ID: aiam0565

Dear Mr. Sternberg:#This is in reply to your letter of January 3, 1972 requesting an interpretation of S4.2.2 of Standard No. 101, as it applies to your proposed method of compliance for push-pull controls.#S4.2.2 requires, in pertinent part, that 'Identification shall be provided for each function of any . . . heating and air conditioning system control, and for the extreme positions of any such control that regulates a function over a quantitative range.' Identification such as that shown in your Example (2) would meet Standard No. 101, while the identification provided in Example (3) would not. Legends such as 'Pull on' and 'Push off' might more clearly indicate control positions than your suggested 'Max (out)' and 'Off (in).' The control which operates both the defroster and heater must identify both functions, 'Defrost' as indicated is insufficient. Legends such as 'Pull to defrost' and 'Push for heat' would be acceptable for conformance.#Sincerely, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel;

ID: nht81-2.40

DATE: 06/29/81

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Devlin Associates

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your April 28, 1981, letter asking for information relating to the agency's recordkeeping requirements.

I have enclosed copies of the agency's major recordkeeping regulations and portions of one statute that requires the retention of information. This information describes the types of records to be retained and the periods that retention is required. The agency has not specified the form or location for record retention, but it has stated that records must be readily retrievable when necessary. The agency has not imposed a penalty for accidental loss of records. I can see no instance in which a penalty would be imposed for such an accidental loss.

Finally, you ask for any recommendations that we might have with respect to record retention. We only suggest that records be maintained in an easily accessible manner so that they can be used effectively in removing dangerous vehicles or equipment from the highway. Other than this general recommendation, the actual recordkeeping techniques that a company should use would depend upon the size and sophistication of the company.

If you have any questions concerning any of the materials that I have provided you, you may contact Roger Tilton of my staff (202-426-9511).

ENCLS.

DEVLIN ASSOCIATES, INC.

April 28, 1981

Roger Tilton Office of the Chief Counsel NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION

Dear Mr. Tilton:

RE: RECORDS RETENTION

We have been asked to identify "Records Retention" requirements for several clients. We have used the "GUIDE TO RECORD RETENTION REQUIREMENTS" as a starting point. However, we do require additional information. Please forward any additional information which will assist us to determine:

1. Specific records to be retained and retention periods.

2. Acceptable retention media (paper, film, microfiche, magnetic tape, etc.)--requirements for above (i.e., computer equipment and programs to read magnetic tape, etc.) 3. Location for retention of all data.

4. Penalty for loss (in particular, in case of fire, or accidental loss.)

5.. Recommendations

We will appreciate any assistance and information you can provide in this regard. Please address your response to my attention.

Judith I. Robey Executive Vice President

ID: nht68-4.13

DATE: 08/27/68

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; E. B. Laskin; NHTSA

TO: Cleveland Public Schools

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Your letter of July 3, 1968, addressed to Mr. George C. Nield, of the National Highway Safety Bureau has been forwarded to my office for reply.

The installation of dual controls on driver education cars is not per se in violation of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. However, the secondary equipment must meet the same safety standards established for the primary controls. The secondary steering column must fulfill the same requirements made for the primary column as set forth in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards Nos. 203 and 204. The installation of an additional foot brake must not affect compliance with Standard No. 105. However, duplicate compliance with the control location and identification requirements of Standard No. 101 is not required since the "driver" of such a vehicle remain the person seated behind the primary controls. For the same reason the "driver" mirror requirements of Standard No. 111 apply only with respect to the person seated at the primary controls.

Changes may be made to original equipment when necessary for installation of secondary controls but none of the standards requirements specified may be eliminated or adversely affected by the alteration.

You may make available copies of this letter to dealers and interested parties.

ID: nht88-2.93

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/10/88 EST

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TO: AMNON SHOMLO -- PRESIDENT, A.A.S.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: MEMO DATED 3-25-88, TO ERIKA JONES-NHTSA, FROM AMNON SHOMLO, OCC-1783

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of March 25, 1988, enclosing a "Peace" decal designed to be affixed to the center highmounted stop lamp. The letters and design are in white, printed on transparent plastic, "in an effort to preserve the basic requirement s for an effective projected luminous area of the lens and the specified candela." You have asked what "Federal/Legal authorizations we need to obtain, stating that we comply with all the regulations and the requirements regarding this product."

