ID: 11385-1.PJA

Mr. Keith L. Taul
QA Manager
AP Technoglass Co.
1 Auto Glass Drive
P.O. Box 5000
Elizabethtown, Kentucky 42702-5000

Dear Mr. Taul:

This responds to your requests for two interpretations regarding printing a label and an antenna on vehicle glazing. I apologize for the delay in responding. The short answer to your questions is that you may not emboss or otherwise affix these items to any window, unless a light transmittance requirement is met.

Your first letter requests information on whether you may print a one inch by two and a half inch anti-theft label directly on the glass near the bottom of the driver=s side window. The manufacturer is currently applying stick-on labels to accomplish this but wants to start using a black ceramic material. Your second letter asks a similar question, whether an antenna could be printed in silver on a quarter window behind the C-pillar of a Saturn station wagon. You reason that this should be allowed because antenna and heat lines are allowed in the rear window, which is used more than the quarter window for driver visibility. However, you acknowledge that your proposed antenna lines are thicker than most rear window lines.

In both letters, you enclosed illustrations with proposed locations for these items and ask, if the items were not allowed in the proposed locations, if there were any alternative

locations where the label or antenna would be allowed. As a final alternative, each letter proposes marking the glazing with an arrow indicating that the area of the window containing the item is not intended to meet the light transmittance requirements.

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205, Glazing materials, has a light transmittance requirement of 70 percent that applies to all windows Arequisite for driving visibility.@ Z26 section 4.2, Footnote 1. This agency has a longstanding interpretation that all windows in passenger vehicles are requisite for driving visibility. Therefore, both the driver=s side window and the rear quarter window behind the C-pillar would both have to meet the requirements.

NHTSA presumes that all areas of the window are requisite for driving visibility and have to meet the transmittance requirements. NHTSA has in the past excluded some portions of the windshield based on the fact that they are not required for driving visibility. For example, in the November 3, 1988 letter to Volkswagen of America that Paul Atelsek of my staff sent you, we determined that it would be permissible to apply ceramic dots in a shade band along the bottom of the windshield only in those portions through which the shortest driver sees the hood or other parts of the vehicle he or she is driving, because seeing these parts of the vehicle is not requisite for driving visibility. We have also determined that sunroofs and the shade band at the top of the windshield are not necessary for driving visibility. NHTSA is not aware of any other areas of windows that the driver could see through that are not requisite for driving visibility.

You have not established that the portion of the driver=s side window to which you propose to affix the anti-theft label would provide the shortest driver with a view only of his or her own vehicle. Therefore, the presumption is that that portion of the driver=s side window would have to meet the transmittance requirements. You have also not shown that the rear quarter window behind the C-pillar, to which you propose to affix the antenna, would provide such a view, so the same conclusion applies.

Without conducting a test, we cannot tell you whether your proposed label or antenna would cause the glazing to fail test number 2 of Z26. We note that the transmittance requirements apply even to stick on labels that are not readily removable by hand. However, if the glazing did meet the test, as well as all the other required tests, then there is nothing in the standard to prevent you from printing the label or antenna directly on the glazing.

Regarding your question of whether the label would be permitted on any other window glass, the answer is that the same considerations apply to the other windows you mentioned (i.e., front door glass, rear door glass, rear quarter door glass window, or rear window glass). The requirement to be able to see adequately through the window is not diminished, as your second letter suggested, merely because the rear quarter window is less used for driving visibility than some other window.

Regarding your suggestion that you could merely mark the glass with an arrow to indicate that the portion of the window encompassing the label is not intended to meet the transmittance requirements, that would not be permitted. Section 6 of Z26 merely explains marking requirements, and does not by itself exempt portions of the glazing from having to meet requirements defined elsewhere. This provision was added to the marking requirements to clearly delineate, prior to testing, the shade bands that Z26 permits at the upper edge of the windshield. To allow a vehicle manufacturer to do this in other areas would be tantamount to eviscerating the transmittance requirement. For example, a manufacturer could mark the windows such that all of the window, except perhaps for a thin strip at the top, was designated as not intended to meet the requirement.

You asked about the mention in the November 3, 1988 letter of a rulemaking action the agency intended to initiate to better define what areas are Arequisite for driving visibility.@ NHTSA did not initiate such a rulemaking action and currently has no plans to do so.

