ID: nht95-1.84

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: March 2, 1995

FROM: Philip R. Recht -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Steve Brooks -- General Manager, IAD West Coast, Inc.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 11/1/94 LETTER FROM STEVE BROOKS TO JOHN WOMACK (OCC 10473)

TEXT: This replies to your letter of November 1, 1994, to John Womack, former Acting Chief Counsel. IAD West Coast ("IAD") is converting a Subaru panel van from internal combustion to electric drive. The vehicle is currently a prototype but "will be modified in the state of California, to OEM build standards." You have asked for help "with the definition of crash testing for front and side impact for the vehicle for current and future production, also with the requirement for dual air bags if necessary."

Because we did not understand what you meant by "definition", Taylor Vinson of this office spoke with you on January 24, 1995. He learned that IAD is engineering the prototype for production by another company, and that your question related to the exte nt of crash testing that is required before production. He then explained to you that there is no legal requirement that prototype vehicles be crashed, but that production vehicles must conform with the performance requirements of standards with crash d emonstration procedures, and that the manufacturer's certification of compliance may be based upon good faith surrogates to crash testing such as computer simulation, engineering studies, and mathematical calculations. The Department of Transportation, however, tests in the manner specified in a standard, and if there is a test failure, will ask the manufacturer to supply the data upon which it based its certification.

Your letter also asks about "the requirement for dual air bags if necessary in the future." Manufacturers of light trucks will be required to install dual air bags in not less than 80% of vehicles produced between September 1, 1997, and September 1, 1998 , and in 100% of production from September 1, 1998, on.

Finally, you have asked whether we have information on approach and departure angles. These are not part of the FMVSS, and are established by the manufacturer in designing a vehicle.

I hope that this answers your questions.

ID: nht95-1.85

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: March 2, 1995

FROM: Philip R. Recht -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Jeffrey Echt -- President, Saline Electronics, Inc.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 1/12/95 LETTER FROM JEFFREY ECHT TO NHTSA CHIEF COUNSEL (OCC 10649)

TEXT: This replies to your letter of January 12, 1995, with respect to Federal requirements for stop lamps as they affect a stop lamp system developed by Saline Electronics.

As you describe the system, "during and after episodes of high, braking-induced deceleration, the system flashes the stop lamps it controls on and off." The stop lamps could either be the original equipment lamps, or one or more supplementary ones.

You have asked the following questions, based upon your understanding of the letter sent by this Office to the Virginia Transportation Research Council ("Virginia") on July 30, 1993:

"1. May states specifically permit (by statute or regulation) the use of deceleration warning systems which are neither original equipment nor replacements for original equipment? For example, may states specifically permit the use of an aftermarket de celeration warning system which a) permits all original equipment stop lamps required by FMVSS No. 108 to operate in a normal steady burning mode, and b) flashes one aftermarket center-mounted stop lamp or two side-mounted stop lamps, on vehicles not req uired to be so equipped?"

A State may enact a statute or regulation that specifically permits the use of deceleration warning systems that are neither original equipment nor replacements for original equipment if these systems are permissible as original equipment under FMVSS No. 108. As we informed Virginia, a deceleration warning system that is not permissible as original equipment under FMVSS No. 108 would also not be permissible as an aftermarket system because its installation by a person other than the vehicle owner would be in violation of 15 U.S.C. 1397(b)(2) (now recodified as 49 U.S.C. 30122(b)). This section prohibits manufacturers, dealers, distributors and motor vehicle repair businesses from knowingly making inoperative any part of a device installed on a motor vehicle in accordance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard.

After careful review, it is our opinion that the system you describe is indirectly prohibited by two paragraphs of FMVSS No. 108. Because paragraph S5.5.10(d) of FMVSS No. 108 requires original equipment stop lamps to be steady burning in use, the addit ion of flashing aftermarket stop lamps make the original equipment stop lamps inoperative within the meaning of the prohibition because of the potential of a flashing lamp for detracting from the full effectiveness of the steady burning original equipmen t stop lamp signal by drawing an observer's attention away from it. A flashing aftermarket stop lamp also has the potential for confusion with the hazard warning system, whether the original equipment system operates through red or amber lamps.

The second paragraph of FMVSS No. 108 that would prohibit installation of your system as original equipment is S5.1.3. This paragraph prohibits the installation of supplementary lighting equipment that impairs the effectiveness of original lighting equi pment.

