ID: 2893o

Mr. Frank Reynolds
F.E. Reynolds Associates
P.O. Box 703
Marysville, OH 43040

Dear Mr. Reynolds:

This is in response to your telephone conversation with Marvin Shaw of my staff, seeking a clarification of my June 16, 1988 letter concerning school bus mirrors under Highway Safety Program Guideline No. 17. Specifically, you asked about the meaning of the phrase, "area in front of the bus," as used in section S9.2(b) of Standard No. 111, Rearview Mirrors (49 CFR 571.111). In your telephone conversation, you stated that a NHTSA staff person told you in a previous telephone conversation that NHTSA had defined this phrase to mean "the area three feet in front of the bus." NHTSA has never so interpreted this phrase in Standard No. 111.

For your information, I am enclosing a June 20, 1980 letter to James Tydings that sets forth the agency's interpretation of S9.2(b) of Standard No. 111. This letter notes that the area of concern in S9.2(b) is the region in front of the bus where a driver is not able to see directly a school age child. As explained in the letter and an earlier notice (40 FR 33829, August 12, 1975), the purpose of a crossview mirror is to "address special problems of driver visibility associated with pupil transportation," and this type of mirror "allows the bus driver to see the area immediately in front of a stopped bus to be sure there are no children there before moving the bus." This letter then explains: "The agency used the word 'view' in its ordinary, dictionary sense to mean within the range of sight. Thus, most, but not literally all, of the front bumper must be visible to the driver by use of the crossview mirror to ensure that he or she can see children standing in front of the bus." This is still an accurate expression of the agency's interpretation of the purpose of a crossview mirror and this phrase.

In your telephone conversation, you also expressed concern about the "legal effect" of Standard No. 111. You should be aware of 108 (a)(1)(A) of the Safety Act which states that No person shall manufacturer 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 title unless it is in conformity with such standard except as provided in subsection (b) of this section.

I hope this information is useful. If you have any additional questions, or need further information on this subject, please feel free to contact Mr. Shaw at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Enclosure

ref:111 d:8/26/88

ID: nht71-4.39

DATE: 11/03/71

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; R. L. Carter; NHTSA

TO: Patton; Blow; Virrill; Brand & Boggs

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of October 12, 1971, in which you made several requests with respect to the Tire Identification and Record Keeping (49 CFR Part 574) and Certification (49 CFR Part 567) regulations.

1. You suggested that the Tire Identification and Record Keeping regulation be amended to provide that where tires are not shipped on or in a vehicle, the vehicle manufacturer's record keeping obligation be limited to three years from the date of sale. We will take this request into consideration, and let you know when a decision is made. It appears that since the minimum time would apply to all vehicle manufacturers, such a requirement should appear in a regulation other than Part 574.

2. You requested the deletion of the requirement that information on the certification label be placed "in the order shown." We have previously denied petitions relating to the order of information on the label (36 F.R. 19593), and this request is also denied. The requirement that the label information be placed in a definite order has been in effect for over two years, and has been found to enhance the readability and hence the usefulness of the label. Now that further numerical information is to be required on the label, we consider that it will be even more important that this requirement be maintained.

3. You requested "an interpretation that a multi-column label or a label in two parts each with an information column, will meet the requirements of [Part] 567," because of the space limitations on some trailers. As long as the information appears in the order specified in the regulation, the NHTSA has no objection to a multi-column label or a label in two parts.

4. Finally, you requested that a trailer manufacturer be allowed to use up his existing supply of labels, by affixing a supplementary label with the additional required information. As stated above, we have decided to adhere to the requirement that the information on the label be in the order specified, although it may be in more than one column or part. To the extent that the action requested would allow a manufacturer not to conform to that requirement, the request is denied. Although the deviation might appear small, it would seriously detract from the integrity and enforceability of the regulation to allow incidental nonconformity without amending the requirement. The other vehicle manufacturers have undoubtedly already incurred costs similar to those cited by your client, and it would be distinctly unfair not to enforce the regulation evenhandedly as to all parties.