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

Sincerely,

Samuel J. Dubbin Chief Counsel ref:205 d:5/1/96

You are referring to a paragraph in the marking requirements in section 6 of ANSI Z-26.1-1977 (Z26), incorporated by reference in Standard No. 205, that states AGlazing materials, which in a single sheet of material are intentionally made with an area having a luminous transmittance of not less than 70% (Test No. 2), adjoining an area that has less than 70% luminous transmittance, shall be permanently marked at the edge of the sheet to show the limits of the area that is intended to comply with Test No. 2.@ The area is to be marked with an arrow indicating the part of the sheet that complies.

ID: 09-008024ws Yuen

7/26/11

ID: 86-1.18

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/03/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Shintaro Nakatasuka

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

February 3, 1986 Mr. Shintaro Nakatasuka Manager, Certification Business Dept. II Mazda Motor Corporation P.O. Box 18 Hiroshima 703 91 Japan Dear Mr. Nakatasuka: This responds to your letter requesting an interpretation of Part 541, Federal Motor Vehicle Theft Prevention Standard. You asked two separate questions, which are discussed in detail below. First, you stated that you plan to introduce a 1987 carline in February 1986. This particular carline has been selected as one that will be subject to the requirements of Part 541. However, Part 541 does not become effective until April 24, 1986. You stated your belief that the introduction of the 1987 vehicles before the effective date of Part 541 means that none of the 1987 vehicles in that carline will be required to comply with Part 541. Your belief is a correct interpretation. Nevertheless, you stated that Mazda would voluntarily comply with the requirements of Part 541 for the 1987 vehicles in that carline produced after April 24, 1986, the effective date for Part 541. You asked whether your voluntary marking of some of the 1987 vehicles in that carline would cause this agency to conclude that all of the 1987 vehicles in that carline were not in compliance with Part 541. It will not. As you noted, the effective date for Part 541 is April 24, 1986. This effective date means that Part 541 applies to all selected carlines beginning with the 1987 model year. However, the legislative history for Title VI of the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings aCT (14 U.S.C. 2021 et seq.), which Title requires that Part 541 be promulgated, expressly states: "The (theft prevention) standard cannot apply to a car in the middle of the model year." H.R, Rep. No. 1087, 98th Cong., 2 Sess. at 11 (1984). For purposes of Title VI of the Cost Savings Act, NHTSA believes that the model year for a carline begins on the day on which a vehicle in that carline is introduced into commerce in the United States. Hence, if a 1987 model year vehicle in a carline is introduced into commerce before the effective date of Part 541, the 1987 model for that carline would have begun prior to the effective date of the theft prevention standard. Obviously, the requirements of any standard do not apply before the effective date. Given the clear expression of Congressional intent that this theft prevention standard cannot apply to a carline in the middle of its model year, NHTSA concludes that a 1987 model year version of a carline introduced into commerce before the effective date of the theft prevention standard is not subject to the requirements of the theft prevention standard for the 1987 model year. It would, of course, be subject to the requirements for the 1988 model year. Having concluded that the theft prevention standard does not apply to such 1987 model year vehicles, any voluntary actions taken by the vehicle manufacturer cannot affect this conclusion. Your company may choose to mark the 1987 vehicles in this carline introduced on or after the effective date of Part 541, as your letter indicates you plan to so. On the other hand, you may choose not to mark those or any of the 1987 vehicles in this carline. Whichever course of action you choose does not change the fact that Part 541 does not apply to the 1987 model year vehicles of a carline introduced into commerce before April 24, 1986. Second, you stated that Part 541 was unclear as to whether a metal tag stamped with the vehicle identification number and affixed to a vehicle part by means of "one-way screws" would be considered "labels", subject to the requirements of section 541.5(d)(1), or "other means of identification, subject to the requirements of section 541.5(d)(2). All means of identification which are affixed to a part are considered labels for purposes of Part 541. Section 541.5 expressly states that the required markings "must be affixed by means that comply with paragraph (d)(1) of this section or inscribed by means that comply with paragraph (d)(2) of this section" (Emphasis added). All markings which are affixed to a part, whether by means of adhesive, one-way screws, rivets, or welding, are labels. As such, those markings must satisfy all the requirements of section 541.5(d)(1). Conversely, all markings which are inscribed into a part, whether by means of etching, stamping, engraving, or sandblasting, are other means of identification. As such, those markings must satisfy all the requirements of section 541.5(d)(2). If you have any further questions or need more information on this subject, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, Original Signed By Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