In summary, 49 U.S.C. 30122(b) effectively prohibits a State from enacting a law permitting the use of your system, unless that system is designed to be installed by the vehicle owner. However, a State may permit the use of any aftermarket deceleration warning system that is allowable under FMVSS No. 108.

"2. In the absence of state regulation of flashing deceleration warning systems, is it lawful for individuals, states or municipalities to install such systems on their vehicles, provided they do not alter the steady burning operation of the original eq uipment stop lamps required by FMVSS No. 108? For example, may mass transit districts operate buses with flashing deceleration warning lamps, if the systems are installed by their own mechanics and the steady burning operation of the original equipment stop lamps is not altered? May individuals install such equipment on their own vehicles?"

"3. May individuals, states or municipalities, who are not manufacturers, distributors or motor vehicle repairs businesses, lawfully install flashing deceleration warning systems which would prevent the original equipment stop lamps from steadily burnin g during and after episodes of high, braking-induced deceleration? For example, may a mass transit district install a deceleration warning system which would flash some or all of the original equipment stop lamps during and after rapid deceleration due to hard braking, if the system were installed by its own mechanics?"

The answer to all these questions is yes. As noted under Question 1, Sec. 30122(b)(1) does not prohibit vehicle owners or their employees from installing aftermarket equipment such as flashing lamps that may "make inoperative" (in the sense discussed ab ove) equipment that is required by FMVSS No. 108. In Question 2, the inoperability is created by an indirect effect upon the required lighting equipment, while in Question 3, the required equipment itself as well is made to operate in a manner different than prescribed by FMVSS No. 108. But the answer is the same under Sec. 30122(b)(1) in either case.

ID: nht95-1.86

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: March 2, 1995

FROM: Philip R. Recht -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: John E. Getz -- Director, Mobile Products Engineering, Ellis & Watts

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 10/27/94 LETTER FROM JOHN E. GETZ TO TAYLOR VINSON (OCC 10462; P.567)

TEXT: This responds to your letter asking whether certain operations that your company performs on used trailers result in the trailers being considered "newly manufactured" for purposes of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. You stated that you somet imes change the finishing and equipment of a used trailer for a new application. As an example, you stated that you recently took a 10-year old trailer, stripped the inside, and refinished it as a mobile marketing facility. You also stated that in some cases you may cut a hole in the side and install a door for a specific application. In a telephone conversation with Dorothy Nakama of my staff, you indicated that you have also changed trailers by adding heating or air conditioning units, or making th e trailer usable as an auditorium.

In your letter, you asked whether the trailers would be considered "newly manufactured" if the running gear, VIN and the basic trailer structure do not change, but the ownership does change. You asked this question in light of the fact that change of ow nership is relevant under 49 CFR part 571.7(f) in determining whether a trailer manufactured from new and used components is considered newly manufactured. As discussed below, it is our opinion that the operations you describe do not result in the trail ers being considered newly manufactured.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration issues safety standards for new motor vehicles and new motor vehicle equipment. The agency does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Ins tead, manufacturers are required to certify that their vehicles or equipment meet all applicable standards. The following represents our opinion based on the facts provided in your letter.

Section 49 CFR part 571.7(f) reads as follows:

Combining new and used components in trailer manufacture. When new materials are used in the assembly of a trailer, the trailer will be considered newly manufactured for purposes of [the safety standards], unless, at a minimum, the running gear assembly (axle(s), wheels, braking and suspension) is not new, and was taken from an existing trailer --

(1) Whose identity is continued in the reassembled vehicle with respect to the Vehicle Identification Number; and

(2) That is owned or leased by the user of the reassembled vehicle.

This section only applies when new and used materials are used in the "assembly" of a trailer. It is our opinion that the operations that you describe, i.e., where the running gear, VIN and the basic trailer structure do not change, do not constitute tr ailer assembly. Therefore, this section, including its provision concerning transfer of ownership, does not apply. We consider your operations to be in the nature of repair or refurbishment of a used trailer, which does not result in the trailer being considered newly manufactured.

I hope this information is helpful. If there are any questions, please contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht95-1.87

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: March 3, 1995

FROM: Philip R. Recht -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Patricia Jackson -- Patael Company

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 12/19/94 EST. LETTER FROM PATRICIA JACKSON TO MR. RACHT

TEXT: This responds to your letters asking about safety standards, particularly those about fire safety, for a product you call the Booster Buddy Cushion. According to promotional literature accompanying your letter, the Booster Buddy Cushion is placed under infant/toddler car seats to protect the car's upholstery and to provide additional comfort to young children. The literature also indicates that older children situated in booster seats (and on actual vehicle seats) could lean on this device.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has the authority to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA does not, however, appro ve or certify any vehicles or items of equipment. Instead, Congress has established a "self-certification" process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards. The following represen ts our opinion based on the information set forth in your letter and promotional literature.