ID: 21809.ztv

Mr. Charles I. Sassoon
Panor Corp.
125 Cabot Court
Hauppauge, NY 11788





Dear Mr. Sassoon:





This is in reply to your fax of June 14, 2000, to Michael Cole of our Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance.

You have had an inquiry from your customer, California Bus Sales, asking whether "they could utilize a LED beehive light classified 'side marker lamp' as a turn signal indicator." You have enclosed certificates from a test laboratory indicating that four different LED side marker lamps comply with both Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 (FMVSS No. 108) and Canadian Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. We assume that the certificate is intended to cover compliance only with the side marker lamp requirements of each of the two safety standards.

The meaning of the word "indicator" is unclear. If you mean to ask whether the side marker lamp may flash when a vehicle's principal turn signal lamp system is operating, our answer is yes. Paragraph S5.5.10(b) of FMVSS No. 108 specifically allows side marker lamps to be wired for signaling purposes.

However, it seems unlikely that the LED beehive light could be used as an original equipment turn signal lamp that meets the performance requirements of FMVSS No. 108. For one thing, a turn signal's brightness is approximately 50 times that of a side marker lamp. The certificates that the LED beehive lights meet the requirements for side marker lamps is insufficient to indicate compliance with turn signal lamp requirements. Even if tests should indicate that the LED beehive light meets all the performance requirements that apply to turn signal lamps, the lamp would have to be mounted in accordance with the location and visibility requirements of FMVSS No. 108.

If you have any questions, you may call Taylor Vinson of this Office (202-366-5263).





Sincerely,





Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel





ref:108
d.7/25/00

ID: nht75-5.4

DATE: 11/20/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank A. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Wisconsin Trailer Co. Inc.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: The Federal Highway Administration's Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety has forwarded to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) your September 17, 1975, petition to establish a ruling that trailers with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of 50 tons or less are required to establish load-carrying capacity at a speed of 50 mph. Heavier trailers would be required to display signs of their maximum rated speed if less than 50 mph.

The NHTSA has already issued a ruling in this area, a copy of which is enclosed for your information. It requires that the Gross Axle Weight Rating (GAWR) and GVWR on the vehicle certification plate be calculated on the basis of the vehicle's maximum attainable speed, or 60 mph, whichever is lower.

The NHTSA is also considering rulemaking to amend the definition of GAWR in conformity with this interpretation. Your letter will be considered as a comment on this rulemaking.

Sincerely,

Enclosure

September 17, 1975

Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety -- Department of Transportation;

Attention: Robert A. Kaye -- Director

Subject: Petition for Reconsideration of 49 CFR 393.75 Tires -- (Docket MC-56)

Dear Mr. Kaye:

We have been informed by Rogers Brothers Corporation, that the Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety ruling MC-56 will become effective on October 1, 1975.

We do not have a copy of this ruling, and I therefore cannot speak for it or against it. I can only assume from the information supplied to us, that this ruling will not allow trailers to have a rated capacity based on a speed of 20 miles per hour.

We at Wisconsin Trailer Company, have for many years, advocated a capacity rating on trailers based on a travel speed of 50 miles per hour. It is our opinion that the 50 mile per hour speed rating should apply to all trailers having a rated capacity of 50 tons or less. With the advent of powerful trucks and super highways, trucks and truck-trailer combinations are moving at a high rate of speed, and I feel that the laws have to be upgraded to these modern times.

We find many trailer manufacturers promoting and selling their products based on a 20 or 30 mile per hour travel speed. This practice, we feel, must be stopped, as it is an unsafe and highly dangerous practice. Most users of these trailers will travel at speeds up to 50 miles per hour, even though the trailer is only rated at a maximum speed of 30 miles per hour. Who is there to stop him from traveling 50 miles per hour with a trailer rated at 30 miles per hour? Since there isn't a law-enforcing agency actively enforcing the "misuse of products", it then must be up to the Federal government to properly rate the vehicle at a minimum speed of 50 miles per hour. There should not be a variable speed capacity rating on trailers up to 50 tons.

