ID: 2884o

Robert R. Keatinge, Esq.
Durham & Associates, P.C.
Suite 1750
950 17th Street
Denver, CO 80202

Dear Mr. Keatinge:

This is a response to your letter of December 4, 1987, asking this agency to clarify your understanding of 49 CFR 571.7(e). That section reads in part as follows:

Combining new and used components. When a new cab is used in the assembly of a truck, the truck will be considered newly manufactured ...unless the engine, transmission, and drive axle(s) (as a minimum) of the assembled vehicle are not new, and at least two of these components were taken from the same vehicle.

You referred to my August 11, 1987 letter to Mr. Ernest Farmer, and expressed concern that my having discussed only one aspect of 571.7(e) in that letter has led to some confusion. My letter to Mr. Farmer states that "a modified school bus or truck is not considered a 'new' vehicle if, at a minimum, the engine, transmission, and drive axle(s) are not new and at least two of these three listed components are taken from the same used vehicle." You stated that while my statement is "correct," my response did not address the first clause of this provision: "When a new cab is used in the assembly of a truck..." You asserted that, "a bus should not be considered 'new' unless a new body is attached to the chassis." Your assertion is correct with respect to 571.7(e), but there is another regulation that specifies a vehicle is "new" if an old body is combined with a new chassis.

By its own terms, 571.7(e) applies only in situations where a new body is combined with either (1) mixed new and used chassis components, or (2) used components from different vehicles. You were correct, then, in asserting that 571.7(e) applies only to situations involving a new body. For the purposes of the Farmer letter, it was understood between Mr. Farmer and a member of my staff that the bus bodies in question were new, so that letter did not purport to address the question of combining an old bus body with new and or/used chassis components. Many of our prior interpretations have stated that a person who adds a new or used body to a new chassis to produce a school bus is considered the manufacturer of a new school bus, and must certify that the new bus conforms with all applicable safety standards, just as every other school bus manufacturer must. In this case, the new chassis is an incomplete vehicle. "Incomplete vehicle" is defined in 49 CFR 568.3 as:

an assemblage consisting, as a minimum, of a frame and chassis structure, power train, steering system, suspension system, and braking system, to the extent that those systems are to be part of the completed vehicle, that requires further manufacturing operations, other than the addition of readily attachable components, such as mirrors or tire and rim assemblies, or minor finishing operations such as painting, to become a completed vehicle.

When a new bus chassis is used to produce a vehicle, the person who adds a body - even an old body - is a final-stage manufacturer, within the meaning of 49 CFR 568.3. Final-stage manufacturers are required to certify that the completed vehicle conforms with all applicable Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards in effect on the date of manufacture. The date of manufacture for these buses cannot be earlier than the date on which the chassis manufacturer completed its work on the chassis and cannot be later than the date the final-stage manufacturer completed its manufacturing operations. See 49 CFR 567.5, Requirements for Manufacturers of Vehicles Manufactured in Two or More Stages.

Note that neither 571.7(e) nor Part 568 would require a person to certify that a school bus complies with all applicable safety standards, if that person merely rebuilds or replaces an engine, drive axle, or transmission in a bus, or if that person places a used bus body on a used chassis.

I hope you find this information helpful.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

ref:57l#567#568 d:5/2/88

ID: 3235yy

Herbert J. Lushan
Regalite Plastics Corporation
300 Needham Street
Newton Upper Falls, MA 02164

Dear Mr. Lushan:

This responds to your letter concerning the use of tinted flexible plastic glazing in certain jeep-type vehicles. You explained that a customer has asked you to manufacture a bronze-tinted clear plastic flexible window for installation in the rear side and rear windows of its vehicles. You indicated that this glazing material would not satisfy the minimum light transmittance requirement of Standard No. 205 and requested confirmation of your understanding that Standard No. 205 permits the use of such glazing for rear and side windows in these vehicles. Further, during two telephone conversations on October 29, 1991 and October 30, 1991, you informed Elizabeth Barbour of my staff that your question specifically refers to the use of this glazing on the two-door Suzuki Sidekick and the two-door Geo Tracker. You also confirmed to Ms. Barbour that the glazing materials to which your letter refers would be installed as original equipment, but added that your company is also involved with after-market products. I am pleased to have this opportunity to answer your question.

By way of background information, 103 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Safety Act, 15 U.S.C. 1392) authorizes the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to issue safety standards for new motor vehicles and new motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA does not, however, approve or certify any vehicles or items of equipment, nor do we endorse any commercial products or processes. 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. The agency periodically tests vehicles and items of equipment for compliance with the standards, and also investigates alleged safety-related defects.