There currently are no Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) that directly apply to the Booster Buddy Cushion. Our standard for "child restraint systems," FMVSS 213, applies to "any device except Type I or Type II seat belts, designed for use in a motor vehicle or aircraft to restrain, seat, or position children who weigh 50 pounds or less." The standard does not apply to accessory items, such as a pad/cushion that is used with a child safety seat.

While no FMVSS applies to the Booster Buddy Cushion, your product is considered to be an item of motor vehicle equipment. As a manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment, you are subject to the requirements of 49 U.S.C. @@ 30118-30121 concerning the recall and remedy of products with safety related defects. I have enclosed an information sheet that briefly describes those and other manufacturer responsibilities. In the event you or NHTSA determines that your product contains a safety-related defect, you would be responsible for notifying purchasers of the defective equipment and remedying the problem free of charge.

In addition, while it is unlikely that the Booster Buddy Cushion would be installed by a motor vehicle manufacturer, distributor, dealer or repair business, 49 U.S.C. @ 30122 prohibits those businesses from installing the device if the installation "make s inoperative" compliance with any safety standard. Our FMVSSs require specific levels of performance for materials used in the occupant compartment of motor vehicles. Specifically, FMVSS No. 302 specifies flammability resistance requirements for vehic le interiors. Any person listed in @ 30122 who installs a Booster Buddy Cushion must ensure that the product does not undermine the vehicle's compliance with those flammability resistance requirements.

The prohibition of @ 30122 does not apply to individual owners who install equipment in their own vehicles. Thus, individual owners may install any item of motor vehicle equipment regardless of its effect on compliance with Federal motor vehicle safety standards. However, NHTSA encourages vehicle owners not to degrade the safety of their vehicles.

We note that the pad/cushion you wish to manufacture can be used without a child seat, to cushion and support the head of a sleeping older child. We do not consider the pad/cushion to "position children" in a manner that a child seat positions children to better use a vehicle's belt system. Rather, the Booster Buddy Cushion simply provides a surface that a child may lean on. However, we are concerned about the possibility that consumers might use your product, instead of a child seat, with a child wh o should be restrained in a car seat. We recommend that you inform consumers purchasing your product that the Booster Buddy Cushion is not a child restraint system and must not be used as one.

I hope this information has been helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Marvin Shaw or Deirdre Fujita of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht95-1.88

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: March 6, 1995

FROM: Dirk Du Plooy -- Motorcycle Safety Consultant, Motorcycle Rider Advancement Centre

TO: Joe Pesci -- NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 4/10/95 LETTER FROM PHILIP RECHT TO DIRK DU PLOOY (A43; PART 571.3(B)

TEXT: Dear Sir,

I received your details from the Motorcycle Safety Foundation (I am an MSF Instructor), I request your assistance in acquiring information about the U.S. laws on motorcycle trailers. We are currently drafting legislation legalising motorcycle trailers. I understand that there could be a number of different U.S. states with different laws, but the most generally accepted standard is what we need as a guide. I hope you can find time to assist us - your help will be appreciated.

DIRK DU PLOOY MOTORCYCLE SAFETY CONSULTANT

ID: nht95-1.89

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: March 6, 1995

FROM: Terry M. Habshey -- Oxy Tire Incorporated

TO: Philip Recht -- Office of Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 5/24/95 LETTER FROM JOHN WOMACK TO TERRY M. HABSHEY (A43; STD. 109; STD. 110; STD. 119; STD. 120; PART 534; PART 575)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Recht,

Your name and address was referred to me by Ms. Terri Droneburg of the Tire I.D. and Record Keeping Dept of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration as the person responsible for giving a legal interpretation as to our request for a D.O.T. n umber for new tires.

I am the president of a tire company located in Montevallo, Alabama just South of Birmingham off interstate Hwy 65. We are a global tire distributer involved in export only. We export mainly to second and third world markets.

We are currently constructing a new building that will house a state of the art manufacturing facility. This facility is somewhat unique in function, which is why I am sure we were directed to you. We have made arrangements to take certain quantitie s of new first line tires from many of the U.S. tire manufacturers on an ongoing basis. These tires consist of original equipment overruns, appearance blems, etc. I would point out that all the tires we receive are new and meet or exceed the minimum st andards set forth by the Department of Transportation. In accordance with our contracts, and for marketing reasons only, we remove most of the information from the sidewalls of the tires. This fact makes our project necessary.

