Ms. Stefanie Siverly

Intertek

4700 Broadmoor SE, Suite 200

Grand Rapids, MI 49512

Dear Ms. Siverly:

This responds to your letter requesting an interpretation of whether aftermarket tire pressure monitoring systems (TPMS) would be subject to the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 138, Tire pressure monitoring systems. I apologize for the delay in responding.

You state that your company is a testing laboratory and that you have a client who is distributing TPMS as an aftermarket item. Specifically, you state that your client produces both mechanical systems (where the vehicle operator would look at a gauge installed on the tire stem) and electronic systems (where there is a device which can be mounted or stored in the vehicle which alerts the operator to low pressure). Based on the information you have provided and the analysis below, we have concluded that the aftermarket products you describe would not directly be subject to FMVSS No. 138. However, if these aftermarket TPMS devices are installed on vehicles already equipped with TPMS, installation of the devices could be subject to the statutory prohibition against making items of motor vehicle safety equipment inoperative.

By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized to issue FMVSSs that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment (see 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301). NHTSA does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Instead, manufacturers are required to self-certify that their products conform to all applicable safety standards that are in effect on the date of manufacture. NHTSA selects a sampling of new vehicles and equipment each year to determine their compliance with applicable FMVSSs. If our testing or examination reveals an apparent noncompliance, we may require the manufacturer to remedy the noncompliance, and may initiate an enforcement proceeding, if necessary, to ensure that the manufacturer takes appropriate action.

As noted above, some FMVSSs apply to motor vehicles, some apply to motor vehicle equipment, and some apply to both. FMVSS No. 138 is a vehicle standard, specifying performance requirements for tire pressure monitoring systems on new vehicles.[1] The standard does not apply to aftermarket TPMS. However, there are several provisions of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (49 U.S.C. 30101 et seq., the Safety Act) that have a bearing the manufacture and sale of aftermarket TPMS.

First, 30122(b) of the Safety Act states, in relevant part:

Prohibition. A manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business may not knowingly make inoperative any part of a device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable motor vehicle safety standard.

In general, this section prohibits the entities listed in 30122 from removing, disabling or otherwise making inoperative any of the safety systems or devices installed on the vehicle to comply with a safety standard. Therefore, the question of whether installation of an aftermarket TPMS violates the render inoperative prohibition is linked to whether the vehicle in which the aftermarket TPMS is being installed originally was subject to FMVSS No. 138. (We assume the modification of the vehicle is by an entity listed in 30122.)

If the vehicle in which the aftermarket TPMS is being installed was not originally certified as meeting FMVSS No. 138, under our regulations the aftermarket TPMS could be installed without regard to FMVSS No. 138 requirements. On the other hand, if a compliant TPMS that had been installed in the vehicle in compliance with FMVSS No. 138 were removed and replaced by the aftermarket TPMS, the removal of the compliant TPMS would violate the render inoperative prohibition unless the vehicle, as equipped with the aftermarket TPMS, meets the performance requirements of FMVSS No. 138.

The second provision of our safety statute of which you should be aware relates to the responsibilities of motor vehicle equipment manufacturers to ensure that their products are free of safety-related defects. An aftermarket TPMS is an item of motor vehicle equipment. Manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment are subject to the requirements in sections 30118-30122 of Title 49 of the U.S. Code concerning the recall and remedy of products with defects related to motor vehicle safety. If a manufacturer or NHTSA determines that an item of motor vehicle equipment contains a safety-related defect, the manufacturer would be responsible for notifying purchasers of the defective equipment and remedying the problem free of charge.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact Rebecca Yoon of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely yours,

Stephen P. Wood

Acting Chief Counsel

ref:138

d.3/10/09

Mr. Kiminori Hyodo

Deputy General Manager, Regulation & Certification

Koito Manufacturing Co., Ltd.

4-8-3, Takanawa

Minato-Ku Tokyo

Japan

Dear Mr. Hyodo:

This is in response to your letter, in which you asked about the origin of the required visibility angle in Figure 20 of Federal motor vehicle safety standard (FMVSS) No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment. Specifically, you ask whether the origin of the visibility angle for FMVSS No. 108, Figure 20 is identical to that described in Economic Commission for Europe (ECE) R.48, i.e., the intersection of the axis of reference with the exterior lens of the lighting device. As discussed below, our answer is no. It is our opinion that the referenced Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) standard (SAE J575e) makes clear that the photometric measurement is made at a distance between the light source of the lighting device and the point of measurement specified for the lighting device, and in the case of the filament light sources you have provided as examples, the light source of the device is the filament itself. Thus, the measurement is made from the filament center, and not from the exterior lens.