There are no regulations that apply directly to the decal, nor any Federal restrictions on its sale. Thus you cannot state in any sales materials that the product meets Federal requirements, for there are none. If a center highmounted brake lamp would continue to meet all applicable requirements of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 after installation of your decal, there are no restrictions on its use.

Although you intend the product to preserve the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, it is not certain that this will occur. The decal has the potential of obscuring light from some of the 13 test points at distances where cand ela photometrics must be measured and the specified minima met. However, its actual effect can be determined only through laboratory tests on lamps of different sizes and lens and reflector designs. Although you have no liability under Federal law for selling this decal, a violation of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act will result if the decal creates a noncompliance and if it is applied by a manufacturer, distributor, or dealer before the first sale of the vehicle. A violation will a lso occur if the decal creates a noncompliance and if it is applied after the vehicle's first sale by any of these persons or by a motor vehicle repair business. There is no violation of Federal law if the decal is applied by a person other

than those named above, such as the vehicle owner. In the absence of a violation of Federal law there may nonetheless be State statutes restricting the application of the decal under any circumstances. We are unable to advise you on State laws.

I hope that this answers your question.

ID: 2799o

Mr. Amnon Shomlo
President, A.A.S.
3364 Catamaran Way
Jacksonville, FL 32217

Dear Mr. Shomlo:

This is in reply to your letter of March 25, 1988, enclosing a "Peace" decal designed to be affixed to the center highmounted stop lamp. The letters and design are in white, printed on transparent plastic, "in an effort to preserve the basic requirements for an effective projected luminous area of the lens and the specified candela." You have asked what "Federal/Legal authorizations we need to obtain, stating that we comply with all the regulations and the requirements regarding this product."

There are no regulations that apply directly to the decal, nor any Federal restrictions on its sale. Thus you cannot state in any sales materials that the product meets Federal requirements, for there are none. If a center highmounted brake lamp would continue to meet all applicable requirements of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. l08 after installation of your decal, there are no restrictions on its use.

Although you intend the product to preserve the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. l08, it is not certain that this will occur. The decal has the potential of obscuring light from some of the l3 test points at distances where candela photometrics must be measured and the specified minima met. However, its actual effect can be determined only through laboratory tests on lamps of different sizes and lens and reflector designs. Although you have no liability under Federal law for selling this decal, a violation of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act will result if the decal creates a noncompliance and if it is applied by a manufacturer, distributor, or dealer before the first sale of the vehicle. A violation will also occur if the decal creates a noncompliance and if it is applied after the vehicle's first sale by any of these persons or by a motor vehicle repair business. There is no violation of Federal law if the decal is applied by a person other than those named above, such as the vehicle owner. In the absence of a violation of Federal law there may nonetheless be State statutes restricting the application of the decal under any circumstances. We are unable to advise you on State laws.

I hope that this answers your question.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

ref:l08 d:8/l0/88

ID: label_color1307

Lori J. Crouzillat, Safety Advisor
E-Z-On Products, Inc., of Florida
605 Commerce Way West
Jupiter, FL 33458

Dear Ms. Crouzillat:

This responds to your letter asking about the labeling requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No.213, Child restraint systems, that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration adopted in an October 1, 2002, final rule (67 FR 61523; corrected 69 FR 11337). The rulemaking sought to provide for clearer and simpler child restraint system (CRS) labels.

To inform users about the consequences of not following CRS instructions, the October 2002 rule required, among other matters, that a CRS be affixed with a label that has an alert symbol and a heading, "WARNING! DEATH or SERIOUS INJURY can occur," followed by bulleted statements regarding proper use (S5.5.2(g)).The agency required one portion of the heading (an alert symbol and the exclamation "WARNING!") to be in black text on a yellow background, as specified in S5.5.2(k)(3)(i) ^[1] for the air bag warning label required for rear-facing child restraints.

Yellow Background

You first ask whether the phrase "DEATH or SERIOUS INJURY can occur" must be on a yellow background. The answer is no. In the preamble to the October 2002 final rule, the agency recognized the similarity between the new heading required for CRS warning labels and that of the air bag warning label. So that manufacturers may take advantage of this similarity when designing or producing labels, S5.5.2(g)(2) of FMVSS No. 213 specifies that the phrase "DEATH or SERIOUS INJURY can occur" may be printed on either a yellow or a white background, at the manufacturers option. Accordingly, the warning label required by S5.5.2 must have either: (a) the alert symbol and the entire statement, "WARNING! DEATH or SERIOUS INJURY can occur," on a yellow background with black text; or (b) the alert symbol and the word "WARNING!" on a yellow background with black text, and the phrase "DEATH or SERIOUS INJURY can occur" on a white background with black text.