Pursuant to NHTSA's authority, the agency has established Standard No. 205, which specifies performance requirements for various types of glazing (called "items"), and specifies the locations in vehicles in which each item of glazing may be used. The standard also incorporates by reference "ANSI Z26," the American National Standards Institute's Safety Code for Safety Glazing Materials for Glazing Motor Vehicles Operating on Land Highways. Among Standard No. 205's requirements are specifications for minimum levels of light transmittance, measured by Test 2 in ANSI Z26. A minimum of 70% light transmittance is required in glazing areas requisite for driving visibility, which includes all windows in passenger cars.

In trucks, buses and multipurpose passenger vehicles, only the windshield and the windows to the immediate left and right of the driver are considered requisite for driving visibility (if they are equipped with dual outside mirrors satisfying sections S6.1(b) of FMVSS No. 111) and thus, subject to the minimum light transmittance requirement. The windows to the rear of the driver in trucks, buses and multipurpose passenger vehicles, including the rear side and rear windows, are not required to meet the light transmittance requirement. Thus, Standard No. 205 permits the use of tinted glazing materials (i.e. items of glazing that are not subject to Test 2) for windows to the rear of the driver in such vehicles when they are equipped with dual outside mirrors larger than those usually used on passenger cars.

As stated above, you described the product you wish to manufacture as tinted flexible plastic, Item 7 glazing, which would be installed in the rear side and rear windows of the two-door Suzuki Sidekick and Geo Tracker. According to the agency's information about these vehicles, the rear side and rear windows are part of a removable soft-top. Standard No. 205 permits glazing used for readily removable windows in these locations to be manufactured out of flexible plastic glazing (Items 6, 7 and 13), among other types of glazing. Thus, since these specific window locations on the two-door Suzuki Sidekick and Geo Tracker are not subject to the light transmittance requirement, and since Standard No. 205 permits use of flexible plastic glazing for readily removable windows, the Standard would permit you to manufacture the bronze-tinted flexible plastic glazing for the use your customer requested.

You also stated that your company is involved with after-market glazing materials. After a vehicle is first sold to a consumer, 108 (a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act prohibits any manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or repair business from "rendering inoperative" any device or element of design installed in a vehicle in compliance with any safety standard. According to this provision, your company, for example, could install the Item 7 glazing in the rear side and rear windows of a Suzuki Sidekick or Geo Tracker after that vehicle is first sold to a consumer. This provision would, however, prohibit the after-market installation of tinted flexible plastic glazing in the front side windows of that vehicle because such installation would cause the glazing of the front side windows to no longer comply with the requirements of Standard No. 205.

The "render inoperative" provision of the Safety Act does not apply to the actions of vehicle owners themselves. No section of the Safety Act prevents vehicle owners themselves from installing any product on their vehicles, regardless of whether the installation causes the vehicle to no longer comply with Standard No. 205. The actions of individual vehicle owners may be regulated or precluded by individual States, which have the authority to regulate owner modifications and the operational use of vehicles.

I hope this information is helpful. Please contact Elizabeth Barbour of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992 if you have further questions.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

ref: 205 d:ll/20/9l

ID: nht80-1.31

DATE: 03/17/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Van Ness, Feldman & Sutcliffe, Robert G. Szabo

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

ATTACHMT: 8/17/79 letter from Frank Berndt to Mike Champagne

TEXT:

April 17, 1980

Mr. Robert G. Szabo Van Ness, Feldman & Sutcliffe Suite 500 1220 Nineteenth Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20036

Dear Mr. Szabo:

This responds to your recent letter requesting information concerning the legal ramifications of converting motor vehicle fuel systems to operate on both gasoline and compressed gas. I am enclosing a copy of a letter the agency issued last year which discussed the Federal law concerning auxiliary gasoline tanks and the conversion of gasoline-powered vehicles to propane. The discussion in that letter should answer all of your questions. If, however, you require further information, please contact Hugh Oates of my office at 202-426-2992.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

Enclosure

[letter dated 8/17/79 from Frank Berndt to Mike Champagne omitted here.]

March 20, 1980

Mr. Frank A. Berndt Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590 Dear Mr. Berndt:

Mr. William L. LaFollette, President of Dual Energy, Inc., has retained us to provide legal counsel on the company's proposal to retrofit motor vehicles to operate on both gasoline and compressed gas. We have talked with several persons from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) about the retrofit project. On the basis of those discussions and our legal analysis, it appears that no special NHTSA regulations are applicable to compressed gas fueled vehicles which are not also applicable to gasoline fueled vehicles. We respectfully request that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration provide Dual Energy, Inc. with a formal opinion to that effect.

Under Dual Energy's proposal, the retrofitted vehicle will be equipped with compressed gas storage tanks, fill valves, a regulator to control the pressure of the gas, and a mixer to supply the correct ratio of air and gas to the engine's carburetor, all of which will be permanently attached to the vehicle and will become an integral part of the vehicle. A switch on the dashboard will control whether the car is operating on compressed gas or gasoline. The retrofitting of the automobiles to dual fuel operation will involve no changes to the engine or its cooling, lubrication or ignition systems.