We intend to remove, by a new process, the surface areas on both sides of the carcass (tire). This process does not expose the original cord or bead of the tire, nor does it come in contact with the original tread. It only removes a thin layer of th e sidewall rubber. This is a necessary step in the preparation of the carcass to be able to receive a new sidewall which is achieved by applying a thin layer of new rubber to be followed by the next step in our manufacturing process which is "cooking" o r vulcanizing the new sidewall onto the tire. This is achieved by a process using specially designed equipment developed specifically for this project. The equipment uses heat and light pressure to the area of the tire that needs it (the sidewall). Th is process does not expose the original tread, inner cavity, or bead to heat or pressure. When the process is complete, we have a tire that has had its sidewall remade. It will have a new registered trade name, logo, and identifying marks along with the size, safety information, mounting instructions, maximum and minimum inflating instructions, etc. We would inspect and test each tire we had performed a manufacturing function on. In addition, we currently and will continue to carry a world wide produc t liability insurance policy. We believe and hope that you will agree that this new and unique process is qualified to receive a D.O.T. number designation of our tires as new tires. Since they are, in fact new tires. I want to make it very clear, so t hat their is no misunderstanding, that each and every tire we receive is a new tire recently produced and meets all minimum standards established by the Department of Transportation.

As you know, a new recapped tire is a tire that has had thousands of miles of use and can and does in many cases have small puncture cuts and so forth on the carcass. A new tread is then reapplied which is never as reliable as the original tread.

These differences, we believe, are significant. Our tires are new, they have never been mounted or used. They are recently manufactured with original tread and new in every respect. Also, each tire will be retested by us and we will stand behind ea ch prior to selling. For these reasons we request a new D.O.T. number and wish to be the manufacturer of record. Please excuse the length of this letter, however I thought that a complete outline of all the details were necessary to facilitate your eva luation in rendering a decision. Mr. Recht, please feel free to call me at (205) 665-4771 if you have any questions regarding this project. Or, if necessary, we invite you to visit our facility at your convenience.

ID: nht95-1.9

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: January 4, 1995

FROM: Courtney M. Price -- Reid & Priest

TO: Philip R. Recht -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: Request for Interpretation/Brake Locker

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 3/8/95 LETTER FROM PHILIP R. RECHT TO COURTNEY M. PRICE (REDBOOK(4)); Part 567.7; STD. 105

TEXT: On behalf of Maatzorit Ltd. ("Maatzorit"), I am writing to request confirmation of Maatzorit's interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard ("FMVSS") 105, Hydraulic Brake Systems; FMVSS 106, Brake Hoses; and Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Nationa l Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act ("Safety Act") (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)) as they relate to the BRAKE LOCKER (U.S. Patent No. 5,375,684) which Maatzorit has developed and will market. n1 Specifically, we are requesting confirmation that installatio n of the BRAKE LOCKER is not precluded by FMVSS 105 or Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act. We understand that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration ("NHTSA") does not give approval of or certify devices such as the BRAKE LOCKER and that confirmation of Maatzorit's interpretation will be based upon the information provided and the circumstances described herein.

n1 FMVSS 105 and FMVSS 106 specify requirements for hydraulic brake systems and brake hoses, respectively. Section 108 of the Safety Act provides:

No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or in part, any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle . . . in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicl e safety standard.

The purpose of the BRAKE LOCKER is to prevent the theft of parked vehicles by locking the brakes while theft is attempted. The product also is designed to enable regular brake usage while being driven by the car owner or another authorized driver.

The BRAKE LOCKER is installed in the engine compartment on the brake fluid line between the brakes and the brake pump. A controlled hydraulic tap enables two positions:

Position A: free passage of brake fluid from pump to brakes and back again.Position B: free passage of brake fluid from pump to brakes, and blockage of the passage in the other direction using a check valve.

Position B causes the vehicle to be stopped and locked, for 15-20 minutes after the brake is pressed.

The BRAKE LOCKER is designed to be controlled by an electronic coded transmitter. When preparing to move the car and activating the transmitter, the code will be recognized and the electric motor will be activated, thus bringing the hydraulic tap to Position A described above.

Upon parking the vehicle, a press on the transmitter push button activates the motor to transfer the hydraulic tap to Position B described above, thus preventing release of the brakes, after the brakes are pressed, for 15-20 minutes.

