ID: 16908.nhf

Ms. Connie L. Stauffer
President
Lift-Aids, Inc.June 2, 1998
2381 Pecan Court
Fort Worth, TX 76117

Dear Ms. Stauffer:

This responds to your request for a letter stating that the agency will not enforce the "make inoperative" provision against you for modifying a Ford Windstar Minivan to accommodate your client who has a disability. I apologize for the delay in my response. In your letter, you stated that you need to replace the vehicle's original steering column and air bag with a horizontal steering column and steering control manufactured by Drive Master Corporation to accommodate your client who suffers from the disability "osteogenesis imperfecta," more commonly known as brittle bone disease. You explained that, due to her disability, your client is very small in stature and has limited mobility.

This letter provides the relief you seek. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) will not institute enforcement proceedings against a commercial entity that modifies the steering wheel and column on a vehicle to accommodate the condition you described.

We would like to begin by explaining that 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. Manufacturers are required to certify that their products conform to our safety standards before they can be offered for sale. After the first sale of the vehicle, manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and repair businesses are prohibited from "knowingly making inoperative" any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle in compliance with an applicable standard. In general, the "make inoperative" prohibition (49 U.S.C. 30122) requires businesses which modify motor vehicles to ensure that they do not remove, disconnect, or degrade the performance of safety equipment installed in compliance with an applicable standard. Violations of this prohibition are punishable by civil penalties of up to $1,100 per violation.

There is no procedure by which businesses petition for and are granted permission from NHTSA to modify a motor vehicle. Businesses are permitted to modify vehicles without obtaining permission from NHTSA to do so, but are subject to the make inoperative provision of 49 U.S.C. 30122. In certain limited situations, we have exercised our discretion in enforcing our requirements to provide some allowances to a business which cannot conform to our requirements when making modifications to accommodate the special needs of persons with disabilities.

Removing the original steering column and replacing it with a horizontal steering column could affect compliance with three standards: Standard No. 203, Impact protection for the driver from the steering control system, Standard No. 204, Steering control rearward displacement, and Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection. For example, Standard No. 208 requires vehicles to be equipped with specific manual and automatic restraint systems (e.g. seat belts and air bags) and to meet specified injury criteria during a test. Removing the steering wheel and the driver's air bag would affect the vehicle's compliance with Standard No. 208. In situations such as yours where a vehicle must be modified to accommodate the needs of a particular disability, we have been willing to consider violations of the "make inoperative" prohibition to be justified by public need. As I have already noted above, NHTSA will not institute enforcement proceedings against a business that modifies the steering column and air bag to accommodate the condition you describe.

We caution, however, that only necessary modifications should be made. In addition, you should consult with the manufacturer to determine how to disarm the air bag. The manufacturer should be able to provide information on how the modification can be safely performed. Finally, if the vehicle is sold, we urge the owner to advise the purchaser that the vehicle has been modified and consider reinstalling the removed safety equipment if appropriate.

If you have other questions or require additional information, please contact Nicole Fradette of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
ref:VSA
d.5/22/98

ID: 12247.ztv

Mr. Shlomo Zadok
Zadok Research Laboratories
739 North Occidental Blvd., Suite #6
Los Angeles, CA 90026

Dear Mr. Zadok:

This replies to your letter of July 25, 1996, asking for an interpretation as to the applicability of Federal laws to a "third brake light" that you have designed.

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment (Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations Sec. 571.108) is the Federal regulation that prescribes lighting equipment for new motor vehicles. Standard No. 108 refers to this item of equipment as a "center highmounted stop lamp" which is frequently abbreviated to "CHMSL." As Mr. Vinson explained to you in several phone talks on the subject, Standard No. 108 has required the CHMSL on all passenger cars manufactured on and after September 1, 1986, and on light trucks and vans manufactured on and after September 1, 1993. Both original and replacement CHMSLs for these vehicles must meet the requirements specified in Standard No. 108. Further, if you sell a CHMSL in the aftermarket for replacement of an original equipment CHMSL, you are required to certify that it meets the original equipment requirements, either by a DOT symbol on the lamp, or a statement on a label or tag attached to it or its container.