Dual Energy, Inc. plans to lease to automobile owners the vehicle retrofit equipment, including the carburetor system, the compressed natural gas tanks for the vehicle and compressing equipment necessary for filling the storage tanks from the lessee's residential or business natural gas service lines. In addition, Dual Energy intends to provide the necessary compressor equipment to several service stations in the Washington, D.C. area in order to provide convenient locations for the purchase of compressed gas for the retrofitted vehicles. Dual Energy, Inc. will not manufacture any of the equipment used in the retrofitting project, but rather will purchase the necessary equipment from various American and foreign manufacturers. Dual Energy, Inc. does plan, however, to perform the installation work for the project through its own employees or subcontractors. If all governmental permits are obtained on a timely basis, Dual Energy intends to begin offering the retrofitting equipment to the public in the Washington, D.C. area during the summer of 1980.

The vehicle's supply of compressed gas will be supplied from tanks permanently attached in the trunk area of the vehicle. A full-sized American car can accommodate two tanks of compressed gas in the trunk and retain a reasonable amount of space for luggage. The two tanks will provide a reasonable driving range for the vehicle and may be refilled in two ways: a "quick fill," which requires high pressure storage tanks and may be completed in two to five minutes; and "slow or overnight fill," which employs a mechanical compressor system with a refill time of 12 hours.

Use of compressed gas as a fuel provides a number of advantages, including a very low level of exhaust emissions, greater ease in starting the engine regardless of outside temperature, and longer life for spark plugs and lubricating oil. In addition, a compressed gas fuel system has several inherent safety advantages over gasoline systems, including rapid dispersion when leakage occurs; a higher ignition temperature (1300oF versus 800oF for gasoline); and stronger structural features in the fuel system due to the more rigorous storage requirements of compressed gas. An analysis of the safety record of natural gas-fueled vehicles, which was prepared for the American Gas Association (AGA) in December, 1979, revealed that no failures or fires involving the natural gas system had occurred in the estimated 1,360 collisions which have occurred in this country involving vehicles equipped with such systems. The AGA study covered approximately 2,463 vehicles which have been driven approximately 175 million miles to date.

We have reviewed Chapter V of Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations to ascertain whether any special safety regulations apply to vehicles equipped with compressed gas fuel systems. From our review, we find no special requirements. If there are any such regulations or proposed regulations, please advise us of their terms.

If we can provide you with any further information, please do not hesitate to contact us. We believe that Mr. LaFollette has an exciting project which furthers our nation's energy policy and will benefit consumers in the Washington area. We appreciate your prompt attention to this matter and look forward to receiving your determinations on these issues.

With kindest regards,

Sincerely,

Robert G. Szabo

ID: 11208

Mr. Jim Schroeder
Graco Inc.
P.O. Box 1441
Minneapolis, MN 55440

Dear Mr. Schroeder:

This responds to your inquiry about the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) with which your trailer must comply. You state that your company plans to manufacture a trailer mounted striper that applies reflective paint stripes to roadways. In a telephone conversation with Mr. Marvin Shaw of my staff, you stated that your trailer will spend a significant amount of time traveling on public roads between job sites. Please note that we are returning the photographs attached to your letter that were marked Aconfidential.@

As way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) interprets and enforces the laws under which the FMVSSs are promulgated. The statute defines the term Amotor vehicle@ as follows:

AAny vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power manufactured primarily for use on the public streets, roads, and highways, except any vehicle operated exclusively on a rail or rails.@

Whether the agency considers your trailer to be a motor vehicle depends on its use. Based on the available information, it appears that your trailer is a Amotor vehicle@ within the meaning of the statutory definition. This conclusion is based on statements in your letter and telephone conversation that the trailer spends extended periods of time on the public roads moving between job sites. Thus, the agency would consider the use of your device on the public roads to be its primary purpose.

The following Federal safety standards apply to trailers: Standard No. 108 Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment, which address conspicuity, Standard No. 115, Vehicle Identification Numbers, and Standard No. 119, New Pneumatic Tires for Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars. The content requirements for the vehicle identification number are found at 49 CFR Part 565. In addition, while your vehicle is not required to be equipped with brakes, if it is equipped with hydraulic brakes, then you need to use brake hoses and brake fluids that comply with Standard No. 106, Brake Hoses and Standard No. 116, Motor Vehicle Brake Fluids.

In addition as a manufacturer of motor vehicles, you would be required to submit identification information to this agency in accordance with 49 CFR Part 566, Manufacturer Identification. You would also be required to certify that each trailer complies with all applicable Federal safety standards. This certification procedure is set out in 49 CFR Part 567.

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,

Samuel J. Dubbin Chief Counsel

Enclosures

ref:VSA d:11/17/95

ID: nht76-5.7

DATE: 12/09/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Wayne Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of November 15, 1976, in which you ask whether emergency exits installed in school buses beyond those required in S5.2.3 of Standard No. 217, Bus Window Retention and Release, must meet the requirements of the standard.

