ID: 8768

Kenneth G. Koop, Risk Control Representative
Intergovernmental Risk Management Agency
One Oakbrook Terrace
22nd Street at Butterfield Road
Suite 412
Oakbrook Terrace, IL 60181

Dear Mr. Koop:

This responds to your letter of June 3, 1993, requesting information on a modification for police vehicles. You seek permission to remove the passenger seat and passenger air bag from police vehicles, and to permanently mount equipment where the passenger seat had been. As explained below, this type of modification would be permitted under Federal law.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.; Safety Act) to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards that apply to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. Section 108(a)(1)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(1)(A)) prohibits any person from manufacturing, introducing into commerce, selling, or importing any new motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment unless the vehicle or equipment item is in conformity with all applicable safety standards. Among the standards that NHTSA has issued are two which could be affected by the modification you propose: Standard No. 207, Seating Systems, (49 CFR 571.207), which requires each vehicle to have an occupant seat for the driver and sets strength and other performance requirements for all occupant seats in a vehicle, and Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection (49 CFR 571.208), which specifies occupant protection requirements based on vehicle type and seating position within the vehicle.

If your contemplated modification is made before a vehicle's first purchase for purposes other than resale, the person who modifies the vehicle would be an alterer of a previously certified motor vehicle and would be required to certify that, as altered, the vehicle continues to comply with all of the safety standards affected by the alteration (See 49 CFR Part 567.7). Once the front passenger seat is removed, Standard No. 208 would not require an air bag for that location since an occupant restraint is only required if a seating position is there.

After a vehicle's first purchase for purposes other than resale, i.e., the first retail sale of the vehicle, the presence and condition of devices or elements of design installed in the vehicle under applicable safety standards is affected by section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)). That section 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 vehicle safety standard.

NHTSA does not consider there to be a violation of the "render inoperative" prohibition with respect to occupant restraints if, after one of the named types of commercial entities modifies a used vehicle, the vehicle is equipped with occupant restraints at every seating position and those occupant restraints are the type that Standard No. 208 permitted when the vehicle was new. Again, if a seating position were removed from a used vehicle, the removal of the air bag as well would not violate the render inoperative provision because the presence of the air bag was originally premised on the presence of the seating position. However, the render inoperative prohibition would be violated if removal of the passenger side air bag caused the driver side air bag to malfunction or deploy. I would like to caution you to contact the vehicle manufacturer concerning the proper procedure for any air bag removal. Removing an air bag could cause it to deploy and injure the mechanic. In addition, removal of the passenger side air bag could cause the driver side air bag to malfunction or deploy.

You should also note that the "render inoperative" prohibition applies only to the named entities. Therefore, vehicle owners are permitted to make any modifications to their vehicles, even if the vehicle would no longer comply with applicable safety standards. However, we encourage vehicle owners not to tamper with the occupant protection systems installed in their vehicles.

You should be aware that S4.5.2 of Standard No. 208 requires a readiness indicator for an air bag system which is clearly visible from the driver's seating position. NHTSA believes that most manufacturers install one indicator for both air bags. After the passenger side air bag is removed, this indicator would show that the air bag system is not operative. NHTSA is concerned that the driver would then be unable to tell if the driver side air bag were functional. Therefore, I urge you to contact the manufacturer to determine how the indicator could be altered to monitor the readiness of the driver side air bag only.

As a final caution, I note that the purpose of the "render inoperative" provision is to ensure, to the degree possible, current and subsequent owners and users of the vehicle are not deprived of the maximum protection afforded by the vehicle as newly manufactured. Your letter states that you will "place permanently mounted policing equipment in the seat's place." It is our understanding that it is common for police cars to be sold after a few years of service. Presumably any police equipment would be removed before such a sale. I urge you to either reinstall the passenger seat and occupant restraint or to make these modifications in a way that will discourage reinstallation of the passenger seat, so that future users of the vehicle are unlikely to use a seating position that does not have any occupant restraint.

I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Mary Versailles of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

ref:VSA#207#208 d:8/26/93

ID: 8781

Mr. Malcolm Bricklin
President
The Electric Bicycle Company
27426 Pacific Coast Highway
Malibu, CA 90265

Re: Petition for Exemption

Dear Mr. Bricklin:

We have received your letter of March 20, 1995, asking for an exemption from two provisions of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 123 on the basis that "compliance with the standards, in this instance, will constitute a greater hazard to the general public and will result in more accidents caused by operator error than the alternatives that we propose."

