ID: nht95-7.14

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: October 9, 1995

FROM: Samuel J. Dubbin -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Yoshiaki Matsui -- Manager, Automotive Equipemnt, Legal & Homologation Section, Stanley Electric Co.

TITLE: Accessory Lamp with LEDs

ATTACHMT: Attached to 9/18/95 letter from Yoshiaki Matsui to NHTSA Chief Counsel

TEXT: Dear Mr. Matsui:

This responds to your letter of September 18, 1995, describing a combination tail, stop, and rear turn signal lamp which incorporates incandescent bulbs to perform assigned functions, and which contains light-emitting diodes (LEDs) in a compartment along the outboard side.

With respect to red LEDs adjacent to the tail and stop lamp, you state that the lamp is designed to conform to Standard No. 108 using the incandescent bulbs only, and that your regard the LEDs as an "accessory" acceptable to NHTSA (Your Question 1).

We agree. Because the LEDs are not necessary to conformance with Standard No. 108, they are considered supplemental lighting equipment. Such equipment is permitted by paragraph S5.1.3 of Standard No. 108 if it does not impair the effectiveness of lighting equipment required by Standard No. 108. You state that when the taillamp and LEDs are lit simultaneously, the total intensity does not exceed the maximum intensity specified for a one-section taillamp. It would therefore appear that the presence of the LEDs does not impair the effectiveness of the taillamp (or the stop lamp, which will have a higher intensity).

The red LEDs will provide a red color through the amber lens that covers the turn signal lamp, and will remain on when the turn signal is activated (Your Question 2). This design also appears permissible. We have never considered contiguous rear steady-burning red and flashing amber lamps to be prohibited by Standard No. 108 (the basic design of your lamp), and we do not believe that the supplemental red LEDs will impair the effectiveness of the amber turn signal lamp.

If you have any further questions, you may refer them to Taylor Vinson of this Office (phone: 202-366-5263).

ID: 2856o

Mr. Wayne Apple
14738 Bronson Avenue
San Jose, CA 95124

Dear Mr. Apple:

This is in reply to your letter of December 29, 1987, in which you ask whether a U-Turn Indicator "is reasonable, within federal regulations or specifications, and if the Department of Transportation has interest in the concept and/or product."

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. l08, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment contains specifications for original and replacement lighting equipment. None of these specifications is for a U-turn indicator. However, a U-turn indicator is acceptable as original vehicle equipment provided it does not impair the effectiveness of the lighting equipment that the standard requires, such as turn signal lamps, headlamps, taillamps, and stop lamps. Your proposed specifications recognize the importance of differentiation between the left turn signal and the U-turn indicator, and we encourage you to minimize the possibility of impairment.

Standard No. l08 does not cover a U-turn indicator as an aftermarket device, but it is subject to the general restriction that its installation must not render inoperative, in whole or in part, any lamp, reflective device, or associated equipment that was installed pursuant to Standard No. l08. (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)) The legality of use of an aftermarket device of this nature would be determinable under the laws of the State in which a vehicle equipped with it is registered or operated. The American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 120l Connecticut Ave. N.W., Washington, D.C. 20036, may be able to advise you further on State laws.

Accident data available to the agency does not permit us to identify specific crashes in which a vehicle is making a U-turn. However, an analysis of data from one of our files that contains information on almost 3 million crashes indicates that the general type of crash for which U-turn crashes are a subset (left-turning crashes) constitutes less than 6% of the total crash experience. Thus, we believe that the number of U-turn crashes is substantially less than the 6% represented by the broader category of crashes involving left-turning vehicles. We do not know the basis for your statement that your U-turn indicator "will probably reduce accidents involving U-turns by over thirty percent". However, the agency is interested in exploring concepts that could enhance vehicle safety. I am providing our Office of Research and Development with a copy of your letter for such further comment as may be warranted.