The NHTSA has determined previously that only those exits required in S5.2.3 must meet the requirements specified for school bus emergency exits in Standard No. 217. All other emergency exits installed in school buses must comply with the requirements for emergency exits in buses other than school buses. These requirements are detailed in Standard No. 217.

In your letter, you ask specifically whether S5.2.3.1(b), S5.3.1, S5.3.2, S5.3.3, S5.4.1, S5.4.2.1(b), or S5.5.3 apply to a side emergency door in a school bus that already complies with S5.2.3.1(a) of the standard. The NHTSA concludes that this door would be required to comply with S5.3.1, S5.3.2, and S5.4.1 of the standard.

SINCERELY,

Wayne Corporation

November 15, 1976

Frank R. Berndt Office of Chief Counsel NHTSA

This inquiry is in reference to FMVSS 217, Bus Window Retention and Release, as applied to school buses with a GVWR of more than 10,000 pounds. In the case of a school bus equipped with a side emergency door, in addition to a rear emergency door furnished in compliance with the requirements of Sections S5.2.3.1(a), S5.3.3, S5.4.2.1(a) and S5.5.3, which if any of the following requirements must the side door comply with:

S5.2.3.1(b), S5.3.1, S5.3.2, S5.3.3, S5.4.1, S5.4.2.1(b) or S5.5.3?

Your prompt attention to this matter and an early reply will be greatly appreciated.

Robert B. Kurre Director of Engineering

ID: nht89-1.40

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/17/89

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL NHTSA

TO: J. JAMES EXON -- UNITED STATES SENATOR

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 02/09/89 FROM J. JAMES EXON -- SENATE, TO NHTSA; LETTER DATED 01/26/89 FROM RON MOXHAM TO J. JAMES -- EXON; LETTER DATED 09/26/88 FROM RON MOXHAM TO ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA

TEXT: Dear Senator Exon:

Thank you for your letter of February 9, 1989, in which you inquired about the status of a letter to this office from Mr. Ron Moxham, one of your constituents. I apologize for the delay in responding to Mr. Moxham.

In his inquiry, Mr. Moxham asked about the applicability of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's (NHTSA's) regulations to an add-on-trunk for mini vans, pickup trucks, Blazers, and other vehicles. He described his product as a detachable box that could be attached to the liftgate, bumper, or frame at the rear of a vehicle and extend 16 to 20 inches beyond the bumper. Your constituent asked whether there are any regulations applicable to this product, especially in relation to the vehic le's tail lights and other lighting components. He also asked whether his product would be required to have its own separate lighting equipment and its own separate bumper.

By way of background information, NHTSA does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under the statutes administered by NHTSA, it is the responsibility of the manufacturer to ensure that its vehicles or equipment comply with all applicable standards. The following represents our opinion based on the facts provided in Mr. Moxham's letter.

NHTSA does not have any specific regulations covering an add-on trunk. However, the addition of such a device could affect a vehicle's compliance with various safety standards. For example, an add-on trunk could affect a vehicle's compliance with Stand ard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment, by obscuring the vehicle's rear lights from some angles of view. This adverse effect could be offset by the addition of supplementary lighting devices to the trunk. See S4.3.1.1 of Standa rd No. 108. (Copy enclosed.)

If an add-on trunk is installed as original equipment on a new vehicle, the vehicle manufacturer is required to certify that, with the device

installed, the vehicle satisfies the requirements of all applicable safety standards.

If such a device is added to a previously certified new motor vehicle prior to its first sale, the person who modifies the vehicle may have certification responsibilities as an "alterer" under 49 CFR Part 567.7. This would occur if the installation of t he add-on trunk either altered the vehicle's stated weight ratings or constituted the installation of something that is not a "readily attachable" component. To ascertain whether the installation involves attachable components such factors as the intric acy of installation, and the need for special expertise must be taken into consideration. More information regarding the method of installation is necessary before we could determine whether the installation of the add-on trunk was the installation of a readily attachable component.

A person who modifies a vehicle prior to its first sale is also affected by other Federal requirements, whether or not that person is considered an "alterer." Section 108(a)(1)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act generally provides th at no person may "manufacture for sale, sell, offer for sale, or introduce or deliver for introduction in interstate commerce, or import into the United States," any motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment that does not comply with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard. In addition, under section 108(a)(1)(A) of the Act, no manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business may knowingly render inoperative, in whole or in part, any device or element of design inst alled on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard.

If an add-on trunk is installed on a used vehicle by a business such as a garage, the installer would not be required to attach a certification label. However, it would be subject to the "render inoperative" requirement cited above. Thus, the installer would have to make sure that it did not knowingly render inoperative, in whole or part, 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 st andard.