We strongly urge the Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety to establish a ruling in which all trailers, up to 50 tons, would have a rated capacity based on a minimum of 50 miles per hour.

It is my opinion that large capacity trailers should be allowed to have a rated capacity at a speed of 20 miles per hour. In these instances, it should be mandatory that a large sign, plainly visible from another moving vehicle, be placed on the sides and rear of the trailer, so that if there is a violation regarding the speed of the unit when fully loaded, it will be recognized by the proper authorities.

If we can be of any further assistance to you, please feel free to call upon us.

Yours very truly,

WISCONSIN TRAILER CO., INC. -- LeRoy E. Mueller, President

ID: nht90-1.91

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: MARCH 30, 1990

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

TO: SAMUEL KIMMELMAN -- ENGINEERING PRODUCT MANAGER, IDEAL CORPORATION

TITLE: N

ATTACHMT: Letter dated 1-12-90 to Stephen P. Wood from Samuel Kimmelman

TEXT:

This is in reply to your letter of January 12, 1990. ideal is a manufacturer of aftermarket variable load turn signal flashers, certified as complying with Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, for use as replacements for original equipment flashers.

You call our attention to a turn signal indicator system used in some vehicles over the past few years. The system consists of three indicators that flash sequentially when the turn signal is activated. If a turn signal lamp fails, the flasher changes to a higher flash rate so that the third indicator is not illuminated. This signifies to the driver that the turn signal lamp has failed. HoWever, due to differences in operating characteristics between ideal's flashers and original equipment flashers used in these systems, ideal cannot "guarantee our flashers will provide sufficient 'on' time to allow the dash board indicator arrows to reach the 3rd stage as the corresponding turn signal lamps flash within the requirements" of Standard No. 108. You ask whether Ideal can "list our variable load flashers as replacement flashers for vehicles having three (3) growth stage dash board turn signal arrows?"

If ideal cannot be sure that all its flashers will provide the performance for which the triple indicator system is designed, it would seem appropriate to state that these flashers should not be used in such systems. While use of ideal's flashers would n ot appear to affect the operation of the turn signal system itself, the warning feature of the indicator system might not be realized.

However, these remarks are outside the coverage of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. As a manufacturer of replacement equipment, Ideal is required only to certify that its turn signal flashers conform to the requirements of Standard NO. 108, which in this instance are those of SAE Standard J590b Automotive Turn signal Flashers, October 1965, incorporated by reference in standard No. 108. Compliance with these requirements is verified through laboratory testing. There is no requirement in Standard No. 108 that ideal ensure that its flashers are compatible with the design of any indicator system in which they may be used.

ID: 21652.ztv

Mr. Michael L. Wagner
563 Circle Drive
Fairmount, IN 46928-1963

Dear Mr. Wagner:

This is in reply to your fax of May 16, 2000, to Taylor Vinson of this Office. You had talked with him on the 15^th regarding modulating motorcycle headlamps, reporting that you are "frequently being pulled over by Indiana State Police telling me it is illegal." You also informed him that you had bought your modulating unit in the aftermarket, and that it was not original equipment on your motorcycle.

I am enclosing three of our interpretive letters setting forth legal opinions of this Office on modulating headlamps. They are addressed to Tracey Wagner of the American Motorcyclist Association (February 1, 1990), Walter Jakobowski of Signal Dynamics Corporation (September 11, 1997), and Henry Winokur (January 21, 1999).

In brief, S.7.9.4, Motorcycle headlamp modulation system, of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment, permits, but does not require, the installation of a modulating headlamp system as original lighting equipment on motorcycles, provided that the system meets the performance requirements of S7.9.4. Under S5.8, replacement lighting equipment (which includes a modulator sold in the aftermarket) must be designed to conform to the same requirements as original equipment, and to be certified by its manufacturer as complying with these requirements. Federal law (49 U.S.C. 30103(b)) specifies that, when a Federal motor vehicle safety standard is in effect, a state may not have a different standard covering the same aspect of performance as the Federal standard. This means that any state law covering modulating headlamp systems on motorcycles cannot prohibit such systems or prescribe different performance requirements than those that appear in Standard No. 108.

