Mr. Kiminori Hyodo

Deputy General Manager, Regulations & Certification

Koito Manufacturing Co., Ltd.

4-8-3, Takanawa

Minato-ku Tokyo

Japan

Dear Mr. Hyodo:

This responds to your recent letter, in which you asked whether it would be necessary to carry out a three-year, outdoor exposure test on a new combination of plastic lens and coating material under Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment. Specifically, your letter stated that you plan to use two existing types of polycarbonate materials, each of which independently meets the requirements of S5.1.2 of Standard No. 108 (i.e., Material A with a coating, and Material B without a coating). However, we understand that you now intend to combine these materials, such that Material A is used as an inner lens without a coating, and Material B is used as an outer lens with the same coating that had been applied to Material A. In response to your question, FMVSS No. 108 does not specifically require manufacturers to conduct testing, but it is the manufacturers responsibility to produce a product that complies with all applicable requirements of our standard when tested in accordance with the standard, and to properly certify compliance.

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. NHTSA does not provide approval of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Instead, it is the responsibility of manufacturers to self-certify that their products conform to all applicable safety standards that are in effect on the date of manufacture (see 49 U.S.C. 30115 and 49 CFR Part 567, Certification).

We note further that the agencys safety standards specify the test conditions and procedures that NHTSA will use to evaluate the performance of the vehicle or equipment being tested for compliance with the particular safety standard. NHTSA follows the test procedures and conditions applicable and in effect at the time of certification when conducting its compliance testing.

A manufacturer is responsible for ensuring that its product complies with applicable standards when tested in accordance with NHTSA procedures. A manufacturer may choose a valid means other than NHTSA performance test procedures for evaluating its products to determine whether the vehicle or equipment will comply with the safety standards when tested by the agency according to the procedures specified by the standard and to provide a basis for its certification of compliance.

If the agency has reason to believe that an apparent noncompliance exists in a vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment, the manufacturer is asked to show the basis for its certification that the vehicle or equipment complies with the relevant safety standard(s). If in fact the vehicle or equipment does not comply with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard when tested according to procedures specified by the standard, the manufacturer will have to recall the product to bring it into compliance at no charge to the customer.

In addition, the manufacturer will be subject to civil penalties, unless it can establish that it had no reason to know, despite exercising reasonable care in the design and manufacture of the product to ensure compliance, that the product did not in fact comply with the safety standard(s) (49 U.S.C. 30115(a) and 30165). This agency has long said that it is unable to judge what efforts would constitute reasonable care in advance of the actual circumstances in which a noncompliance occurs.

As you are aware, the requirements for lighting equipment are contained in FMVSS No. 108, which provides in relevant part:

S5.1.2 Plastic materials used for optical parts such as lenses and reflectors shall conform to SAE Recommended Practice J576 [Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) Recommended Practice J576, Plastic Materials for Use in Optical Parts Such as Lenses and Reflex Reflectors of Motor Vehicle Lighting Devices] JUL91, except that:

(a)   Plastic lenses (other than those incorporating reflex reflectors) used for inner lenses or those covered by another material and not exposed directly to sunlight shall meet the requirements of paragraphs 3.3 and 4.2 of SAE J576 JUL91 when covered by the outer lens or other material;

(b)   After the outdoor exposure test, the haze and loss of surface luster of plastic materials (other than those incorporating reflex reflectors) used for outer lenses shall not be greater than 30 percent haze as measured by ASTM D 1003-92, Haze and Luminous Transmittance of Transparent Plastic;

. . .

(g) All outdoor exposure tests shall be 3 years in duration, whether the material is exposed or protected. Accelerated weathering procedures are not permitted.

We note that neither SAE J576 nor Standard No. 108 specifically requires use of a coating.

Thus, the standard sets forth the test that NHTSA follows in conducting compliance testing. Specifically, under SAE J576 (incorporated by reference in FMVSS No. 108), the agency will subject plastic materials used for optical parts to an unaccelerated, three-year outdoor exposure test.

In short, Koito must ensure that its lamps as manufactured conform to all applicable requirements of FMVSS No 108, including that the plastic materials meet the exposure test requirements under S5.1.2. Again, our standards do not compel manufacturers to test the motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment that they produce under NHTSAs test procedures, although many choose to do so in order to provide a basis for their certification. However, if the agency subjected the lamp in question to compliance testing, the lamps plastic materials would need to meet the requirements of FMVSS No. 108, as certified.