Separate Labels

You next ask if the warning label heading and bulleted points are required to be on a single label or if a portion of the heading could be on a separate label placed directly above the remaining label components. Our answer is the warning label heading may be on a separate label, provided certain requirements are met.

The agency explained in the preamble to the October 2002 final rule that separate label components are permissible so long as the separate components are attached to the CRS in the correct order with no intervening labels. 67 FR at 61526, col. 2. ^[2]As such, your company is permitted to have a label component printed with the alert symbol and the exclamation "WARNING" placed directly above a second label component printed with the phrase "DEATH or SERIOUS injury can occur," followed by the applicable bulleted statements. The separate label components must meet the provisions of S5.5.2(g)(3).

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please contact Mr. Chris Calamita of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

Enclosure
ref:213
d.3/31/04





---

[1] The October 2002 final rule inadvertently referenced S5.5.2(k)(4)(i) instead of subparagraph (k)(3)(i). We have corrected this reference in a document published on March 10, 2004 (69 FR 11337)(copy enclosed).

[2] See also S5.5.2(g)(3), which was added to FMVSS No. 213 by the March 2004 final rule.

ID: 11504ZTV

Mr. Alexander A. Mouzas
5 Beach Street
Saco, Maine 04072

Dear Mr. Mouzas:

We have received your letter of January 17, 1996, asking whether your patented invention "is allowed under current NHTSA standards."

As you have described your invention called "Smartbeams", in its most basic form it activates "lights mounted to the side of a vehicle when either the directional lights are used or when the steering wheel is turned in either direction." From the drawings you enclosed, it appears that the lamps are supplementary equipment like front and rear side mounted cornering lamps used on many vehicles rather than the side marker lamps which are required vehicle lighting equipment, and that both the front and rear side lamps are activated under the conditions described above.

The laws that we administer contain somewhat different requirements depending on whether a vehicle has been delivered to its first purchaser for purposes other than resale. Before that point, a vehicle must be manufactured and sold in compliance with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. We regard Smartbeams as supplementary lighting equipment. If supplementary lighting equipment is furnished with a new vehicle, whether installed by the vehicle's manufacturer or by the new car dealer, it is acceptable under Standard No. 108 provided that it does not impair the effectiveness of lighting equipment required by the Standard.

The question here is whether the side-mounted Smartbeams would impair the effectiveness of other side-mounted vehicle lighting equipment. Given the purpose of Smartbeams to illuminate areas to the sides of vehicles during turns, the device would not have an impairing effect on the only lighting equipment required by Standard No. 108 to be mounted on the sides, the side marker lamps.

Your comment that Smartbeams can be used with "any number or type of light" is too general to comment on in detail, but its acceptability is subject to the impairment criterion. As a general rule, in certifying vehicles for compliance with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards, a manufacturer certifies that any supplementary lighting equipment does not impair the effectiveness of any lighting equipment required by Standard No. 108. NHTSA will not contest the manufacturer's determination unless it appears clearly erroneous.

You have also told us that Smartbeams can be retrofitted to existing vehicles, and that it can use "any existing off the shelf and already approved lights presently being sold." We assume that you mean lamps bearing their manufacturer's certification of compliance with Standard No. 108. The Federal requirements that apply after the initial sale of a vehicle, simply prohibit modifications to a vehicle (other than by its owner) that "make inoperative" equipment originally installed in accordance with a Federal safety standard. In most instances, we interpret inoperability to mean impairment; thus, if the equipment on a new vehicle will not impair the effectiveness of lighting equipment originally required, it is not likely to make that equipment inoperative. Thus, the same considerations apply with respect to the aftermarket acceptability under Federal law of Smartbeams as apply to its use as new vehicle equipment.

However, state laws also apply to the use of aftermarket supplementary lighting equipment. We are unable to advise you as to the acceptability of Smartbeams under the laws of the individual states, and suggest that you consult the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Va. 22203.

If you have any further questions, you may refer them to Taylor Vinson of this Office (202-366-3820).