Many states reserve the use of flashing lights for emergency vehicles. S4 of Standard No. 108 defines the word "flash" in part as a continuing "cycle of activation and deactivation." The cycle required for modulating headlamps, on the other hand, involves going from a higher intensity to a lower intensity, and the lamp is never deactivated. Thus, a headlamp modulating in accordance with S7.9.4 does not "flash" within the meaning of the Federal lighting laws. If the modulating headlamp system on your motorcycle meets Federal requirements, it should be permitted for use in any state under the preemptive language of Section 30103(b).

If you have further questions, you may phone Taylor Vinson (202-366-5263).

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
Enclosures
ref:108
d.6/20/00

ID: nht94-5.1

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: December 7, 1994

FROM: Philip R. Recht -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Herr P. Binder -- ITT Automotive europe

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 11/22/94 FROM P. BINDER TO JOHN WOMACK (OCC 10510)

TEXT: This responds to your FAX of November 21, 1994, to John Womack of this Office.

You inquire with respect to a yellow bulb intended for use as both original and replacement equipment in a rear turn signal lamp for a passenger car. The bulb complies with ECE specifications. You have asked the following questions:

"1) Is it allowed in USA that new rearlamps are fitted with such 'Europe' - bulbs?"

Yes. Bulbs other than those specified by SAE J573 are considered "special bulbs" and are permitted by Note 3 at the end of Standard No. 108 as long as the lamp assemblies in which they are used conform to all applicable requirements of Standard No. 108.

"2) Do spare bulbs of the same type (PY 21W) have to be freely available in USA (e.g. supermarket, station, etc.)?"

There is no legal requirement that replacement bulbs be freely available. For reasons of safety, NHTSA encourages wide distribution of replacement parts of all sorts.

"3) Would it be sufficient if the car manufacturer offers this bulb (PY 21W) as a spare part within his service stations in USA?"

The determination of the distribution of replacement bulbs is a decision to be made by the car manufacturer.

"4) Is there any specification or law regarding the use of bulbs in USA? If so, please inform us about these specifications."

Although not directly incorporated by reference in Standard No. 108, NHTSA regards SAE Standards J567 "Lamp Bulb Retention System" and J573 "Lamp Bulbs and Sealed Units" as appropriate specifications for bulbs and their sockets used in motor vehicle lamp s other than headlamps. However, as indicated above, Note 3 permits the use of bulbs other than these.

"5) Is the use of bulbs treated differently in the single states?"

We have no information that any state treats the use of bulbs differently. Questions regarding the laws of the individual states are answered by the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Va. 22203, and yo u may wish to consult them for an opinion.

ID: 17895-1.pja

Mr. Mike Crabb
President
Diamond Trailer
Rt. 9, Box 1440
Mt. Pleasant, TX 75455

Dear Mr Crabb:

This responds to your letter requesting an interpretation on whether the line of dump body trailers your company manufactures would be excluded from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's (NHTSA) rear impact protection (underride guard) regulations. We apologize for the delay in responding.

Your letter and the sales literature you enclosed refers to one trailer in your line that has a gross vehicle weight rating of over 10,000 pounds, Model 22WFD-L14. This trailer has a dump box on the back, which when dumping is hoisted up at the front by hydraulic lifts located under the box. You believe that this trailer would be classified as a special purpose vehicle. You state that installing an underride guard would make this trailer useless. As explained below, no exclusions apply to this trailer.

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 224, Rear impact protection, requires most trailers and semitrailers weighing over 10,000 pounds to be fitted at the rear with a rear impact (underride) guard meeting the requirements of Standard No. 223, Rear impact guards (49 CFR 571.223 and 571.224, published on January 24, 1996 at 61 FR 2004). However, certain kinds of vehicles are excluded. One of these exclusions is for special purpose vehicles, which is defined in S4 of Standard No. 224 as "a trailer or semitrailer having work-performing equipment that, while the vehicle is in transit, resides in or moves through the area that could be occupied by the horizontal member of the rear underride guard, as defined by S5.1.1 through S5.1.3." NHTSA has interpreted this area to be anywhere under the vehicle, within 305 mm (one foot) forward of the rear of the vehicle.

