ID: 20061.ztv

Mr. Mark Cronmiller
Project Engineer
VDO North America LLC
2669 Bond Street
Rochester Hills, MI 48309

Dear Mr. Cronmiller:

This is in reply to your email of May 14, 1999, with respect to "smart" headlight systems.

You report that these systems adjust headlamp aim vertically and/or horizontally according to driving conditions (e.g., vertically for oncoming traffic, horizontally around curves in the road). You ask whether there are any regulation interpretations relating to these systems, and whether we have plans to regulate or require these types of systems.

We have not issued any interpretations on these new "smart" headlamp systems. Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment, prescribes headlamp aiming hardware requirements under static conditions only (paragraph S7.8). Once a headlamp is installed on a vehicle, its aim is fixed, but may be adjustable by mechanical means when the vehicle is at rest. A limited ability to adjust vertical aim on some vehicles is also provided by vehicle leveling devices. Our standard does not require that headlamps be aimed at the time the vehicle is manufactured and certified as conforming to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. If there is a requirement for correct headlamp aim on new vehicles, it would be that of a State's motor vehicle authority at the time the vehicle is first registered for highway use in that State.

If a "smart" headlamp system meets the static aiming hardware requirements of Standard No. 108, a dynamic aiming feature is permissible. We have no specific plans to regulate or require headlamps with dynamic aim features, but we are monitoring them to form an impression as to their suitability for use under American driving conditions, and to learn if there are any problems of maintenance of aiming integrity, or durability, involved in their use. At a minimum, we would be concerned about the need for fail-safe performance to assure that aim would return to nominally correct, straight ahead in the event of a failure.

Because each State is likely to impose aim-location requirements on new motor vehicles and these requirements may differ from State to State, we note that you may have difficulty getting a "smart" headlamp system accepted as capable of being correctly aimed as may be required by the various States. We recommend that you contact the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators (AAMVA) for determining the legality of the "smart" headlamp system under each State's laws pertaining to correct headlamp aim. AAMVA's address is 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA 22203.

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

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
ref:108
d.7/21/99

ID: 008052_Kiser_flammability_preemption

Mr. Randy Kiser
Evenflo Company, Inc.
707 Crossroads Court
Vandalia, OH 45377

Dear Mr. Kiser:

This responds to your letter asking whether Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 213, Child restraint systems, "preempts Californias ability to require an additional specification for manufacturers."You ask about both a flammability requirement for filling materials and a requirement that a tag must be attached to the product indicating its compliance with the State standard.

We are authorized by 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301 ("the Safety Act") to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards that establish performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. We have used this authority to issue FMVSS No. 213 (49 CFR 571.213). Chapter 301 contains the following preemption provision (49 U.S.C. 30103(b)):

When a motor vehicle safety standard is in effect under this chapter, a State or a political subdivision of a State may prescribe or continue in effect a standard applicable to the same aspect of performance of a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment only if the standard is identical to the standard prescribed under this chapter....

Flammability Resistance Standard

FMVSS No. 213 sets forth flammability resistance requirements for child restraints. Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30103(b), California could not establish a standard that applied to the manufacture or sale of new child restraints in California on the flammability resistance of the restraints unless the State standard is identical to the requirements of S5.7 of FMVSS No. 213.

Additional Tag

You also ask whether California may require child restraints to have a tag indicating compliance with the States flammability resistance requirement (assuming that the States flammability resistance standard is not preempted). We assume that since the State flammability requirement itself is preempted, the tag would not be required. Further, because the State flammability resistance requirement is preempted, a State could not indirectly require child restraints to meet the States flammability resistance requirement by way of requiring the tag.

If you have further questions, please contact Ms. Deirdre Fujita of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:213
d.3/18/04

ID: nht92-8.39

DATE: February 29, 1992

FROM: Allan Schwartz -- President, Tron Industries, Inc.

TO: Taylor Vinson -- Legal Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: FMVSS 108

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 4/21/92 from Paul J. Rice to Allan Schwartz (A39; Std. 108)

TEXT:

We are the manufacturer of LUMITRON, an electronic neon lighting kit for vehicles which is sold and installed as an automotive aftermarket product. Each LUMITRON neon tube is enclosed and sealed in polycarbonate tubing and is energized by a miniature electronic module which is connected to each tube. Our LUMITRON tubes are not like the neon tubes made by local sign shops and used under vehicles. LUMITRON tubes require NO external high voltage (6,000 to 12,000 volt) transformers and NO interconnections of high voltage GTO wires running under the vehicle between the neon display tubes and into the engine compartment.