I note that in a letter dated September 25, 1987, NHTSA indicated that a person who installs a lift platform on the rear of a car, thereby blocking a lamp required by Standard No. 108, could avoid violating the prohibition against rendering inoperative b y installing an auxiliary lamp meeting the standard's photometric requirements. Since that situation may have similarities to the one faced by Mr. Moxham, I am enclosing a copy of the letter.

Mr. Moxham did not specifically indicate whether his product would be sold for passenger cars. NHTSA has a bumper standard which sets forth requirements for the impact resistance of passenger cars in low speed front and rear collisions. The addition of an add-on trunk could affect a passenger car's compliance with the bumper standard.

Enclosed is an information sheet which identifies relevant Federal statutes and NHTSA standards and regulations affecting motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment manufacturers. Mr. Moxham should also be aware that state laws may apply to his device.

I hope this information is helpful.

Sincerely,

ENCLOSURES

ID: nht79-3.46

DATE: 06/18/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Thomas Built Buses, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPREATION

TEXT: This responds to your May 21, 1979, letter confirming your discussions with Roger Tilton of my staff relating to the emergency exit requirements of school buses that are constructed with an additional exit door. The additional door is installed so that the vehicle can be better used as a general transit vehicle when not in use for school purposes.

The statements that you make in your letter are, for the most part, accurate. However, your third statement which indicates that the additional door could not be marked as an emergency exit is not entirely accurate. Additional emergency exits in school buses, beyond those required by Standard No. 217, Bus Window Retention and Release, must comply with the emergency exit requirements applicable to exits in non-school buses. If the door to which you refer is not designed or constructed as an emergency exit but rather is designed as an additional door for the routine loading and unloading of passengers, it need not be labeled as an emergency exit. If on the other hand the door is intended as an emergency exit and is constructed in accordance with the emergency exit requirements for doors in non-school buses, it should be labeled as an emergency exit in accordance with the labeling requirements for exits in non-school buses.

SINCERELY,

May 21, 1979

Roger Tilton, Office of The Chief Counsel U. S. Department of Transportation

Dear Mr. Tilton:

This letter is a follow-up to our phone conversation of May 18, 1979, relative to the usage of a school bus with a side exit door for mass transit.

We explained that the bus or buses would be used for school transportation and during the off hours would be put into service as transporters for the general public.

The general public use requires a rear side exit door in addition to the entrance door at front side.

Our understanding of the conversation was as follows:

1. Bus would meet all Federal Safety Standards for School Buses.

2. Since the vehicle meets the emergency exit requirements mandated by the Federal Standards for school buses - no emergency exits as noted in FMVSS 217, Sections S5.2 and S5.2.1, are required since the vehicle meets the school bus emergency exit requirements.

3. The side exit door could not be labeled as an emergency exit.

I trust that you concur with my recollection of the conversation, and would appreciate your confirmation of this letter. Thanking you in advance, I remain

James Tydings, Specifications Engineer

ID: 1733y

The Honorable J. James Exon
United States Senator
287 Federal Building
l00 Centennial Mall North
Lincoln, NE 68508

Dear Senator Exon:

Thank you for your letter of February 9, 1989, in which you inquired about the status of a letter to this office from Mr. Ron Moxham, one of your constituents. I apologize for the delay in responding to Mr. Moxham.

In his inquiry, Mr. Moxham asked about the applicability of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's (NHTSA's) regulations to an add-on-trunk for mini vans, pickup trucks, Blazers, and other vehicles. He described his product as a detachable box that could be attached to the liftgate, bumper, or frame at the rear of a vehicle and extend 16 to 20 inches beyond the bumper. Your constituent asked whether there are any regulations applicable to this product, especially in relation to the vehicle's tail lights and other lighting components. He also asked whether his product would be required to have its own separate lighting equipment and its own separate bumper.

By way of background information, NHTSA does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under the statutes administered by NHTSA, it is the responsibility of the manufacturer to ensure that its vehicles or equipment comply with all applicable standards. The following represents our opinion based on the facts provided in Mr. Moxham's letter.

NHTSA does not have any specific regulations covering an add-on trunk. However, the addition of such a device could affect a vehicle's compliance with various safety standards. For example, an add-on trunk could affect a vehicle's compliance with Standard No. l08, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment, by obscuring the vehicle's rear lights from some angles of view. This adverse effect could be offset by the addition of supplementary lighting devices to the trunk. See S4.3.1.1 of Standard No. 108. (Copy enclosed.)

If an add-on trunk is installed as original equipment on a new vehicle, the vehicle manufacturer is required to certify that, with the device installed, the vehicle satisfies the requirements of all applicable safety standards.