I am sorry to inform you that we cannot consider your request in its current form. For your guidance, I enclose a copy of our temporary exemption regulation, 49 CFR Part 555. I suggest that the appropriate basis for your petition under that regulation is section 555.6(d): that you are otherwise unable to sell a vehicle whose overall level of safety is the equivalent of, or exceeds, the overall level of safety of a nonexempted vehicle.

When you have filed a petition that provides the information required by Part 555, we shall be pleased to consider this matter further. Because of the need to afford the public an opportunity to comment, a decision is rarely reached until three to four months after a petition is received.

If you have any questions on the regulation, Taylor Vinson of this Office will be glad to answer them (202- 366-5263; FAX: 202-366-3820).

Sincerely,

Philip R. Recht Chief Counsel

Enclosure

ref:555 d:4/3/95

ID: 8783

Mr. Han Dinh
Project Manager
United States Postal Service
8403 Lee Highway
Merrifield, VA 22082-8101

Dear Mr. Dinh:

This responds to your letter requesting information about the conversion of postal vehicles to operate on compressed natural gas (CNG). You explained that you are deciding which specifications to apply to the CNG pressure vessels on the converted vehicles. You ask whether we would recommend the American Gas Association's voluntary standard, NGV-2, or the Department of Transportation standard for cylinders which transport CNG.

By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.; Safety Act) to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA does not approve or certify any vehicles or items of equipment. Instead, the Safety Act establishes a "self-certification" process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards. NHTSA also investigates safety-related defects in motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment.

At present, NHTSA has not issued any standard applicable to CNG cylinders or vehicles using CNG as a fuel. However, as you know, NHTSA has undertaken rulemaking on a safety standard for CNG tanks and vehicles. (58 FR 5323, January 21, 1993.) In response to our January 1993 proposal, the agency received over 55 comments, which we are currently analyzing. We expect our next regulatory decision in early 1994. Given that this rulemaking has not been completed, NHTSA is unable to recommend to you a particular course of action with respect to the NGV-2 and DOT standards at this time.

If NHTSA were to issue a safety standard for CNG cylinders and vehicles, the standard would apply to new products, and have applicability to vehicle conversions as follows. The cylinder regulation would be an equipment standard. Thus, all cylinders manufactured after the effective date of the standard would be required to comply with its requirements, whether they are placed on new vehicles or on vehicles converted to CNG fuel.

The fuel system regulation would apply to new vehicles as manufactured by original equipment manufacturers or as converted prior to the first sale of the vehicle. Once the vehicle is sold, if the vehicle is converted by a commercial converter, the CNG fuel system regulation would apply if the vehicle was manufactured after the effective date of the standard and thus would have been regulated if it had originally been a CNG vehicle. With this in mind, I have enclosed a discussion that sets forth the implications under Federal law of converting gasoline-powered vehicles to use propane or other gas (such as CNG). That discussion addresses 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act, which prohibits vehicle manufacturers, distributors, dealers and repair businesses from "knowingly rendering inoperative, in whole or in part, any device or element of design installed . . . in compliance" with any FMVSS.

In addition, please be aware that manufacturers of CNG tanks and vehicles are subject to the requirements in sections 151- 159 of the Safety Act concerning the recall and remedy of products with defects related to motor vehicle safety. In the event that NHTSA or the manufacturer of the tank or vehicle determines that the product contains a safety- related defect, the manufacturer would be responsible for notifying purchasers of the defective equipment and remedying the problem free of charge.

Our sister agency in the Department, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), has operational and equipment requirements for commercial vehicles used in interstate commerce. For further information about FHWA requirements, you can contact that agency's Chief Counsel's office at (202) 366-0650.

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

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel Enclosure ref:303 d:8/16/93

ID: 8796

Mr. Alan Niedzwiecki
Director of Business Development
EDO Corporation
14-04 111th Street
College Point, NY 11356-1434

Dear Mr. Niedzwiecki:

This responds to your letter requesting information about this agency's activities related to cylinders for "compressed natural gas (CNG) vehicle on-board motor fuel storage." According to your letter, EDO is developing an all-composite cylinder that has a safety factor of 3.5. You further explained that your company is planning to begin a conversion program using these cylinders.

