats both original required and original supplemental lighting equipment.

If you are the manufacturer of original lighting equipment required by Standard No. 108, but not the manufacturer of the vehicle on which it is installed, the vehicle manufacturer, and not you, has the legal responsibility under the Act and Standard No. l08 of ensuring that the equipment complies with the standard, and of certifying that the vehicle meets all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. As a practical matter, however, vehicle manufacturers generally insist that equipment manufacturers provide assurance that their products meet Federal standards, but the "certification" they may insist upon is not required by the Act. You are correct that there is no standard that applies to heated lamps as such. The Federal standard that applies is the one imposed by Standard No. l08 for the particular equipment item (taillamps or signal lamps in this instance).

If you are manufacturing a lamp as an original equipment supplement to required original lighting equipment, the burden remains on the vehicle manufacturer who installs it. The only restriction on a supplementary lamp that Standard No. l08 imposes is that it not impair the effectiveness of the required lighting equipment (paragraph S5.1.3, formerly paragraph S4.1.3). Your lamps "splice into" the wiring for the taillamps and "marker lamps", according to your product literature. Therefore, it is incumbent upon the vehicle manufacturer to ensure that this installation does not negatively affect the performance of the required taillamps and signal lamps, or otherwise impair its effectiveness. If the vehicle manufacturer determines that no impairment exists, then it may certify that its vehicles comply with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards.

Observing that the product literature depicts the heated taillamp installed in the upper corners of a school bus body, we must also call attention to an additional provision of Standard No. l08. The location depicted is one that is frequently used for the clearance lamps required by Standard No. l08. Paragraph S5.4 of Standard No. l08 (formerly S4.4) forbids the optical combination of clearance lamps and taillamps. Thus, your lamp cannot optically combine these two functions if it is to be used as new vehicle equipment.

Other enclosures to your letter indicate that at present the heated lamp is being installed on buses in use, that is to say, as non-original equipment. The requirements imposed by Standard No. l08 and the Act for aftermarket manufacturers of lighting equipment differ from those for original equipment. If the lamp you produce is intended to replace an original equipment certified lamp, it is considered replacement equipment. As a manufacturer of a replacement taillamp or signal lamp, the legal obligation to produce a complying equipment item falls squarely upon you, as does the certification responsibility. If the lamp is intended only to replace a supplemental lamp, you are not required to certify. However, there may be instances in which your lamp is interchangeable with original certified equipment, and even though you may not intend it as replaceable lighting equipment, you may encounter questions from state and federal authorities if it is not manufactured and certified in accordance with Standard No. 108.

Finally, you should be aware of your responsibilities under the Act in the event that your products do not comply with Standard No. l08, or incorporate a safety related defect (an example would be the inability of the lens to withstand the heat produced during the lamp's operation without warping or cracking). If you or this agency determine that a noncompliance or safety related defect occurs in any item of replacement equipment that you manufacture, you have the obligation to notify purchasers, and to remedy the problem through repair, repurchase, or replacement of the item. With respect to original equipment, this obligation falls upon the manufacturer of the vehicle on which it is installed.

If you have any further questions we shall be happy to answer them. As you requested, we are enclosing a copy of Mr. Gravengood's letter of April 3.

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel

/ref:108 d:8/ll/89

ID: GF008935

Ms. Dana Roeling
Executive Director
National Mobility Equipment Dealers Association
3327 W. Bearss Avenue
Tampa, FL 33618




Dear Ms. Roeling:

This is in response to your letter concerning legal responsibilities of vehicle modifiers (i.e., entities that modify motor vehicles after the first retail sale) with respect to the requirements of S4.3 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 110, Tire selection and rims for motor vehicles with a GVWR of 4,536 kilograms (10,000 pounds) or less. Specifically, you ask whether vehicle modifiers are obligated to replace the tire safety information placard required by S4.3, if the relevant information on the placard becomes inaccurate as a consequence of their actions. As explained below, the answer is no.

By way of background, S4.3 of FMVSS No. 110 requires that vehicles with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less contain a placard showing certain critical tire safety information, including but not limited to, the vehicle capacity weight, the recommended inflation pressure, and the tire size designation. This information enables consumers to ascertain the cargo carrying limitations of their vehicles, and to properly inflate their tires. It also enables consumers to purchase correct size replacement tires.

49 U.S.C. 30122 prohibits manufacturers, distributors, dealers, or motor vehicle repair businesses from "making inoperative, in whole or in part" any part of a device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle in compliance with an applicable safety standard.

In your letter, you ask whether it would be a violation of the 30122 make inoperative provision if modifiers changed the vehicles such that the information of the tire placard is no longer accurate, but do not update the tire placard.

In evaluating this question, we have focused on the language of S4.3 of FMVSS No. 110. One of the items of safety information required by that section is identified in paragraph (d), which reads as follows:

"Tire size designation, indicated by the headings "size" or "original tire size" or "original size," and "spare tire" or "spare," for the tires installed at the time of the first purchase for purposes other than resale. For full size spare tires, the statement "see above" may, at the manufacturer's option replace the tire size designation. If no spare tire is provided, the word "none" must replace the tire size designation;" [Emphasis added]

Thus, the requirement for one of the critical items of safety information to be provided on the tire placard is specifically expressed in terms of the "tires installed at the time of first purchase for purposes other than resale." We also note that there is a relationship between a number of the items required to be specified on the tire placard.

We observe that regardless of what changes a modifier may make to a vehicle, it does not change the size of the tires that were installed at the time of the first purchase for purposes other than resale (the information S4.3 of FMVSS 110 requires to be on the placard).Given this, and recognizing the relationship between a number of the items required to be specified on the tire placard, it is our opinion that it would not be a violation of the 30122 make inoperative provision, with respect to S4.3 of FMVSS 110, if modifiers change the vehicles tire size, cold inflation pressure, and/or cargo capacity rating but do not update the tire placard.

We note that while our regulations do not require changes to the tire safety information placard if the changes to the vehicle occur after it is first sold for purposes other than resale, the potential inconsistency between the information on the placard and the actual vehicle could in some cases be misleading and dangerous to vehicle operators. Specifically, relying on what has become inaccurate information, vehicle operators could over-inflate or under-inflate their tires, thereby creating a safety hazard. Also, vehicle operators could overload their vehicles, which also would create a safety hazard. Finally, vehicle operators could end up purchasing incorrect replacement tires (e.g., original tire size not appropriate for aftermarket rim), erroneously relying on the placard that is no longer accurate.

In light of these concerns and consistent with previous interpretation letters concerning post-sale modifications relating to a vehicles Gross Vehicle Weight Rating (May 24, 1993, letter to Mr. John Paul Barber, Esq., and April 2, 1997, letter to Mr. James Baker), we would urge a party which modifies a used vehicle so that the tire safety information is no longer accurate to either add a new label to the vehicle which indicates the correct tire safety information or add a warning label (preferably proximate to the placard) indicating that the tire safety information placard is no longer accurate.

In your letter, you ask several questions highlighting the potential difficulties faced by vehicle modifiers attempting to ascertain accurate tire safety information, especially in situations where a vehicle has already undergone changes after the first sale. For example, the vehicle being modified could have tires that are different in size and recommended inflation pressure from those originally installed on the vehicle, and thus the information on the tire safety placard is already wrong when the vehicle arrives for modifications. As discussed in the previous paragraph, we would encourage vehicle modifiers to either affix a correct label or affix a warning indicating that the tire safety information placard is no longer accurate. In situations when the accurate tire safety information is difficult to ascertain, we encourage the latter option of a warning label.

You also ask a question regarding S4.3.2 of FMVSS No. 110. That section applies to vehicles altered prior to first retail sale and specifically requires that a new tire information placard replace the original placard if the previously certified vehicle has been altered such that the information on the existing placard is no longer valid. We caution that this interpretation applies only to modifications occurring after the first retail sale and does not concern alterers.

Finally, we note that with respect to modifications of vehicles to accommodate individuals with disabilities, 49 CFR 595.7(e)(5) requires modifiers to provide the vehicle owner with a document that indicates a reduction in the load carrying capacity of more than 100 kg (220 lb) after the modifications are completed.

If you have further questions, you may contact Mr. George Feygin of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Wood
Acting Chief Counsel

ref:110
d.4/7/06

ID: nht93-6.35

DATE: September 9, 1993

FROM: Anonymous

TO: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 10/5/93 from John Womack to Anonymous (A41; Part 541)

TEXT:

This letter requests your confirmation that s proposed procedures for marking automotive parts would comply with the Federal Motor Vehicle Theft Prevention Standard, 49 CFR Part 541.

