ID: aiam5196

Dear Mr. Farmer: We have received your letter of June 25, 1993, wit respect to your plan to retrofit three school buses with strobe lights for 'the traditional incandescent lights currently used in the eight light overhead warning system on school buses.' You ask whether this equipment would 'conflict with the provisions of FMVSS 108.' Yes, the substitute system would not conform to S5.1.4 of Standard No. 108 because it is not a school bus signal lamp system meeting the requirements of SAE J887 School Bus Red Signal Lamps, July 1964. Moreover, section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1392(a)(2)(A)) prohibits a manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or motor vehicle repair business from knowingly rendering inoperative any device or element of design installed in accordance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard. However, the prohibition does not extend to the vehicle owner. We assume for purposes of this interpretation that the State is the owner of the school buses, and owns the repair facilities where the conversion will occur. Under these circumstances, there is no Federal legal prohibition against the State's conversion to the strobe light system if the work is performed in its own repair shops. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel;

ID: aiam5499

Dear Herr Spingler: We have received your FAX of February 15, 1995 asking whether a proposed design 'for a lens-reflector-joint can be considered as conforming to the appropriate definition in FMVSS 108.' The agency does not advise manufacturers whether particular designs are regarded as 'conforming.' That determination is to be made by the manufacturer in certifying that its product conforms to all applicable Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. However, we can provide you with an interpretive guideline. Section S4 defines a 'replaceable bulb headlamp' as a headlamp 'comprising a bonded lens reflector assembly and one or two replaceable light sources.' The intent of the definition was that the lens and reflector assembly be an indivisible unit upon manufacture of the headlamp. This means that, if a lens is broken, the entire lens reflector assembly must be replaced. If your design is such that the lens cannot be removed from the reflector assembly for replacement, it would appear to meet the definition in S4. As you are well aware, NHTSA granted your company's petition for rulemaking, and, in November 1994, proposed an amendment of the definition of 'replaceable bulb headlamp' that would allow a replaceable lens if the headlamp incorporates a vehicle headlamp aiming device conforming to S7.8.5.2. Comments were due on this proposal February 21, 1995. In due course, after review of the comments, NHTSA will decide whether it will pursue further rulemaking or terminate the rulemaking action. Sincerely, Philip R. Recht Chief Counsel;

ID: aiam2853

Dear Mr. Beyer: This is in reply to your letter of July 3, 1978, requesting a interpretation of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, specifically, whether turn signal systems installed on mopeds must meet the standard's requirements. One of NHTSA's engineers has informally advised you, in your words, 'that because turn signal units on mopeds are not required devices...they are not required to meet the specific requirements in FMVSS 108 relative to motorcycles as long as they do not affect the operation of the other required equipment.'; We are pleased that Vespa is considering installing turn signal lamp on motor vehicles that S4.1.1.26 excuses from having them. If you wish to install systems that you intend to comply with Standard No. 108 and which for one reason or another fail to do so, it is doubtful that NHTSA would take any action against Vespa since the equipment is clearly optional and added only at a manufacturer's discretion. We would also view as preempted under Section 103(d) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act any State action either to require turn signal lamps on mopeds or to establish requirements for such were they added at the option of the manufacturer.; I hope this clarifies the matter for you. Sincerely, Joseph J. Levin, Jr., Chief Counsel

ID: aiam2816

Dear Mr. Voshell: This is in reply to your letter of May 18, 1978 which asks th following questions:; >>>'Is there a Motor Vehicle Safety Standard which requires al motorcycles to be equipped with turn signals, other than those expressly exempted under FMVSS 108 (whose speed attainable in 1 mile is 30 mph or less) S4.1.1.26?'<<<; Yes. Paragraph S4.1.1 of Standard No. 108 requires, in part, that moto vehicles be equipped with the lamps specified in Table III. Turn signal lamps are required for motorcycles under Table III.; >>>'Does the standard apply to only highway-use vehicles wit trail-bikes exempted?'<<<; Yes. The motorcycles covered by Standard No. 108 must be 'moto vehicles' in the first instance, in order to be subject to the regulatory authority of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. A 'motor vehicle' is one 'manufactured primarily for use on the public streets, roads and highways'. This would exclude a trail bike unless its manufacturer had certified it to meet all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards, indicating his intent that it be used on-road as well as off-road.; We are enclosing a copy of Standard No. 108 as you requested. Sincerely, Joseph J. Levin, Jr., Chief Counsel

