ID: nht95-2.50

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: April 24, 1995

FROM: Scott E. Mack -- Sr Product Manager, Philips Lighting Company

TO: Chief Counsel Office, NHTSA

TITLE: "Request for Interpretation: FMVSS-108" Color Clear TM Halogen Headlights

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 5/11/95 LETTER FROM JOHN WOMACK TO SCOTT E. MACK (A43; STD. 108)

TEXT: Dear Sir/Madam:

Please review the attached ETL test report regarding Philips Color Clear TM Halogen Headlights and confirm your agreement that they are incompliance with FMVSS-108. While this product appears to be colored when not in use when lighted it produces white light as defined by J579C. The test report indicates that the color of the light is identical to that of a standard halogen headlight.

Please forward your confirmation to:

Scott Mack Sr. Product Manager Philips Lighting Co. 200 Franklin Square Driv Somerset, NJ 08875

Thank you for your attention to this request.

Attachment

REPORT

ETL TESTING LABORATORIES, INC.

INDUSTRIAL PARK CORTLAND, NEW YORK 13045

Order No. 97540-215

Date: April 11, 1995

REPORT NO. 550319

"PHILIPS H6054 DOT H" 142mm X 200mm TYPE 2B1 COLOR CLEAR SEALED BEAM HEADLAMP UNIT

RENDERED TO

PHILIPS LIGHTING COMPANY 300 FRANKLIN SQUARE DRIVE SOMERSET, NJ 08875-6800 INTRODUCTION

This report contains the results of examination and test of the above device to demonstrate compliance with the applicable test requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 108, effective as of the date of this report and indicated S AE Standards as requested by the client.

Summary

The following is a summary of the results of tests of the device performed in accordance with FMVSS 108 and subreferenced SAE Standards.

Tests Standards Remarks Color J578c Complies

AUTHORIZATION

Purchase Order No. HQ 133175K.

(Remainder of report is omitted.)

ID: nht91-1.43

DATE: February 15, 1991

FROM: Sidney A. Garrett -- President, Brown Cargo Van Inc.

TO: U.S. Department of Transportation, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 3-7-91 from Paul Jackson Rice to Sidney A. Garrett (A37; Std. 108)); Also attached to letter dated 4-25-90 rom Stephen P. Wood to J. Douglas Smith (Std. 108)

TEXT:

We are manufacturers of truck van bodies and need an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. Specifically we need an interpretation of the location of the front identification and clearance lamps.

The three amber identification lamps are to be attached at the same height, as close as practicable to the vertical centerline, and as close as practicable to the top of the vehicle. The two amber clearance lamps, indicating overall width, are to be attached at the same height, one on each side of the vertical centerline, and as near the top as practicable.

Our question is if the truck cab comes with all five amber lamps mounted on its top as in Exhibit 1, does this meet the standard and therefore we do not need to install additional lamps? If this does not meet the standard, then we need to know if either Exhibit 2, with only the clearance lamps attached to the van body, or Exhibit 3, with both clearance lamps and identification lamps attached to the van body, meets the standard.

We are trying to minimize our costs and do not want to install unnecessary lamps as long as we are meeting all safety standards. Also, we are in the process of redesigning the front of our van bodies and would like to have the answer to our question as soon as possible so that our engineers can proceed.

If you need any additional information, please contact me at 800-255-6827.

Attachment

Photos of a cargo van (Graphics omitted)

ID: nht74-4.4

DATE: 06/20/74

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Lawrence R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: Lieberman; Tratras & Markowitz

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of May 21, 1974, enclosing a check for $ 1,000 and a suggested defect notification letter on behalf of your client, Bill's Trailer Manufacturing Company.

The notification letter you enclose fails to conform in significant respects to 49 CFR Part 577, Defect Notification. The regulation presumes the notification will be sent by the manufacturer, as required by statute, and requires statements conforming to sections 577.4(a) and 577.4(b) to comprise the opening and second statements of the notification. We consider the format you have used, that of sending the letter in the name of an attorney for the company, to be inconsistent with this requirement. The first three sentences of the sample letter should thus be stricken. Moreover, section 577.4(b) (1) requires the vehicles or equipment which contain the defect to be identified in the second statement. Trailers are vehicles under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, and not "equipment." We will accept as sufficient identification the year, model number if any, and the words "utility trailer" in meeting section 577.1(b) (1). The reference to equipment is inappropriate in that it implies that the defect is in the lighting (which is equipment) rather than in the vehicle.

Your letter also fails to evaluate the risk to traffic safety as required by section 577.4(d). In most cases, the potential result of a failure to install required lighting is vehicle crash, and the notification should thus conform to section 577.4(d) (1).