ID: nht87-1.74

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/30/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; SIGNATURE UNAVAILABLE; NHTSA

TO: William L. Millard

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

William L. Millard, Esq. Law Offices of Shirley F. Majors 2656 South Arlington Road Akron, Ohio 44319

Dear Mr. Millard:

This responds to your letter concerning the "emergency shutdown switch" which would allow a passenger to shut of the ignition on a vehicle. You indicate in your letter that your client, Anthony M. Mazzagatti, would like to sell this idea to the Departmen t of Transportation. Your letter has been forwarded for a response to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), an agency within the Department of Transportation. I regret the delay in responding to your letter.

This agency did not purchase or require the use of particular patented devices. By way of background information, the NHTSA is authorized under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Vehicle Safety Act, 15 U.S.C. 51391, et seq.) to issue safe ty standards applicable to new motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. These are performance standards which leave the choice about means of compliance to the manufacturer.

Since your client may wise to sell his device directly to manufacturers or to consumers, let me describe some Vehicle Safety Act provisions he should bear in mind. The NHTSA is not authorized to certify or approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipmen t for compliance with our Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS). Instead, under the Vehicle Safety Act, each manufacturer of a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable F MVSS. A copy of the Safety Act is enclosed for your information.

This "self-certification" process requires each manufacturer to determine in the exercise of due care that its product meets all applicable FMVSS requirements. This agency periodically tests items of motor vehicle equipment for compliance with the standa rds, and also investigates alleged safety related defects. If your client or the agency determines that a safety related defect or noncompliance exists, your client would be obligated to notify purchasers of the product and remedy the problem without cha rge. Manufacturers who fail to provide notification of or remedy for a defect or noncompliance may be subject to a civil penalty of up to $1,000 per violation. (A general information sheet describing the responsibilities under the Vehicle Safety Act is e nclosed.)

If your client's product is installed in a previously certified new vehicle prior to its first sale to a consumer, then the person performing this alteration would be considered a vehicle alterer under the certification regulation, 49 Code of Federal Reg ulations (C.F.R.) 567, Certification. Part 567.7, Requirements for persons who alter certified vehicles, requires alterers to certify that the vehicle as altered complies with all applicable safety standards. The safety requirements that may apply to the installation of your client's device as described in your letter are Safety Standard No. 124, Accelerator control systems, and Safety Standard No. 101, Controls and displays. I have enclosed an information sheet describing how you can obtain copies of o ur regulations.

In addition, your client should be informed that the installation of this device in a used vehicle could be affected by S108(a)(2)(A) of the Vehicle Safety Act. This section provides, in part:

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 mot or vehicle safety standard....

Thus, a commercial business installing your client's product in a used vehicle would have to ensure that it did not knowingly render inoperative the vehicle's compliance with any of the safety standards.

Finally, please note that section 108(c) of the Vehicle Safety Act provides that compliance with these regulations does not preclude him from liability under common law for any accidents or injuries caused by the use of this device.

I hope that you find this information helpful.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Department of Transportation 400 Seventh Street S.W. Washington. DC 20590

Re: Safety Switch

To Whom It May Concern:

I represent Mr. Anthony M. Mazzagatti in his attempt to sell a low-cost safety device that can save many lives. This device can be called an Emergency Shutdown Switch (ESD Switch). This would take the form of a button located in the center of an automobi le dashboard; it would be wired to the ignition system so that, if pushed, it would shutdown the primary ignition circuit. The only way to reset the ignition would be to stop the car, put the shift lever in park, and turn the key off.

This would save lives in several situations.

1) If a passenger finds herself in the company of a driver who is inebriated or otherwise incapacitated, she can push the ESD Switch. The car would roll to a safe stop and the passenger would have time to exit the vehicle. The driver would have time to r ethink his driving and, perhaps, travel no further.

2) In a panic situation, such as a stuck accelerator pedal, either the driver or the passenger would have the ability to stop the car without turning off the ignition and locking the steering column. If the ESD Switch was mounted in the middle of a minia ture stop sign plaque attached to the dash, it would be more likely to be used by panic stricken drivers than the ignition switch.