By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized to issue FMVSSs that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment (see 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301). NHTSA does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment.  Instead, manufacturers are required to self-certify that their products conform to all applicable safety standards that are in effect on the date of manufacture. NHTSA selects a sampling of new vehicles and equipment each year to determine their compliance with applicable FMVSSs.  If our testing or examination reveals an apparent noncompliance, we may require the manufacturer to remedy the noncompliance, and may initiate an enforcement proceeding if necessary to ensure that the manufacturer takes appropriate action.

Our August 11, 2004 Final Rule (2004 Final Rule) amended the visibility requirements of FMVSS No. 108 and consolidated all the visibility requirements in a new paragraph, S5.3.2. 69 Fed. Reg. 48805. As you pointed out in your letter, S5.3.2(b)(2) states that [w]hen a vehicle is equipped with any lamp listed in Figure 20 of this standard, each such lamp must provide a luminous intensity not less than specified in Figure 20 in any direction throughout the pattern defined by the corner points specified in Figure 20 for each such lamp. The luminous intensity must be measured in accordance with the photometry test requirements of the applicable SAE Standards and Recommended Practices incorporated by reference or sub-referenced in this standard. As you further pointed out in your letter, SAE J575e (Tests for Motor Vehicle Lighting Devices and Components) is incorporated by reference in FMVSS No. 108, and states that the photometric measurement shall be made at a distance between the light source and the point of measurement specified for the lighting device. SAE J575e goes on to define the V axis as the line formed by the intersection of a vertical plane through the light source of the device This indicates that the light source is the origin of the beam in a lighting device, or, in the devices you gave as illustrative examples in your letter, the filament center.

Moreover, while the 2004 Final Rule sought to improve compatibility of our lighting requirements with those of the [ECE], the new geometric visibility requirements you seek clarification on did not entirely harmonize FMVSS No. 108 with ECE R.48. In the 2004 Final Rule, the agency recognized that one of the many ways ECE R.48 visibility requirements differed from FMVSS No. 108 requirements was that ECE R.48 contains a definition for angles of geometric visibility, whereas the specifications for lighting tests in FMVSS No. 108 are all in SAE J575e, which is incorporated by reference. 69 Fed. Reg. 48805, 48806. In your letter, you suggest that since the new luminous intensity method Figure (Figure 20) was introduced to increase compatibility with ECE, the origin of the visibility angle for Figure 20 is identical to that described in ECE R.48. We disagree. Since NHTSA declined to adopt ECE R.48s definition of angles of geometric visibility in the 2004 Final Rule, we effectively retained the photometry measurements as specified in SAE J575e. Accordingly, we believe that the angles of measurement required in Figure 20 are to be measured from the light source of the lighting device, and in the lighting devices you have provided as illustrative examples, the measurement should be made from the filament center.

If you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact Sarah Alves of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely yours,

Anthony M. Cooke

Chief Counsel

ref:108

d.4/17/08

Ms. Lori J. Fuller

Ms. Sara L. Dill

608 N. Main St.

Washington, IL 61571

Dear Ms. Fuller and Ms. Dill:

This responds to your letter asking about the requirements of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) for a device you call the seatbelt buckle safety sheath, an aftermarket product you have developed that would prevent children in booster seats from unbuckling a seat belt. Based upon the information you provided this agency and as is explained more fully below, we have determined that no Federal motor vehicle safety standard specifically applies to your product. However, as a manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment you would have certain responsibilities under our laws.

By way of background information, NHTSA is authorized under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (49 U.S.C. Chapter 301; the Safety Act) to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards that apply to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA, however, does not approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment or pass on the compliance of a vehicle or item of equipment outside the context of an actual enforcement proceeding. Instead, the Safety Act establishes a self-certification process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards. The following represents our opinion based on our understanding of the information set forth in your letter.

You explain that your device is designed to be used with existing seat belt assembly systems in motor vehicles. According to your letter, the sheath is a tubular rectangle made from resilient material, designed to slip over the the female portion of the seatbelt buckle. You state that the area of the sheath that is over the release button provides a stiffened resilience to the normal operation of the release button, so that a greater force than normal, not capable of being applied by a young child, is required to unfasten the seatbelt.

There is currently no Federal motor vehicle safety standard (FMVSS) that applies to your product. FMVSS No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies, sets forth requirements for new seat belt assemblies. Your product does not meet the definition of a seat belt assembly, so the standard would not apply.

Although we do not have any standards that directly apply to your product, you should be aware of 30122 of the Safety Act, Making safety devices and elements inoperative. That section prohibits motor vehicle manufacturers, dealers, distributors, or repair businesses from knowingly making inoperative devices or elements of design installed in a motor vehicle or on an item of motor vehicle equipment, such as a vehicle seat belt assembly, in compliance with the FMVSSs.