We consider the second and third sentences of your second paragraph and the second sentence of your next to last paragraph ("This notification is intended . . .") to be disclaimers and prohibited by section 577.6. Each should be stricken.

The sample notification letter must be revised as set forth above to conform to Part 577. In addition, the defect report (49 CFR Part 573) is required to be submitted within 5 days of the determination that the defect relates to motor vehicle safety, and not within 5 days of the mailing of notification letters. Your report should thus be submitted forthwith.

We will hold your check until you have submitted a notification letter and defect report in accordance with our requirements. At that time we will deposit the check and inform you that the case is closed.

ID: nht90-2.75

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: June 6, 1990

FROM: Tekonsha Engineering Company

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 8-31-78 from J.J. Levin, Jr. to L.F. Henneberger; Also attached to letter from F. Berndt to L.F. Henneberger; Also attached to letter dated 11-30-81 from F. Berndt to K.G. Moyer (A23; Redbook 3; Std. 108); Also attached to letter dated 9-10-90 from P.J. Rice to L.F. Henneberger (A36; VSA Sec. 103 (d); Std. 108); Also attached to letter dated 6-22-90 from L.F. Henneberger to P.J. Rice (OCC 4927); Also attached to Ford Bulletin Number 10, signed by R.R. Chestnut, dated 1 2-15- 89

TEXT:

By law vehicles towing trailers large enough to have a braking system must be equipped with a brake control device. Tekonsha Engineering is a major manufacturer of such a device.

The following is a brief overview of the use of the Commander Electronic Brake Control when the service brakes (foot) are applied initiating a stopping action the brake control activates both electrical braking systems simultaneously, illuminating the br ake lights and prompting a smooth stop. It is our understanding that it is a common practice to use the brake control's manual override (hand) to help control a swaying trailer. The brake lights do not illuminate while in this mode, thus eliminating fa lse braking signals.

We take pride in the fact that we make a diligent effort to engineer a product compatible with the ever changing vehicle electrical systems. The technological development of the Commander Electronic Brake Control was based on an extensive compatibility s afety study. We found that we could avoid the potential danger of interfering with the towing vehicles' electronically activated systems such as, the cruise control, the anti- lock brake system and the over-drive system by circumventing the electrical a ctivation of our device via the stop light switch. The enclosed Ford QVM Bulletin substantiates our efforts.

We feel the Commander's electrical non-interference factor to be a strong positive safety feature.

ID: 12248-2.pja

Mr. Frank Dennis
Vice President, Marketing
United Distribution, Inc.
P.O. Box 103
W. Milford, NJ 07480

Dear Mr. Dennis:

This responds to your July 26, 1996, letter asking how Federal regulations would affect your product, the "Vizoret." You describe the Vizoret to be "an auxiliary sun visor" that attaches behind the inside rear view mirror. One of your questions is whether a car dealer could hand a Vizoret to a vehicle purchaser.

According to your letter, the purpose of the Vizoret is to block direct sunlight that passes above the mirror and between the two sunvisors. From the promotional brochure that you enclosed, it appears that the Vizoret is made of some kind of thin, flat, opaque material, about 12 inches wide by 4 inches high, and can be trimmed to size. It has a notch in the center that slides over the mirror mounting bracket, so that the Vizoret hangs behind the mirror. You say that it takes 5 seconds to attach or remove the Vizoret.

The applicability of this agency's standards to your product, and the legality under the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's (NHTSA's) regulations of a dealer handling the Vizoret to a purchaser, depend on when your product is provided to the consumer. If the Vizoret is sold or given to a consumer after a vehicle's sale, there is no Federal motor vehicle safety standard that directly applies to the product. NHTSA has issued a standard (Standard 302, copy enclosed) requiring certain materials in a vehicle's interior to be flame resistant, including sun visors and shades, but this standard applies to new, completed vehicles and not to items of equipment.

If the Vizoret were made part of a new vehicle, such as by installation by a vehicle manufacturer or a dealer before a vehicle's sale, our standards would be a factor. The vehicle, with the Vizoret installated, must be certified as complying with all applicable standards, including Standard 302. A dealer could not install the product before the vehicle's sale unless the Vizoret met the flammability resistance requirements of Standard 302. You are correct that the Vizoret would not be considered a part of the windshield, and therefore Standard 205, Glazing materials, would not

apply. You should also be aware that new requirements in S4 of Standard No. 201, Occupant protection in interior impact, will be phased-in beginning in about two years. They will require head impact protection at specified locations on the upper interior of the vehicle.

We do not regulate vehicle owners adding to or otherwise modifying their vehicles. If the dealer hands the Vizoret to the vehicle purchaser for the purchaser to use in the vehicle after the sale, our standards would not prohibit this.