The literature you enclosed shows only a partial view of the rear of your trailer. Based on that view and on the statement in you letter that the trailer "does not meet the 22 [inch] requirement," it does not appear that any part of your trailer would reside in the area that could be occupied by the rear underride guard, while the vehicle is in transit. If there is something there, it would have to be work-performing equipment in order for the vehicle to be considered a special purpose vehicle. NHTSA has interpreted the words "work-performing" to mean that the equipment must actively perform its function, and that the function must involve exerting force or moving something else. Unless you have work performing equipment there that meets that description, the vehicle does not meet the definition of a special purpose vehicle.

Since your trailer is not in an excluded category, it would have to be equipped with an underride guard meeting our standards. We cannot provide specific guidance on how your trailer might be redesigned to accommodate a guard. We note, however, that other manufacturers of tilt bed trailers have told us that they have found engineering solutions that would meet the requirements of the standard without compromising the function of their vehicles. Some of them are using guard designs that deploy when in the lowered configuration and automatically retract when in the tilted configuration. Perhaps this solution would work for you. We emphasize that you, as the manufacturer of the vehicle, are responsible for the vehicle's compliance.

The agency would consider a petition for temporary exemption from Standard No. 224. Under one of our regulations (49 CFR Part 555), vehicle manufacturers may apply for a temporary exemption from the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. Under Sec. 555.6(a), a manufacturer whose yearly production is not more than 10,000 units may ask for an exemption of up to three years on the basis that compliance would cause it substantial economic hardship and that it has attempted in good faith to comply with the standard from which it has asked to be excused. We have enclosed a copy of Part 555 for your information. We have also enclosed a copy of our regulations relating to the protection of confidential business information. Most of the trailer manufacturers submitting petitions for temporary exemption have requested that their financial information remain confidential.

Please note Part 555 requires the agency to publish a notice in the Federal Register seeking public comment on each exemption petition before a decision can be made on such a request, and then publish a second notice either granting or denying the petition. This process normally takes three to four months from the date of submittal.

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

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
Enclosures: Parts 555, 512
ref:224
d.3/11/99

ID: 86-4.33

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/04/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Henry A. Gorry

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Henry A. Gorry Guardian Industries 43043 West Nine Mile Road Northville, Michigan 48167

Dear Mr. Gorry:

Thank you for your letter to Mr. Edward Jettner, which was referred to my office for reply. You asked a number of questions about the certification requirements of Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials. I regret the delay in answering your questions.

You are correct in your understanding that S6.2 of the standard requires a prime glazing material manufacturer to certify each piece of its glazing material which is designed as a component of a specific motor vehicle or camper by placing the marks required by S6.1 of the standard on the glazing and adding the symbol "DOT" and a manufacturer's code mark assigned by this agency. You are also correct that pursuant to S6.5, each manufacturer or distributor who cuts a section of glazing material for use in a motor vehicle or camper must place the marks required by S6.1 on the glazing and certify the material in accordance with section 114 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. Those persons do not have to add the symbol "DOT" and a manufacturer's code mark to the glazing.

You asked why the standard draws a distinction between glazing materials which are designed as a component of a specific vehicle and glazing materials which are cut from a section of another item of glazing material. As explained by the agency in an interpretation letter of June 10, 1975, to the California Highway Patrol, NHTSA's purpose in structuring the marking requirements in this way was to enable us to determine, for purposes of attributing responsibility for compliance, which glazing in a motor vehicle had been manufactured by the prime manufacturer specifically for use in that vehicle, and which glazing had been cut, shaped, or otherwise altered before installation. In an interpretation letter of July 13, 1976, to DuPont, the agency further explained that since issuance of the certification requirements in 1967, those requirements have become more widely understood and uniformly practiced throughout the glazing industry, which has aided the "traceability" of glazing materials for enforcement purposes. NHTSA also said that it would no longer prohibit the use of the "DOT" symbol and the prime glazing manufacturer's code number by the distributor or manufacturer who cuts the glazing, if the prime glazing manufacturer grants permission for such use of the code number to the distributor or manufacturer.