The ESD Switch. for the first time, gives the automobile passenger a voice in the safe driving of a vehicle. Its cost would be but a few dollars. The payback would be immense, not only in lives and money saved, but also in peace of mind.

My client would like to sell this idea to you. Please contact me to discuss this matter further.

Sincerely,

William L. Millard. Attorney at Law

ID: 19873.ztv

Mr. Daniel R. Todd
Muth Mirror Systems
4221 High Tech Lane
Sheboygan, WI 53082-0418

Dear Mr. Todd:

This is in reply to your e-mails of April 15 and April 19, 1999, requesting confirmation that an interpretation that this Office provided John K. Roberts of Muth Mirror Systems on January 15, 1991, with respect to a "Stop Turn Mirror" ("STM") is valid also for a revised version of that device.

The original STM was designed to appear as a mirror to the vehicle operator, but as a stop and turn signal indication system to the operator of a vehicle following. Your current "Signal Mirror" provides a "high intensity chevron shaped signal which is mounted behind and projects through the mirror," and is operated by the turn and hazard warning signal system. That is to say, the chevron signal in the exterior rearview mirror on the driver's side of the vehicle will indicate a left turn, and the chevron signal in the exterior rearview mirror on the passenger side of the mirror will indicate a right turn. Both chevron signals will activate simultaneously when the hazard warning signal is activated.

You are also developing a "high extended mount stop lamp" (HEMSL) which is operated when the brakes are applied; this feature consists of "a straight line of high intensity lamps" centered near the top edge of the mirror, which also "are mounted behind and project through the mirror surface." As you explained to Taylor Vinson of this office on May 24, the stop signal will appear simultaneously in both exterior mirrors. You have asked us four questions about how our 1991 letter applies to these two new mirrors.

The first question relates to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108's prohibition of combining a center high mounted stop lamp (CHMSL) with any other lamp or reflective device. We advised in 1991 that a mirror was not a reflective device for purposes of Standard No. 108, and that the question would be whether the turn signal functions of the STM were clearly separated from the stop function so that the question does not arise as to whether they are combined. You have asked "Based on the updated device description provided above and current code interpretation, does the Chief Counsel's remarks still stand."

The original STM provided a stop signal through the interior rearview mirror, whereas the new mirror system provides a stop signal through the two exterior mirrors. The stop signals are supplementary to the stop lamps that are mounted on the rear of the vehicle. Paragraph S5.4 Equipment combinations of Standard No. 108 does not prohibit combining stop lamps, other than CHMSLs with other lighting devices. The question that must be answered with respect to supplementary lighting equipment is whether they impair the effectiveness of lighting equipment required by Standard No. 108. With respect to the Muth mirror, we do not conclude that such an impairment exists. This also answers your final question: whether the stop and turn signal function may be combined in the Signal Mirror alone which does not incorporate a CHMSL. The answer is yes; Standard No. 108 does not prohibit the combining of supplementary stop and turn signal/hazard warning signal lamps.

Our 1991 letter also discussed the possibility of the STM replacing the original equipment CHMSL. We advised that the STM could not do so if it were intended to be located in the exterior rear view mirrors rather than the center interior mirror. This is the configuration of your HEMSL. Thus, the supplementary stop lamp HEMSL may not replace the original equipment CHMSL.

You next ask "If the HEMSL, mounted in the exterior rear-view mirrors, provided a certain geometric visibility and photometric output such that it contributed to the required CHMSL visibility and photometric standard, in this theoretic system of three lamps, could the lamp mounted on the centerline have its geometric and photometric requirements tailored such that when combined with the HEMSLs and provided the overall CHMSL requirements indicated in Standard No. 108?" The answer is no; Standard No. 108 requires that there be a single, not multiple, lamp comprising the CHMSL, and that that single CHMSL meet all specified photometric and visibility requirements, and not share them with an array of three lamps.

If you have further questions, you may phone Taylor Vinson (202-366-5263).