If such a device is added to a previously certified new motor vehicle prior to its first sale, the person who modifies the vehicle may have certification responsibilities as an "alterer" under 49 CFR Part 567.7. This would occur if the installation of the add-on trunk either altered the vehicle's stated weight ratings or constituted the installation of something that is not a "readily attachable" component. To ascertain whether the installation involves readily attachable components such factors as the intricacy of installation, and the need for special expertise must be taken into consideration. More information regarding the method of installation is necessary before we could determine whether the installation of the add-on trunk was the installation of a readily attachable component.

A person who modifies a vehicle prior to its first sale is also affected by other Federal requirements, whether or not that person is considered an "alterer." Section l08(a)(l)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act generally provides that no person may "manufacture for sale, sell, offer for sale, or introduce or deliver for introduction in interstate commerce, or import into the United States," any motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment that does not comply with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard. In addition, under section l08(a)(2)(A) of the Act, no manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business may knowingly render inoperative, in whole or in part, 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.

If an add-on trunk is installed on a used vehicle by a business such as a garage, the installer would not be required to attach a certification label. However, it would be subject to the "render inoperative" requirement cited above. Thus, the installer would have to make sure that it did not knowingly render inoperative, in whole or part, 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.

I note that in a letter dated September 25, l987, NHTSA indicated that a person who installs a lift platform on the rear of a car, thereby blocking a lamp required by Standard No. l08, could avoid violating the prohibition against rendering inoperative by installing an auxiliary lamp meeting the standard's photometric requirements. Since that situation may have similarities to the one faced by Mr. Moxham, I am enclosing a copy of the letter.

Mr. Moxham did not specifically indicate whether his product would be sold for passenger cars. NHTSA has a bumper standard which sets forth requirements for the impact resistance of passenger cars in low speed front and rear collisions. The addition of an add-on trunk could affect a passenger car's compliance with the bumper standard. Enclosed is an information sheet which identifies relevant Federal statutes and NHTSA standards and regulations affecting motor vehicle and motor vehicle equipment manufacturers. Mr. Moxham should also be aware that state laws may apply to his device.

I hope this information is helpful.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Enclosures

cc: Washington Office /

ref:567#571#108# d:3/l7/89

ID: nht91-7.16

DATE: November 20, 1991

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Herbert J. Lushan -- Regalite Plastics Corporation

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 9-17-91 from Herbert J. Jushan to Paul Jackson Rice (OCC 6505)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter concerning the use of tinted flexible plastic glazing in certain jeep-type vehicles. You explained that a customer has asked you to manufacture a bronze-tinted clear plastic flexible window for installation in the rear side and rear windows of its vehicles. You indicated that this glazing material would not satisfy the minimum light transmittance requirement of Standard No. 205 and requested confirmation of your understanding that Standard No. 205 permits the use of such glazing for rear and side windows in these vehicles. Further, during two telephone conversations on October 29, 1991 and October 30, 1991, you informed Elizabeth Barbour of my staff that your question specifically refers to the use of this glazing on the two-door Suzuki Sidekick and the two-door Geo Tracker. You also confirmed to Ms. Barbour that the glazing materials to which your letter refers would be installed as original equipment, but added that your company is also involved with after-market products. I am pleased to have this opportunity to answer your question.

By way of background information, S103 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Safety Act, 15 U.S.C. 1392) authorizes the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to issue safety standards for new motor vehicles and new motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA does not, however, approve or certify any vehicles or items of equipment, nor do we endorse any commercial products or processes. 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. The agency periodically tests vehicles and items of equipment for compliance with the standards, and also investigates alleged safety-related defects.

Pursuant to NHTSA's authority, the agency has established Standard No. 205, which specifies performance requirements for various types of glazing (called "items"), and specifies the locations in vehicles in which each item of glazing may be used. The standard also incorporates by reference "ANSI Z26," the American National Standards Institute's Safety Code for Safety Glazing Materials for Glazing Motor Vehicles Operating on Land Highways. Among Standard No. 205's requirements are specifications for minimum levels of light transmittance, measured by Test 2 in ANSI Z26. A minimum of 70% light transmittance is required in glazing areas requisite for driving visibility, which includes all windows in passenger cars.

ln trucks, buses and multipurpose passenger vehicles, only the windshield and the windows to the immediate left and right of the driver are considered requisite for driving visibility (if they are equipped with dual outside mirrors satisfying sections S6.1(b) of FMVSS No. 111) and thus, subject to the minimum light transmittance requirement. The windows

to the rear of the driver in trucks, buses and multipurpose passenger vehicles, including the rear side and rear windows, are not required to meet the light transmittance requirement. Thus, Standard No. 205 permits the use of tinted glazing materials (i.e. items of glazing that are not subject to Test 2) for windows to the rear of the driver in such vehicles when they are equipped with dual outside mirrors larger than those usually used on passenger cars.