The product described above is legal for street use as long as it is installed below bumper level and under the vehicle. We do NOT manufacture this product for street use in RED, BLUE, YELLOW, and WHITE because they are reserved for Police, Fire and Emergency Services. After speaking with both The Florida Highway Patrol and Mr. Kevin Cavey, N.H.T.S.A., Dept. of Transportation they confirmed our findings that our product falls under 49 CFR Ch. V (10-1-90 Edition) Sec. 571.108. A highlighted copy of this section is enclosed for your convenience to reference. As you can imagine we were delighted to learn that our LUMITRON neon lighting kit, when installed and used as per our instructions, places the user's vehicle into further compliance with S2 Purpose as it illuminates the roadway and enhances the conspicuity of the vehicle thus reducing the possibility of traffic accidents, deaths and injuries.

We have been informed by our dealer, Mr. Harry Adcock of All State Audio Services, Inc., 11554 Plank Road, Baton Rouge, LA 70811 that Louisiana and possibly other states have not uniformly adopted or follow the Code of Federal Regulations, 49 CFR Ch. V as it pertains to automotive aftermarket lighting. Authorities in Louisiana believe these products are legal but they have to be approved by the Commissioner. We would be most appreciative if you could write us a letter confirming what we already understand about this regulation that we could submit to the Commissioner. He would then be able to adopt it as Louisiana Law thus making our product legal for use in that State. Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter.

ID: 3060yy

Messrs. Steven M. and Morris G. Healy
P.O. Box 73
Worthington, MA 01098-0073

Dear Messrs. Healy:

This responds to your letter of June 5, l99l, to Richard Van Iderstine of this agency, asking for an opinion as to the legality of your device that attaches monitoring lights to bug deflectors "and/or to other appropriate mounting areas on vehicles."

As you state it, the primary purpose of the device is to "bring indicator lights up and into the line of vision of the vehicle operator." You specifically mention the turn signal and upper beam indicators ("or other appropriate applications desired by the operator)." You mention that the existing indicator lights on the dashboard are left undisturbed.

As bug deflectors or shields are accessory equipment sold in the aftermarket, it is clear that you do not intend your device to be original equipment offered by the vehicle manufacturer. The Federal statute governing the manufacture of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment is the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. There is no regulation or standard under this Act that relates to the manufacture and sale of your device.

We must, however, add a cautionary note relating to the use of your device by its purchaser. The Act prohibits any "manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business" from rendering "inoperative, in whole or in part, any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle . . . in accordance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard." You have assured us that the existing indicator lamps are not affected. However, one of the requirements of the lighting standard (Standard No. l08) that applies to motor vehicles is that accessory equipment not "impair the effectiveness" of the lighting equipment required by the standard. We regard the potential to create confusion as the potential to impair the effectiveness of lighting equipment. It does not appear that the turn signal indicator portion of your device, operating in tandem with the turn signals, would create confusion. Likewise, the upper beam indicator would be too small to be perceived by an oncoming car at any great distance. However, you have added qualifications to your letter ("other appropriate mounting areas on vehicles" and "other appropriate applications desired by the operator") that require us to advise you of the statutory prohibition.

The prohibition does not affect vehicle owners, and if you intend the device to be installed by them, you may disregard the foregoing. However, in any event, the use of the device is also subject to the laws of any State in which it will be used. We are unable to advise you on these laws, and suggest that you write for an opinion the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Va. 22203.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

ref:l08#VSA d:7/8/9l

ID: nht91-4.41

DATE: July 8, 1991

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Steven M. Healy; Morris G. Healy

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 6-5-91 from Steven M. Healy and Morris G. Healy to Richard Van Eiderstein (OCC 6147)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of June 5, 1991, to Richard Van Iderstine of this agency, asking for an opinion as to the legality of your device that attaches monitoring lights to bug deflectors "and/or to other appropriate mounting areas on vehicles."

As you state it, the primary purpose of the device is to "bring indicator lights up and into the line of vision of the vehicle operator." You specifically mention the turn signal and upper beam indicators ("or other appropriate applications desired by the operator)." You mention that the existing indicator lights on the dashboard are left undisturbed.

As bug deflectors or shields are accessory equipment sold in the aftermarket, it is clear that you do not intend your device to be original equipment offered by the vehicle manufacturer. The Federal statute governing the manufacture of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment is the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. There is no regulation or standard under this Act that relates to the manufacture and sale of your device.

