ID: aiam2849

Dear Mr. Petler: This is in reply to your letter of August 10, 1978, asking for a interpretation of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. You have asked 'whether an aftermarket Class A reflex reflector can be installed in addition to the original Equipment Class A reflex reflector, that is, an existing part of the motorcycle's rear combination lamp assembly.' You have stated that 'both reflectors would be installed vertically on the motorcycles vertical centerline,' and have commented that you understand 'that two reflectors may be installed horizontally about the vertical centerline, but it is unclear to us whether they may both be installed one on top of the other, vertically, as this is not addressed in FMVSS No. 108.'; You have misunderstood Standard No. 108. Table IV clearly states wit respect to location of rear reflex reflectors on motorcycles that 'if two are used on the rear, they shall be symmetrically disposed about the vertical centerline.' This requirement precludes the use of two rear reflectors mounted above each other vertically on the vehicle's centerline if your fender extension is sold as an accessory on a motorcycle at the time of its first purchase for purposes other than resale.; Generally, however, Federal standards do not cover vehicles after thei first purchase and an owner may modify his vehicle in any manner he chooses consistent with local law. Modification by dealers, distributors, and repair businesses are prohibited only if they 'render inoperative' any device or element of design installed on a motor vehicle in accordance with a Federal safety standard. Although aftermarket installation of the fender with reflector by a dealer after a vehicle's sale would not be consistent with the reflector location requirements of Standard No. 108, we cannot say that it would 'render inoperative' the reflector installed as original equipment. We therefore have no objection to you offering this component as an aftermarket accessory to be added after a vehicle's initial sale.; Sincerely, Joseph J. Levin, Jr., Chief Counsel

ID: aiam5415

"Dear Mr. Dennison: We have received your letter of May 31, 1994 petitioning for a temporary exemption from paragraph S4.1.4 of Standard No. 208 on behalf of Excalibur Automobile Corporation (the Federal Express Airbill indicates that it was mailed July 9, 1994). The petition does not, as required by 49 CFR 555.5(b)(7), set forth the reasons why an exemption would be in the public interest and consistent with the objectives of traffic safety. You make the statement that 'the door hinge system incorporated in the Excalibur Cobra has been tested to exceed the FMVSS by over four times the required strength.' Please provide a copy of the test report that demonstrates this performance. Under 555.6(d)(1)(iv), a petitioner is required to provide 'the results of any tests conducted on the vehicle demonstrating that its overall level of safety exceeds that which is achieved by conformity to the standards.' The second page of the petition references a 'Plymouth Sunbird' vehicle for model year 1994. We assume you mean Pontiac, as we are unaware of any Plymouth with this model name. The timing of your letter raises the inference that Excalibur may presently be manufacturing convertibles equipped with manual Type 2 seat belt assemblies. Please inform us as to the number of Cobras that the company may have produced on or after September 1, 1989, that were equipped with driver and passenger manual Type 2 seat belt assemblies. Finally, it has been customary for petitions to be signed by an officer of the manufacturer. We have accepted petitions signed by foreign manufacturers but submitted by a person resident in the United States, on the manufacturer's behalf. Your use of Excalibur's letterhead leads to an assumption that you have the authority to make the representations of the petition, but your title of 'Consultant' does not identify you as a corporate officer. We would appreciate an explanation of your relationship to Excalibur, or, alternatively, the signature of a corporate officer on the petition. We shall hold the petition in abeyance until we have heard further from you. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel";

ID: aiam4615

"Dear CONFIDENTIAL: This is in reply to your letter of June 30, l989 to John Donaldson of this Office titled 'Request for Interpretation', submitted on behalf of your client. You request 'that all identifying references to myself, my firm and my client in this letter and the responsive letter of interpretation' be deleted. Your request is granted on the basis that it relates to confidential business information and may be withheld under applicable Departmental regulations, 49 CFR Part 512. You describe a lamp system as follows: 'The product is a headlamp consisting of a plastic lens and reflector, arc tubes (two each for high and low beam) and electronics for instant start and re-start of the headlamps as well as management of the operating current. A 12 volt connection is supplied for connection of vehicle line voltage'. You have asked for a letter 'confirming' that this lamp system is designed to conform to the integral beam headlamp requirements of paragraph S7.4 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. l08, 'subject only to compliance with the appropriate photometric requirements of FMVSS l08.' A headlighting system of the nature described must be designed to conform to all the pertinent requirements of S5.5, S7.1, S7.2, and S7.7, as well as S7.4, including mechanical aim and environmental requirements. However, since this headlamp does not use filaments for converting the electrical energy to light energy, certain configurations of such systems may not conform, because some requirements are predicated upon the existence of filaments (e.g., S5.5.9 and S7.4(f)). If the headlamp you describe meets all requirements, then it would appear to be an integral beam headlighting system designed to conform to S7.4. Whether the headlamp in fact meets those requirements is for the lamp manufacturer to determine, as it must assure the manufacturer of the vehicle on which it is installed that he may certify compliance of the vehicle with Standard No. l08. Further, the headlamp manufacturer itself must certify compliance of replacement equipment. If the headlamp is incompatible with these requirements and cannot meet them, then it would not appear to be an integral beam system. In that case, rulemaking would be required to accommodate it within the framework of Standard No. l08. Sincerely, Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel /";