Mr. Marvin Shaw of my staff discussed your letter with your associate, Mr. John Vincenzo. Mr. Vincenzo said that EDO knows that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is conducting a rulemaking related to CNG cylinders. Mr. Vincenzo seeks confirmation that, until a rule results from that rulemaking, there is no Department of Transportation regulation with which your company is required to comply before you start your conversion program.

By way of background information, NHTSA is authorized under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.; Safety Act) to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA does not, however, approve or certify any vehicles or items of equipment. Instead, the Safety Act establishes a "self- certification" process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards. NHTSA also investigates safety-related defects in motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment.

At present, NHTSA has not issued any standard applicable to CNG cylinders or any regulation dealing with the conversion of vehicles to be equipped with such cylinders. Therefore, until such time as a standard is issued, you are correct that you are not required to comply with any NHTSA safety standard related to CNG fuel systems.

However, please be aware that manufacturers of CNG tanks and vehicles are subject to the requirements in sections 151-159 of the Safety Act concerning the recall and remedy of products with defects related to motor vehicle safety. In the event that NHTSA or the manufacturer of the tank or vehicle determines that the product contains a safety- related defect, the manufacturer would be responsible for notifying purchasers of the defective equipment and remedying the problem free of charge.

In addition, NHTSA has certain restrictions on vehicle fuel system conversions, depending on who does the conversion and when the work is done. I have enclosed a discussion that sets forth the implications under our present regulations of converting new and used gasoline-powered vehicles to use propane or other gas (such as CNG). That discussion addresses NHTSA's vehicle alterer requirements (49 CFR 567.7) which apply to work on new vehicles, and the Safety Act's "render inoperative" provision (108(a)(2)(A)), which applies to work on new and used vehicles. Section 108(a)(2)(A) prohibits vehicle manufacturers, distributors, dealers and repair businesses from "knowingly rendering inoperative, in whole or in part, any device or element of design installed ... in compliance" with any FMVSS. Please contact us if you have further questions relating to the enclosed discussion.

I also note that the enclosed discussion is based on the FMVSS's that are currently in effect. As you know, NHTSA issued a proposed rule for CNG tanks and vehicles using CNG as a fuel. (58 FR 5323, January 21, 1993). If the agency were to ultimately decide to adopt the proposal, it would be necessary for NHTSA to revisit the "render inoperative" issues that relate to vehicle conversions. For example, if NHTSA were to issue a safety standard for CNG cylinders, all cylinders manufactured after the effective date of the standard would be required to comply with its requirements, whether they are placed on new vehicles or on new or used vehicles converted to CNG fuel.

With regard to present requirements for vehicle conversions, you should also note that the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) of this Department has operational and equipment requirements for commercial vehicles used in interstate commerce. For information about possible FHWA requirements affecting your conversions, you can contact that agency's Chief Counsel's office at (202) 366-0650.

You were particularly interested in NHTSA's proposed rule for CNG tanks and vehicles using CNG as a fuel. In response to that proposal, the agency received over 55 comments (including one from your corporation), which we are currently analyzing. We expect our next regulatory decision in early 1994. In addition, please be aware that the January 1993 notice was a proposal and does not necessarily reflect the precise requirements that will be contained in the final rule.

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.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel Enclosure ref:303 d:8/l3/93

ID: 8805john

Mr. James N. Doan
Counsel - Operations
Eaton Corporation
Eaton Center
Cleveland, OH 44114-2584

Dear Mr. Doan:

This responds to your request for an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 101, Controls and Displays. You asked whether an automatic vehicle speed control (also known as a cruise control), that you describe as "mounted on the transmission shift lever," must be illuminated. As explained below, the answer is no.

S5.3.1 sets requirements concerning controls which must be illuminated. S5.3.1 excludes from the illumination requirements hand operated controls that are mounted on the floor, floor console or steering column.

You believe that your proposed control would be considered "mounted on the floor or floor console" and thus excluded from S5.3.1's illumination requirements. We agree that locating the control on the shift lever is similar to locating it on the floor console for the purposes of the illumination requirements. This interpretation is based on agency precedent concerning S5.3.1's exception for controls on steering columns. In the preamble to a final rule of May 4, 1971 (36 FR 8296), NHTSA determined that the exception for controls mounted on the steering column extends to controls mounted on the steering wheel. Since the transmission shift lever bears the same relationship to the floor console as does the steering wheel to the steering column, controls on the transmission shift lever are excepted from S5.3.1's illumination requirements.