However, bear in mind that manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment (such as the Vizoret) are subject to the requirements of our statute concerning the recall and remedy of products with safety related defects. I have enclosed an information sheet that briefly describes those responsibilities. In the event that you or NHTSA determines 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.

Finally, you should know that individual states have the authority to regulate the use of vehicles and may have requirements affecting the Vizoret. For information on state requirements, we suggest you contact the Department of Motor Vehicles in the states where the Vizoret will be sold or used.

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

Sincerely,

John Womack

Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosures

ref:111#205#302

d:9/5/96

ID: nht92-8.26

DATE: March 16, 1992

FROM: Shigeyoshi Aihara -- Manager, Information Services, Ichikoh America, Inc.

TO: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: Subject: Interpretation of FMVSS No. 108, paragraph S7.4(i)(6)

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 5/6/92 from Paul J. Rice to Shigeyoshi Aihara (A39; Std. 108)

TEXT:

We would like to ask for your judgment concerning fogging after humidity test of replaceable bulb headlamp specified in FMVSS No.108, paragraph S7.4(i)(6).

Paragraph S.7.4(i)(6) is defined as follows:

"After a humidity test conducted in accordance with paragraph S8.7, the inside of the headlamp shall show no evidence of delamination or moisture, fogging or condensation visible without magnification, and the headlamp shall meet the photometric requirements applicable to the headlamp system under test."

Our questions concern the sentence "the inside of the headlamp shall show no evidence of delamination or moisture, fogging or condensation visible without magnification, and the headlamp ---"

A drawing of our headlamp with on-board aiming system is attached to this letter. The headlamp is a vented system. The bubble indicator cover of types A and B differ as shown in the attached sketches.

Question 1: After the humidity test, both types A and B show the fogging in the location as shown in attached sketches. But, this fogging is gone at normal temperature. We think this fogging does not affect the performance of headlamp such as bubble indicator visibility, photometry and others. Is such fogging acceptable after the humidity test ?

Question 2: May we understand that "the inside of housing" means the lens and reflector portions?, or Must we understand it to mean the entire inside portion of headlamps?

Your prompt reply would be greatly appreciated.

ID: 19211.ztv

Mr. Malcolm R. Currie
President and CEO
Currie Technologies Inc.
7011 Hayvenhurst Ave.,Unit A,
Van Nuys, CA 91406

Dear Mr. Currie:

This is in reply to your letter of November 27, 1998, with respect to an interpretation this Office furnished Gary Starr on May 22, 1998.

With reference to electric bicycles, this letter stated that

"If the pedal assist system will not operate on its own in the absence of muscular effort (after it may have been started by muscular power), the bicycle on which it is installed will not be deemed to be a 'motor vehicle.'"

You interpret this statement to mean:

"If the electric motor can only be activated by muscular power, (i.e., by pedaling the bicycle to a certain minimum speed), and the motor, once activated by muscular power, can continue to drive the bicycle even if the rider then stops pedaling (i.e., stops exerting muscular power), then the vehicle is still not deemed to be a 'motor vehicle.'"

This is an incorrect interpretation. If the motor, once activated by muscular power, can continue to drive the vehicle in the absence of muscular power, the vehicle is considered to be a "motor vehicle" since, without the input of muscular power, the vehicle is entirely "driven by mechanical power" with the meaning of the statutory definition of a "motor vehicle" (49 U.S.C. 30102(a)(6)). Our letter of May 22, says, in effect, that a vehicle is not a "motor vehicle" if, in the absence of muscular power, mechanical power alone is insufficient to drive it.

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

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
ref:571
d.1/14/99

ID: nht74-5.1

DATE: 02/15/74

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Lawrence R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: Open Road Industries Inc.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: We have received correspondence from Mr. & Mrs. William D. Waterhouse of Homestead, Florida, concerning the recall campaign in which their 1970 Open Road motor home is involved (NHTSA campaign #73-0043). Mr. and Mrs. Waterhouse object to the indemnity and hold-harmless provision which you have required them to agree to in order for your company to repair their vehicle without charge to them. That provision reads;

The undersigned will save and hold Open Road Industries, Inc. harmless from and indemnify it against any and all claims, actions, causes of action and damages it may suffer or sustain by reason of making said repair and alteration.

Our records indicate that the recall in question was initiated on March 12, 1972. Accordingly, regulations applicable to the owner notification letter (49 CFR Part 577) do not apply, as these regulations first became effective March 26, 1973.