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
ref:108
d.6/14/99

ID: nht87-2.52

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/13/87

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL NHTSA

TO: JACK DE NIJS DERONDE CASINGS, LTD.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 12/09/88 FROM ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA TO DONALD N. STAHL RE MCCOY TIRE SERVICE CENTER D.A. NO CF 696 REDBOOK A33, STANDARD 119, PART 574; UNDATED LETTER FROM JOHN T. FORTH AND DONALD N. STAHL TO ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA RE MCCOY TIRE SERVICE CENTER D.A. NO CF696, OCC 1749; LETTER DATED 03/01/88 FROM DAVE TAYLOR TO JOHN T. FORTH, EXHIBIT 1; LETTER DATED 05/19/87 FROM JACK DENIJS TO ERIKA Z. JONES, SUBJECT COVERED DOT NUMBERS ON REMANUFACTURED TRUCK CASINGS; DRAWING OF TI RE DATED 01/14/88, MODESTO CITY SCHOOLS TIRE INFORMATION, EXHIBIT 3

TEXT: Dear Mr. De Nijs:

This responds to your letter to this office, in which you asked whether you could import into the United States foreign truck tire casings that do not have either a DOT symbol or a tire identification number on the sidewall. You stated in your letter th at you would either retread these tires yourself or sell them to other retreaders to be retreaded. Subject to certain conditions, you may import these casings.

The general provisions dealing with the importation of items of motor vehicle equipment such as tires are set forth in section 108(a)(1)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(1)(A)). That section makes it unlawful fo r any person to import into the United States any item of motor vehicle equipment manufactured on or after the date that an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard takes effect, unless the equipment (tire) is in conformity with the standard. Fe deral Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 119, New Pneumatic Tires for Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars (49 CFR @ 571.119) took effect on March 1, 1975. Standard No. 119 requires that truck tires and other tires for use on vehicles other than passenger cars pass certain performance and be labeled with certain safety information, including the tire identification number. The tire manufacturer is required to certify that each of its truck tires complies with Standard No. 119 by permanently molding the s ymbol DOT into or onto the sidewall of the tire. Thus, any tires without a DOT symbol on the sidewall that were manufactured on or after March 1, 1975 would not be in compliance with Standard No. 119 and could not legally be imported into the United Sta tes.

However, the agency reached a somewhat different conclusion with respect to the permissibility of importing truck tire casings in a June 18, 1981 letter from former Chief Counsel Frank Berndt to Mr. Roy Littlefield (copy enclosed). In that letter, the a gency concluded that truck tire casings that have less than 2/32 inch of tread and which are imported solely to be retreaded are not "items of motor vehicle equipment" within the meaning of section 108(a)(1)(A) of the Safety Act. This conclusion

means that truck tire casings that meet these conditions may be imported into the United States. Please note that you cannot legally import any non-complying truck tire casings that have 2/32 inch or more of tread or any non-complying casings that will not be retreaded before they are used on the public roads.

If you have any further questions on this subject, please feel free to contact Steve Kratzke of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

ENCLOSURE

ID: nht94-2.74

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: May 8, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: James Schaub -- Midas Muffler Shop

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 10/21/93 from James "Bubba" Schaub to John Womack (OCC-9252)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter asking us about Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 105 with regard to replacing brake rotors and/or drums. I apologize for the delay in our response. You stated that local automobile dealership service departments do n ot follow manufacturers' recommendations in this area, causing your customers to believe that your shop is fraudulently selling and installing parts on vehicles when they are not needed. You requested an interpretation of Standard No. 105 in this regard, and asked whether there is any basis for fraud in replacing rotors and drums when they are outside manufacturer safety tolerances. You stated that if you can present an established standard to your customers, you can prevent them from believing they hav e been taken advantage of.

By way of background information, the National Traffic and Motor Safety Act (Safety Act) authorizes the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards for new motor vehicles and new motor vehicle eq uipment. Standard No. 105, HYDRAULIC BRAKE SYSTEMS, specifies requirements for hydraulic brake systems and associated parking brake systems. The standard applies to new motor vehicles.

While you asked for an interpretation of Standard No. 105, that standard is of little relevance to your situation. This is because the Federal motor vehicle safety standards do not apply to a motor vehicle after its first sale to a consumer. The Safety A ct does include some provisions which are relevant to used vehicles. In particular, the Safety Act prohibits manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and motor vehicle repair businesses from knowingly rendering inoperative any safety device or element of de sign installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with a safety standard. However, this provision would ordinarily not be relevant to a decision whether to replace, or mill or turn, worn brake drums and rotors.