We appreciate your interest in safety.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

CC: Michael Finkelstein

ref:108 d:4/18/88

ID: 11245

Mr. Yoshiaki Matsui
Manager
Automotive Equipment
Legal & Homologation Section
Stanley Electric Co., Ltd.
2-9 13, Nakaameguro, Meguro-ku
Tokyo 153, Japan

Re: Accessory Lamp with LEDs

Dear Mr. Matsui:

This responds to your letter of September 18, 1995, describing a combination tail, stop, and rear turn signal lamp which incorporates incandescent bulbs to perform assigned functions, and which contains light- emitting diodes (LEDs) in a compartment along the outboard side.

With respect to red LEDs adjacent to the tail and stop lamp, you state that the lamp is designed to conform to Standard No. 108 using the incandescent bulbs only, and that you regard the LEDs as an "accessory" acceptable to NHTSA (Your Question 1).

We agree. Because the LEDs are not necessary to conformance with Standard No. 108, they are considered supplemental lighting equipment. Such equipment is permitted by paragraph S5.1.3 of Standard No. 108 if it does not impair the effectiveness of lighting equipment required by Standard No. 108. You state that when the taillamp and LEDs are lit simultaneously, the total intensity does not exceed the maximum intensity specified for a one-section taillamp. It would therefore appear that the presence of the LEDs does not impair the effectiveness of the taillamp (or the stop lamp, which will have a higher intensity).

The red LEDs will provide a red color through the amber lens that covers the turn signal lamp, and will remain on when the turn signal is activated (Your Question 2). This design also appears permissible. We have never considered contiguous rear steady-burning red and flashing amber lamps to be prohibited by Standard No. 108 (the basic design of your lamp), and we do not believe that the supplemental red LEDs will impair the effectiveness of the amber turn signal lamp.

If you have any further questions, you may refer them to Taylor Vinson of this Office (phone: 202-366-5263).

Sincerely,

Samuel J. Dubbin Chief Counsel

ref:108 d:11/9/95

ID: nht92-1.11

DATE: 12/28/92

FROM: PAUL JACKSON RICE -- CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TO: DANIEL K. UPHAM -- PRESIDENT, SYS TEK CORPORATION

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 8-17-89 FROM STEPHEN P. WOOD TO ALAN S. ELDAHR (STD. 108); ALSO ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 12-9-92 FROM DANIEL K. UPHAM TO NHTSA CHIEF COUNSEL (OCC 8111)

TEXT: This responds to your letter of December 9, 1992, with respect to whether a "portable lighted message display using L.E.D. technology" is permissible under Federal law. The product would be sold in the aftermarket. As you indicate, "[i]t will be either battery powered or it will be powered using the vehicle power source via cigarette lighter or directly to the car's electrical harness." It will be installed in either the side rear or rear window.

We assume that battery-powered devices, and those activated through the cigarette lighter, are so simple that the vehicle owner can install and use the device without resorting to the assistance of others. Under this circumstance, there is no restriction that applies to this device under the laws administered by this agency. Nevertheless, the device may be subject to restrictions imposed by a State in which it is operated.

However, if attaching the device to the car's electrical harness is a task that may be performed by a person other than the vehicle owner, a different consideration applies. A manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or motor vehicle repair business may not install the device if it renders inoperative, in whole or in part, any device or element of design installed in accordance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard. Examples of equipment added pursuant to a Federal standard and that could be affected by the sign board are the stop lamps, both center highmounted and conventional, and the inside rear view mirror. I enclose a copy of an interpretation of the agency dated August 17, 1989, to Mr. Alan S. Eldahr, and call your attention to our views on impairment by message boards expressed on the second page. This letter also provides the address of an organization that you may consult on applicable State laws.

Installation of the message board in a side rear window by a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business would appear permissible. The only required side lighting equipment are front and rear lamps and reflectors, intended to mark the extremities of the vehicles, and we do not believe that their function would be negatively affected by installation of the message board.

ID: nht75-2.6

DATE: 09/16/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; R. B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Kleber Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of June 3, 1975, asking whether it is permissible to import into this country a tire designed exclusively for racing purposes.