The unusual feature of your CHMSL is that it will carry a message in "big block letters" that don't flash or blink. Whether a "message" of this nature is permissible on original CHMSLs and their replacements depends on whether your CHMSL conforms to paragraph S5.1.1.27 of Standard No. 108. The most important of these requirements is that a CHMSL have an effective projected luminous lens area of not less than 4 square inches, that it have a signal visible to the rear through a horizontal angle from 45 degrees to the left to 45 degrees to the right of the vehicle's longitudinal axis, and that it have the minimum photometric values in the amount and location listed in Figure 10 of Standard No. 108 (the most difficult requirement to meet with a "message" imposed on the lens).

Your CHMSL as original equipment or its replacement is also subject to the prohibition of paragraph S5.1.3 that it not "impair the effectiveness" of any lighting equipment required by

Standard No. 108. This means that the message must not distract or confuse following drivers from reacting to the CHMSL and other stop signals exactly as they would were the message not there.

You also state that the CHMSL "is not so large as to block the driver's rear view." The Federal requirement is that, with the CHMSL in place, a vehicle must continue to conform to the rear field of view requirements of Safety Standard No. 111 Rearview Mirrors.

If you sell your CHMSL in the aftermarket as a replacement only for use on older vehicles that did not carry a CHMSL as original equipment, there is no Federal requirement that it comply with Standard No. 108. The sole Federal restriction is that a manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or motor vehicle repair business may not install the CHMSL if it " makes inoperative" any equipment originally installed to meet a Federal motor vehicle safety standard. We interpret this as meaning that your CHMSL must not detract from the stop signal provided by the two original equipment stop lamps, and that it must not create a noncompliance with Standard No. 111. Nevertheless, even if it meets these tests, your aftermarket CHMSL is subject to the laws of each state in which it will be used. We regret that we are unable to advise you on state laws, and suggest that you consult state Departments of Motor Vehicles.

Taylor Vinson will be pleased to answer any further questions you may have. You may call him at 202-366-5263.

Sincerely,

John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel

ref:108

d:8/20/96

ID: 13392.ztv

Mr. Miguel Padres
441 N. Grand Avenue, Suite 350
Nogales, AZ 85621

Dear Mr. Padres:

This is in reply to your e-mail of December 30, 1996, asking for an interpretation of the regulations of this agency as they may affect a business plan you wish to implement. We regret the delay in responding to you but your letter presents novel and complex questions.

You would like to take a 1969 VW Beetle to Mexico and "restore or replace all the parts permitted by the laws, that would continue to make it a 1969 VW Beetle." You refer to 49 CFR 571.7(e) and interpret it as saying that "placing a new body on an old chassis does not produce a new vehicle so long as the engine, transmission, and drive axle (as a minimum) are not new and at least two of which were taken from the same vehicle. You intend to " place a new body on the old chassis" which, to you, would mean that it "would still be a 1969 vehicle." As part of your modifications you would either retain or replace with DOT certified items the original brake hoses, lamps and reflectors, tires, rims, glazing and seat belt assemblies. You would then bring the vehicle back to the United States.

First of all, Sec. 571.7(e) does not apply to passenger cars such as VW Beetles; it applies to trucks. However, according to long-standing agency interpretations, the addition of a new body to the chassis of a passenger car previously in use does not result in the creation of a new motor vehicle that must comply with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. On the basis of the limited information you have provided us, we do not believe that the parts you have listed that you may replace, together with the body, would exceed this threshold. The vehicle would remain a 1969 model under our interpretations.