If you have further questions, please feel free to contact Eric Stas of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Wood

Acting Chief Counsel

Dated: October 4, 2005

Ref: Standard No. 108

Mr. Jim Wilson

Marketing Director, Lighting

Sabic Innovative Plastics

Two Towne Square

Southfield, MI 48076

Dear Mr. Wilson:

This responds to your letter regarding requirements for inner lenses in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment. Specifically, you asked whether inner lenses are subject to certain performance requirements of the version of FMVSS No. 108 that are scheduled to take effect on December 1, 2009. The answer is that inner lenses are required to meet the haze test requirements, similar to the way they are in the currently applicable version of FMVSS No. 108.

By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized by the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Safety Act) to issue FMVSSs that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and new 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.

In your letter, you state you seek confirmation that FMVSS No. 108 does not require plastic materials used for inner lenses to meet the performance requirements in S14.4.2.2.4 when they are covered by outer material meeting the requirements of that section and not exposed directly to sunlight. Neither the currently applicable version of FMVSS No. 108, nor the version of the standard that becomes effective on December 1, 2009 (hereinafter, the rewrite), supports that position.

For reference, paragraph S5.1.2 of FMVSS No. 108 reads as follows:

S5.1.2 Plastic materials used for optical parts such as lenses and reflectors shall conform to SAE Recommended Practice J576 JUL91, except that:

(a) Plastic lenses (other than those incorporating reflex reflectors) used for inner lenses or those covered by another material and not exposed directly to sunlight shall meet the requirements of paragraphs 3.3 and 4.2 of SAE J576 JUL91 when covered by the outer lens or other material; [emphasis added][1] . . . .

We interpret this requirement as follows. The requirement in S5.1.2 which states that plastic materials shall conform to SAE J576 JUL91 is the general requirement. The subparagraphs ((a) through (g)), are exceptions to this requirement. Therefore, the exception described in subparagraph (a) requires plastic lenses used for inner lenses to meet the specifications of paragraphs 3.3 and 4.2 of SAE J576 JUL91 while covered by the outer lens. This is instead of being required to meet these specifications while directly exposed to sunlight.[2] The inner lenses are not, as you suggest, fully excluded from the general test requirements in S5.1.2.

We believe that the relevant paragraph S14.4.2.2.4 in the rewrite is substantively identical. For reference, that paragraph reads as follows:

S14.4.2.2.4 Performance requirements. Plastic lenses, other than those incorporating reflex reflectors, used for inner lenses or those covered by another material and not exposed directly to sunlight must meet the optical material test requirements when covered by the outer lens or other material.

We interpret this paragraph to establish the same requirements as paragraph S5.1.2 and S5.1.2(a) in the current standard. With regard to plastic used for inner lenses, and not exposed directly to sunlight, they must meet the optical material test requirements when covered by the outer lens. This is the same as is currently required by FMVSS No. 108.

You also provide an analysis as to why you believe that inner lenses are not required to be certified to the specifications of S5.1.2. We respond to that analysis below.

In your letter, you state that in a 1970 final rule (35 FR 16840, October 31, 1970), NHTSA made clear that inner lenses would be considered to be protected when covered by an outer lens and not directly exposed to sunlight. We have reviewed the final rule at

issue and have not found a relevant difference between that version and the current version. It too states that [p]lastic materials used as inner lenses and not exposed directly to sunlight shall meet the requirements of paragraphs 3.4 and 4.2 of SAE J576b when covered by the outer lens or other material.[3]

Finally, we note you argued that the fact that inner lenses are protected is critical when applying the SAE Recommended Practice upon which the standard is based. We agree that the lenses you describe in this letter would be considered protected. However, merely because a lens is protected does not mean it is not subject to a weathering test. Instead, according to the SAE Recommended Practice referenced in FMVSS No. 108 (SAE J576 JUL91), protected lenses are subject to test requirements albeit less stringent requirements than exposed lenses (a 6-month weathering period, instead of 3 years).

If you have any further questions, please contact Ari Scott of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

O. Kevin Vincent

Chief Counsel

Dated: November 6, 2009

Ref: NCC-112:Ascott:12/11/08:62992: 08-005252

cc: NCC-110 Subj/Chron, Redbook, Docket Standard No. 108

S:\INTERP\108\08-005252a-as.doc

Mr. Junichi Hasegawa

Manager

Quality and Assurance Department

Stanley Electric Co., Ltd.

400 Soya, Hadano-shi

Kanagawa 257-8555

Japan

Dear Mr. Hasegawa:

This letter is in response to your October 17, 2011 letter inquiring whether certain light-emitting diode (LED) headlamp configurations installed on motorcycles would comply with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment. We apologize for the delay in our response. Below we explain how our lighting regulations apply to LED headlamps installed on motorcycles.

By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards 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 approval of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, and we do not determine compliance of a vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment outside the context of an actual enforcement proceeding. 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. The following represents our opinion regarding the applicability of our regulations to your proposed lighting configuration based upon the facts set forth in the materials that you submitted.

In your letter, you raise 3 basic questions regarding LED headlamps for motorcycles, as follows:

1)      Are LED headlamps allowed for motor vehicles other than motorcycles?

2)      Are LED headlamps allowed for motorcycles, depending on their layout?

3)      Is the out-of-focus test required for LED headlamps installed on motorcycles?

We will answer these questions in turn below.

1)      Are LED headlamps allowed for motor vehicles other than motorcycles?

In your letter, you state that a prior interpretation by NHTSA confirms that LED headlamps are permissible for motor vehicles other than motorcycles because they may be regarded as an integral beam head lighting system as specified in S10.14 of FMVSS No. 108. An integral beam headlamp is defined in S4 as "a headlamp (other than a standardized sealed beam headlamp designed to conform to paragraph S10.13 or a replaceable bulb headlamp designed to conform to paragraph S10.15) comprising an integral and indivisible optical assembly including lens, reflector, and light source, except that a headlamp conforming to paragraph S10.18.8 or paragraph S10.18.9 may have a lens designed to be replaceable." We have stated that we would consider an LED headlamp meeting the above definition to be an integral beam headlamp if the LEDs are wired in series so that a failure of one LED would cause all the LEDs to cease functioning.[1] As we stated previously, the LEDs must be wired in series for the headlamps to conform to the installation requirements in S6.1.3.5 which correspond to whether each lamp is comprised of one or two light sources. Because LED headlamps can qualify as integral beam head lighting systems, these systems would comply with FMVSS No. 108 if installed on motor vehicles other than motorcycles.

2)      Are LED headlamps allowed for motorcycles, depending on their layout?

Paragraph S10.17 of FMVSS No. 108 specifies that headlamps installed on motorcycles:

[M]ay consist of: (a) one half of any headlighting system of Table II which provides both a full upper beam and full lower beam, and is designed to conform to the requirements for that headlamp type. Where more than one lamp must be used, the lamps shall be mounted vertically, with the lower beam as high as practicable, or (b) a headlighting system designed to conform to the requirements of paragraphs S10.17.1 through S10.17.5. 49 C.F.R. 571.108

If an LED headlamp installed on a motorcycle is not half of a head lighting system installed on a four wheeled vehicle, in addition to the other requirements contained in S10.17, it must meet the out-of-focus test in S14.3[2] and the photometry requirements in Table XX. Because we have stated that an LED headlamp can be treated as an integral beam headlamp provided the conditions above are met, an LED headlamp system consisting of one-half of an integral beam system meeting the requirements of paragraph S10.14 could be installed on a motorcycle.

You describe three different typical configurations for potential LED motorcycle headlamps and ask whether any of these would be permissible. The first configuration you describe consists of a single headlamp with both an upper and a lower beam contained in a single housing behind a single lens and symmetrically disposed about the vertical centerline. The second configuration consists of two headlamps symmetrically disposed about the vertical centerline, one of which provides a lower beam and one of which provides an upper beam. The third configuration consists of two headlamps symmetrically disposed about the vertical centerline each of which provides both an upper and lower beam.

Because paragraph S10.17(a) specifies that a headlamp system installed on a motorcycle must consist of half of a full system that would be installed on a four wheeled vehicle, a headlamp installed on a motorcycle would only be able to comply with this paragraph if it consisted of a single upper beam and a single lower beam. Therefore, under paragraph S10.17(a), a motorcycle could be equipped with a single LED headlamp containing both an upper and lower beam (like your first configuration), or it could be equipped with an LED headlamp system consisting of two headlamps, one of which provided a lower beam and one of which provided an upper beam (like your second configuration), assuming all other applicable requirements were met.

We note that in order for a motorcycle headlamp system with two headlamps to be tested as half of a headlamp system installed on a four wheeled vehicle under S10.17(a), the lamps must be mounted vertically with the lower beam as high as practicable. The headlamp layout in your second configuration does not comply with this requirement because the lamps are horizontally disposed about the vertical centerline. Thus, if this layout was used, the lamps would have to comply with S10.17(b).

A head lighting system installed on a motorcycle with two lower and two upper beams (like your third configuration) would not comply with paragraph S10.17(a). A configuration like your third example, whether LED or not, would thus have to comply with the requirements for motorcycle headlamps in order to be permissible as a motorcycle headlamp configuration under S10.17(b). Additionally, your third configuration would not conform to paragraph S6.1.3.5.1.2 (applicable to all vehicles) which requires that headlamps with two vertically oriented light sources be installed so that the lower beam is provided by the uppermost light source.

3)      Is the out-of-focus test required for LED headlamps installed on motorcycles?

As discussed above, your first configuration could potentially qualify under S10.17(a) as half of a full system that would be installed on a four wheeled vehicle. If a motorcycle headlamp configuration meets the requirements of S10.17(a), it is not subject to the out-of-focus test. If a motorcycle headlamp configuration seeks to meet the requirements of S10.17(b) instead, as your second, and third configurations might, it would need to comply with all of the requirements of S10.17.4, including the out-of-focus test.

If you have further questions, you may refer them to Thomas Healy of this office (202-366-2992).

Sincerely,

O. Kevin Vincent

Chief Counsel

Dated: 4/8/13

Standard No. 108

Mr. Mark Siddall

Senior Team Leader

Product Compliance and Regulatory Affairs

Daimler Trucks North America LLC

4747 North Channel Avenue

Portland, Oregon  97217-7699

Dear Mr. Siddall:

This is in response to your letter received October 24, 2011 inquiring if backup lamps located on the back wall of the truck tractor cab or sleeper rather than at the standard location, the end of the vehicle, would comply with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard  No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment (FMVSS No. 108).  Based on the information you have provided, the placement you describe is not on the rear within the meaning of FMVSS No. 108, and therefore does not comply with our requirements for backup lamps.  We address this question in more detail below.

By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards 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 approval of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, and we do not determine compliance of a vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment outside the context of an actual enforcement proceeding.  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.  The following represents our opinion regarding the applicability of our regulations to your proposed lamp placement based upon the facts set forth in the materials that you submitted.

In your letter, you ask if mounting backup lamps on the back wall of a cab or sleeper rather than at the end of the vehicle with the stop lamps and taillamps would meet the requirement contained in FMVSS No. 108 that backup lamps be placed on the rear of the vehicle.  You further state that your proposed configuration would meet the visibility requirements contained in Table V-a of FMVSS No. 108.

The requirements for backup lamps are located at paragraph S7.6 of FMVSS No. 108.  Paragraph S7.6.3 refers to Table I-a for the basic mounting location, which states that backup lamps must be placed on the rear.  Table V-a, referenced at S7.6.7, contains more specific visibility requirements that apply to backup lamps as installed on the rear of vehicles.  You state

that backup lamps located on the back of the cab or sleeper would meet those more specific visibility requirements; you have provided no documentation of this, but our answer to this letter assumes that you are correct.

Thus, assuming that backup lamps located on the back of the cab or sleeper meet the visibility requirements of Table V-a, the question is if placement on the back of the cab or sleeper would be on the rear of the vehicle for purposes of FMVSS No. 108.  A literal interpretation of the location requirement on the rear, would be on a vertical plane that is perpendicular to the longitudinal axis of the vehicle and tangent to the vehicles rearmost extremity.  However, the rearmost extremity of a vehicle is typically a bumper, trailer hitch, or other feature.  Mounting lamps at these locations is not generally practicable.  Considerations of practicability may also justify mounting the lamps even farther forward.  However, there are limits to this.

NHTSAs interpretations of on the rear have analyzed how far forward of the vehicles rear extremity lamps could be mounted and still be considered on the rear as required by FMVSS No. 108.  Backup lamps mounted on the rear are necessary to notify the viewer of the location of the rear extremity of the vehicle, and therefore cannot be too far from it.  For example, in response to an inquiry regarding placing rear lamps 27 inches from the rear edge of the vehicle, we stated that in that position, lamps are not mounted on the rear within the meaning of FMVSS No. 108. See our letters to Howard Kossover,[1] Jack Rademacher,[2] and George Manset.[3]

These interpretations regarding other lamps required to be on the rear are relevant to your question about backup lamps, because, like backup lamps, they indicate location of the rear of the vehicle and signal driver intent to other vehicles and pedestrians.  Accordingly, we do not agree that mounting backup lamps on the cab or sleeper, which can be many feet from the rearmost extremity of the vehicle, would meet the FMVSS No. 108 requirement for mounting the lamps on the rear. A lamp mounted on the cab would not necessarily be prohibited by FMVSS No. 108, however, provided that a backup lamp is mounted on the rear of the vehicle and provided that the additional lamp does not impair the effectiveness of required lamps.

If you have further questions, you may refer them to Analiese Marchesseault of my staff (202-366-1723).

Sincerely,

                                                                                    O. Kevin Vincent

                                                                                    Chief Counsel

Dated: 9/9/13

Ref: Standard No. 108

Mr. Robert G. Mills

Supervisor, Homologation

Triumph Designs Limited

Normandy Way, Hinckley

Leicestershire LE10 3BZ

United Kingdom

Dear Mr. Mills:

This responds to your letter, dated April 8, 2011, asking whether the motorcycle rear lamp system you describe is permissible under Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS)

No. 108, which governs lamps, reflective devices, and associated equipment on vehicles.  In a February 2012, meeting with agency staff you stated that the project for which you were requesting this  interpretation was on hold.  On October 5, 2015, you emailed Thomas Healy of my staff asking about the status of our response to your letter.  I apologize for the delay in our response.  As explained below, we believe that the system would be permissible under FMVSS No. 108.

By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards 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 approval of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, and we do not determine compliance of a vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment outside the context of an actual enforcement proceeding.  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.  The following represents our opinion regarding the applicability of our regulations to your proposed lighting configuration based upon the facts set forth in the materials that you submitted.

In your letter and the attached diagrams, you describe the lamp system as consisting of two lamps, with one lamp located on either side of the rear vertical centerline of the motorcycle.  The center axes of the lamps are separated by a distance of 315 mm (12.4 in).  Each of the lamps functions as turn signal, stop lamp, and taillamp.  The operational logic chart attached to your letter indicates that the system has four functional modes: 1) both lamps continuously illuminated as taillamps; 2) one lamp flashing as a turn signal while the other lamp remains continuously illuminated as a taillamp; 3) both lamps illuminated at a higher intensity as stop lamps when the brakes are applied; and 4) in a situation in which the brakes are applied at the same time as a turn is indicated, one lamp flashing as a turn signal while the other lamp remains continuously illuminated at a higher intensity as a stop lamp.  You state that the effective projected luminous lens area of the two lamps in your configuration, when combined, is 50 cm².

You ask whether it would be permissible to combine the two lamps on either side of the vertical centerline of the motorcycle in order to meet the effective projected luminous lens area requirements of FMVSS No. 108.  You further inquire whether the required minimum 4 inch edge to edge separation of red turn signal lamps from the taillamp or stop lamp for motorcycles equipped with a single stop and taillamp applies to your lighting configuration.

You pose an additional question about the operating condition of the lamps when both the turn signal and stop lamps are activated.  In your letter, you state that when one of the turn signal lamps is activated during braking, only the lamp on the opposite side of motorcycle from the turn signal that is flashing will be activated as a stop lamp.  Since only one of the two lamps used to meet the effective projected luminous lens area requirement for the stop lamp is activated in this situation, the effective projected luminous lens area falls below that required for a motorcycle equipped with a single stop lamp.  You inquire whether this situation would be permissible under FMVSS No. 108. 

We agree that you may combine the lamps on either side of the vertical centerline of the motorcycle for the purpose of meeting the effective projected luminous lens area requirements for a motorcycle equipped with a single stop lamp in FMVSS No. 108.  FMVSS No. 108 requires that the stop lamps and the rear turn signal lamps must meet the requirements of Table IV-a.  FMVSS No. 108 permits the use of multiple compartment lamps or multiple lamps to meet the photometric requirements for stop lamps.[1]  The compartments or lamps in such systems are tested together as a unit as long as all the compartments or lamps are within a certain distance of each other.  For a two-lamp system, the center axis of the lamps must be within 560 mm of each other to be tested as a unit.  The distance between the two lamps in your configuration is less than 560 mm, thus the lamps could be considered a combination lamp for the purpose of meeting the effective projected luminous lens area requirement for the stop lamp.

In previous interpretation letters addressing rear motorcycle lamp configurations, we have applied the distance requirements in FMVSS No. 108 and referenced SAE standards to conclude that lamp systems consisting of lamps on either side of the rear vertical centerline of a motorcycle can be considered single lamps for the purposes of meeting the stop lamp photometric requirements (See enclosed November 20, 1998 letter to Tadashi Suzuki).

You correctly note in your letter that Table I-c of FMVSS No. 108 requires turn signal lamps on a motorcycle to be separated from the tail lamp or stop lamp by 4 inches when a single tail or stop lamp is mounted on the vertical centerline of the motorcycle and the turn signal lamps are red.  We do not believe that this requirement is applicable to the configuration described in your letter because the configuration you describe consists of two lamps mounted either side of the vertical centerline instead of a single stop or tail lamp mounted on the vertical centerline of the motorcycle.  

We believe that the situation in which the turn signal and stop lamp of your proposed lighting system are both activated would be permissible under FMVSS No. 108.  The Table I-c of FMVSS No. 108 states that when a stop lamp is optically combined with a turn signal lamp, the circuit shall be such that the stop signal cannot be turned on if the turn signal is flashing.  According to the definition of optically combined in FMVSS No. 108, optical combination results when 1) a lamp has two or more separate light sources, or a single light source that operates in different ways (e.g., a two-filament bulb), and 2) the lamps optically functional lens area is wholly or partially common to two or more lamp functions.

In your proposed system, both lamps together constitute the required single stop lamp, and each individual lamp also acts as a turn signal.  Under the definition stated above, the single stop lamp (consisting of both lamps) is considered to be optically combined with both turn signals.  Such an interpretation could mean that a situation when one lamp flashes as a turn signal while the other lamp remains continuously illuminated as a stop signal would not be permissible.  Neither of the lamps could be illuminated as a stop signal if one of the turn signals is flashing.  In other words, the vehicle would not display any signal indicating that the brakes were being applied in such a situation.  If the taillamps could not indicate braking, we would consider this to constitute a safety risk and to be impermissible under FMVSS No. 108.

In the unique situation presented by the lamp system you describe, when one lamp flashes as a turn signal while the other lamp remains continuously (and more strongly) illuminated as a stop signal, the lighted section that is flashing as a turn signal does cease to operate as a stop signal.  The lamp system as a whole, however, would continue to signal when the brakes are applied because the other lighted section continues to operate as a stop signal.  We conclude that the situation when one lamp flashes as a turn signal while the other lamp remains continuously (and more strongly) illuminated as a stop signal is permissible under FMVSS No. 108.  We caution that this interpretation is limited to the unique motorcycle rear lamp system described in your letter.

If you have further questions, you may refer them to Thomas Healy of this Office (202-366-2992).

Sincerely,

                                                                        Paul A. Hemmersbaugh

                                                                        Acting Chief Counsel

Dated:  10/20/15

Ref: Standard No. 108

Cullen Sisskind

Commercial Vehicle Section; Location 062

California Highway Patrol

P.O. Box 942898

Sacramento, CA 94298-0001

Dear Mr. Sisskind:

This letter responds to an email from Clint Hightower of the California Highway Patrol to Louis Molino requesting a written interpretation concerning the definition of the term occupant, as used in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 110. Specifically, you would like to know whether the driver is considered an occupant for the purpose of the vehicle placard required by S4.3. To respond to your question, we would consider the driver to be an occupant of a vehicle for the purpose of stating the vehicles seating capacity on the placard required by FMVSS No. 110.

FMVSS No. 110 requires that a placard bearing information about vehicle capacity weight, designated seating capacity, and information regarding the tires and loading be permanently affixed to each new motor vehicle with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of 10,000 pounds or less .[1] For the purpose of determining designated seating capacity, S4.3(b) of FMVSS No. 110 requires that the capacity of a vehicle be expressed in terms of the total number of occupants. The term designated seating capacity is defined in 49 CFR 571.3 for the purposes of the FMVSSs as the number of designated seating positions provided. Section 571.3 also defines the term driver as the occupant of a motor vehicle seated immediately behind the steering control system.

Thus, by definition, the driver is considered an occupant of a motor vehicle. Because the drivers seating position is considered a designated seating position, it follows directly from the definition of the designated seating capacity that the drivers seating position is included in the calculation of a vehicles seating capacity.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions about this issue, please feel free to contact David Jasinski of my office at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely yours,

O. Kevin Vincent

Chief Counsel

Dated: 2/4/14

Ref: Standard No. 110

Cullen Sisskind

Commercial Vehicle Section; Location 062

California Highway Patrol

P.O. Box 942898

Sacramento, CA 94298-0001

Dear Mr. Sisskind:

This letter responds to an email from Clint Hightower of the California Highway Patrol to Louis Molino requesting a written interpretation concerning the definition of the term occupant, as used in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 110. Specifically, you would like to know whether the driver is considered an occupant for the purpose of the vehicle placard required by S4.3. To respond to your question, we would consider the driver to be an occupant of a vehicle for the purpose of stating the vehicles seating capacity on the placard required by FMVSS No. 110.

FMVSS No. 110 requires that a placard bearing information about vehicle capacity weight, designated seating capacity, and information regarding the tires and loading be permanently affixed to each new motor vehicle with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of 10,000 pounds or less .[1] For the purpose of determining designated seating capacity, S4.3(b) of FMVSS No. 110 requires that the capacity of a vehicle be expressed in terms of the total number of occupants. The term designated seating capacity is defined in 49 CFR 571.3 for the purposes of the FMVSSs as the number of designated seating positions provided. Section 571.3 also defines the term driver as the occupant of a motor vehicle seated immediately behind the steering control system.

Thus, by definition, the driver is considered an occupant of a motor vehicle. Because the drivers seating position is considered a designated seating position, it follows directly from the definition of the designated seating capacity that the drivers seating position is included in the calculation of a vehicles seating capacity.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions about this issue, please feel free to contact David Jasinski of my office at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely yours,

O. Kevin Vincent

Chief Counsel

OCC:DJasinski:62992:cyt:9/25/13

Reprinted with edits from NVS-100 and 200 on 1/17/14

NCC-112 subj, dj, cyt NCC13-003266

DRAFT 1/24/2014 3:01 PM

NVS-100, NVS-200, Interps. Std 110, Redbook

S:\INTERP\110\571-110- placard - CHP - 13-003266.docxDated: 2/4/14

Ref: Standard No. 110

Dr. Niall R. Lynam

Senior Vice President

Magna Mirrors of America, Inc.

49 West 3^rd Street

Holland, Michigan 49423

Dear Dr. Lynam:

This responds to your letter, dated March 5, 2013, requesting clarification on Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 111, Rearview Mirrors, as it pertains to the drivers side outside rearview mirror of a passenger car.

Your letter asks whether FMVSS No. 111 permits the use of a convex mirror having a radius of curvature of thirty (30) meters and a magnification of 0.95 as the drivers side outside rearview mirror on a passenger car. Your letter also requests that, for purposes of providing an interpretation, NHTSA assume that that the mirrors field of view is in accordance with S5.2.1, the mounting is in accordance with S5.2.2, and the construction is in accordance with S11.

Even if we make the assumptions that you request, the plain language of FMVSS No. 111 does not allow convex mirrors as drivers side outside rearview mirrors. FMVSS No. 111 defines two types of mirrors, convex mirrors and mirrors of unit magnification. Paragraph S.4 defines a convex mirror as having a curved reflective surface, whereas a unit magnification mirror is defined as a plane or flat mirror. Paragraph S5.2 of the standard, Outside rearview mirrordriver's side, applies specifically to the drivers side rearview mirror. It states, in relevant part, that [e]ach passenger car shall have an outside mirror of unit magnification. Thus, it does not permit the use of the convex mirror described in your letter, regardless of its radius of curvature. Rather, a mirror that is flat or plane must be used as the drivers side mirror in order to comply with the standard.

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

Sincerely,

O. Kevin Vincent

Chief Counsel

Dated: 8/15/13

FMVSS 111

Mr. Steven Crowell

P.O. Box 303

Eastham, MA 02642-0303

Dear Mr. Crowell:

This responds to your letters to Administrator David Strickland, former Deputy Administrator Ronald Medford, and several other officials of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), which we received in October of 2012. Your letters have been referred to my office for reply. You ask for help correcting the violations found in automobile interior partition performance in police cruisers, limousines, utility vans, and taxicabs. The partitions separate the front seat occupants (particularly the driver) from back seat passengers, primarily for security reasons. I will refer to these as security partitions.

From the enclosures you sent, I understand that you believe that security partitions can cause harm to drivers and passengers and should not be installed in vehicles. You have written NHTSA on a number of occasions since 1984 asking about the application of NHTSA regulations to security partitions. Several offices of the agency have responded over the years, including this office. On September 13, 1985, then-Chief Counsel Jeffrey R. Miller sent you a letter explaining how the agencys requirements apply to security partitions.^[1]

You state in a recent letter that NHTSA has been inconsistent in responding to you and that you believe that a May 2, 2012 letter from the Office of Defects Investigation contradicts earlier agency letters to you about security partitions. The 2012 letter appears highly focused on answering your inquiry from the point of view of the defects investigators. The 1985 letter to you from the Chief Counsels office should serve to provide an overall view of our requirements as applied to security partitions.[2] In that letter, we noted that Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 205 applies to such partitions. Since that letter, we have issued various FMVSSs, including FMVSS No. 226 (Ejection Mitigation), which specifically excludes certain vehicles that have such partitions, including the types of vehicles you mention. We regret if our letters have caused any confusion.