You asked if the term "manufacturer" used in S6.4 and S6.5 of the standard is meant to mean a "prime glazing manufacturer." Section 571.3 of our regulations provides that terms defined in section 102 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act that are used in the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards have the statutory definition assigned to them by the Act. Section 102(5) of the Vehicle Safety Act defines the term "manufacturer" as "any person engaged in the manufacturing or assembling of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, including any person importing motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment for resale." Thus, the term "manufacturer" used in S6.4 and S6.5 includes both a prime glazing manufacturer and a person that assemblies or manufactures vehicles or items of motor vehicle equipment.

You also asked about the definition of the term "distributor." As discussed above, section 571.3 provides that terms defined in section 102 of the Vehicle Safety Act that are used in the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards have the statutory definition assigned to them by the Act. Section 102(6) of the Vehicle Safety Act defines the term "distributor" as "any person primarily engaged in the sale and distribution of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment for resale." You said that you are confused about the need to distinguish between manufacturers and distributors. The purpose of the distinction was to make sure that commercial sellers who cut glazing for use in motor vehicles, but do not otherwise perform a manufacturing process on the glazing, have to comply with the marking and certification requirements. You are correct that a prime glazing manufacturer may also be a distributor; likewise there are distributors who are not prime glazing manufacturers.

You also asked why the term "camper" is distinguished from the term "motor vehicle" in S6 of Standard No. 205. As mentioned previously, Section 571.3 of our regulations provides that terms defined in the Vehicle Safety Act that are used in the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards have the statutory definition assigned to them by the Vehicle Safety Act. Section 102(3) of the Vehicle Safety Act defines "motor vehicle" as, in part, "any vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power...." As a camper has no independent mechanical power and is not drawn, it would not be covered by the definition of "motor vehicle". Thus, it has necessary to specifically define the term "camper" in S4 of Standard No. 205 to make clear that a camper, which is an item of motor vehicle equipment, is covered by Standard No. 205.

Finally, you asked why do S6.2, S6.4, and S6.5 of Standard No. 205 apply to motor vehicles and campers, while S6.3 refers only to motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. As discussed previously, a camper is considered an item of motor vehicle equipment and thus the requirements of S6.3 would also apply to glazing made by a prime glazing manufacturer for use in a camper. Since the term "item of motor vehicle equipment" is a more encompassing classification than camper, the requirements of S6.3 apply to other pieces of equipment, such as wind deflectors, made by prime glazing manufacturers.

If you have any further questions, please let me know.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

March 6, 1986

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration U.S. Department of Transportation 400 Seventh Street, S. W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Attention: Mr. Edward Jettner Office of Vehicle Safety Standards

Subject: Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205

Reference: 'Certification and Marking'

Dear Ed:

Please forgive this imposition. Possibly, at your very own convenience, you might be so kind as to accommodate my office by directing this enquiry to the appropriate NHTSA appointment for consideration.

Herein, Guardian Industries Corp. respectfully solicits from NHTSA clarification of certain parts of the 'Certification and Marketing" requirements currently set-forth at the subject Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard - concerning the requirements for glazing materials used in motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment.

From the reading of Section S6.2 of the subject safety standard, it is the understanding of my office each piece of glazing material, to which the safety standard applies, which is designed as a component of any specific motor vehicle or camper, is to be certified pursuant to the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 through the inclusion, in addition to other marks, of a "DOT" symbol suffixed by a manufacturer's code mark: and that a manufacturer or distributor who cuts a section of glazing material, to which the safety standard applies, for use in a motor vehicle or camper, is required to mark and certify the material in accordance with Section 6 of ANS Z26 and Section 114 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 respectively - See Section S6.4 and S6.5 of the safety standard.