I hope that this information is useful. If you have any further questions, please contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosure

ref:101 d:9/21/93

ID: 8807

Ms. Gail Lindsey
Hillsborough County Public Schools
Risk Management and Safety Department
707 East Columbus Drive
Tampa, FL 33602

Dear Ms. Lindsey:

Your letter of June 23, 1993, to Mr. Ron Engle of the office of Transportation Safety Programs, this agency, was referred to this office for reply.

You explained in your letter and in a telephone conversation with Walter Myers of this office that it has been your School Board's policy to prohibit the use of mini-vans to transport school children to and from special events, requiring instead the use of school buses. You stated that the policy is controversial among parents, however, resulting in the School Board reconsidering the issue. You therefore requested information on "crash safety standards" of mini-vans or any other recommendations we can provide to assist the school board in making a safe and fair determination in the matter.

For your information, enclosed are copies of letters to Senator Jim Sasser dated July 7, 1992; Rep. John J. Duncan, Jr. dated May 29, 1992; Mrs. Alice Collins, dated August 1, 1988; a pamphlet issued by this agency entitled Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards and Regulations; a fact sheet issued by this office entitled Where to Obtain NHTSA's Safety Standards and Regulations; and a copy of Highway Safety Program Guideline No. 17, Pupil Transportation Safety, referred to in the letter to Mr. Duncan.

The enclosed materials should answer your concerns in this matter. I would like to emphasize that, as explained in the materials, it is NHTSA's position that a vehicle meeting Federal school bus regulations is the safest way to transport students. Despite the additional cost of these vehicles, I encourage Hillsborough County to give its most careful consideration to the possible consequences of transporting students in vehicles, such as mini-vans, that do not comply with school bus regulations.

Should you have any further questions or need any additional information, please feel free to contact Mr. Myers at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosures

ref:571 d:8/5/93

ID: 8810

Jerry G. Thorn, Esq.
General Counsel, OGC-040
U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission
Washington, DC 20207

Dear Mr. Thorn:

This responds to your letter of June 22, 1993 requesting an interpretation of whether an aerosol brake cleaning product marketed under the Solder Seal/Gunk brand is considered "motor vehicle equipment" under section 102(4) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. As explained in further detail below, this item is considered motor vehicle equipment.

As you are aware, section 102(4) of the Safety Act defines, in relevant part, the term "motor vehicle equipment" as:

any system, part, or component of a motor vehicle as originally manufactured or any similar part or component manufactured or sold for replacement or improvement of such system, part, or component or as any accessory, or addition to the motor vehicle ....

In determining whether an item of equipment is considered an accessory, NHTSA applies two criteria. The first criterion is whether a substantial portion of the expected use of the item is related to the operation or maintenance of motor vehicles. We determine the expected use by considering product advertising, product labeling, and the type of store that retails the product, as well as available information about the actual use of the product. The second criterion is whether the product is intended to be used principally by ordinary users of motor vehicles. If the product satisfies both criteria, then the product is considered to be an "accessory" and thus is subject to the provisions of the Safety Act.

Applying these criteria to the brake cleaning aerosol, it appears that the product would be an accessory under the Safety Act. This is based on the information provided in your letter and by Harleigh Ewell of your office to David Elias of mine in a July 23, 1993 telephone conversation. An advertisement you enclosed for the brake cleaning aerosol contains statements (e.g., "quickly dissolve and flush away brake fluid," and "helps to eliminate brake squeal and `chatter'") indicating that a substantial portion of the expected use of the product is related to maintaining motor vehicles. Also, according to Mr. Ewell, the product is sold in auto supply stores, which further indicates its intended use with motor vehicles. Second, based on the product's purpose as suggested by statements on the advertisement, (e.g., "cleans and evaporates almost instantly," "can be applied without disassembly of the unit," and "keep out of reach of children") and by the type of store that retails the product, it appears that the aerosol brake cleaner is intended to be used principally by ordinary vehicle owners.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact David Elias at the above address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

ref:VSA d:8/5/93

ID: 8815

Mr. Ernest Farmer
Director, Pupil Transportation
Tennessee State Department of Education
Office of Commissioner
Nashville, TN 37243-0375

Dear Mr. Farmer:

We have received your letter of June 25, 1993, with respect to your plan to retrofit three school buses with strobe lights for "the traditional incandescent lights currently used in the eight light overhead warning system on school buses." You ask whether this equipment would "conflict with the provisions of FMVSS 108."