Tires designed to be used exclusively on racing vehicles, i.e., vehicles other than "motor vehicles" within the meaning of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, are not regulated by the Federal motor vehicle safety standards, and may be imported. The labeling that you propose to use appears to be appropriate to warn users of their intended purpose. Manufacturers of such equipment should take all reasonable steps to ensure that their products are not misused.

YOURS TRULY,

June 3, 1975

OFFICE OF CHIEF COUNSEL NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION

Attention : Marc Schwimmer

First, let me briefly describe KLEBER CORP. KLEBER CORP. is a wholly owned subsidiary of KLEBER-COLOMBES of Paris, France. We are the second largest tire manufacturer in France after MICHELIN. All our tires are of radial concept. Since the beginning of this year, we are developing a distribution network in the U.S.A. Naturally, our passenger tires conform with Federal Standard 109.

In Europe, KLEBER manufactures tires that are designed for small formula cars (i.e.: Formula Ford). These tires are to be used exclusively on racing vehicles and not on regular automobiles. They do not bear the D.O.T. engravings.

We would like to import these tires in the U.S.A. and find that our sole competitor would be a GOODYEAR tire called "G-19". The "G-19" has no D.O.T. markings but on both sidewalls the caption "FOR RACING PURPOSES ONLY - NOT FOR HIGHWAY USE" appears in 1/4 inch letters.

We would like to know if it is legal to import and sell our tires (similar to the G-19) in this country, if, like GOODYEAR, we indicate "FOR RACING PURPOSES ONLY - NOT FOR HIGHWAY USE" on both sidewalls. As additional warning, we plan to print the same text on all invoices and literature related to these type tires.

On this subject, I contacted Mr. Diehl of the D.O.T. who feels that there should be no problem but suggested we check with you.

I am at your entire disposal for any further information you may need and remain,

KLEBER CORP.

Guy A. Catherine

General Sales Manager

ID: 07-005943drn

ID: nht75-1.8

DATE: 06/10/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; James C. Schultz; NHTSA

TO: Department of California Highway Patrol

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

June 10, 1975 N40-30 (FWS)

Warren M. Heath, Commander Engineering Section Department of California Highway Patrol P.O. Box 898 Sacremento, California 95804

Dear Commander Heath:

This is a further reply to your letter dated January 21, 1975, asking several questions regarding Standard No. 205, "Glazing materials." We have attempted to incorporate the substance of your questions in our various answers.

1. Prime Glazing Material Manufacturer. A company that buys and then bends or otherwise forms flat plastic glazing material into a motorcycle windshield is not a prime glazing material manufacturer, nor is a company which blows or stretches flat plastic glazing material that is purchased from another company. Prime glazing material manufacturers are only those who fabricate, laminate, or temper the glazing material. In neither of the examples you pose is the material fabricated, laminated, or tempered by the company in question.

2. Marking Requirements. In the amendment to Standard No. 205 published November 11, 1972, (37 FR 24035), it was our intention to limit the use of the DOT symbol and manufacturer's code number to the prime glazing material manufacturer. Persons who cut glazing fabricated by others should not under Standard No. 205 utilize the prime manufacturer's code number or the DOT symbol. Our purpose in structuring the marking requirements this way was to enable us to determine, for purposes of attributing responsibility for conformity, 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.

(a) You are correct in your interpretation that the DOT symbol and the code number are applied by a prime glazing material manufacturer in addition to the manufacturer's trademark. It was our expectation that the prime manufacturer would furnish his customers with a heat stamp of the markings required by Section 6 of ANS Z26, without the DOT symbol and code number, by which the manufacturer cutting or otherwise shaping the material would mark those pieces he cut or shaped.

(b) Glazing produced by a prime glazing material manufacturer that is not designed for use in a specific vehicle should not contain the DOT symbol or the manufacturer's code number.

(c) The NHTSA has assigned numbers only to prime glazing material manufacturers. We have not inquired, however, whether the company is in fact producing glazing materials for use in specific vehicle applications.

(d) As stated previously, a company which does not manufacture its glazing but which cuts glazing from larger pieces purchased from the producer of the material should not be using the prime manufacturer's code number or the DOT symbol.

(e) You are correct in your conclusion that the marking requirements of the standard do not apply to dealers. However any person (including a dealer) who sells glazing (separately or in a new vehicle) which is improperly marked may be violating Section 108 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act.

3. General Requirements.

(a) Standard No. 205 does presently prohibit dealers from using the prime glazing material manufacturer's code number. If you are aware of instances where this requirement is not being followed, please forward to us the particulars of the cases in question and we will take appropriate action.

(b) Manufacturers who purchase glazing in large sheets and then cut it to fit window frames are not prime manufacturers and may not use the DOT symbol or manufacturer's code number. You are therefore not correct in your statement that a manufacturer of a window assembly may use the prime manufacturer's number even when the window manufactured is for a special application.

(c) The model number of glazing used in motorcycle windshields should be that which is assigned to it by the prime glazing material manufacturer in the glazing's original thickness. ANS Z26 calls for testing plastic glazing materials in substantially flat specimens, and not in molded specimens. However, the Federal standard does not require testing. Manufacturers are required only to use due care in the manufacture of their products. A person "reforming" the plastic does not thereby become a prime glazing material manufacturer.

(d) The markings which should appear on plastic bubbles on minivans should be those of the prime manufacturer (not the DOT symbol or code number) of the glazing material and not those of the person who reshapes the glazing.

(e) A material marked AS4 that was used as a motorcycle windshield would technically fail to conform to the standard as the standard does not provide for the use of AS4 materials in motorcycle windshields. However, if the material also conformed to the requirements of AS6 (which is permitted to be used in motorcycle windshields), the nonconformity would not be considered significant.

(f) Our basic approach has been that the standard applies to the vehicle locations specified in ANS Z26, and to any glazing (glass or plastics) used in those locations. However, opaque plastic materials which are clearly structural materials do not fall within the ambit of Standard No. 205.

(g) Standard No. 205 presently limits the use of plastic glazing materials in buses to readily removable windows, which include push-out windows. Plastic materials may not be used in buses in fixed quarter panels or sliding windows that are not readily removable.

We believe our reasons to be valid for limiting the use of the DOT symbol and manufacturer's code number to glazing manufactured by prime manufacturers for use in a specific vehicle location. However, we would certainly be willing to consider steps you might suggest to facilitate State inspections that are consistent with the purposes of the labeling requirements presently in effect. Such a suggestion should be in the form of a petition to amend Standard No. 205 and should be specific.

Sincerely,

James C. Schultz Chief Counsel

ID: nht75-2.14

DATE: 08/19/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Volkswagen of America, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Please forgive the delay in responding to your letter of April 10, 1975, requesting an interpretation of S4.3, the placarding requirement, of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 110, Tire Selection and Rims -- Passenger Cars.

You have proposed a format for presenting vehicle capacity weights which is designed to accommodate, with a single placard, several different model configurations. The NHTSA has no objection to this format, provided that the weights listed are correct.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

VOLKSWAGEN OF AMERICA INC.

April 10, 1975

Mark Schwimmer, Esq. -- Office of the Chief Counsel, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Subject: N40-30 (MPP)

Dear Mr. Schwimmer:

This is in reference to our telephone conversation of Monday, April 7, concerning the format of our Standard 110 label. I am also referring to Mr. Dyson's letter of January 17, 1975, in which he suggested that we list on the same label alternate vehicle capacity weights applicable to models with or without optional equipment as long as we initially displayed the lowest vehicle capacity weight for the vehicle.

Our marketing representatives feel that the initial listing of the lowest weight may have competitive disadvantages in the small car market and have proposed a format which contains the vehicle capacity weight for each model configuration. I have enclosed for your review a copy of the new format which we plan to use and would appreciate your opinion concerning its acceptability pursuant to S4.3 of FMVSS 110.

Sincerely,

Gerhard P. Riechel -- Attorney

Enc.

(Graphics omitted)

ID: lotus.ztv

Mr. Arnold Johnson
CEO Lotus Cars USA, Inc.
500 Marathon Parkway
Lawrenceville, Ga. 30045

Dear Mr. Johnson:

We have received the "Petition of Lotus Cars" for a temporary exemption from Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 201, dated April 30, 1999, accompanied by a letter of the same date to Assistant Chief Counsel Coleman requesting confidential treatment of certain information in the petition.

The manufacturer of the vehicle is Lotus Cars Ltd., a corporation organized under the laws of the United Kingdom. It has a wholly-owned subsidiary, Lotus Cars USA, Inc., which imports and distributes Lotus vehicles in the United States. The petition states that it is being submitted by both the British and the American corporations. You have signed the petition as CEO of Lotus Cars USA, Inc., and provided financial data relating to your company.

Under 49 U.S.C. 30113(b)(3)(B)(i), we may grant a temporary exemption upon a finding that compliance with a standard "would cause substantial economic hardship to a manufacturer that has tried to comply with the standard in good faith." It seems clear that Congress intended that we grant temporary relief under this provision to the fabricating manufacturer. Accordingly, as a general rule, we accept hardship petitions only from the fabricating manufacturer of the vehicle and the person who certifies compliance of the vehicle pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30115.

As the wholly-owned subsidiary of Lotus Cars, Ltd., Lotus Cars USA Inc. may submit a petition on behalf of its parent. However, an exemption would only be granted to Lotus Cars, Ltd. as the actual manufacturer of the vehicle. This means that we must assess the hardship that compliance and denial would create for the parent, not just for its wholly-owned American subsidiary. Your petition is incomplete in this regard as it does not contain the required financial information for Lotus Cars Ltd. for its past three fiscal years. When we have this information we shall be pleased to give further consideration to the Lotus petition.

With respect to confidentiality requests, please be advised that the public must have access to the same financial information that we use in determining the existence of hardship. In the usual hardship case, cumulative net loss figures are sufficient such as are shown by Lotus Cars USA Inc. in its profit and loss figures for 1993-1997 (i.e., we would have granted your confidentiality request for all financial information except for these bottom-line figures). If Lotus Cars, Ltd. has cumulative net profits, we may need to consider and make available additional financial information in order to assess its hardship arguments.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
ref:555
d.6/3/99

ID: nht89-2.45

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/27/89

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

TO: ROBERT V. POTTER -- SPALDING & EVENFLO COMPANIES, INC.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 07/31/86 FROM ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA TO K.A. ZIOMEK -- TRW; LETTER DATED 03/17/89 FROM ROBERT V. POTTER TO NHTSA; OCC ILLEGIBLE

TEXT: Dear Mr. Potter:

This responds to your March 17, 1989, letter asking whether the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) requires child restraint manufacturers to make spare parts available for their products for a specified amount of time. I regret the d elay in responding.

NHTSA has addressed the availability issue you raise in a July 31, 1986, letter to Ms. Ziomek of Washington, Michigan, a copy of which is enclosed. As explained in that letter, NHTSA does not specifically require child restraint manufacturers to make re placement parts available for any child restraint. However, manufacturers must be prepared to meet their recall obligations under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. That law requires that, in the event of a safety-related defect or non-c ompliance with a safety standard, manufacturers provide a remedy without charge to consumers for eight years after purchase.

With regard to your statement about an existing Federal regulation requiring automobile manufacturers to make replacement parts available for 10 years, NHTSA does not have such a requirement. However, automobile manufacturers have the same recall respon sibilities described above for safety-related defects and non-compliances. Further, we understand manufacturers commonly follow a voluntary practice of making replacement parts available for vehicle parts likely to become worn or damaged for a 10-year p eriod, which to the best of our knowledge has usually proven adequate to meet general consumer demand.

I hope this information is helpful.

ENCLOSURE

Sincerely,