More specifically, the BRAKE LOCKER operates as follows:

1. The system is activated and a control light goes on in the driver's compartment.

2. Upon pressing the portable transmitter, the control light starts blinking, the electronic motor then turns the hydraulic tap to Position A which enables the brake fluid to pass freely in both directions, and the control light then turns off.

3. Upon turning the car ignition switch on, the hydraulic tap remains in Position A and the system is prevented from being activated.

4. Upon turning the car ignition switch off and then pressing the portable transmitter, the control light starts blinking, the electronic motor then turns the hydraulic tap to the Position B "active" position so that every press on the brake pedal ca uses the brakes to be locked, and the control light will be on.

If you need further information or if a meeting with representatives of Maatzorit would be helpful to you in confirming our interpretation, please call me. I look forward to receiving your response to our request at your earliest convenience.

Thank you for your consideration in this matter.

ID: nht95-1.90

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: March 7, 1995

FROM: Takashi Tohse -- Quality Assurance Group, Fabricated Glass general Division, ASAHI GLASS CO., LTD

TO: Marvin Show -- Office of Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: RE: Company ID in logo marks

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 4/10/95 LETTER FROM PHILIP RECHT TO TAKASHI TOHSE (A43; STD. 205)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Shaw;

We have made an inquiry regarding use of plural company Ids in our logo mark for automotive safety glazing materials and requested NHTSA's comments trough Mr. Clarke Harper of the Office of Vehicle Safety Standards. We understand that this matter was re ferred to you for a legal interpretation.

What is the status of your consideration on this matter? Would there by any other clarification necessary on our part?

It would be very much appreciated if you could provide us with some indication on these questions. Enclosed you will find our letter dated February 6th for your reference.

PREVIOUS LETTER:

February 6, 1995

Mr. Clarke Harper Office of Vehicle Safety Standards National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street S.W. Washington DC 20590 U.S.A.

Rf: Company ID in logo marks

Dear Mr. Harper;

My Colleague Mr. M. Ojima in the automotive Glazing Group suggested that I write to you directly so that this matter can be expedited. Should this matter be handled by someone other than you, please refer it to the proper person.

Use of plural company IDs in our logo mark for automotive safety glazing materials is under consideration. It would be appreciated very much if you could provide with your views on the following two cases as to whether they comply with FMVSS 205 concern ing marking of glazing materials.

Case1: Is it permitted to use different kinds of IDs for different grades of products?

Please refer to the attached sheet

Sample 1: Current Asahi Glass logo mark.

Sample 2&3: Draft of secondary IDs.

Case 2: Is it permitted to use a common company ID for all members of our group? For example, for Asahi Glass Co. ltd. and AP Technoglass Company.

Please refer to the attached sheet.

Sample 4: Draft of AGC logo mark.

Sample 5: Current AP Technoglass logo mark.

Both cases mentioned above have Symbol and Item No. AS1, DOT-20, Material No. M354, Trademark LAMISAFE and company IDs.

It is our contention that these comply with FMVSS 205; however, we will await your comments before making any change.

It would be greatly appreciated if you could give your prompt attention to our inquiry.

Yours sincerely,

Takashi Tohse Quality Assurance Group Fabricated Glass General Division Asahi Glass Co., Ltd. 2-1-2 Marunouchi Chiyoda-ku, Tokyo 100 Japan Tel: 3-3218-5789 Fax: 3-3201-5810

ID: nht95-1.91

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: March 8, 1995

FROM: Philip R. Recht -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Courtney M. Price -- Esq., Reid & Priest

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 1/4/95 LETTER FROM COURTNEY M. PRICE TO PHILIP R. RECHT

TEXT: This responds to your questions about how this agency's regulations apply to a product known as a Brake Locker that is manufactured by your client, Maatzorit. You requested this agency to confirm your understanding that installation of the Brake Locker i s not precluded by Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 105, Hydraulic Brake Systems, FMVSS No. 106, Brake Hoses, or Section 108(a)(2)(A) of what you refer to as the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act ("Safety Act."). n1

n1 In 1994, Congress codified the Safety Act. The new citation for 108(a)(2)(A) is 49 U.S.C. 30122. In addition, please be aware that on February 3, 1994, NHTSA issued FMVSS No. 135 Passenger Car Brake Systems that will eventually supersede FMVSS No . 105 with respect to passenger cars. Please note that your client's product will be subject to the same responsibilities, regardless of which FMVSS applies.