We must, however, add a cautionary note relating to the use of your device by its purchaser. The Act prohibits any "manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business" from rendering "inoperative, in whole or in part, any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle . . . in accordance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard." You have assured us that the existing indicator lamps are not affected. However, one of the requirements of the lighting standard (Standard No. 108) that applies to motor vehicles is that accessory equipment not "impair the effectiveness" of the lighting equipment required by the standard. We regard the potential to create confusion as the potential to impair the effectiveness of lighting equipment. It does not appear that the turn signal indicator portion of your device, operating in tandem with the turn signals, would create confusion. Likewise, the upper beam indicator would be too small to be perceived by an oncoming car at any great distance. However, you have added qualifications to your letter ("other appropriate mounting areas on vehicles" and "other appropriate applications desired by the operator") that require us to advise you of the statutory prohibition.

The prohibition does not affect vehicle owners, and if you intend the device to be installed by them, you may disregard the foregoing. However, in any event, the use of the device is also subject to the laws of any

State in which it will be used. We are unable to advise you on these laws, and suggest that you write for an opinion the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Va. 22203.

ID: GF009344

Mr. Dave Adams
Market Manager Automotive, N.A.
Tesa Tape
5825 Camegie Blvd.
Charlotte, NC 28209

Dear Mr. Adams:

This responds to your December 3, 2004, e-mail to George Feygin of my staff, concerning the National Highway Traffic Safety Administrations (NHTSAs) Federal motor vehicle theft prevention standard, 49 CFR Part 541 (Part 541). Specifically, you ask us to clarify the requirements in 541.5(d)(1)(v)(B) with regard to the residual parts of a removed parts making label.

By way of background, the purpose of Part 541 is to reduce the incidence of motor vehicle thefts by facilitating the tracing and recovery of parts from stolen vehicles. The standard requires that a parts marking label, containing identifying numbers or symbols (usually the Vehicle Identification Number is used), be placed on major parts of certain passenger motor vehicles.

541.5(d)(1)(v)(B) requires that removal of the parts marking label must: "discernibly alter the appearance of that area of the part where the label was affixed by leaving residual parts of the label or adhesive in that area, so that investigators will have evidence that a label was originally present. "(Emphasis added.) These residual parts are also known as "footprints."

In your e-mail, you indicate that you have encountered labels that leave a footprint upon removal, but that the footprint "can easily be wiped away thus providing no evidence that a label was originally present."You ask whether such an easily removable footprint satisfies the requirements of 541.5(d)(1)(v)(B). Our answer is no.

Section 541.5(d)(1)(v)(B) requires the footprint to be of a quality that will alert investigators that a label was once present. Since the vehicle would be inspected by an investigator some time after the removal of the label, the requirement envisions the footprint to have a degree of permanence. As indicated in the final rule establishing the footprint requirement, the agency thought that footprints that could not be removed with most solvents would be effective (see 50 FR 43166, at 43174; October 24, 1985). We note however, that the standard does not require that the footprint be visible under natural light (see April 8, 1994 letter to Daniel T. Mason).

In sum, unless removal of the label creates or uncovers lasting physical evidence that the label was originally present, the effectiveness of the theft prevention standard would be substantially reduced. In fact, allowing for an easily removable footprint would frustrate the very purpose of the requirement.

If you have any other questions, please contact Mr. Feygin at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:541
d.2/2/05

ID: Tesa.jeg

ID: nht74-1.15

DATE: 05/01/74

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

TO: The Mansfield Tire & Rubber Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of March 19, 1974, inquiring whether Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 109 permits the labeling of both the 175R13 and the BR78-13 tire size designations on the same tire.

Paragraph S4.3 of Standard No. 109 permits the labeling on the same tire of equivalent inch and metric size designations. Based upon the Tables in the Appendix of Standard No. 109, we would consider the two size designations to be equivalent inch and metric size designations, and both may therefore be labeled on the sidewall of the same tire.

Yours truly,

ATTACH.

Maximum Tire Loads (Pounds) At Various Cold Inflation Pressures Size 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 175R13 790 840 890 930 980 1030 1070 1110 1150 1190 BR78.13 780 840 890 930 980 1030 1070 1110 1150 1190

THE MANSFIELD TIRE & RUBBER COMPANY

March 19, 1974

L. R. Schneider -- Chief Counsel, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, United States Department of Transportation

Dear Mr. Schneider:

In the Federal Register November 1, 1973, Part III, the Department of Transportation published Passenger Car Tires and Rims Information under MVSS 109. Reviewing Rules and Regulations for Radial Ply Tires, it is noted that under Table I-H for the 175R-13 and under Table I-H for the BR78-13, the loads, inflations, rim, minimum size factor and section width are basically the same. For your observation, we are listing from the Tables both of these sizes as spelled out in these Rules and Regulations.

Maximum Tire Loads (Pounds) At Various Cold Inflation Pressures Test Min.