ID: aiam4452

Dear Ms. Black: This is in reply to your letters of June 8 and Octobe l7, 1987, with respect to an electrically-operated headlamp leveling system that Jaguar intends to offer on passenger cars beginning with the l989 model year. Such a device is required by EEC regulations. You have informed us that the system does not allow lamps to be adjusted above the 'zero' position, only downward to compensate for rear end loading of the vehicle. There is no provision for automatic return to the 'zero' position when the engine is turned off. Further, there will be no indication to the driver from the vehicle instrumentation that re-aim is necessary when the headlamps are adjusted downward. You have concluded, for the six reasons given in your letter of June 8 that 'no aspect of FMVSS 108 . . . is contravened by this proposed installation.' The sole restriction that Standard No. 108 imposes upon an item of motor vehicle equipment not covered by the standard but which a manufacturer wishes to add to a vehicle as original equipment is that it not impair the effectiveness of the lighting equipment that the standard requires (S4.l.3). If a manufacturer concludes that the unrequired equipment would not impair the effectiveness of the required lighting equipment, it may certify that the vehicle complies with Standard No. 108. Based on our understanding of your system, it does not appear to impair the effectiveness of the required equipment. However, we urge you to consider the possible consequences if the driver forgets to return the system to the 'zero' position from either of the two adjustment positions. These possibilities are a concern because the system does not automatically return to that position, and no warning is provided to the driver that the headlamps are not in their original design position. On the other hand, if properly used, the system could enhance headlighting effectiveness by ensuring that the headlamp provides the same lighting performance under all conditions of vehicle load. We hope the information is helpful. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel;

ID: visor21836

Mr. Richard Larson
55 South Smith Street
Palatine, IL 60067-2636



Dear Mr. Larson:




This responds to your letter asking for information about the application of Federal safety standards to a sun visor attachment. As you state, the attachment "is roughly 2 inches in diameter and can be attached to the visor wherever the driver prefers" and "is translucent and can be tinted as well." You do not mention, however, the purpose of the attachment, or provide a more thorough description of the product. Further, you ask for information regarding 49 U.S. Code (U.S.C.) 30122, the "make inoperative" provision of our statute (formally codified at 15 U.S.C. 108(a)(2)(A).) ⁽¹⁾

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has the authority to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. Federal law establishes a self-certification system under which motor vehicle and equipment manufacturers themselves certify that their products comply with all applicable standards. For that reason, NHTSA neither tests, endorses, nor grants letters of approval of products prior to their introduction into the retail market. Rather, we enforce compliance with the standards by purchasing new vehicles and equipment and testing them. We also investigate safety-related defects.

As far as we can tell from your letter, your product appears to be an item of motor vehicle equipment regulated by NHTSA. Our statute defines "motor vehicle equipment," in relevant part, as any system, part, or component "sold ... as an accessory or addition to a motor vehicle" (49 U.S.C. 30102(a)(7)(B)). An item of equipment is an accessory if it meets the following criteria:

a.   A substantial portion of its expected uses are related to the operation or maintenance of motor vehicles; and

b.   It is purchased or otherwise acquired, and principally used by ordinary users of motor vehicles.

Your sun visor attachment is an accessory because it was presumably designed with the expectation that a substantial portion of its expected use will be with motor vehicles. (We make this assumption because you designed the product to attach to a vehicle's sun visor, "wherever the driver prefers.") Further, the attachment is intended to be purchased and principally used by ordinary users of motor vehicles.

There is currently no FMVSS that is directly applicable to a sun visor attachment sold directly to a consumer. The FMVSSs that regulate aspects of sun visors, FMVSS No. 201, Occupant Protection in Interior Impact, and FMVSS No. 302, Flammability of Interior Materials, apply only to new, completed 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 attachment. However, a manufacturer of aftermarket equipment, whether you or a licensee, is subject to the requirements of 49 U.S.C. 30118-30121 (copy enclosed) which set forth the notification and remedy (recall) requirements for products with defects related to motor vehicle safety. Thus, if NHTSA or the manufacturer of the product determines that the product contains a safety-related defect, the manufacturer is responsible for notifying purchasers of the defective equipment and remedying the problem free of charge. The installation of the sun visor attachment by a commercial entity is also subject to certain restrictions, as discussed below.