As stated above, you described the product you wish to manufacture as tinted flexible plastic, Item 7 glazing, which would be installed in the rear side and rear windows of the two-door Suzuki Sidekick and Geo Tracker. According to the agency's information about these vehicles, the rear side and rear windows are part of a removable soft-top. Standard No. 205 permits glazing used for readily removable windows in these locations to be manufactures out of flexible plastic glazing (Items 6, 7 and 13), among other types of glazing. Thus, since these specific window locations on the two-door Suzuki Sidekick and Geo Tracker are not subject to the light transmittance requirement, and since Standard No. 205 permits use of flexible plastic glazing for readily removable windows, the Standard would permit you to manufacture the bronze-tinted flexible plastic glazing for the use your customer requested.

You also states that your company is involved with after-market glazing materials. After a vehicle is first sold to a consumer, S108 (a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act prohibits any manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or repair business from rendering inoperative any device or element of design installed in a vehicle in compliance with any safety standard. According to this provision, your company, for example, could install the Item 7 glazing in the rear side and rear windows of a Suzuki Sidekick or Geo Tracker after that vehicle is first sold to a consumer. This provision would, however, prohibit the after-market installation of tinted flexible plastic glazing in the front side windows of that vehicle because such installation would cause the glazing of the front side windows to no longer comply with the requirements of Standard No. 205.

The "render inoperative" provision of the Safety Act does not apply to the actions of vehicle owners themselves. No section of the Safety Act prevents vehicle owners themselves from installing any product on their vehicles, regardless of whether the installation causes the vehicle to no longer comply with Standard No. 205. The actions of individual vehicle owners may be regulated or precluded by individual States, which have the authority to regulate owner modifications and the operational use of vehicles.

I hope this information is helpful. Please contact Elizabeth Barbour of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992 if you have further questions.

ID: nht76-2.26

DATE: 10/07/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Wesbar Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of September 7, 1976, asking several questions concerning paragraph S4.4.1 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. I am sorry that we were unable to respond by September 29 as you requested. Your questions and our answers are as follows:

"1. What is the DOT specific definition and interpretation of the words 'combined optically' as they appear in paragraph S4.4.1 of DOT 108?"

In pertinent part, S4.4.1 states that "no clearance lamp may be combined optically with any taillamp." The phrase "combined optically" as used here means that the luminous area of a lens used for a taillamp may not be also used as the luminous area of a lens for a clearance lamp. In other words lamps are "combined optically" when the same luminous area of a lens is lighted for more than a single function.

"2. Can a clearance lamp and tail lamp be combined in a single compartment with no opaque barrier wall existing between the clearance lamp bulb and the tail lamp bulb?"

The answer is no because the same luminous area of the lens would be lighted when both lamps are in use, and the lamps would be "combined optically."

"3. Does the DOT have no objection to a flashing red signal issuing from the side (at right angles to the fore-aft center line of the trailer) of the clearance lamp?"

Generally S4.6(b) requires most vehicle lamps to be steady burning in normal operation. If the right angle lamp serves as the rear side marker lamp, however, S4.6(b) allows it to be flashed for signaling.

"4. What is the DOT specific definition and interpretation of the term 'clearance lamp' as it is used in DOT 108?"

The term "clearance lamps" is defined by SAE Standard J592e, incorporated by reference in Standard No. 108, and are "lamps which show to the front or rear of a vehicle . . . to indicate the overall width and height of the vehicle."

"5. Does the 'clearance lamp' as the words are used in DOT 108 indicate a lamp intended to serve as its major function, a back up lamp in the event of failure of the tail light filament in the combination tail, turn and stop light bulb."

There is no intent that a clearance lamp serve as a backup lamp in the event of a taillamp filament failure though obviously both lamps perform a marking function.

"6. If DOT approves the combination of a clearance lamp and tail lamp in the same compartment, would it also approve for a boat trailer, moving the tail light outboard to show the extreme width of an over 80" vehicle and eliminate the need for a clearance lamp under those circumstances."

The question is moot since a combination clearance lamp-taillamp is not permitted.

I understand that you discussed the photometric test procedure for optically combined lamps with Mr. Owen of this agency, by telephone on September 22, 1976. So that there may be no misunderstanding I would like to set forth the test procedure in this letter. If a single lamp bulb (or filament) is used in the combined lamp, the photometrics for all of the functions must be met simultaneously. If two or more lamp bulbs (or filaments) are used and each is to provide a separate function, only those which provide that function are to be energized during the photometric test. Therefore, in a multiple compartment side marker and clearance lamp (or a multiple compartment tail and clearance lamp that is not optically combined), the clearance lamp bulb is not energized during the photometric test for the other function, and vice versa.

I hope this answers your questions.

SINCERELY,

WESBAR CORPORATION

September 7, 1976

Frank Berndt Acting Chief Counsel U.S. Dept. of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Refer: DOT 108, paragraph S4.4.1

On June 9, 1975 your predecessor in office answered an inquiry we made relative to a light design, and the last paragraph of his letter stated in part:

"Since the clearance lamp and tail lamp are in separate compartments and not optically combined -- the lamp design does not violate S4.4.1."