ID: aiam3010

Dear Mr. Iwase: This is in reply to your letter of January 29, 1979, to Bill Eason wit respect to headlamp lens marking. Mr. Eason is no longer associated with the Office of Rulemaking and we regret the delay in writing you.; You have asked for a confirmation of your interpretation that: >>>'The headlamp designed to conform to J579c shall be provided wit the lens marking specified in S4.1.1.21 of FMVSS No. 108 *even if the upper beam headlamp maximum output is lower than the conventional maximum restriction of 37,500 cd*.'<<<; You are correct that S4.1.1.21 permits the new code marking fo headlamps designed to conform to SAE Standard J579c even if the upper beam headlamp maximum output is lower than the maximum of 75,000 cds permissible under J579c or the previous maximum of 37,500 cd of J579a. But because the code could be misleading, we are considering proposing an amendment of Standard No. 108 that would delete the new code requirement for all headlamps whose maximum candela does not exceed a certain value, such as 40,000 cd.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel

ID: 1869y

Mr. Jack Satkoski
Spectra Enterprises
East 832 11th Avenue
Spokane, WA 99202-2502

Dear Mr. Satkoski:

This responds to your letter asking for information about the application of Federal safety standards to a "sun visor extender" which "attaches by means of velcro straps to the existing auto, truck, or RV's sun visor." I regret the delay in responding.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized by the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA is not authorized to certify or approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment for compliance with our Federal motor vehicle safety standards. Instead, under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (copy enclosed), each manufacturer of a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards. The following represents our opinion based on the information provided in your letter.

There is currently no Federal motor vehicle safety standard that is directly applicable to a sun visor extender sold directly to a consumer. The Federal safety standard that regulates sun visors (Standard No. 201, Occupant Protection in Interior Impact) applies only to new motor vehicles (i.e., vehicles that have not yet been sold for purposes other than resale) and not to items of aftermarket equipment such as a sun visor extender.

However, there are other Federal requirements that indirectly affect the manufacture and sale of your device. Under the Safety Act, your device is considered to be an item of motor vehicle equipment. As a manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment, you are subject to the requirements in sections 151-159 of the Safety Act concerning the recall and remedy of products with defects relating to motor vehicle safety. I have enclosed an information sheet that briefly describes those responsibilities. In the event that you or NHTSA determines that your sun visors contain a safety-related defect, you would be responsible for notifying purchasers of the defective equipment and remedying the problem free of charge.

As stated above, the sun visor in a new vehicle is regulated by Safety Standard No. 201, which requires that the visor be "constructed of or covered with energy-absorbing material" and that the visor's mounting must "present no material edge radius of less than 0.125 inch that is statically contactable by a spherical 6.5-inch diameter head form." The purpose of the standard is to reduce the injuries that occur when unrestrained occupants strike the visor or its mounting with their heads. If your sun visor extender were installed by the manufacturer of a new motor vehicle, the visor, as modified by that installation, would have to comply with the visor requirements of the standard. I am enclosing a copy of Standard No. 201 for your review.

Another Federal standard to which the vehicle manufacturer must certify its vehicle as conforming is Standard No. 302, Flammability of Interior Materials (copy enclosed). This standard establishes flammability resistance requirements for certain vehicle components, including sun visors, on new vehicles. If a new vehicle manufacturer installs your product on the new vehicle, that manufacturer would have to certify the vehicle's compliance with Standard No. 302, and thus would be required to ensure that the sun visor conforms to the flammability resistance requirements of the standard and that the extender does not interfere with or prevent that ability to comply.

A commercial business that installs the sun visor on new or used vehicles would be subject to provisions of the Safety Act that affect whether the business may install your product on a vehicle. Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Act states: "No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative ... any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard ..." This section requires manufacturers, distributors, dealers or motor vehicle repair businesses (i.e., any person holding him or herself out to the public as in the business of repairing motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment for compensation) installing your sun visor extender on new or used vehicles to ensure that the addition of the device would not negatively affect the compliance of any component or design on a vehicle with applicable Federal safety standards. For example, the commercial entity must ensure that the addition of the device does not reduce the effectiveness of those features and aspects of performance of the sun visor that enabled the visor to comply with Standard No. 201 or Standard No. 302. Installation of rapidly burning materials could vitiate the compliance of the materials which were present in the vehicle at the time of its sale to the first consumer and were certified as meeting FMVSS No. 302. Section 109 of the Act specifies a civil penalty of up to $1,000 for each violation of /108.

However, the prohibitions of /108(a)(2)(A) do not apply to the actions of a vehicle owner in adding to or otherwise modifying his or her vehicle. Thus, a vehicle owner would not violate the Safety Act by installing the sun visor extender, even if doing so would negatively affect the safety performance of the sun visor.

In addition to the materials described above, we are also returning herewith the photograph and sketches you enclosed with your letter, as you requested in a telephone conversation with Ms. Fujita of my staff. We have issued this interpretation based on information which you confirmed you have no objection to publicly disclosing, and not on information whose confidentiality you have asked us to maintain.

Please feel free to contact us if you have further questions.