Our statute at 49 U.S.C. 30122, formerly 108(a)(2)(A) of the Vehicle Safety Act (the section of which you inquire in your letter), provides that a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business may not knowingly "make inoperative" any device or element of design installed on or in a new or used motor vehicle in accordance with any FMVSS. Therefore, the sun visor attachment could not be installed by any of those entities if such use would adversely affect the compliance of a vehicle with any FMVSS, including but not limited to those identified above.

The "make inoperative" provision does not apply to equipment attached to or installed on or in a vehicle by the vehicle owner. However, NHTSA urges vehicle owners not to degrade the safety of any system or device on their vehicles.

I note that the Department's Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration has jurisdiction over interstate motor carriers operating in the U.S. You should contact that agency at (202) 366-4012 for information about any requirements that may apply to your product.

In addition, states have the authority to regulate the use and licensing of vehicles operating within their jurisdictions and may prohibit sun visor attachments. Therefore, in response to your question regarding who you should contact regarding the standards of each state, you should check with the Department of Motor Vehicles in any state in which the equipment will be sold or used. In further response to your question, we regret that we do not have the internet addresses for each state.

For your further information, I am enclosing a fact sheet we prepared entitled Information for New Manufacturers of Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Equipment, and Where to Obtain NHTSA's Safety Standards and Regulations.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any questions or need additional information, feel free to contact Nancy Bell of my staff at (202) 366-2992.




Sincerely,




Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel




Enclosures
ref:201#302
d..8/30/00

---

1. Our statute, formerly the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, was recodified in 1994 without substantive change. It is now codified at Title 49 of the U.S. Code in Chapter 301, Motor Vehicle Safety.)

ID: aiam3481

Dear Mr. Vierimaa: This is in reply to your letter of October 6, 1981, asking for ou concurrence that front clearance lamps 'located at the frame level (about 50 inches above the ground) on platform trailers with permanent front bulkheads conforms with FMVSS 108.'; Clearance lamps are required by Standard No. 108 'to indicate th overall width' of a vehicle, and to be 'as near the top thereof as practicable.' As you noted, NHTSA has commented before that the indication of overall width is the primary function of clearance lamps, with a secondary purpose of indicating overall height. However, because trailers are not required to have identification lamps on their front, the secondary purpose of clearance lamps on trailers is important, especially if the top of the trailer is substantially higher than that of the truck tractor towing it.; You have stated that the top of the trailer is substantially highe than that of the truck tractor towing it.; You have stated that the top of the typical front bulkhead is 8 to feet above the ground, and the identification lamps of truck tractors are typically 10 feet above the ground. We will assume also that the tractor's clearance lamps are also typically 10 feet above the ground. You have also stated that the mounting height of truck tractor rear view mirrors and bulkhead-mounted clearance lamps are essentially the same, and that as a result 'drivers remove the bulb from the clearance lamps or place tape over the lamps.'; The determination of practicability is one that is made by th manufacturer of the trailer. NHTSA will accept a determination that mounting of clearance lamps at the top of the bulkhead is not practicable if such lamps are reflected into the driver's eyes by way of the side view mirror. But if the configuration of a trailer with a permanent front bulkhead is such that the clearance lamps may be located at the top of the bulkhead from without interfering with the vision of the truck tractor's operator, that location would appear to be 'practicable' within the meaning of Standard No. 108 and the situation your letter addresses.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam1985

Dear Mr. Heath: This is in response to your letter dated April 2, 1975, in which yo ask several questions regarding test procedures for Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 218, *Motorcycle Helmets*.; We are not aware of any inconsistency between Standard No. 218 and th compliance procedures that our Office of Standards Enforcement has developed in connection with it. If there were any, of course, the standard would be controlling. The standard specifies a drop height, and a 'guided free fall' from that height. We consider 'free fall' to be an objective and unambiguous physical term, meaning a movement in response to the force of gravity unimpeded by any resistance except air resistance. The requirement the equipment must be capable of meeting, therefore, refers to a fall in which the guiding method imparts no significant resistance, *i.e.*, it does not affect the results. Although in practice a perfectly frictionless guided fall may be unachievable, a manufacturer must ensure that his product would meet the requirement no matter how small the friction. An analogy is the fixed collision barrier defined in S 49 CFR 571.3, which requires a vehicle to meet a barrier crash test requirement using a barrier that absorbs no significant part of the vehicle's energy. Helmet manufacturers must assume, therefore, that the government will test their products using test fixtures that impart as little friction to the fall as possible. We therefore consider the issue of what systems were 'in general use at the time ANS Z90.1 and FMVSS 218 were written' to be irrelevant to the question of compliance.; This discussion should answer your first two questions. We do no accord any legal status to 'old' test procedures as opposed to 'new' ones. With regard to the question about correlation studies, we have not conducted any and I know of no plans to do so. Finally, Standard 218 presently covers only size C helmets because drawings and headforms for the other sizes are not yet available. Therefore, no formal compliance testing can be done on other sizes of helmets. We hope soon to publish drawings and make available models of size A, B and D headforms, at which time a date will be set for extending Standard 218 to these other sizes. Your continuing interest in motorcycle safety is greatly appreciated.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel

ID: aiam3034

Dear Mr. Bogner: This is in reply to your letter of June 18, 1979, asking about 'th history of the implementation of FMVSS 108 and the dates as to these proceedings.'; I assume that you are interested in the initial standards and not th many amendments that have occurred at frequent intervals since the first effective dates. An advance notice of proposed rulemaking was published in the *Federal Register* on October 8, 1966, inviting suggestions for all the initial Federal motor vehicle safety standards. The initial motor vehicle lighting requirement were proposed on November 30, 1966 (31 FR 15212, corrected at 31 FR 15600). Standard No. 108 published on February 3, 1967, however, (32 FR 2408, establishing 23 CFR 255.21, effective January 1, 1968) applied only to vehicles whose overall width was 80 inches or more. On the same day the agency (then known as the National Traffic Safety Agency, Department of Commerce) proposed 'MVSS No. 112' to become effective January 1, 1968, to cover all vehicles whose width was less than 80 inches (32 FR 2418). The same notice also proposed amendments to the just-issued Standard No. 108 which were adopted on December 16, 1967 (32 FR 18032) with varying effective dates. Instead of adopting 'Standard No. 112', the agency also amended Standard No. 108 on December 16, 1967 (32 FR 18033) to incorporate the proposed '112' requirements, for vehicles under 80 inches in overall width, but with an effective date of January 1, 1969. At least one amendment occurred before January 1, 1969 (See 33 FR 2994, February 15, 1968), and one interpretation (See 32 FR 8808, June 21, 1967), defining 'overall width'. A petition for review of boat trailer lighting requirements was filed in 1968, and the requirements upheld (See *Boating Industry Association* v. *Boyd*, 409 F.2d 408 (7th Cir., 1969, rehearing denied).; This is the history of the early days of Standard No. 108. The onl 'documentation' that might still exist would be microfiche copies of docket comments (Docket No. 9) which are warehoused in Virginia. The head of our technical reference service, Ms. Winifred Desmond (426-2728) may be able to assist you with these.; If you have any further questions you may call me at 426-9511. Sincerely, Z. Taylor Vinson, Senior Staff Attorney

ID: aiam1986

Dear Mr. Heath: This is in response to your letter dated April 2, 1975, in which yo ask several questions regarding test procedures for Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 218, *Motorcycle Helmets*.; We are not aware of any inconsistency between Standard No. 218 and th compliance procedures that our Office of Standards Enforcement has developed in connection with it. If there were any, of course, the standard would be controlling. The standard specifies a drop height, and a 'guided free fall' from that height. We consider 'free fall' to be an objective and unambiguous physical term, meaning a movement in response to the force of gravity unimpeded by any resistance except air resistance. The requirement the equipment must be capable of meeting, therefore, refers to a fall in which the guiding method imparts no significant resistance, *i.e.*, it does not affect the results. Although in practice a perfectly frictionless guided fall may be unachievable, a manufacturer must ensure that his product would meet the requirement no matter how small the friction. An analogy is the fixed collision barrier defined in S 49 CFR 571.3, which requires a vehicle to meet a barrier crash test requirement using a barrier that absorbs no significant part of the vehicle's energy. Helmet manufacturers must assume, therefore, that the government will test their products using test fixtures that impart as little friction to the fall as possible. We therefore consider the issue of what systems were 'in general use at the time ANS Z90.1 and FMVSS 218 were written' to be irrelevant to the question of compliance.; This discussion should answer your first two questions. We do no accord any legal status to 'old' test procedures as opposed to 'new' ones. With regard to the question about correlation studies, we have not conducted any and I know of no plans to do so. Finally, Standard 218 presently covers only size C helmets because drawings and headforms for the other sizes are not yet available. Therefore, no formal compliance testing can be done on other sizes of helmets. We hope soon to publish drawings and make available models of size A, B and D headforms, at which time a date will be set for extending Standard 218 to these other sizes. Your continuing interest in motorcycle safety is greatly appreciated.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel

ID: nht89-2.13

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/19/89

FROM: STEPHEN P. WOOD -- NHTSA

TO: JACK SATKOSKI -- SPECTRA ENTERPRISES

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 08/08/88 FROM JACK SATKOSKI TO NHTSA; OCC 2409

TEXT: 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 mot or 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 Vehic le 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 pr ovided 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 ar e 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 le ss 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 vi sor 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 sa fety 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 comp ensation) 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 rapi dly 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 S 108.

However, the prohibitions of S 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, Enclosures