Further, our importation regulations do not require that a vehicle comply with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards if it is 25 years old or older (49 CFR 591.5(i)(1)). This means that the modified 1969 Beetle, when imported into the United States after the modifications are made in Mexico, need not comply with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards.

However, if the refurbishing involves sufficient manufacturing operations, the vehicle would be considered a newly manufactured one. This means that it would be required to meet all applicable safety standards in effect at the time of refurbishing (manufacture), and to be certified as conforming to those standards. Because of the variety of fact situations involved, the agency has found it difficult to establish a general requirement, and it provides opinions on a case by case basis.

We are unsure of your connection with Beetlemex, Inc., which shares your street and suite address in Nogales. Beetlemex is advertising on the internet that it is "bringing brand new Beetles into the U.S.", each of which is "officially a restored vehicle, but is actually a brand new Beetle." Beetlemex instals "brand new parts taken off from a brand new sedan" and "at the end, we have a Beetle that has most of the parts from a brand new Beetle." Statements such as these raise the possibility that the threshold has been exceeded. The ad also states that Beetlemex registers and titles the vehicles as well. In our interpretations, we consider it important that a vehicle equipped with a new body on an old chassis would continue to carry its original model year designation for state registration purposes, in this instance, 1969. If the vehicles refurbished by Beetlemex have been registered and titled as 1996 or 1997 models, that is prima facie evidence to us that the modifications have gone beyond what is permissible for the original vehicle to retain its characterization as one manufactured in 1969.

If you have any questions, you may call Taylor Vinson of this office (202-366-5263).

Sincerely,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
ref:591
d.7/28/97

ID: 1982-3.16

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 10/29/82 EST

FROM: FRANK BERNDT -- NHTSA CHIEF COUNSEL

TO: J. L. CAMPBELL, JR.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: SEPTEMBER 14, 1982 FROM BENNETT TO GORTON IS ATTACHED

TEXT: I have recently received a copy of your letter to Senator Gorton concerning the difficulties small manufacturers of motor vehicles have in complying with Federal standards. To alleviate these difficulties, you suggested that blanket exemptions from the bumper regulations and the Federal motor vehicle safety standard on side door strength be granted to all 4-wheel vehicles under 800 pounds dry weight.

As explained more fully below, this agency does not have authority from Congress to grant an exemption from the bumper standard for the ultra-lightweight vehicles you describe. Such authority would require new legislation. However, we do have authority either to exclude all of those vehicles from the side door strength standard or to exempt particular manufacturers of those vehicles from that standard.

Congress set forth the guidelines under which this agency could issue exemptions from the bumper standards in section 102(c)(1) of the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act (15 U.S.C. 1912(c)(1)). Exemptions may be granted only to passenger motor vehicles manufactured for a special use. While neither the Cost Savings Act nor this agency has defined "special use", the Cost Savings Act is explicit that a vehicle can be exempted only if two conditions are met: (1) the vehicle is manufactured for a special use; (2) compliance with the bumper standard would unreasonably interfere with that use. The example Congress cited for such a vehicle was a Jeep with snow removal equipment on the front. The agency believes that the purpose of an ultra-lightweight passenger vehicle is essentially the same as that of a lightweight vehicle such as the Toyota Starlet, Honda Civic or Ford Escort, i.e., to carry passengers. The agency does not view that purpose to be a special use within the meaning of section 102. Further, even if the first condition could be met, it is not clear that the second one could be. Hence, an amendment to the Cost Savings Act would have to be made by the Congress before we could grant an exemption from the bumper standard to your ultra-lightweight passenger motor vehicles.

Concerning your request regarding Standard No. 214, side door strength, NHTSA formerly excepted motor vehicles (other than trailers and motorcycles) of 1,000 pounds or less curb weight from all safety standards. However, that exception was eliminated in 1973 (38 F.R. 12808; May 16, 1973). At that time, the agency stated that manufacturers seeking relief from compliance problems peculiar to these vehicles could either petition for amendments to individual standards or petition for an exemption under section 123 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1410).