There are several seat belt elements of design that could be affected by your product. Subparagraph (d) Buckle release of S4.3 Requirements for hardware, of FMVSS No. 209 requires the pushbutton release for any buckle on a seat belt to have a minimum area for applying the release force. Subparagraph (d) also requires the buckle to release when a specified maximum force is applied. By design, your product would cover the button and not allow the buckle to release under the amount of force required by the standard. Subparagraph (e) of FMVSS No. 209 specifies that a belt assembly must be provided with a buckle or buckles readily accessible to the occupant to permit his easy and rapid removal from the assembly, and that the buckle release mechanism must be designed to minimize the possibility of accidental release. If your device would interfere with the vehicles compliance with these requirements, under 30122 the commercial establishments listed in that section could not install your device on customers seat belt assemblies.

Section 30122 does not apply to individual owners installing aftermarket equipment on their own vehicles. However, it is our policy to encourage vehicle owners not to tamper with or otherwise degrade the safety of safety systems.

We recommend that you evaluate carefully whether your product would in any way degrade the performance of vehicle seat belts. For example, you should ensure that your product would not interfere with seat belt retraction or release in an emergency, that any sharp edges used with your product would not cause deterioration of the belt webbing, and that the device does not result in excessive loading of the abdomen of a child. The device should not degrade the flammability-resistance of the seat belts. In addition, as a manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment, you are responsible for ensuring that your product is free of safety-related defects (see 49 U.S.C. 30118-30121). The agency does not determine the existence of safety defects in motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment except in the context of a defect proceeding.

Please note also that the States have the authority to regulate the use of vehicles, and may have restrictions on the use of devices that restrict the release of seat belt buckles. We suggest that you check with your attorney or insurance company about State law considerations, including your responsibilities under State tort law.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have further questions, please contact Deirdre Fujita of my staff at 202-366-2992.

Sincerely yours,

Anthony M. Cooke

Chief Counsel

ref:208

d.11/21/07

Ms. Amy B. Kaus

Application Engineer

Tesa Tape North America

5825 Carnegie Boulevard

Charlotte, NC 28209

Dear Ms. Kaus:

This responds to your request for an interpretation regarding the National Highway Traffic Safety Administrations (NHTSAs) Federal motor vehicle theft prevention standard, 49 CFR Part 541 (Part 541). The issues raised by your letter are addressed below.

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.

Part 541 requires certain passenger motor vehicles to have identifying numbers affixed or inscribed on specified parts. See 541.5(a). The standard specifies a number of label requirements for affixing the identifying number to a part. See 541.5(d) and (d)(1).

Among other things, 541.5(d)(1)(v) specifies:

(v) Removal of the label must

(A) Cause the label to self-destruct by tearing or rendering the number on the label illegible, and

(B) 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.

In your letter, you ask several questions related to possible qualifications or limitations with respect to these and other requirements for labeling, e.g., related to temperature range, chemicals, etc. Part 541 specifies the relevant label requirements to which vehicles must be certified. While we will address your specific questions below, our general answer is that Part 541 does not include the kinds of limitations or qualifications

you ask about. We also observe that the requirements address situations where persons would be deliberately seeking to remove and/or alter labels in the context of vehicle theft, and should be understood in that context.

Specifically, you asked for additional qualification of the term self-destruct by tearing in 541.5(d)(1)(v), quoted above. You suggested the following three qualifications:

1) the label must tear immediately when lifted from the surface to which applied;

2) the label must tear within a specified temperature range, without the use of tools or solvent;

3) under no conditions may the label be removed in one piece.

We believe the quoted language is sufficiently clear and decline to provide qualifications.

You also cited a NHTSA interpretation[1] concerning child restraint system (CRS) labels that cited an American Society for Testing Materials (ASTM) standard for CRSs in connection with the meaning of permanent. You asked whether conditions under which an anti-theft label must perform have been defined, such as temperature, environment, chemicals, etc. Again, Part 541 does not specify such limitations.