We have recently seen two lamps which bear the letters "DOT", in each of which the clearance, tail light and turn signal bulbs are all in the same compartment, i.e. the clearance lamp is not in a separate compartment.

It has always been the opinion of the writer and of boat trailer manufacturers, that in order to comply with S4.4.1, the clearance lamp would have to be in a compartment separated from the tail and stop lamp. However, while we were in Washington last week visiting your compliance office, we were advised that a Mr. Lou Owen had given a verbal interpretation of S4.4.1 in which he gave approval for the tail and clearance lamp to be in a single compartment, with no separating wall between them.

It would seem logical that tail lamp and clearance lamp should be separately compartmented. If the bulbs were in the same compartment with no shielding between them, the stop and turn light would illuminate that section of the compartment intended as a clearance lamp area, and at times the clearance lamp would appear to be flashing as well as varying in intensity. This would make for a confusing and hazardous situation for a driver traveling some distance behind a trailer equipped with such a combination lamp.

If this verbal interpretation which approves having the two lamp bulb mounted in the same compartment without a separating wall is valid, why should there be any need for a clearance lamp on a boat trailer since the tail lights could be mounted sufficiently outboard so they would indicate, when lighted, the overall width of the trailer?

We would appreciate receiving the DOT's specific interpretation of the words "combined optically". In its usual context, the words "combined optically" would mean a combination of light source and lens, and applied to S4.4.1 would seem to indicate that, in fact, the clearance lamp would have to be separately compartmented from the tail, stop, turn, and hazard lamp compartment.

When the clearance and tail lamp are housed in the same compartment there is a definite impairment of the combination turn, stop and hazard function of the lamp and an unsafe and confusing situation exists. We can report to you that while conducting an actual night test at a country road intersection, when a trailer was approaching the intersection with turn signal bulb flashing in the uncompartmented tail light, at 150 feet distance it was difficult to tell if the trailer ahead was on the same course as the following vehicle or crossing ahead of it at right angles.

While we were at the compliance section office, we were appalled to hear an interpretation of the term "clearance light" to the effect that the clearance lamp was not necessarily a separate lamp but was intended as a "back-up" light in the event the tail light filament should fail.

We have never ever heard or had it intimated to us that such was the purpose of a clearance lamp and we don't believe that it was ever intended to be so defined. When you consider the fact that the lamp on a semi trailer is at the uppermost corner of the trailer body (a long distance from the tail lamp!), and that travel trailers, buses and other vehicles also have the clearance lamp at the top extreme corners of the vehicles, it is difficult to conceive of their application as being a back up substitute for a defective tail lamp.

Carrying our argument further, on a trailer of less than 80" in width NO clearance lamp is required but the possibility of failure of the tail lamp filament is just as great. What then is supposed to serve as "back up" lamp for it? It is our observation that someone was just not thinking when he made the statement that a clearance lamp is really only there to serve as a "back up" lamp for the tail light.

In summary we ask for your specific answers to the following:

1. What is the DOT specific definition and interpretation of the words "combined optically" as they appear in paragraph S4.4.1 of DOT 108?

2. Can a clearance lamp and tail lamp be combined in a single compartment with no opaque barrier wall existing between the clearance lamp bulb and the tail lamp bulb?

3. Does the DOT have no objection to a flashing red signal issuing from the side (at right angles to the fore-aft center line of the trailer) of the clearance lamp?

4. What is the DOT specific definition and interpretation of the term "clearance lamp" as it is used in DOT 108?

5. Does the "clearance lamp" as the words are used in DOT 108 indicate a lamp intended to serve as its major function, a back up lamp in the event of failure of the tail light filament in the combination tail, turn and stop light bulb.

6. If DOT approves the combination of a clearance lamp and tail lamp in the same compartment, would it also approve for a boat trailer, moving the tail light outboard to show the extreme width of an over 80" vehicle and eliminate the need for a clearance lamp under those circumstances.

On September 29, 1976 there will be a meeting of the Trailer Manufacturers Association. In attendance will be representatives of all major manufacturers of boat trailers. We would appreciate your expediting your replies to the six questions posed above in order that we may give a copy of them to the group attending that meeting.

Since your interpretation of the questions given in this letter are of such vital importance to the boat trailer manufacturer, dealer and consumer, we would be most grateful for your clear, concise answers.

For your ready reference we attach copies of our previous correspondence and the reply we received. We also submit for your study, photos of a typical lamp where tail lamp and clearance lamp are combined in one compartment.

Looking forward to receiving your prompt response, we remain.

B. R. Weber Executive Vice President

cc: SEN. WILLIAM PROXMIRE; SEN. GAYLORD NELSON; REP. WILLIAM A. STEIGER