My office, on behalf of Guardian Industries Corp. its affiliate and subsidiary Companies, Submits the following question for NHTSA's Consideration:

a. Whilst section S6.2 of the safety Standard obligates a prime glazing material manufacturer certify each piece of glazing material designed as a Component of a specific vehicle in the prescribed manner, sections S6.4 and S6.5 of the safety standard requires marking and certification of those parts cut from a section of glazing material pursuant to Section 6 of ANS Z26 and section 114 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966. Of consequence, does this mean parts cut from a Section of glazing material, for use in a motor vehicle or camper need not be marked with a "DOT" symbol and manufacturer's code mark.

Why the distinction between glazing material parts designed as a Component of a specific vehicle from those parts cut from a section of glazing material, when it may be argued parts cut from a section are as much intended for specific motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment as are parts designed as a Component of any specific motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment.

Additionally, it would be most greatly appreciated if NHTSA might see fit to advise my office in respect to the following:

a. It is presumed 'Manufacturer', as employed as Section S6.4 and Section S6.5 of the safety standard, is a term used to describe one whose activities correspond with those attributed to a prime glazing material manufacturer - See S6.l of the safety standard.

b. It appears the Safety standard does not furnish a definition describing the activities of a 'Distributor'. May it be presumed a distributor is a party engaged in the Commercial disposition of glazing materials, to which the safety Standard applies, as well as being one who also cuts a section of glazing material for use in motor vehicles and Campers.

I am a trifle confused as to the need to distinguish manufacturers and distributors in the safety standard. Is not the act of cutting a glazing material an inherent part of the fabrication process - an activity attributed, at Section S6.1, of the safety standard, to the prime glazing material manufacturer.

Further, may a prime glazing material manufacturer not only fabricate, laminate, temper and cut but also distribute in commerce glazing materials for motor vehicle and Camper use.

c. Why is camper, throughout most of Section 6, singled-out from motor vehicle when the definitions of a motor vehicle and motor vehicle equipment, at Section S4 of the safety standard, include the term camper.

d. Why do Sections S6.2/S6.4/S6.5 of the safety standard apply to motor vehicles and campers whilst Section S6.3 refers to motor vehicles or items of motor vehicle equipment.

Very truly,

GUARDIAN INDUSTRIES CORP.

Henry A. Gorry Certifications & Standards Manager

HAG:jep

ID: Triplex

Mr. Paul Katz
President
Triplex Manufacturing Company
2700 West 50th Street
Chicago, IL 60632

Dear Mr. Katz:

This responds to your letter seeking our opinion whether Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment, would preempt State laws seeking to establish requirements for insurers or repair businesses to install only vehicle lamps and lighting parts that are made by original equipment manufacturers (OEMs).

Your letter was prompted by the case of Avery v. State Farm, which we understand is now on appeal before the Illinois Supreme Court, and various proposed state laws that would make distinctions between OEM and non-OEM parts. You asked two questions.

First, you asked whether OEM and non-OEM lamps and lighting parts are of "like kind and quality" under FMVSS No. 108. In your letter, you state that the term "like kind and quality" is a term that was used by the court in Avery v. State Farm. The term does not appear in the statutes we administer or in our regulations. We note that the requirements under FMVSS No. 108 for original equipment and non-original equipment are the same, and further that the Federal motor vehicle safety standards establish minimum performance requirements. Because FMVSS No. 108 allows a wide range of performance, and does not include specifications that apply to non-safety characteristics such as fit and finish, different lamps may not be of "like kind and quality" yet still comply with Federal requirements.

Second, you asked whether Federal law preempts states from establishing standards for vehicle lamps and lighting parts that are different than those of FMVSS No. 108 based solely on whether the manufacturer is an OEM or non-OEM. Federal law preempts states from enacting laws that impose different requirements from those mandated by the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. States may, however, regulate in various areas including enacting operational, inspection and insurance requirements. In this way, states may be able to establish rules with respect to the repair of crashed vehicles without acting in a manner that is inconsistent with Federal law.

If you have further questions, you may refer them to Mr. Edward Glancy of this office (202-366-2992).

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel
cc: Lawrence F. Henneberger, Esq.

ref:108
d.1/21/04