Yes, the substitute system would not conform to S5.1.4 of Standard No. 108 because it is not a school bus signal lamp system meeting the requirements of SAE J887 School Bus Red Signal Lamps, July 1964. Moreover, section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1392(a)(2)(A)) prohibits a manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or motor vehicle repair business from knowingly rendering inoperative any device or element of design installed in accordance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard. However, the prohibition does not extend to the vehicle owner. We assume for purposes of this interpretation that the State is the owner of the school buses, and owns the repair facilities where the conversion will occur. Under these circumstances, there is no Federal legal prohibition against the State's conversion to the strobe light system if the work is performed in its own repair shops.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

ref:108#VSA d:7/l3/93

ID: 8816

Mr. Charlie McBay
Chief Engineer
Barrett Trailers, Inc.
P.O. Box 890670
Oklahoma City, OK 73189-0670

Dear Mr. McBay:

We have received your letter of June 13, 1993, asking that this Office review the two drawings you enclosed "for compliance with the upcoming conspicuity requirement", and "ask that our installation have your approval."

Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act the manufacturer has the responsibility of determining whether its product conforms and then certifies its compliance with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. The Act does not provide authority for the agency to "approve" or "disapprove" any specific solution to methods of conformance. For this reason, we are unable to advise you in the manner you seek.

However, the agency does provide interpretations when specific questions are asked with respect to the requirements of the standard, and we are pleased to respond accordingly to your inquiries. You have raised four issues for our comment.

1. You have called to our attention that the "outside post" design of the trailers is configured so that the spacing of the posts along the length of the trailers is not the same. The retroreflective material will be evenly spaced in most areas, but breaks between material vary. You have asked whether this will "suffice for evenly distributed."

Under S5.7.1.4.2(a) of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, retroreflective sheeting applied to each side of a trailer 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." As we have advised many times, under Standard No. 108 the determination of practicability is to be made by the manufacturer in fulfillment of its obligation to certify that its product conforms to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. NHTSA believes that, as a general rule, a manufacturer is in the best position to determine what is practicable for its particular design. However, if that determination appears erroneous on its face, NHTSA will question it. Were you to manufacture trailers with the side conspicuity treatment spacings depicted on your drawings, NHTSA would not question your determination of practicability.

2. You have asked "if an area exists where a minimum 12" strip will not fit, can we install smaller material or must this area stay blank?"

As noted above, under S5.7.1.4.2, a strip of retroreflective material need not be continuous "as long as not less than half of the length of the trailer is covered." Therefore, if exclusion of the area in question would not result in less than half of the length of the trailer being covered, the area may be left blank.

If additional sheeting is required for a trailer to meet the length requirement, or if a manufacturer simply wishes to add it, it need not be "a minimum 12" strip." S5.7.1.3(d) of Standard No. 108 specifies that each segment of retroreflective sheeting shall have a length of 300 mm (i.e., 12 inches) +/- 150 mm. Therefore, a segment of sheeting as short in length as 150 mm (6 inches) could be applied to the area in question in compliance with the standard. An even shorter segment is permitted if necessary "to clear obstructions" if that should be the reason in your instance where a strip of 300 mm will not fit.

If the length of the area in question is smaller than 150 mm and its coverage is required for the conspicuity treatment on the trailer to meet the length requirement, then any length of material is acceptable.

3. You have asked us to note that the white strips in the upper rear corners do not meet. You have asked "Must white be touching or can there be a gap between the strips?"

Figure 30 "Typical Trailer Conspicuity Treatments" depicts two configurations in which the white strips of retroreflective material intersect at right angles in the upper rear corners. The requirement that Figure 30 illustrates is set forth in S5.7.1.4.1(b), which specifies, in pertinent part, "two pairs of white strips of sheeting, each pair . . . applied horizontally and vertically to the right and left upper contours of the body . . . as close to the top of the trailer and as far apart as practicable." There is no explicit requirement in this paragraph that the horizontal and vertical strips intersect or touch. There is an implicit requirement in the specification that the strips be "as close to the top and as far apart as practicable", but the requirement is subject to the manufacturer's determination of practicability. In other words, if the manufacturer's determination of practicability results in a gap between the strips, NHTSA will not question this determination unless it appears clearly erroneous.