With respect to your desire to show your customers an established standard in this area, I can call your attention to NHTSA's vehicle in use inspection standards. These standards set forth criteria for, among other things, inspecting service brake system s. You should be aware that these standards were developed for use by the States in establishing their inspection requirements. Thus, the standards only apply to the extent that they are adopted by individual States. I have enclosed a copy of the standar ds for your information and particularly call your attention to section 570.5(f). That section, which applies to vehicles with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less, reads as follows:

(f) Disc and drum condition. If the drum is embossed with a maximum safe diameter dimension or the rotor is embossed with a minimum safety thickness dimension, the drum or disc shall be within the appropriate specifications. . . .

This section reflects the importance NHTSA places on following manufacturer recommendations in this area.

The states may regulate the repair of motor vehicles. We suggest that you investigate the laws of Louisiana to see whether they affect your situation. We cannot advise you about Federal or state requirements concerning fraud. You may wish to contact the Federal Trade Commission, your state government, and/or a private attorney about this matter.

ID: nht94-3.3

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: May 18, 1994

FROM: Womack, John -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Schaub, James -- Midas Muffler Shop (Louisiana)

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: Attached To 10/21/93 Letter From James Schaub To John Womack (OCC 9252)

TEXT: This responds to your letter asking us about Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 105 with regard to replacing brake rotors and/or drums. I apologize for the delay in our response. You stated that local automobile dealership service departments do not follow manufacturers' recommendations in this area, causing your customers to believe that your shop is fraudulently selling and installing parts on vehicles when they are not needed. You requested an interpretation of Standard No. 105 in this rega rd, and asked whether there is any basis for fraud in replacing rotors and drums when they are outside manufacturer safety tolerances. You stated that if you can present an established standard to your customers, you can prevent them from believing they have been taken advantage of.

By way of background information, the National Traffic and Motor Safety Act (Safety Act) authorizes the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards for new motor vehicles and new motor vehicle eq uipment. Standard No. 105, Hydraulic Brake Systems, specifies requirements for hydraulic brake systems and associated parking brake systems. The standard applies to new motor vehicles.

While you asked for an interpretation of Standard No. 105, that standard is of little relevance to your situation. This is because the Federal motor vehicle safety standards do not apply to a motor vehicle after its first sale to a consumer. The Safety Act does include some provisions which are relevant to used vehicles. In particular, the Safety Act prohibits manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and motor vehicle repair businesses from knowingly rendering inoperative any safety device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with a safety standard. However, this provision would ordinarily not be relevant to a decision whether to replace, or mill or turn, worn brake drums and rotors.

With respect to your desire to show your customers an established standard in this area, I can call your attention to NHTSA's vehicle in use inspection standards. These standards set forth criteria for, among other things, inspecting service brake syste ms. You should be aware that these standards were developed for use by the States in establishing their inspection requirements. Thus, the standards only apply to the extent that they are adopted by individual States. I have enclosed a copy of the stan dards for your information and particularly call your attention to section 570.5(f). That section, which applies to vehicles with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less, reads as follows: (f) Disc and drum condition. If the drum is embossed with a maximum safe diameter dimension or the rotor is embossed with a minimum safety thickness dimension, the drum or disc shall be within the appropriate specifications. . . .

This section reflects the importance NHTSA places on following manufacturer recommendations in this area.

The states may regulate the repair of motor vehicles. We suggest that you investigate the laws of Louisiana to see whether they affect your situation.

We cannot advise you about Federal or state requirements concerning fraud. You may wish to contact the Federal Trade Commission, your state government, and/or a private attorney about this matter.

ID: nht94-5.24

DATE: May 18, 1994

FROM: Womack, John -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Schaub, James -- Midas Muffler Shop (Louisiana)

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: Attached To 10/21/93 Letter From James Schaub To John Womack (OCC 9252)

TEXT: This responds to your letter asking us about Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 105 with regard to replacing brake rotors and/or drums. I apologize for the delay in our response. You stated that local automobile dealership service departments do not follow manufacturers' recommendations in this area, causing your customers to believe that your shop is fraudulently selling and installing parts on vehicles when they are not needed. You requested an interpretation of Standard No. 105 in this regard, and asked whether there is any basis for fraud in replacing rotors and drums when they are outside manufacturer safety tolerances. You stated that if you can present an established standard to your customers, you can prevent them from believing they have been taken advantage of.