Rim Size Sect.

Width Fact. Width Size 36 38 40 (In.) (In.) (In.) 175R13 1230 1270 1300 4 1/2 30.30 6.75 BR78.13 1230 1270 1300 4 1/2 30.31 6.75

As these tires are both the same for the American size radial and the millimeter radial, it is our intent to mark both these sizes, as noted in MVSS 109, Part 571, Section S4.3 "Labeling Requirements", on the same tire with the maximum load and inflation branded on the tires. We are intending to use the American size tire code in the tire identification serial.

We will appreciate your reviewing this matter and unless advised to the contrary, we are intending to proceed with the marking as described above. We will appreciate hearing from you at your earliest convenience.

Sincerely,

R. C. Hudson -- Director, Tire Engineering, Tech Service/Quality Control

ID: 2170y

The Honorable Bud Shuster
U.S. House of Representatives
Washington, DC 20515

Dear Mr. Shuster:

Thank you for your inquiry on behalf of your constituent, Mr. Lester Hoover. Mr. Hoover requested information about laws that cover the branding of tires that are not first quality. In addition, he asked whether there is any way to apply such a law to other consumer goods such as batteries. This inquiry has already been referred to the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), which sent you a letter dated October 16, 1989 explaining its tire labeling regulations. The FTC's letter also indicated that this agency's tire labeling regulations might be of interest to Mr. Hoover.

Let me begin by explaining that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has promulgated regulations related to tires. In particular, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 109, New Pneumatic Tires, applies to new tires for use on passenger cars, Standard No. 119, New Pneumatic Tires for Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars, applies to new tires for use on vehicles other than passenger cars, Standard No. 117, Retreaded Pneumatic Tires, applies to retreaded tires for use on passenger cars, and Part 569, Regrooved Tires, applies to all regrooved tires. Each of these regulations includes some labeling requirements.

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act requires that every manufacturer certify that each of the tires it produces complies with these standards, including the labeling requirements. Thus, even a tire identified as something like "blemished" or "out-of-round" must be certified as complying with all provisions of the applicable safety standard(s). None of the regulations administered by this agency require, or establish any standards for, the identification of tires as something other than "first quality."

If some Federal regulation exists that requires the identification of tires as something other than "first quality," it would be promulgated by the FTC under that agency's authority to regulate unfair and deceptive trade practices. If the FTC does not have any such regulation, I am not aware of any other Federal agency that would have authority in this area. Similarly, I am not aware of any such labeling regulations that could be applied to consumer goods such as batteries. I hope you find this information helpful. Please let me know if you have any further questions or concerns in this area.

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel

/ref:109#117#119 d:ll/20/89

ID: 21066.ztv

Mr. Jay C. Ackerman
Vice President - Operations
G & C, Inc.
500 W. Southgate
Enid, OK 73701

Dear Mr. Ackerman:

This is in response to your e-mail of December 10, 1999, to Steve Wood, Assistant Chief Counsel for Rulemaking.

You describe a parking brake system you wish to install on a low-speed vehicle that you intend to manufacture, and have asked whether the system is allowable under Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 500, Low Speed Vehicles.

At the present time, Standard No. 500 simply requires a low-speed vehicle to be equipped with a parking brake (S5(b)(7)). We have adopted no performance specifications for a parking brake on a low-speed vehicle. We define "parking brake" as "a mechanism designed to prevent the movement of a stationary motor vehicle" (Sec. 571.3(b)). Therefore, any device or mechanism installed on a low-speed vehicle that performs the function stated in the definition would be acceptable as a parking brake.

If we decide that specific parking brake performance requirements should be adopted for low-speed vehicles, we will first publish a notice of a proposed rule so that you and other interested persons may comment on it. We anticipate that parking brake performance requirements for low-speed vehicles would be similar to those specified in Standards Nos. 105, Hydraulic and Electric Brake Systems, and 135, Passenger Car Brake Systems, for faster motor vehicles. These standards specify a parking brake system of a friction type with a solely mechanical means to retain engagement. Your hydraulic-type parking brake system would not be acceptable if we propose and adopt the same type of parking-brake specification for low-speed vehicles. We do not favor hydraulic-type parking brake systems because, if a leak in the system caused the pressure to drop, the vehicle could roll away. This would not necessarily be prevented by your additional feature that will disengage the electrical drive system when the line-lock system is engaged.

Because it appears that G&C is a new manufacturer of motor vehicles, I enclose an information package that we provide, explaining our laws and regulations. We particularly call your attention to Part 565, Vehicle Information Number Requirements, and Part 566, Manufacturer Identification.

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

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
Enclosures
ref:500
d.3/15/2000