4. You represent that your design makes it impossible "to make a nice continuous square corner", and that "[i]nstallation of the white corners is also closer than 3" from red top rail lights." You ask whether there is "any tolerance on the 3" dimensions?

There is no tolerance on this requirement. S5.7.1.4(b) states that "The edge of white sheeting shall not be located closer than 75 mm to the edge of the luminous lens area of any lamp that is required by this standard." The diagrams you enclose depict the horizontal white strip directly below the clearance lamps, which are required by Standard No. 108, so that each design does not accord with Standard No. 108.

We have some comments on each design. On "Model 80MP6-DD" it appears to us that, under a determination of practicability, the white strips could be lowered until the required minimum spacing between it and the clearance lamp was achieved. There is no prohibition against placing the material on the roll-up door.

The trailer identified as "GNXS-207" raises a more difficult problem because there appears to be no place where the strips could be relocated. Consideration must be given, therefore, to relocation of the clearance lamps. Under Table II of Standard No. 108, clearance lamps are intended to "indicate the overall width of the trailer". Although clearance lamps should be "as near the top . . . as practicable", they need not be "[w]hen the rear identification lamps are mounted at the extreme height of a vehicle" (S5.3.1.4). The rear identification lamps on GNXS-207 are mounted at the extreme height of the vehicle. The clearance lamps could be relocated to the fender where the stop, turn, and taillamps are presently installed. In that location, the clearance lamps would also be better able to fulfill the intent that they indicate the overall width of the trailer, which appears to occur at the fender rather than at the upper part of the body.

We hope that these interpretations are helpful.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

ref:108 d:7/14/93

ID: 8830

Mr. Kenneth E. Ross
752 Hillpine Terrace
Atlanta, GA 30306

Dear Mr. Ross:

This responds to your letter requesting information about a product that attaches to an automobile's back window. In a telephone conversation with Marvin Shaw of my staff, you stated that your product is a two to three inch high LED sign that extends along most of the rear window. The sign displays any message that the driver chooses. While we do not have information about State or local laws, I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain the applicability of Federal law on your product.

By way of background information, NHTSA is authorized to issue Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA does not, however, approve or certify any vehicles or items of equipment. Instead, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act ("Safety Act") establishes a "self-certification" process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs).

In response to your question, NHTSA currently has no FMVSSs that directly apply to the product you wish to manufacture. I note, however, that there are other Federal requirements that indirectly affect you and your product. Under the Safety Act, 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 in 151-159 of the Safety Act concerning the recall and remedy of products with safety related defects. I have enclosed an information sheet that briefly describes those responsibilities. In the event that 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.

Automotive accessory equipment that a dealer adds before sale of a vehicle must not create a noncompliance with the FMVSSs to which the vehicle manufacturer has certified compliance. For instance, your LED sign should be mounted so that it does not block the field of view required by FMVSS No. 111, Rearview Mirrors. Similarly, for the vehicle to remain in compliance, your system must not impair the effectiveness of the lighting equipment required by FMVSS No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment. In particular, the placement of your sign might impair the effectiveness of the center highmounted stop lamp (CHMSL) if it can be operated simultaneously with the CHMSL or at a time when the turn signals are flashing.

In addition, manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and motor vehicle repair businesses are subject to 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act, which states: "No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative ... any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard ...." It is conceivable that your product, when placed on a vehicle's rear window, could "render inoperative" the vehicle's ability to comply with FMVSS No. 108 and FMVSS No. 111. Persons in the aforementioned categories that install your product must ensure that such installation does not render inoperative the safety protection provided by the applicable standards. Specifically, your product should be mounted so that it does not interfere with the CHMSL or turn signal lamps nor block the field-of-view required by FMVSS No. 111.

The "render inoperative" prohibition of 108(a)(2)(A) does not apply to the actions of vehicle owners in adding to or otherwise modifying their vehicles or items of motor vehicle equipment. Thus, if your product were placed on a rear window by the vehicle owner, then the render inoperative provision would not apply. Nevertheless, in the interest of safety, you should ensure that your product does not adversely affect a vehicle's rear lamps or rearward visibility.

We are unable to advise you as to whether the laws of any State address this topic. You should consult the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators for an opinion. Its address is 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Va. 22203.

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

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosure ref:108#111 d:8/13/93