By way of background information, the National Traffic and Motor Safety Act (Safety Act) authorizes the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards for new motor vehicles and new motor vehicle equipment. Standard No. 105, Hydraulic Brake Systems, specifies requirements for hydraulic brake systems and associated parking brake systems. The standard applies to new motor vehicles.

While you asked for an interpretation of Standard No. 105, that standard is of little relevance to your situation. This is because the Federal motor vehicle safety standards do not apply to a motor vehicle after its first sale to a consumer. The Safety Act does include some provisions which are relevant to used vehicles. In particular, the Safety Act prohibits manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and motor vehicle repair businesses from knowingly rendering inoperative any safety device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with a safety standard. However, this provision would ordinarily not be relevant to a decision whether to replace, or mill or turn, worn brake drums and rotors.

With respect to your desire to show your customers an established standard in this area, I can call your attention to NHTSA's vehicle in use inspection standards. These standards set forth criteria for, among other things, inspecting service brake systems. You should be aware that these standards were developed for use by the States in establishing their inspection requirements. Thus, the standards only apply to the extent that they are adopted by individual States. I have enclosed a copy of the standards for your information and particularly call your attention to section 570.5(f). That section, which applies to vehicles with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less, reads as follows:

(f) Disc and drum condition. If the drum is embossed with a maximum safe diameter dimension or the rotor is embossed with a minimum safety thickness dimension, the drum or disc shall be within the appropriate specifications. .

. .

This section reflects the importance NHTSA places on following manufacturer recommendations in this area.

The states may regulate the repair of motor vehicles. We suggest that you investigate the laws of Louisiana to see whether they affect your situation.

We cannot advise you about Federal or state requirements concerning fraud. You may wish to contact the Federal Trade Commission, your state government, and/or a private attorney about this matter.

ID: nht94-5.46

DATE: May 8, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: James Schaub -- Midas Muffler Shop

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 10/21/93 from James "Bubba" Schaub to John Womack (OCC-9252)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter asking us about Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 105 with regard to replacing brake rotors and/or drums. I apologize for the delay in our response. You stated that local automobile dealership service departments do not follow manufacturers' recommendations in this area, causing your customers to believe that your shop is fraudulently selling and installing parts on vehicles when they are not needed. You requested an interpretation of Standard No. 105 in this regard, and asked whether there is any basis for fraud in replacing rotors and drums when they are outside manufacturer safety tolerances. You stated that if you can present an established standard to your customers, you can prevent them from believing they have been taken advantage of.

By way of background information, the National Traffic and Motor Safety Act (Safety Act) authorizes the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards for new motor vehicles and new motor vehicle equipment. Standard No. 105, HYDRAULIC BRAKE SYSTEMS, specifies requirements for hydraulic brake systems and associated parking brake systems. The standard applies to new motor vehicles.

While you asked for an interpretation of Standard No. 105, that standard is of little relevance to your situation. This is because the Federal motor vehicle safety standards do not apply to a motor vehicle after its first sale to a consumer. The Safety Act does include some provisions which are relevant to used vehicles. In particular, the Safety Act prohibits manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and motor vehicle repair businesses from knowingly rendering inoperative any safety device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with a safety standard. However, this provision would ordinarily not be relevant to a decision whether to replace, or mill or turn, worn brake drums and rotors.

With respect to your desire to show your customers an established standard in this area, I can call your attention to NHTSA's vehicle in use inspection standards. These standards set forth criteria for, among other things, inspecting service brake systems. You should be aware that these standards were developed for use by the States in establishing their inspection requirements. Thus, the standards only apply to the extent that they are adopted by individual States. I have enclosed a copy of the standards for your information and particularly call your attention to section 570.5(f). That section, which applies to vehicles with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less, reads as follows:

(f) Disc and drum condition. If the drum is embossed with a maximum safe diameter dimension or the rotor is embossed with a minimum safety thickness dimension, the drum or disc shall be within the appropriate specifications. . . .

This section reflects the importance NHTSA places on following manufacturer recommendations in this area.

The states may regulate the repair of motor vehicles. We suggest that you investigate the laws of Louisiana to see whether they affect your situation. We cannot advise you about Federal or state requirements concerning fraud. You may wish to contact the Federal Trade Commission, your state government, and/or a private attorney about this matter.