Finally, you asked about the standing of SAE J1892 Recommended Practice for Bar-Coded Vehicle Emission Configuration Label and SAE J1877 Recommended Practice for Bar-Coded Vehicle Identification Number Label, when determining whether a label meets Part 541 requirements. None of these recommended practices has been incorporated by reference into Part 541, and they do not qualify or otherwise limit the requirements of that regulation.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely yours,

Anthony M. Cooke

Chief Counsel

ref#541

d.11/20/08

Ms. Marine Jacotot

Regulation Department

Heuliez Cerizay

7. rue Louis Heuiliez BP 70209

79142 CERIZAY Cedex

France

Dear Ms. Jacotot:

This is in response to your e-mail regarding free motion headform (FMH) impact test requirements for upper interior components in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 201, Occupant Protection in Interior Impact (S6.3), as they relate to your companys retractable hardtop (RHT) roof system. Specifically, you seek confirmation of your interpretation that by excluding any target located on a convertible roof frame or on a convertible roof linkage mechanism, S6.3(a) also excludes any target on a decorative trim located such that during a FMH test, the trim would be between the forehead of the headform and the roof linkage mechanism or convertible roof frame. Based on the information you provided in emails on October 17, 2007 and December 13, 2007, and the analysis below, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) disagrees with your interpretation as it applies to the Peugeot 206 CCs RHT roof system.

S6.3(a) of FMVSS No. 201 provides that a vehicle need not meet the requirements of S6.1 through S6.2 (the FMH impact requirements) for any target located on a convertible roof frame or a convertible roof linkage mechanism. Convertible roof frame is defined in S3 as the frame of a convertible roof. Convertible roof linkage mechanism is defined in S3 as any anchorage, fastener, or device necessary to deploy a convertible roof frame.

In an April 5, 2002 letter we sent your company, we interpreted the S6.3 exclusion as it applies to RHT roof systems and hardtops for convertibles. NHTSA determined that with the exception of those components required to raise and lower the top or to latch it into position, RHT roof systems and detachable hardtops for convertibles must meet the FMH impact requirements of FMVSS No. 201.

Previously addressing the application of the FMH impact test requirements to convertible roof systems, in an April 1998 Federal Register notice denying petitions for reconsideration, NHTSA rejected a request to modify the definition of convertible roof frame to include RHTs. We explained that the S6.3 exclusion of convertible roof frames and linkage mechanisms from the FMH impact requirements existed because the presence of a countermeasure such as padding would interfere with the frame and linkage mechanisms movement. We further reiterated that rigid convertible tops could produce head injuries and that the agency believed that protection should be provided for all the hard areas inside a vehicle unless it is not practicable to do so. 63 Fed. Reg. 19839, 19840. NHTSA noted that the petitioner did not submit any data indicating that convertible hardtops cannot be made as flexible as a conventional roof structure. The agency determined that since convertible roof frames and linkage mechanisms are excluded from FMH impact tests, the design of the remainder of the convertible hardtop roof should not present additional compliance difficulties. Id.

The photographs and information you sent us was for the Peugeot 206 CCs RHT roof system. This vehicles RHT roof system consists of two moving, rigid panel sections. This RHT roof system retracts and deploys by the movement of two metal arms along the length of both panels of the roof on both sides, in the longitudinal direction. The two panels are connected by the movable metal arms, and by two joints located at the outer edges of the rigid panels. In your photographs, you have denoted these two joint areas, which consist of a metal side of the joint (facing the exterior of the vehicle) and a plastic side of the joint (facing the interior of the vehicle), as the roof joint mechanisms. The user secures the RHT to the vehicle frame by manually locking two front latch mechanisms, which each consist of a fixed striker on the A-pillar, a hook on the RHT, and a handle. The edges of the roof closest to the movable metal arms have a plastic trim that runs along the length of both sides of the rigid roof panels. The trims purpose is to cover the movable metal arms when the roof is deployed in the coupe configuration. Since the trim is linked to the roof, the trim moves when the roof moves, and thus is stowed with the roof when the RHT is in the convertible configuration. The two front latch mechanisms and the two roof joint mechanisms appear to be components necessary to raise and lower the top or to latch it into position. Thus, under S6.3, the vehicle need not meet the FMH impact requirements for any target located on these components.

Because the trim moves and stows with the roof panels (and not with the movable arms), it appears that the trim is more a part of the roof than a part of the components necessary to raise and lower the roof or to latch it into position. It does not appear to us that the presence of a countermeasure such as padding would interfere with the trims movement, or that the trim cannot be made as flexible as the rest of the roof structure. Accordingly, while the roof joint mechanisms and front latch mechanisms are excluded from being targets for the FMH impact tests, the plastic trim on the Peugeot 206 CCs RHT roof system that covers the metal bars would not be excluded as a target in the FMH impact tests. This trim covering the movable metal arms is distinguished from any plastic pieces on the front latch mechanisms or roof joint mechanisms, which we do consider excluded from being a target in the FMH impact tests, because we consider those plastic pieces to be parts of the front latch mechanisms and roof joint mechanisms.

We hope this answers your questions. If you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact Sarah Alves of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely yours,

Anthony M. Cooke

Chief Counsel

ref:108

d.4/29/08