The procedures in question would result in the marking of certain characters on such components as engine blocks or transmission casings, through the casting of these components at the time of production. Embossed (raised) characters would result, as contrasted with characters that are engraved or stamped into components or marked through other processes. The embossed characters would meet all of the performance requirements of the standard for permanence and tamper resistance. The embossed characters would be the vehicle manufacturer's logo and the "DOT" symbol. The characters would appear on both original equipment and replacement parts, and would be located in the specified target area under 49 CFR 541.6(e). The VIN number would be stamped on a plate, which is then affixed to the original equipment parts (in the separate original equipment part target area specified under 49 CFR 541.5(e)). The symbol "R" would be stamped directly on the replacement parts (in the replacement part target area). The enclosed figure shows the target areas for original equipment and replacement parts. The markings, processes, and locations are summarized as follows:

O.E. PARTS

Character Process Location

VIN stamped/affixed 541.5(e) Logo embossed 541.6(e) "DOT" embossed 541.6(e)

REPLACEMENT PARTS

Character Process Location

"R" stamped 541.6(e) Logo embossed 541.6(e) "DOT" embossed 541.6(e)

The use of the logo and DOT symbol on the O.E. parts, which is not required under the standard, results from the use of the same castings for original equipment and replacement parts.

It is our understanding that the Theft Prevention Standard does not prohibit the use of the embossing process for marking parts. The Motor Vehicle Theft Law Enforcement Act of 1984, which required the establishment of the original theft prevention standard, provides that specified auto parts are to be identified by "inscribing or affixing" numbers or symbols. See 15 U.S.C. 2021(10). Although the Act does not define what is meant by "inscribing or affixing," the legislative history clearly provides vehicle manufacturers with broad discretion in selecting marking technologies. The House Report on the Act states as follows with regard to the standards:

As in the case of safety requirements, they are not to be design standards. The DOT will establish the tests or general criteria which the identification must meet, but not how it is to be inscribed or affixed. That is the choice of each manufacturer... In promulgating the standard, the Committee intends that the Secretary take into account the wide range of technologies available for numbering vehicles, and allow manufacturers to develop additional, better, or lower-cost technologies for compliance with the standard. The object of numbering motor vehicle parts is to make such parts traceable and recoverable.

Thus, the Committee expects, as already noted, that an important objective of devising the standard will be to ensure that the number is as permanent as possible and cannot be easily altered, tampered with or obliterated.

The method chosen to comply with the standard is at the discretion of each manufacturer, not the DOT.

See House Report 98-1087 (1984), pages 10 and 12.

NHTSA's rulemaking to adopt the standard reaffirmed the performance aspects of the standard. In the final rule adopting the standard and in the agency's response to petitions for reconsideration, NHTSA rejected comments suggesting that particular marking technologies should be specified in the standard. See 50 Fed. Reg. 43170 (October 24, 1985) and 51 Fed. Reg. 8834 (March 14, 1986).

It is also our understanding that the use of additional symbols (logo and "DOT") on original equipment parts (beyond the required VIN) is permissible. In a June 19, 1987, interpretation letter to Mr. Jim Moss of Auto Mark Corp., the NHTSA Chief Counsel authorized the use of an additional logo beyond the required markings under the theft prevention standard. That letter stated the following:

Using the same principles we have applied in the case of labeling requirements in our safety standard, manufacturers may label information in addition to that which is required by the theft prevention standard, provided that the additional information does not obscure or confuse the meaning of the required information or otherwise defeat its purpose.

The purpose of requiring the vehicle identification number to be inscribed on specified parts is to allow law enforcement officials to quickly and conclusively establish whether a vehicle or major part is stolen. We do not believe it is possible that law enforcement officials will be distracted from examining the markings inscribed on the parts by the presence of a stencil with your company name on it. Therefore, you are free to leave your company name on the stencil.

Under the proposed procedure, the required VIN number would be stamped on a plate and affixed to O.E. parts and the "R" symbol would be stamped on replacement parts. The presence of a manufacturer's logo and the DOT symbol on the original equipment parts should not confuse law enforcement officials, since the VIN and the "R" symbol would distinguish between original equipment and replacement parts. Nor should the presence of the additional logo and DOT symbol on O.E. parts defeat the purpose of the standard, by facilitating thefts.

For example, if a thief were to attempt to make an O.E. part that was produced under the proposed procedure appear to be a replacement part, the thief would have to take two steps, (remove the VIN and add the R marking); deletion and addition of marked information would also be required if other marking procedures were used. Each of the two steps would provide theft investigators with clues of tampering.

Thank you for your consideration of this matter. If you require additional information or have any questions on this matter, please contact of my staff, at (blank).