We wish to inform you, however, in the event Open Road Industries finds it necessary to conduct notification campaigns in the future, that we would not consider a notification letter such as this to conform to Part 577. We believe the hold harmless and indemnity provision is a charge to the purchaser beyond what is standard business practice in these matters. While no money is demanded,

the legal rights which your company demands be relinquished are not without monetary value, and may, as in the case of the Waterhouses, influence the purchaser's decision as to whether the manufacturer should be entrusted to make the repair. While this agency has no authority to compel manufacturers to repair defective vehicles, or to prevent manufacturers from making repairs subject to conditions, it does require through Part 577 that specific information regarding defective vehicles be provided to purchasers. That information is required to be more extensive when the manufacturer does not perform the repair free of charge to the purchaser. Consequently, future notification letters sent by Open Road which include these or similar hold-harmless or indeminity provisions must specify the measures to be taken to repair the defect in accordance with @ 577.4(e)(3), which deals with those cases where the manufacturer does not bear the cost of repair.

ID: nht90-3.21

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: July 18, 1990

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Michael O'Donnell

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Letter dated 4-18-90 to Chief Counsel's Office, NHTSA from Michael O'Donnell; (OCC 4690) TEXT:

This is in response to your letter to this office asking whether NHTSA's safety standards apply to vehicles in service on the public roads. Specifically, you were interested in the applicability of NHTSA requirements to a 1977 school bus that was convert ed to a "recreational vehicle/house coach" that is now only for personal and family use.

The Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) promulgated by this agency apply to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. The requirement that a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment compl y with all applicable FMVSS applies only until the product is first sold to a consumer. Both before and after a vehicle or item of equipment is first sold to a consumer, any modifications to that product are affected by section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Natio nal Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A), which states:

No manufacturer, distributor, dealer or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or in part, any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in co mpliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard . . . .

If any of the commercial entities identified in section 108(a)(2)(A) were to make modifications that resulted in a "render inoperative" violation, the violating commercial entity would be liable for a civil penalty of up to $1,000 for each violation. Pl ease note that this "render inoperative" provision does not apply to a vehicle owner. The vehicle owner may modify his or her vehicle without violating any Federal requirements, irrespective of whether the modification affects the vehicle's compliance w ith a safety standard.

Please note also that the individual States have the authority to regulate the operation and use of motor vehicles within their borders.

Additionally, the individual States have the authority to regulate the modifications that may be made to a vehicle by its owner. You may wish to contact the Department of Motor Vehicles for the State of New York to learn if the State has established any requirements applicable to your use or registration of this vehicle in New York.

I hope you have found this information helpful.

ID: AviationUpgradeTechnologies.2rev

Mr. Torbjrn Lundqvist
Chief Executive Officer
Aviation Upgrade Technologies
6550 So. Pecos Road, #142
Las Vegas, NV 89120

Dear Mr. Lundqvist:

This responds to your letter of December 9, 2002, regarding the National Highway Traffic Safety Administrations (NHTSAs) final rule establishing Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 138, Tire Pressure Monitoring Systems (TPMS), (67 FR 38704, June 5, 2002).

You indicated in that letter, and in your earlier October 10, 2002 letter, that you believe NHTSA is interpreting section 13 of the Transportation Recall Enhancement, Accountability, and Documentation (TREAD) Act of 2000 to require, as part of the final TPMS rule, that the system indicate to the operator, "while operating" his or her vehicle, when a tire is significantly under- inflated. You ask who interpreted the law in this way, NHTSA or Congress. You also express a desire to meet with the relevant decisionmaker, in order to discuss with that person your views regarding such interpretation.

Please be advised that NHTSA, in carrying out the responsibilities Congress assigns it, makes any necessary interpretations of the statutes it administers, including this provision of the TREAD Act. Within NHTSA, the Chief Counsel is the chief legal officer, and is delegated authority to issue interpretations of these statutes. See 49 CFR 501.3(b) and 501.8(d).

As we noted in our letter to you dated November 18, 2002, we understand that on July 17, 2002, you filed a petition for reconsideration of the TPMS rule, in which you provide a detailed discussion of the alternative TPMS system manufactured by your company whose indicator is external to the vehicle (i.e., the Air Alert Valve Cap System). We stated that if you have new information not contained within your petition for reconsideration, you could supplement your earlier submission to the agency. We also stated that, in that we would be responding to your petition for reconsideration through the rulemaking process, we did not believe that a meeting is necessary at this time.

After considering your new letter, we continue to believe that a meeting is unnecessary at this time. Any legal or other issues that you believe are relevant, including ones related to how the TREAD Act should be interpreted, can be presented in writing. We thank you for your interest in the TPMS rule, and it is our intention to respond to all issues raised in petitions for reconsideration as expeditiously as possible. A copy of your letter has been included in the rulemaking docket for this final rule.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Eric Stas of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:138
d.1/13/03