Sincerely,

Samuel J. Dubbin Chief Counsel

ref:108#VSA d:3/6/96

ID: nht91-6.38

DATE: October 23, 1991

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Gary Starr -- Solar Electric Engineering

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 9-9-91 from Gary Starr to NHTSA

TEXT:

The agency recently received an unsigned petition dated September 9, 1991, in which Solar Electric Engineering asked for a temporary exemption from the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. The petition named you as the company's contact.

According to the petition, Solar Electric's product "is a standard vehicle manufactured under NHTSA standards and originally certified by the O.E.M. . . . ." A NHTSA engineer has suggested to the company that "the NHTSA may not require the exemption application." because the vehicle is "altered." This comment relates to the obligations imposed by 49 CFR Sec. 567.7 on a person who alters, in more than minor respects, a previously certified vehicle before its sale to its first owner. Such an alterer is required to affix his own certification label stating that the vehicle as altered conforms to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. Solar Electric appears hesitant to certify compliance with all standards, and, given the magnitude of conversion from internal combustion power to electric power, NHTSA would regard it as a "manufacturer" who is eligible to file a temporary exemption petition.

However, before a petition can be processed, it must meet the agency's procedural requirements (in this instance, 49 CFR Sec. 555.5(b) and 555.6(c)). Although Solar Electric's petition attempts to do so, it falls short in several respects. Its most major failure is that does not state with specificity the standards for which exemption is requested, as required by Sec. 555.5(b)(4). Although paragraph 2) i) of your letter states that the vehicle would "perhaps" differ with Standards Nos. 103, 105, 208 "specifically part 572 (Anthropomorphic Test Dummy), . . . and perhaps other standards which are unknown at this time or would not apply to an electric vehicle", this is too indefinite to fulfill the requirements of Sec. 555.5(b)(4). Further, to the extent that your paragraph 2) i) is intended to fulfill the requirements of Sec. 555.6(c)(2)(i), it fails to provide the "detailed description" of how the motor vehicle, if exempted, would differ from one that complies with the standard." We recommend, therefore, that Solar Electric review the Federal motor vehicle safety standards with a view towards amending its petition in accordance with our comments.

In addition, section 555.6(c)(2)(iv) requires a petitioner to provide reasons why an exemption from each standard requested "does not unreasonably degrade the safety of the vehicle." When Solar Electric has determined the standards from which it requests exemption, its supplementary petition should contain arguments addressing this point.

With the thought that it may assist you, I enclose a copy of a Federal Register notice that discusses the petition of another vehicle converter, and the way that it presented the information required by our regulations. Although the notice was published in 1975, our requirements have not changed since that time.

We would also appreciate knowing the make, model, and model year of the vehicles intended for conversion. Please also ensure that the amendment to the petition is signed by a company official.

When we have received information sufficient to meet our procedural requirements, we shall be pleased to consider the petition further. If you have any questions, Taylor Vinson of my staff will be pleased to answer them (202-366-5263).

Enclosure

Copy of the Federal Register, volume 40, number 120 (6/20/75) titled Electric Fuel Propulsion Corporation; Petition for Temporary Exemption From Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (Text omitted)

ID: 23498.ztv

Harry Zembillas, Esq.
Gasparis & Zembilla
301 South Main Street
Crown Point, IN 46307





Dear Mr. Zembillas:

This is in reply to your email of July 27, 2001. You have installed aftermarket all-clear taillamps on your 1995 Nissan Maxima, and report that you have been informed by a traffic officer that the lamps are illegal. You cite two Indiana statutes and state that "any help would be greatly appreciated."

You described the original rear lamps on your car as follows: "yellow plastic on the top outer edge, red plastic on the bottom outer edge, white/clear on the upper trunk lens, and red plastic on the bottom trunk lens." You informed us that you have now "installed clear outer lenses with amber bulbs on the top outer half and red bulbs on the bottom outer half." As you informed us, the lenses you bought are shown at www.autodynamic.com as replacements for original equipment on 1995-97 Nissan Maxima passenger cars, and we have downloaded a photo of the lamps you bought (see enclosed photo).

Under Federal law, lighting equipment on motor vehicles must be designed to comply with 49 CFR 571.108 Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment. The manufacturer of each vehicle must certify that the vehicle complies with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards, including Standard No. 108. The original rear lighting configuration of the 1995 Maxima consisted of a combination lamp mounted on the body, with a red and amber lens, and a backup lamp and a second red-lensed lamp (or reflex reflector) mounted on the deck lid. The original body-mounted rear lamps on your car incorporated amber and red lenses to provide the amber and red colors required by Standard No. 108 to provide turn signal and stop/taillight functions. They may also have incorporated red reflex reflectors to comply with additional requirements of Standard No. 108 that a vehicle be equipped with red rear and rear side red reflex reflectors (see enclosed photo).

Paragraph S5.8.1 of Standard No. 108 specifies that "each lamp, reflective device, or item of associated equipment manufactured to replace any lamp, reflective device, or item of associated equipment on any vehicle to which [Standard No. 108] applies shall be designed to conform to this standard." This means that a replacement item must be designed to conform to the same standard to which the vehicle manufacturer certified compliance with the original equipment installed. The manufacturer of your Nissan designed its rear body-mounted lamp with a lens incorporating red reflex reflectors, a red lens, and an amber lens. You have replaced this with a lamp that is white instead of amber and red, and which does not incorporate red reflex reflectors. Therefore, the lamp fails to meet the requirement of S5.8.1 that replacement equipment be designed to conform to Standard No. 108. The sale of such a lamp or its installation by a manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or motor vehicle repair business is prohibited by Federal law, and several importers are currently recalling these types of lamps. However, whether it is legal to use a noncomplying item of replacement equipment such as this lamp is not a matter of Federal law but of State law, that is to say, the statutes of Indiana. I am sorry, but we do not provide interpretations of State laws.

Sincerely,

John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosures
ref:108
d.3/1/02

ID: 1982-2.29

DATE: 08/02/82

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Harris Enterprises

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of July 1, 1982, to Mr. Vinson of this office with regard to your "new motorcycle lighting system" and asking about possible conflicts with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards.

Your device is an "aftermarket accessory" light which may be mounted to a motorcycle helmet, and which is integrated by a cord into the motorcycle's headlighting system, providing an auxiliary beam of light in conjunction with the beam of light projected by the main headlamp.

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment, is the standard on vehicle lighting and lighting equipment while Standard No. 218, Motorcycle Helmets, is the other standard of relevance. Neither standard directly addresses an aftermarket device such as yours and as your lamp is intended to be installed by the helmet owner, it does not appear to conflict with any other regulatory prohibition of this agency. It would, therefore, be subject to regulation by the individual States in which the device is worn.

We see nothing in your correspondence that legally qualifies as "sensitive proprietary information", and our interpretation will be given its usual circulation.

SINCERELY,

Harris Enterprises

Taylor Vincent Chief Counsel DOT/NHTSA

July 1, 1982

Dear Sir;

Enclosed you will find a description of a new motorcycle lighting system and a copy of the utility patent protecting it.

At the suggestion of Dr. Carl Clark, NHTSA inventor contact, at our meeting of 4/15/82 at DOT, I am contacting you in order to clarify any possible areas of conflict with existing Federal regulations that this system presents.

One possible conflict that was discussed concerned Motor Vehicle Safety Standard Number 218 with regard to motorcycle helmets. Paragraph S5.5 states that "Rigid projections outside any helmet's shell shall be limited to those required for operation of essential accessories, and shall not protrude more than 0.19 inch." As evidenced by the enclosed descriptive material. the system clearly employs a detachable helmet mounted light source whose housing projects substancially beyond the 0.19 inch limit.

This helmet light is an aftermarket accessory which is detachably installed by the operator by means of Velcro- like, 3M Dual Lock self adhesive fasteners. This mounting system is to be engineered so as to allow the helmet light accessory to shear away from the helmet surface upon application of a force substantially less than that which might cause injury. Indeed, the only somewhat permanent projections applied to the helmet itself are the three self adhesive strips of Dual Lock fastener which engage three complimentary strips on the underside of the helmet light. These strips don't project more than 0.19 inch.

As there are not currently any standards directly regarding a helmet mounted light as described, which integrates with the standard lighting system, and may be mediated by a photo electric dimming system to prevent the blinding of oncoming drivers, I would appreciate your opinion as to whether standard headlamp regulations apply.

Dr. Clark has seen the product and is most aware of the properties it exhibits. Any questions you may have may be directed either to Mr. Clark or this office. Your opinions on the above points are of significant commercial interest to us, and your earliest consideration would be appreciated. Please treat everything exclusive of the patent itself as sensitive proprietary information.

William R. Harris, Jr.