These options remain the ones available to manufacturers of ultra-lightweight vehicles. Thus, one option is to submit a petition for rulemaking under 49 CFR Part 552 requesting the agency to amend Standard No. 214 to exclude those vehicles from that standard's applicability provision. I should point out that few, if any, petitions of this type have been submitted since the agency's May 1973 notice and none have been granted. Also, you should be aware that the rulemaking process is often a lengthy one.

The other option is for a manufacturer to submit a petition for the exemption of his vehicles from a particular standard. I have enclosed a copy of 49 CFR Part 555 which sets forth the information that a manufacturer must include in its petition. Exemption petitions are not uncommon and are often granted at least in part. Also, because fewer procedural steps are necessary, the exemption process is typically much faster than the amendment process. Should you wish to submit an exemption petition, you may find useful the enclosed copies of section 123 of the Safety Act and Standard No. 214, Side Door Strength (49 CFR @ 571.214).

If you need any further assistance or information on either of these subjects, please do not hesitate to contact me. We try to minimize the regulatory difficulties experienced by small manufacturers to the extent we can do so consistent with our legislative authority.

Enclosures

ID: nht89-1.98

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/09/89

FROM: STEPHEN P. WOOD -- NHTSA ACTING CHIEF COUNSEL

TO: PAUL WALKER -- PRESIDENT SUNGUEST, INC.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 02/17/89 FROM PAUL WALKER TO ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA; OCC 3157

TEXT: Dear Mr. Walker:

Thank you for your letter regarding your company's efforts to export a product to Saudi Arabia. The product in question is identified in your letter as "remote-controlled electronic automobile window shades." Your letter indicates that your company's to tal production for the next two years will be for export only. It is my understanding that your company must provide the Saudi Arabian Standards Organization with a statement from this agency that we would "have no objection to the product in the U.S. m arket" before "large quantities" of the product can be shipped into Saudi Arabia. I am pleased to have this opportunity to respond to your request.

At the outset, I would like to make clear that the United States does not use a certification process similar to that used by the European countries, in which a manufacturer delivers its products to be certified to a governmental entity, and that entity tests the products to determine if they can be certified as complying with the applicable standards. Instead, in the United States, the individual manufacturer of the product is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable U.S. safe ty standards. After the manufacturer has made the necessary certifications, the product may be sold to the public without any "approvals" or "endorsements" from this agency.

In the case of your window shades, NHTSA has no standard that establishes requirements for window shades as items of motor vehicle equipment. Thus, your company is not required to make any certification of the window shades before offering them for sale . We do have two safety standards that might affect the installation of window shades in new vehicles. The first is Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials, which specifies performance requirements for glazing used in motor vehicles. These requirements in clude specifications for minimum levels of light transmittance (70% in areas requisite for driving visibility, which includes all windows in passenger cars). The second is Standard No. 302, Flammability of Interior Materials, which sets forth flammabili ty

resistance performance requirements for window shades installed in new vehicles. No manufacturer or dealer could legally install any window shades, including the shade developed by your company, in a new vehicle unless the manufacturer or dealer cer tifies that the vehicle with the window shade installed complies with Standards No. 205 and 302, as well as any other applicable standards.

To enforce the requirements in our laws and regulations, we conduct spot checks of motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment after they have been certified and/or sold to the public or otherwise introduced into interstate commerce. For these s pot checks, we purchase the vehicles or item of equipment and test it according to the procedures specified in the applicable safety standard. If the product passes the tests, no further steps are taken. If the product fails the tests and is determined not to comply with the applicable standards or if it is determined that the product contains a defect related to motor vehicle safety, the manufacturer of the product is required to remedy the problem, by repairing or replacing the product at no cost to the purchaser. Since your product has not yet been sold in the United States, NHTSA has not made any spot checks or other evaluations of your product.

With that explanation, we will state that the window shades developed by Sunquest, Inc. could legally be sold to the public in the United States and could legally be installed on new vehicles to be sold to the public in the United States, if the vehicle manufacturer certifies that the vehicle with the window shades installed complies with all applicable safety standards.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions or need additional information, please contact Ms. Dorothy Nakama of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

ID: 23415

[       ]






Dear [       ]





This responds to your letter in which you ask whether a vehicle you are developing could be classified as a multipurpose passenger vehicle for the purposes of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. Our answer is provided below.

You requested that certain information be kept confidential, to protect specific future product plans. As Mr. Dion Casey of my staff explained to you in a telephone call on March 8, 2002, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not provide confidential interpretations. All of our interpretations are publicly available. In situations where future product plans are at issue, we can limit our discussion of the product to the minimum necessary to support the interpretation. We can also withhold the identity of the requester. In the aforementioned telephone conversation with Mr. Casey, you agreed to this approach and to the description below (to be made public) of the vehicle at issue.

By way of background information, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.) places the responsibility for classifying a particular vehicle in the first instance on the vehicle's manufacturer. For this reason, NHTSA does not approve or endorse any vehicle classifications before the manufacturer itself has classified a particular vehicle. NHTSA may examine the appropriateness of the manufacturer's classification in the context of an enforcement action. We will, however, tentatively state how we believe the vehicle would be classified for the purposes of our safety standards. It is important that you understand that these tentative statements regarding classification are based solely on our understanding of the information presented in your letter to us. These tentative statements about the vehicle's classification may change after NHTSA has had an opportunity to examine the vehicle itself or otherwise acquire additional information about the vehicle.

With those caveats, we believe that the vehicle described in your letter could be classified as a multipurpose passenger vehicle for the purposes of our safety standards. The term "multipurpose passenger vehicle" is defined in 49 CFR 571.3 as "a motor vehicle with motive power, except a low-speed vehicle or trailer, designed to carry 10 persons or less which is constructed either on a truck chassis or with special features for occasional off-road operation." Thus, to meet the definition of multipurpose passenger vehicle, a vehicle must be constructed either (1) on a truck chassis, or (2) with special features for occasional off-road operation.

The vehicle you are developing would be constructed on a chassis that is substantially the same as the chassis used for a current 4-door SUV that is classified as a multipurpose passenger vehicle. The current 4-door SUV is available in both 4WD and 2WD. The manufacturer can classify the current vehicle as a multipurpose passenger vehicle because it is constructed on a truck chassis. This chassis uses a ladder-frame construction and was developed to provide the vehicle with cargo-carrying capability as well as to permit rough road and off-the-road vehicle operation. The new vehicle would use the same basic body but would be an electric vehicle. Other than the powertrain, only minor modifications to the chassis of the current vehicle would be made. For example, brackets would be added to hold the batteries. The new vehicle would have substantially lower running clearance due to the use of the space beneath the vehicle to provide storage for the vehicle's batteries.

Given the similarities between the existing SUV and the new vehicle, it is our opinion that, assuming that the existing SUV is properly classified as a multipurpose passenger vehicle by virtue of being constructed on a truck chassis, the modifications between the existing SUV and the new vehicle are sufficiently minor that the new vehicle can also be classified as a multipurpose passenger vehicle.

I hope you find this information useful. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Mr. Dion Casey of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:571
d.4/5/02

ID: 9984

Victor Larson, P.E.
Cryenco, Inc.
3811 Joliet Street
Denver, CO 80238

Dear Mr. Larson:

This responds to your FAX of May 17, 1994, with reference to the application of conspicuity material to the sides of cryogenic tank trailers.

You point out that the only side mounting surface for striping that is perpendicular to the road is at the center of the tank, approximately 90 inches above the road surface. You ask for confirmation of your interpretation that conspicuity material can be placed at this location "if that is the only available mounting area" and that it is not necessary to add additional structure for the sole purpose of providing a lower vertical mounting surface.

We confirm your understanding. Standard No. 108 specified an original mounting height for conspicuity material as close as practicable to 1.25 m. However, in a notice published on October 6, 1993, NHTSA amended the requirement to "as close as practicable to not less than 375 mm and not more than 1525 mm above the road surface." The practicability qualification allows manufacturers to choose a location for conspicuity treatment that is outside the specified range to avoid body modifications that might otherwise be required to mount the material within the specified range.

The manufacturers of conspicuity material certify its performance in a vertical plane. Trailer manufacturers should mount the material in a vertical plane or as close to a vertical plane as the trailer shape offers, in order to achieve the full conspicuity benefits of the material. In the case of your tank trailer without a suitable vertical surface below the belt line of the tank, reflective material at a belt line that is 90 inches above the road surface would be considered to have been mounted as close as practicable to the upper specification of the height range (1.525 m). As NHTSA observed when it adopted the original mounting height specification with its practicability provision, flexibility

in the vertical location of conspicuity material is necessary for compliance of some tank trailers. However, it should not be overlooked that other types of tank trailers may have vertical surfaces on the frame, fenders, or other equipment well suited for conspicuity material.

You inform us that some trailers have rear and midship cabinets that could be used, in conjunction with the belt line location, to provide a location for striping, although this would result in a non-aligned striping pattern. With respect to trailers equipped with cabinets, you asked whether compliance would be satisfied if only the belt-line location is used. The answer is yes, provided that the requirement of paragraph S5.7.1.4.2(a) is met, i.e., which provides that "the strip need not be continuous as long as not less than half of the length of the trailer is covered and the spaces are distributed as evenly as practicable." Since the strip need not be continuous, this would allow discontinuities in a strip mounted at 90 inches in which the cabinets were not used.

Your final question is the required orientation of striping for conspicuity; some of your customers have requested placement of material at a downward angle of approximately 30 degrees to accommodate their graphics better. The standard does not explicitly address the issue of orientation. However, as noted in response to your first question, trailer manufacturers should mount conspicuity material in a vertical plane, or as nearly thereto as the trailer shape allows, so that the full conspicuity benefits of the material may be realized. If there is no available vertical surface on which the material can be mounted, we urge that a wider stripe of conspicuity material be used to provide the minimum required performance at the installed downward angle. The manufacturer of the conspicuity material which you use should be able to determine whether an increase in the width of the striping would allow the material mounted at or near the downward angle that your customer prefers to provide performance comparable to a narrower strip mounted in a vertical plane.

Sincerely,

Philip R. Recht Chief Counsel

ref:108 d:10/14/94

ID: 3298yy

Mr. S. Suzuki
Managing Director
Suzusho Trading Co.
Center Building No. 601
Fuchucho 1-12-7, Fuchu-shi
Tokyo, Japan

Your ref: ST-9015/91

Dear Mr. Suzuki:

This responds to your letter of October 16, l991, to the Director, Office of Public and Consumer Affairs, with reference to the "Safety Shot" lighting device that you have developed. You have enclosed photographs illustrating three types of this device in operation.

In brief, the device consists of a center red highmounted stop lamp, immediately flanked by amber lamps that serve as supplementary turn signal/hazard warning signal lamps. Although the photos are not entirely clear, the device appears to consist of segmented compartments in a common housing, with thicker dividers separating the signal and stop functions. Type I incorporates an L.E.D. and is mounted at the top of the rear window. Type II also incorporates an L.E.D. and is mounted at the bottom of the window. Type III is located at the top of the rear window and uses conventional bulbs for its light source. You have been referred to us by Chrysler Corporation. We assume that you approached Chrysler with a view towards having your device accepted as original motor vehicle equipment. You have asked for our views on whether it is possible to use this device in the U.S. market.

In the United States, the applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard for rear lighting is Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment. Section S5.4 of Standard No. l08 does not allow a center high-mounted stop lamp to be physically combined with any other lamp or reflective device. Because Safety Shot appears to have a common housing for signalling and stopping functions, the lamps are "combined" within the meaning of the prohibition.

This means that the Safety Shot may not be used as original equipment on motor vehicles, and it may not be offered as a replacement for original equipment center highmounted stop lamps (required on each passenger car manufactured on or after September 1, l985). If you wish to sell the Safety Shot as an accessory in the aftermarket, for passenger cars manufactured before September 1, l985, different considerations apply. Installation of the Safety Shot by a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business is not permitted if it renders inoperative, in whole or in part, the function of any other rear lighting device.

The question, therefore, is whether the effectiveness of the function of any other rear lighting device is compromised by the Safety Shot to the extent that the other device's function is rendered, at the minimum, partially inoperative. We note that original equipment amber signal lamps are not prohibited from flashing when the stop lamps are operating. It would not appear that the addition of the Safety Shot to a passenger car manufactured before September 1, l985, would compromise the signals from the original turn signal and stop lamps in a manner to render them, at least, partially inoperative. However, the Safety Shot is subject to regulation by the individual States of the United States in which it is sold or used. We are unable to advise you on State laws, and suggest that you write for an opinion to American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Va. 22203.

Motor vehicles are also required to be manufactured to conform to Standard No. 111, Rearview Mirrors. Under this standard, if installation of the Safety Shot prevents the vehicle from meeting the rearview mirror field of view requirements specified, the manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business installing the Safety Shot must install a rear view mirror on the passenger side of the vehicle (as a practical matter, most vehicles in the U.S. are manufactured with this additional mirror).

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

ref:108 d:1/31/92

ID: 2836yy

Mr. Jeffrey S. Malinowski
Small Business Center
407 Avalon
Marine City, MI 48039

Dear Mr. Malinowski:

This responds to your letter on behalf of Mr. Leo McCallum, asking whether any Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard applies to his invention, a tie rod "safety bracket." You stated that the product would typically be installed by a vehicle owner to reduce tie rod end wear. As explained below, while no Federal safety standard directly applies to your client's product, he may nevertheless have certain responsibilities under this agency's regulations.

As way of background information, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, as amended (the "Safety Act") authorizes the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to issue safety standards applicable to motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. The Safety Act also requires that these safety standards establish minimum levels of performance for vehicles or equipment. Once the necessary performance level has been established, vehicle or equipment manufacturers are free to choose any means they wish to achieve the required level of performance. In other words, the safety standards do not require the use of any particular manufacturer's product or particular materials; the standards permit the use of any manufacturer's product that achieves the necessary performance level. Section 114 of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1403) requires manufacturers to certify that each of its vehicles or items of motor vehicle equipment complies with all applicable safety standards. NHTSA does not approve, endorse, or certify any motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment.

NHTSA has no safety standard directly about tie rods or safety brackets used with tie rods.

As for installation of your client's device on vehicles in the aftermarket, such installations may be limited by section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)). That section prohibits any manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business from knowingly rendering inoperative any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle in compliance with an applicable safety standard. If installation of your client's product resulted in a vehicle no longer complying with a safety standard, a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair business that installed the product would have rendered inoperative a device or element of design installed on the vehicle in compliance with a standard. To avoid a "rendering operative" violation, your client should examine his product to determine if installing his product would result in the vehicle no longer complying with a standard's requirements.

Section 109 of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1398) specifies a civil penalty of up to $1,000 for each violation of the "render inoperative" provision.

Please note that the Safety Act does not establish any limitations on an individual vehicle owner's ability to alter his or her own vehicle. Under Federal law, individual owners can install any device they want on their own vehicles, regardless of whether that device renders inoperative the vehicle's compliance with a safety standard.

Other statutory provisions in the Safety Act could affect your client's product. Manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment such as the "tire rod safety bracket" are subject to the requirements in sections 151-159 of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1411-1419) on the recall and remedy of products with defects related to motor vehicle safety. The Safety Act specifies that if either the manufacturer or this agency determines that a safety-related defect exists in your client's product, your client as the manufacturer must notify purchasers of the safety-related defect and must either:

(1) repair the part so that the defect is removed; or

(2) replace the part with an identical or reasonably equivalent part which does not have a defect.

Whichever of these options is chosen, the manufacturer must bear the full expense and cannot charge the owner for the remedy if the equipment was purchased less than eight years before the notification campaign.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Marvin Shaw of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel Enclosures d:2/l/9l

ID: 7495a

Mr. Lyle Walheim, Lieutenant
Motor Carrier and Inspection Services
Wisconsin Department of Transportation
4802 Sheboygan Avenue
P.O. Box 7912
Madison, WI 53707-7912

Dear Mr. Walheim:

This responds to your letter seeking a clarification of whether Wisconsin's current requirements for the activation of stop signal arms on school buses would comply with the stop signal arm requirements set forth in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 131, School Bus Pedestrian Safety Devices. Your letter was prompted by my June 17, 1992 interpretation to Blue Bird Body Company. After evaluating the information provided in your letter, together with the information previously supplied by Blue Bird, we have reconsidered our assessment of the Wisconsin requirements. Subject to the qualifications discussed below, it is our reconsidered view that the Wisconsin requirements are not preempted by Standard No. 131 and that Blue Bird can continue to supply buses meeting Wisconsin's specifications, with the addition of the audible warning device described in Blue Bird's letter.

The distinguishing feature of Wisconsin's requirement is that it ties the operation of the stop arm to the opening of the service door, not to the operation of the red flashing lamps. In practice, the lamps on a Wisconsin bus equipped with a four-lamp system would operate like those on a bus equipped with an eight-lamp system, with the red lamps (instead of yellow lamps) flashing while the bus is coming to a stop. Since S5.1.4(b)(ii) of Standard No. 108 requires the yellow lamps on an eight-lamp system to turn off automatically and the red lamps to turn on automatically whenever the entrance door opens, and since the red lamps on the Wisconsin buses would operate whenever the entrance door is open, the Wisconsin buses would conform to the requirements of Standard No. 108. That standard does not prohibit the flashing of red lamps on a four-lamp system while the service door is closed.

For purposes of Standard No. 131, the question is whether there is any circumstance in which the stop arm may be deactivated while the red lamps are flashing. From the standpoint of practicality, we agree with you that the stop arm should not function before the bus has stopped and the driver has opened the service door. We further believe it is consistent with the purpose of the standard for the stop arm to be deactivated on a Wisconsin bus before the bus stops, even though the bus's red lamps may be flashing. To reconcile this view with the language of the standard, however, requires us to address the requirement of the standard that the arm must extend "at a minimum whenever the red signal lamps required by S5.1.4 of Standard No. 108 are activated. . . ."

Standard No. 131 expressly contemplates a situation in which the stop arm would not automatically extend despite the operation of the red lamps. The final clause of S5.5 provides that "a device may be installed that prevents the automatic extension of a stop signal arm." The question in Wisconsin's situation is whether the manual switch that activates the red signal lamps but not the stop arm would qualify as such a device. In our view, it does. Since the only time the red lamps are required by Standard No. 108 to operate is when the entrance door is open, and since the Wisconsin system would automatically extend the stop arm when the entrance door opens, we believe that the manual switch in the Wisconsin system can be fairly characterized as an override device that prevents the automatic extension of the stop signal arm until the red lamps are required to operate. For an override to be permitted, the device must comply with the other provisions set forth in S5.5, including the presence of a continuous or intermittent signal.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions about NHTSA's safety standards, please feel free to contact Marvin Shaw of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel Ref:131 d:9/14/92