According to your letter, the Brake Locker prevents the theft of a parked vehicle by locking its brakes, without affecting brake usage while the vehicle is driven by an authorized driver. You stated that the Brake Locker is installed in the engine compa rtment on the brake fluid line between the brakes and the brake pump. An electronic coded transmitter is used to activate a motor which in turn activates a check valve, thereby preventing the release of the brakes by restricting the flow of brake fluid. When the check valve is activated, you state that "every press on the brake pedal causes the brakes to be locked."

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized under Title 49, Chapter 301 of the United States Code to issue FMVSSs that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA does not approve or certify any vehicles or items of equipment. Instead, Chapter 301 establishes a "self-certification" process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards. The agency pe riodically tests new vehicles and items of equipment for compliance with the standards.

Nothing in FMVSS No. 105 nor FMVSS No. 106 precludes the inclusion of a hydraulic brake lock, nor does NHTSA have any other regulations specifically covering such a product. Therefore, Maatzorit, as the device's manufacturer, would not have any certific ation responsibilities. Nevertheless, the requirements of FMVSS No. 105 are relevant to a hydraulic brake lock. That standard specifies a number of brake performance requirements to which the vehicle manufacturer must certify compliance. Since the ins tallation of a hydraulic brake lock requires the installation of a check valve on the brake fluid line between the foundation brakes and the brake pump, it is possible that the installation of such a device could affect a vehicle's compliance with FMVSS No. 105.

If the Brake Locker is installed as original equipment on new vehicles prior to the first sale of the vehicle to a consumer, then the vehicle manufacturer is required to certify that with the Brake Locker installed, the vehicle complies with all applicab le FMVSSs, including FMVSS No 105 and FMVSS No. 106. A vehicle manufacturer's specific certification responsibilities depend on when the brake locker is installed and are set forth in 49 CFR Parts 567 and 568. For instance, if a vehicle has already bee n certified by the vehicle manufacturer but has not yet been sold to the consumer, then the person doing the installation after that time would be considered to be an "alterer" who would have to certify that the vehicle, as altered, continues to comply w ith all of the safety standards affected by the alteration.

If the Brake Locker is installed after the first consumer purchase, then 49 U.S.C. 30122 is relevant to your client's product. That section provides that

A manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business may not knowingly make inoperative any part of a device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable motor vehicl e safety standard.

This provision would prohibit any of the named commercial entities from installing a Brake Locker, if such installation makes inoperative the compliance of the vehicle with any applicable safety standard, such as FMVSS No. 105. For example, if the Brake Locker, caused the vehicle to no longer comply with the parking brake or service brake requirements in FMVSS No. 105, then installation of the system would make inoperative compliance with that standard. Any violation of this prohibition is subject to a potential civil penalty of up to $ 1,000 for each violation. Please note that the "make inoperative" provision does not prohibit owners from modifying their vehicles, even if such modification adversely affects the compliance of the vehicle with safet y standards.

I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Marvin Shaw at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht95-1.92

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: March 8, 1995

FROM: Philip R. Recht -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Tilman Spingler -- Robert Bosch GmbH

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 2/15/95 FAX FROM TILMAN SPINGLER TO NHTSA CHIEF COUNSEL

TEXT: We have received your FAX of February 15, 1995, asking whether a proposed design "for a lens-reflector-joint can be considered as conforming to the appropriate definition in FMVSS 108."

The agency does not advise manufacturers whether particular designs are regarded as "conforming." That determination is to be made by the manufacturer in certifying that its product conforms to all applicable Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. Howe ver, we can provide you with an interpretive guideline. Section S4 defines a "replaceable bulb headlamp" as a headlamp "comprising a bonded lens reflector assembly and one or two replaceable light sources." The intent of the definition was that the lens and reflector assembly be an indivisible unit upon manufacture of the headlamp. This means that, if a lens is broken, the entire lens reflector assembly must be replaced. If your design is such that the lens cannot be removed from the reflector assembl y for replacement, it would appear to meet the definition in S4.

As you are well aware, NHTSA granted your company's petition for rulemaking, and, in November 1994, proposed an amendment of the definition of "replaceable bulb headlamp" that would allow a replaceable lens if the headlamp incorporates a vehicle headlamp aiming device conforming to S7.8.5.2. Comments were due on this proposal February 21, 1995. In due course, after review of the comments, NHTSA will decide whether it will pursue further rulemaking or terminate the rulemaking action.