In your current letters, and judging from your past letters to NHTSA on this subject, it appears that you would like the agency to test and possibly remove the security partitions in the vehicles listed above. As to the merits of the security partitions now in place, we were unable to verify your letters references to the harm caused by security partitions. You are welcome to submit any actual data you have supporting your claims. On the other hand, we acknowledge that security partitions have a place in protecting the vehicle operator from assailants. After considering the available information, including the possible trade-offs to the safety and security of the operator in the absence of a security partition, we regret to inform you that testing security partitions that are now in taxicabs and police vehicles is not an initiative the agency will pursue at this time.

In your letter, you ask a question about the New York City Taxi and Limousine Commissions (TLCs) Taxi of Tomorrow program. We suggest that you contact TLC directly for information about the test program.

Sincerely,

O. Kevin Vincent

Chief Counsel

Dated: 1/11/13

Standard No. 201

Mr. Kevin Ro

National Manager, Technical &

  Regulatory Affairs, Safety

Toyota Motor North America, Inc.

601 Thirteenth Street, NW, Suite 910 South

Washington, DC  20005

Dear Mr. Ro:

This letter responds to Toyotas request for an interpretation of the requirements associated with advanced air bags equipped with multistage inflators.  You state Toyotas belief that the term multistage inflator, as used in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, is not intended to be design-restrictive, but intended to characterize various designs of advanced air bags with decision-based deployment strategies that result in different levels of air bag internal pressure.  You request NHTSAs confirmation that technologies that are other than or in addition to the types of technologies traditionally used as multistage inflators that function to adjust air bag pressure based on occupant classification can be used to meet the low risk deployment requirements of FMVSS No. 208.  You have provided an example of one such technology to NHTSA under a claim of confidentiality.  As explained below, NHTSA agrees with you that the term multistage inflator should be interpreted broadly to encompass any type of technology that adjusts air bag pressure based on occupant classification.

By way of background, on May 12, 2000, NHTSA published a final rule in the Federal Register (65 FR 30680) requiring advanced air bags in all passenger cars, multi-purpose vehicles, light trucks, and buses with a gross vehicle weight rating of 3,855 kilograms (8,500 pounds) or less and an unloaded vehicle weight of 2,495 kilograms (5,500 pounds) or less.  That final rule established advanced air bag performance requirements to minimize the risk of injury to children, as well as new requirements to enhance protection of small and mid-sized adults.  Pertinent to your question, S21 and S23 provide three options for compliance low risk deployment, automatic suppression, or dynamic automatic suppression.  Your question concerns the low risk deployment option with respect to the testing of 3-year-old and 6-year-old child test dummies.

In the test procedure for the low risk deployment option for the 3-year-old and 6-year-old test dummies (S22.4.4 and S24.4.4), the regulation states that [i]f the frontal air bag system contains a multistage inflator, the vehicle shall be able to comply with the injury criteria at any stage or combination of stages or time delay between successive stages that could occur in a

rigid barrier crash test at or below 26 km/h (16 mph), under the test procedure specified in S22.5.  The test procedure specified in S22.5 (the indicant test) is used in determining the stages that are fired for use in the low risk deployment test.

In the May 2000 final rule (65 FR 30688), the agency expressed an intent to avoid adopting requirements that might be overly design restrictive that would make it difficult for vehicle manufacturers to design their air bags to perform well in both rigid barrier tests and the wide range of real world crashes.  In keeping with that sentiment, we interpret the term multistage inflator broadly to encompass any type of technology that adjusts air bag pressure as a function of time based on factors such as occupant classification and vehicle crash pulse.  The successive variations in deployment levels, regardless of the type of technology that causes them, are considered to be the stages of deployment.  Thus, the low risk deployment test would apply to these new technologies that may be used in lieu of or in combination with traditional multistage inflators.  In NHTSAs compliance testing, we have already observed examples of advanced deployment technologies, and have determined that these technologies can satisfy the low risk deployment requirements, provided, of course, the systems meet the specified performance requirements.

I hope this information is helpful.  If you have any further questions about this issue, please feel free to contact David Jasinski of my office at (202) 366-2992.

                                                                                    Sincerely yours,

                                                                                    O. Kevin Vincent

                                                                                    Chief Counsel

Dated: 9/20/13

Ref: Standard No. 208