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosures

ref:VSA#201#302 d:6/l9/89

ID: aiam2965

Dear Mr. Utans:#I regret the delay in responding to your September 12 1978, letter requesting interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 101-80, *Controls and Displays*. The responses to your specific questions regarding the compliance of your prototype monitor of vehicle systems are as follows:#1. When there is no problem with the vehicle systems included in the monitor, only the outline of a car is visible. The displays for items such as oil and electrical charge would not be illuminated. You asked if the monitor in its 'no problem' model would comply with FMVSS 101-80. The answer is yes. There is no requirement that the displays be continuously illuminated.#2. On the monitor, the high beam symbol would be oriented so that it pointed upward. You asked whether this complies with the standard even though the symbol appears in Table 2 of the standard pointing to the left. The answer is yes. The requirement is section 5.2.3 that the display symbol appear preceptually (sic) upright to the driver was not intended to apply to the situation in which the symbol is used in conjunction with a car diagram of the type in your monitor. In such situations, it would be more confusing to place the symbol in the upright position than to orient the symbol so that it bears the same relationship to the diagram as the symbolized equipment does to the actual vehicle.#Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel;

ID: aiam3828

Dear Mr. Herringshaw: This is in reply to your letter of February 24, 1984, with respect t mounting requirements for clearance and identification lamps under Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.; Your Exhibit A depicts a body mounted on a chassis-cab, with clearanc lamps mounted both on the body and chassis-cab, but identification lamps mounted on only the chassis-cab. You have asked whether the truck body must have a set of identification lamps in order to meet Standard No. 108. The answer is yes. In order to comply with the requirements that identification lamps be located as closely as practicable to the top of the vehicle, a set of identification lamps must be provided for the truck body. You may be interested to know that there is a pending proposal which was published on February 22, 1982, a vehicle such as shown in Exhibit A would comply with a single set of identification lamps mounted on the cab. I enclose a copy of the proposal. The agency has taken no further action with respect to it.; In comparing the vehicles in Exhibit A and Exhibit B you have aske whether the one in Exhibit A is 'compliant with the intentions of FMVSS 108.' As I have just explained, this vehicle is currently noncompliant with the standard, but would comply if the proposal were adopted. The vehicle in Exhibit B meets the standard.; I hope that this answers your questions. Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam3793

Dear Mr. White: This is in response to your January 3, 1984, letter to Roger Fairchil of this office regarding Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 111 (Rearview Mirror Systems). You have requested information on the applicability of that standard, particularly in regard to aftermarket mirrors.; FMVSS 111 is a rule or regulation (the terms are generally use interchangeably) establishing requirements for rearview mirrors on new passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, buses, school buses, and motorcycles. Aftermarket mirror manufacturers do not have to certify compliance with our standards. However, the addition of an aftermarket mirror to a motor vehicle may be subject to certain legal requirements. Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act prohibits any manufacturer, distributor, or dealer of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, or any motor vehicle repair business from knowingly rendering inoperative any device or element of design installed on a vehicle in compliance with a safety standard. Thus, manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and repair businesses cannot remove a rearview mirror installed as original equipment in compliance with our standard and replace that mirror with a noncomplying aftermarket mirror. Replacement by other individuals or organizations or replacement with a complying aftermarket mirror would be permitted.; With regard to your final question as to requirements applicable to th use of non-glare glass in mirrors, this agency issued on November 6, 1978, a notice of proposed rulemaking on possible upgrading of rearview mirror requirements (copy enclosed). One part of this proposal would establish image luminance criteria for rearview mirrors. The agency has not yet determined whether this requirement should be implemented, and no action is imminent on that proposal.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam3639

Dear Mr. Henderson: This responds to your letter asking about the identificatio requirements of FMVSS 101, *Controls and Displays*. You asked whether it is permissible for a manufacturer to identify a certain manual control with the symbol specified by the European Economic Community (EEC) for the cold start control. According to your letter, the control resets injection timing *and* actuates cylinder warming.; By way of background information, the agency does not provide approval of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. The Vehicle Safety Act requires that each manufacturer assure that its products are in compliance with all applicable standards. The following only represents the agency's opinion based on the specific facts provided in your letter.; The answer to your question is yes, since Standard No. 101 does no include any identification requirements applicable to that specific type of control.; Section S5 of Standard No. 101 requires each passenger car manufacture with any control listed in S5.1 or in column 1 of Table I to meet the requirements of the standard for the location, identification and illumination of such control.; Neither section S5.1 nor column 1 of Table I list or include a singl control which operates the *two* functions noted above.; Since Standard No. 101 does not include any identification requirement applicable to that type of control, identification is at the discretion of the manufacturer. It is therefore permissible, under that standard, to identify that type of control with the symbol specified by the EEC.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel