ID: nht76-4.18

DATE: 03/31/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Adams County

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your March 5, 1976, request for written permission to deactivate the "121 brake system" of a school bus manufactured from a Ford chassis with a Kelsey-Hayes antilock system.

From the description of the problems you have encounted with this vehicle, I assume that you do not intend to disconnect the entire "121 brake system", but only one or more antilock systems installed in satisfaction of the "no lockup" requirements of S5.3.1 of Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has made a finding that early models of the antilock system supplied on transit and intercity buses is characterized by malfunction that warrants its deactivation until a correction is fully developed. This finding was not made with regard to the Kelsey-Hayes system that equips your vehicle.

Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. @ 1397(a)(2)(a)) prohibits, with one exception, knowing disconnection of the antilock system by manufacturers, distributors, dealers, or repair businesses. A person that does not fall into those categories is not prohibited from disconnection of the system. Other State or Federal requirements, such as those of the Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety, may prohibit disconnection. In any case, the NHTSA urges that you not disconnect safety devices without consulting the vehicle manufacturer with regard to the safest configuration of the vehicle.

SINCERELY,

School District No. 12

MEMO NO: B-0093

DATE: MARCH 5, 1976

TO: CHIEF COUNCIL NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC ADMINISTRATION

FROM: RON STACY SUPERVISOR OF TRANSPORTATION

RE: DE-ACTIVATE 121 BRAKES

A letter to Dr. Neil McCormick, (attached), telephone conversation with Brad Marks, "National Highway Safety Administration", Colorado, Dr. Steve Sacks, "National Highway Traffic Safety", Washington, D.C., explaining existing problems with the 121 brake, (Kelsey-Hayes, Ford Chassis).

December 1975, Kelsey-Hayes representative performed an inservice workshop. Problems still exist!

Refer, Fleet Maintenance Magazine, February 1976 issue, page 61. Washington Report; QUOTE: "NHTSA has also tentatively determined, at this writing, that virtually the only anti-lock system currently available for buses "is characterized by malfunction that warrants its deactivation on all vehicles on which it is installed while a correction is fully developed." UNQUOTE.

Request permission, in writing, to deactivate the 121 brake system, until such time corrections are complete.

Your cooperation and expedience is greatly appreciated.

RON STACY

School District No. 12 Adams County

TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT

MEMO NO: B-0085

DATE: NOVEMBER 13, 1975

TO: DR. NEIL MCCORMICK SUPERVISOR OF SUPPORTING SERVICES UNIT COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

FROM: ROW STACY

REF: 121 BRAKES

1. Frequently one brake will grab at low speed.

2. Occasionally brakes will fade.

3. Occasionally all four wheels will lock-up on panic stop.

4. Occasionally brakes will fade completely: gradual stop, below 15 m.p.h.. Then, brakes will grab as if panic stop condition existed.

If I can be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to call.

ID: 21718.ztv

Michel Luc Bataini, Eng. Jr.
DBM Reflex Enterprises Inc.
1620 Dagenais Blvd. West
Laval, Quebec H7L 5C7
Canada

FAX 450-622-3017

Dear Mr. Bataini:

This is in reply to your fax of May 25, 2000, with questions about S5.4 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. This paragraph specifies that "Two or more lamps, reflective devices, or items of associated equipment may be combined, if the requirements for each lamp, reflective device and item of associated equipment are met . . . ."

It is your assumption that "a front side reflector made of 2 different items is legal only if both item individually meet the regulation." You then asked "if two reflective devices (each device do not meet the regulation by itself) molded separately, are assembled on the same housing, then, would that be legal? If not, molding those two items together and then assembling them with the housing would be legal?"

S5.4 allows a manufacturer to combine two lamps, reflective devices, or items of motor vehicle lighting equipment provided that each lamp, reflective device, or item of motor vehicle equipment used in the combination complies with the requirements of Standard No. 108 which apply to it. You have informed us that neither of the reflective devices in your design comply with Standard No 108's requirements, presumably those for a front side marker reflector. This means, then, that S5.4 does not apply to your design, and that we must answer your letter without reference to S5.4.

The drawing accompanying your letter shows that the reflective devices to which you refer would be incorporated into a headlamp housing and be visible from the side when light is reflected from them. The proper question, then, is whether Standard No. 108 permits a front side marker reflector to consist of two reflective devices molded separately and assembled on the same housing. The answer is yes, provided that when assembled on the housing they meet the requirements of SAE Standard J594f Reflex Reflectors January 1977, principally those relating to photometry. It follows then, that two reflective devices may be molded together and mounted on the same housing if they comply with SAE J594f 's requirements for reflex reflectors as mounted on the housing.

You will note that some rear lamp units are designed so that compartments that are lit are separated by multiple red reflex reflective devices, neither of which alone may be sufficient to comply with the rear red reflex reflector requirements of Standard No. 108, but, taken together, meet the standard. In this situation also, the reflex reflectors are not "combined" within the meaning of S5.4.

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

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
ref:108
d.7/19/00

ID: nht91-7.8

DATE: November 13, 1991

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Robert A. Nordmeyer -- Nordic Associates

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 9-18-91 from Robert A. Nordmeyer to NHTSA Administrator

TEXT:

This responds to your September 18, 1991 letter to NHTSA's Rulemaking office concerning your design for an aftermarket sun visor. Your letter has been referred to me for reply.

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act authorizes our agency to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards that apply to new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. The Act also authorizes us to require the recall and remedy of any motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment that contains a safety defect.

There is currently no Federal motor vehicle safety standard that applies to an aftermarket sun visor. The safety standards relating to sun visors (Standard 201, Occupant Protection in Interior Impact, and 302, Flammability of Interior materials) apply only to new motor vehicles and not to items of aftermarket equipment.

The sun visor in a new vehicle is regulated by Standard 201, which requires that the visor be "constructed of or covered with energy-absorbing material" and that the visor's mounting must "present no material edge radius of less than 0.125 inch that is statically contactable by a spherical 6.5-inch diameter head form." The purpose of that requirement is to reduce the injuries that occur when unrestrained occupants strike the visor or its mounting with their heads. If your sun visor were installed by the manufacturer of a new motor vehicle, the visor would have to comply with the visor requirements of Standard 201. I am enclosing a copy of the standard for your review.

Standard 302 requires sun visors in new vehicles to meet the flammability resistance requirements of the standard. The standard specifies that the material used on the visor must not burn at a rate of more than four inches per minute. A copy of the standard is enclosed.

Although your sun visor would be sold in the aftemarket, not as an item of original equipment, Standards 201 and 302 can nonetheless affect persons who install the visor. The Safety Act provides that a person who manufactures, distributes, sells or repairs motor vehicles cannot "render inoperative" a regulated device such as a sun visor or its mountings. If a repair shop were to remove a vehicle's sun visor and replace it with your visor, the shop would be in violation of the Act unless your visor complied with the standards. An individual owner may install a visor in his or her own vehicle without regard to the standards.

You should also be aware that our safety defect authority has a bearing on the manufacture and sale of your visor. Under the Safety Act, your product is considered to be an item of motor vehicle equipment. A manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment is subject to the requirements in sections 151-159 of the Act concerning the recall and remedy of products with safety defects. I have enclosed an information sheet that briefly describes those responsibilities. In the event that NHTSA or a manufacturer determines that the manufacturer's product contain a safety-related defect, the manufacturer would be responsible for notifying purchasers of the defective equipment and remedying the problem free of charge.

Please contact us if you have further questions.

ATTACHMENTS

NHTSA Information Sheet Entitled INFORMATION FOR NEW MANUFACTURERS OF MOTOR VEHICLES AND MOTOR VEHICLE EQUIPMENT, dated September, 1985. (Text omitted)

Copy of the Code of Federal Regulations (10-1-90 edition) pertaining to S 571.201: Standard 201 - Occupant protection in interior impacts. (Text omitted)

ID: nht90-3.45

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: August 2, 1990

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Reese Chappell -- Engineer, Auto Ventshade Company

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Letter dated 2-20-90 to B. Felrice from H. R. Chappell; (OCC 4465); and photos (text omitted)

TEXT:

Thank you for your letter asking how Federal regulations would apply to a product called a "Ventvisor" manufactured by your company. You enclosed a brochure that included pictures of the Ventvisor. Described as a rain deflector, the Ventvisor appears t o be a strip of molded tinted glazing material several inches wide that is secured on the window frame and running from the front around the top of side windows on motor vehicles. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain how the requirements of this agency apply to this product.

Some background information about the agency may be useful. NHTSA has the authority under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA, howe ver, does not approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, nor do we endorse any commercial products. Instead, the Act establishes a "self-certification" process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet our safety standards. The agency periodically tests vehicles and equipment items for compliance with the standards, and also investigates other alleged safety-related defects. I have enclosed an information sheet that briefly describes manufacturers' resp onsibilities under the Safety Act and how to obtain copies of this agency's standards and regulations.

Your company's product is described as made of "acrylic" and would appear to overlap a portion of the side windows of motor vehicles that are "requisite for driving visibility." Accordingly, this product would be a glazing material for use in motor vehi cles and would be subject to the requirements of Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials (49 CFR S571.205). Standard No. 205 specifies performance requirements for various types of glazing and also the locations in vehicles in which each type of glazing may be used. The standard also incorporates by reference "ANS Z26," the American National Standards Institute's Safety Code for Safety Glazing Materials for Glazing Motor Vehicles Operating on Land Highways.

Standard No. 205 permits devices such as your company's Ventvisor to be manufactured out of either Item 1, Item 2, Item 4, Item 10, or Item 11 glazing materials (the various types of glazing are designated as "Items" in Standard 205). Your company's use of acrylic would appear to be acceptable since this type of rigid plastic could have an Item 4 rating, and Item 4 glazing may be used as a wind deflector on the side window of any vehicle.

You should note that all Item 4 glazing must comply with Test No. 2 in ANS Z26, which requires the material to have a light transmittance of not less

than 70 percent. Your letter noted that one version of your Ventvisor is not tinted, while another version is tinted so that it has 47.5 percent light transmittance. This tinted version of the Ventvisor would appear to not comply with the light transmi ttance requirements of Standard No. 205. The standard also sets forth additional performance requirements for Item 4 glazing, as well as marking requirements for the glazing. If your company determines that the Ventvisor complies with the requirements o f Standard No. 205, it may certify each Ventvisor in accordance with the provisions of S6 of Standard No. 205.

Section 108(a)(1)(A) of the Safety Act provides that no person shall "manufacture for sale, sell, offer for sale, or introduce or deliver for introduction in interstate commerce, or import into the United States" any item of new motor vehicle equipment u nless the equipment complies with all applicable safety standards and is so certified by its manufacturer. It would be a violation of this section of Federal law for any person to manufacture or sell the Ventvisor or any other glass or plastic wind defl ector to be mounted on front side windows, unless those products comply with all requirements of Standard No. 205. Federal law provides for a civil penalty of up to $1,000 for each such violation.

Manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment, such as the Ventvisor, also have responsibilities under the Safety Act for any defects related to motor vehicle safety that are determined to exist in their products. The Safety Act requires such manufacturers t o notify purchasers about any defects related to motor vehicle safety and to remedy such defects free of charge.

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

ID: nht73-2.10

DATE: 09/25/73

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Lawrence R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: Sebring Vanguard Inc.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: We have received your letter of September 7, 1973, to Mr. Vinson with its enclosures and appreciate your providing them.

In your "memo" on purchase orders you state that Sebring Vanguard "has decided that our vehicles are multi-purpose vehicles." The Vanguard, however, is not for purposes of the safety standards a multipurpose passenger vehicle, defined as "a motor vehicle with motive power, except a trailer, designed to carry 10 persons or less which is constructed either on a truck chassis or with special features for occasional off-road operation." (In a recent notice, copy enclosed, we have proposed a change in this definition that would make it more restrictive.)

The Vanguard as we understand it is a "passenger car", defined as a vehicle designed for carrying 10 passengers or less, other than a multipurpose passenger vehicle, motorcycle, or trailer. Vehicle design, rather than actual usage, is the definitional determinant, and the fact that some purchasers of a Vanguard may use it off-road or as a replacement for MPV's does not change its category.

ENC.

SEBRING VANGUARD INC.

September 7, 1973

Taylor Vinson, Attorney NHTSA

In our continuing effort to keep N.H.T.S.A. informed of our development program concerning the VANGUARD line of electric vehicles, enclosed please find some new data.

You will note our initial vehicle, the CitiCar, does not resemble the fifty VANGUARD Sport Coupes that have been merrily humming around the nation. We will shortly petition the N.H.T.S.A. for an amendment to standards 204, 206 and 208. As I mentioned on the phone today, we also intend to petition for the commencement of the writing of new standards more appropriate for light-weight vehicles in connection with structural strength and crush distance.

You and your associates are cordially invited to our display at the National Transportation Defense Associations Conference at the Washington Hilton starting Sunday, 23 September through Noon of the 26th. We will be happy to provide you with additional new information at that time.

Sincerely, Robert G. Beaumont President

Encls.

(Graphics omitted)

September 7, 1973

TO: Taylor Vinson

FROM: Robert G. Beaumont

SUBJECT: Copies of Purchase Orders enclosed in the letter of 9/7/73

After careful determination our company has decided that our vehicles are multi-purpose vehicles.

Hawaiian Electric Co. . . This vehicle is used at the Waiau Guard House for security in and around the penal institution's site.

Smithtown High School . . . These two vehicles will be used strictly off-road by security guards for patrol at the two high school complexes.

Post Office Dept. . . . Information concerning this bid has come to us that indicates for a varity of reasons that we will be awarded it. Specific usage of these vehicles will be postal security both on-the-road and off-road, inside the Jersey City complex and outside the complex.

Department of Commerce . . . (see attached letter from Test and Evaluation) This is a reorder, clearly specified on the Purchase Order "special purpose." As the letter indicates, it is replacing a jeep which is a multi-purpose vehicle.

Modern Metal Magazine, August 1973. Please read exciting article on electric cars.

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National (Illegible Word) and Atmospheric Administration

August 14, 1971

Robert C. Beaumont -- Vanguard Vehicles, Inc.

Dear Mr. Beaumont:

Here's the answer to your question on vehicle replacement:

The Vanguard electric car we purchased last December has been used in place of a jeep (4 wheel drive, 4 cylinder, (Illegible Words) He returned the jeep to our vehicle group with the recommendation it be junked.

The other two Vanguards we expect to get this month will replace (Illegible Words) from the General Services Administration. One is a Ford (Illegible Words) other is a Ford station wagon which will be (Illegible Words) special project requiring many trips on high speed highways.

I know you're aware that I can't publicly endorse a product by (Illegible Word). I can say however with no problem that your vehicle meets our requirements better than any we have found so far. For the many short trips our 35 people make around our (Illegible Words) have tried pick-up trucks, (Illegible Words) bicycles, in addition to jeeps, vans and station wagons. (Illegible Words) has come so close to meeting our need (Illegible Words) (Illegible Lines)

ID: 2634y

Mr. Reese Chappell
Engineer
Auto Ventshade Company
3571 Broad Street
Chamblee, Georgia 30341

Dear Mr. Chappell:

Thank you for your letter asking how Federal regulations would apply to a product called a "Ventvisor" manufactured by your company. You enclosed a brochure that included pictures of the Ventvisor. Described as a rain deflector, the Ventvisor appears to be a strip of molded tinted glazing material several inches wide that is secured on the window frame and running from the front around the top of side windows on motor vehicles. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain how the requirements of this agency apply to this product.

Some background information about the agency may be useful. NHTSA has the authority under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA, however, does not approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, nor do we endorse any commercial products. Instead, the Act establishes a "self-certification" process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet our safety standards. The agency periodically tests vehicles and equipment items for compliance with the standards, and also investigates other alleged safety-related defects. I have enclosed an information sheet that briefly describes manufacturers' responsibilities under the Safety Act and how to obtain copies of this agency's standards and regulations.

Your company's product is described as made of "acrylic" and would appear to overlap a portion of the side windows of motor vehicles that are "requisite for driving visibility." Accordingly, this product would be a glazing material for use in motor vehicles and would be subject to the requirements of Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials (49 CFR 571.205). Standard No. 205 specifies performance requirements for various types of glazing and also the locations in vehicles in which each type of glazing may be used. The standard also incorporates by reference "ANS Z26," the American National Standards Institute's Safety Code for Safety Glazing Materials for Glazing Motor Vehicles Operating on Land Highways. Standard No. 205 permits devices such as your company's Ventvisor to be manufactured out of either Item 1, Item 2, Item 4, Item 10, or Item 11 glazing materials (the various types of glazing are designated as "Items" in Standard 205). Your company's use of acrylic would appear to be acceptable since this type of rigid plastic could have an Item 4 rating, and Item 4 glazing may be used as a wind deflector on the side window of any vehicle.

You should note that all Item 4 glazing must comply with Test No. 2 in ANS Z26, which requires the material to have a light transmittance of not less than 70 percent. Your letter noted that one version of your Ventvisor is not tinted, while another version is tinted so that it has 47.5 percent light transmittance. This tinted version of the Ventvisor would appear to not comply with the light transmittance requirements of Standard No. 205. The standard also sets forth additional performance requirements for Item 4 glazing, as well as marking requirements for the glazing. If your company determines that the Ventvisor complies with the requirements of Standard No. 205, it may certify each Ventvisor in accordance with the provisions of S6 of Standard No. 205.

Section 108(a)(1)(A) of the Safety Act provides that no person shall "manufacture for sale, sell, offer for sale, or introduce or deliver for introduction in interstate commerce, or import into the United States" any item of new motor vehicle equipment unless the equipment complies with all applicable safety standards and is so certified by its manufacturer. It would be a violation of this section of Federal law for any person to manufacture or sell the Ventvisor or any other glass or plastic wind deflector to be mounted on front side windows, unless those products comply with all requirements of Standard No. 205. Federal law provides for a civil penalty of up to $1,000 for each such violation.

Manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment, such as the Ventvisor, also have responsibilities under the Safety Act for any defects related to motor vehicle safety that are determined to exist in their products. The Safety Act requires such manufacturers to notify purchasers about any defects related to motor vehicle safety and to remedy such defects free of charge.

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

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel /ref:205#VSA d:8/2/90

ID: 2863o

Jay D. Starling, Manager
Strategic Business Development
ARCO Solar, Inc.
4650 Adohr Lane
P. O. Box 6032
Camarillo, CA 93010

Dear Mr. Starling:

I am writing in response to your letter that requested the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's (NHTSA) interpretation as to whether the ARCO Solar "G-33 Charge Saver" is an item of "motor vehicle equipment", as defined in Section 102(4) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966. I regret the delay in responding to your inquiry.

The product literature you enclosed with your letter describes the "G-33 Charge Saver" as a "12 Volt car battery maintenance system, designed to overcome natural battery self-discharge and drain from constant electrical loads...It is operated by simply placing it in sunlight on the dashboard and plugging it into the car lighter whenever the vehicle is parked." It also claims that the "G-33 Charge Saver" can help to: "Extend Battery Life Prevent Dead Batteries Provide Quick Starts."

Section 102(4) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act defines, in 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......(Emphasis added.)

In determining whether an item of equipment is considered an "accessory" the agency has looked at the following two factors: first, whether the item has no ostensible purpose other than use with a motor vehicle and second, whether it is intended to be used principally by ordinary users of motor vehicles.

From the product literature provided, the ARCO Solar "G-33 Charge Saver" is advertised for use with a motor vehicle and appears to be marketed for the ordinary user of motor vehicles, with emphasis on the ease of installation of the charge saver. We would therefore consider your solar powered battery charger to be a vehicle accessory and thus an item of motor vehicle equipment covered by the Vehicle Safety Act.

If the ARCO Solar "G-33 Charge Saver" will be installed in new or used vehicles by a commercial business, Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act could affect your product. That section of the Act requires manufacturers, distributors, dealers and motor vehicle repair businesses to ensure that they do not knowingly render inoperative any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle in compliance with an applicable Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS). These businesses could sell your product, but could not install it if the installation would adversely affect the vehicle's compliance with any FMVSS. In the first instance, it would be the responsibility of these entities to determine whether there is any possibility of such an effect.

The prohibitions of Section 108(a)(2)(A) do not apply to the actions of a vehicle owner in adding to or otherwise modifying his or her vehicle. Thus, a vehicle owner would not violate the Act by installing the ARCO Solar "G-33 Charge Saver" even if doing so would adversely affect some safety feature in his or her vehicle.

The Act also requires the recall and remedy of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment determined to contain a defect related to motor vehicle safety. If you or NHTSA determine that the ARCO Solar "G-33 Charge Saver" contains such a defect, you must recall and repair or replace the item without charge to the purchaser.

I am enclosing a copy of the Act, and an information sheet describing how you can obtain copies of our motor vehicle safety standards and any other NHTSA regulation. If you have any further questions, please let me know.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

ref:VSA#102 d:6/30/88

ID: nht92-9.2

DATE: February 18, 1992

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Stephen C. Bartch -- Applications Engineer, Quigley Motor Company, Inc.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 1/7/92 from Stephen C. Bartch to Office of Chief Council, NHTSA

TEXT:

This responds to your letter concerning Safety Standard No. 301, Fuel System Integrity. You stated that you propose to convert certain 1992 Ford vans to your 4x4 drive system; however, the fuel tank in the vans interferes with the transfer case placement. You therefore plan to either replace the OEM tank with a smaller one that has identical attachments or modify the OEM tank to eliminate the interference. You requested that we summarize your responsibilities regarding Standard No. 301.

I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our regulations to you. Some background information on Federal motor vehicle safety laws and regulations may be helpful. Our agency is authorized, under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. S1381 et seq., Safety Act), to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA, however, does not approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, nor do we endorse any commercial products. Instead, the Safety Act establishes a "self-certification" process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meets all applicable safety standards.

Under NHTSA's certification regulation (49 CFR Part 567), an alterer is a person who alters previously certified vehicles by means other than the addition, substitution, or removal of readily attachable components, or minor finishing operations, or in such a manner that the vehicle's stated weight ratings are no longer valid, before the first purchase of the vehicle in good faith for purposes other than resale. The operations you propose to conduct on 1992 Ford vans would make you an alterer, and the operations would affect the compliance of the vehicles with Standard No. 301.

An alterer is required to certify that every vehicle it alters continues to comply with all applicable safety standards affected by the alteration. See 49 CFR Part 567.7. Alterers make this certification by affixing a permanent label on the altered vehicle, which identifies the alterer, the date of alteration, and states that, as altered, the vehicle continues to comply with all applicable safety standards.

Alterers must have some independent basis for their certification that an altered vehicle continues to comply with all applicable safety standards. This does not necessarily mean that an alterer must conduct crash testing, even with respect to standards, such as Standard No. 301, that specify dynamic test requirements. Certifications of continuing compliance for altered vehicles may be based on, among other things, engineering analyses, computer simulations, actual testing, or instructions for alteration voluntarily provided by the original vehicle manufacturer in a "body

builder's guide."

I have enclosed a pamphlet which provides additional information concerning relevant Federal statutes and this agency's standards and regulations affecting motor vehicle and motor vehicle equipment manufacturers. If you have any further questions, please feel free to call Edward Glancy of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Attachments

NHTSA information sheet, dated September, 1985, entitled: Information for New Manufacturers of Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Equipment.

NHTSA information sheet, dated September, 1985, entitled: Where to Obtain Motor Vehicle Safety Standards and Regulations.

(Text of attachments omitted)

ID: nht79-2.26

DATE: 12/07/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Mack Trucks, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

December 7, 1979

Mr. Thomas F. Brown Executive Engineer Mack Trucks, Inc. P.O. Box 1761 Allentown, Pennyslvania 18105

Dear Mr. Brown:

I apologize for the delay in responding to your letter of June 26, 1979, questioning an opinion contained in our December 12, 1978, letter to you regarding the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 120. Our letter stated that your company should stamp the words "not applicable", or words of similar import, in any spaces on your certification label which are for axles not present on the vehicle to which the label is affixed. You responded that the blank spaces on the label would not be confusing, and that the likelihood of a discrepancy between the vehicle and the label is very remote.

Our letter did not address the question of the wrong label accidentally being affixed to a vehicle. Such an occurrence would mean that the vehicle would not comply with the requirements of Standard No. 120, and it could not legally be sold in the United States. Hence, any questions about a discrepancy between the information appearing on the label and the vehicle are beyond the scope of this reply.

S5.3 of Standard No. 120 requires that the labeling information specified in S5.3.1 - S5.3.3 appear in the format shown in the truck example following S5.3. As explained in the December 12 letter, minor variations on what is set forth in the truck example are permitted, but only if those minor variations do not change or obscure the meaning of the label. Minor variations consist of slight differences in punctuation or a substitution of words for a punctuation mark. The purpose of the labeling requirement is to clearly convey to the user of the vehicle the information specified in Standard No. 120.

Leaving blank spaces for axles which do not exist on the particular vehicle being labeled does not, upon reconsideration, change or obscure the meaning of the label. Nor is it reasonable to assume that blank spaces will confuse the average reader of the label, when those blank spaces correspond to axles not present on the vehicle. Therefore, I am hereby withdrawing the statement in our previous letter that Mack Trucks should stamp "not applicable" or words of similar import on certification labels for axles not present on the vehicle being labeled. It would be more accurate, however, to insert these words and it would be a simple matter to do so at the same time the other variable information is applied to the label form.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

June 26, 1979

Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration U.S. Department of Transportation 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Sir:

Subject: Vehicle Certification Label/FMVSS 120 Ref: NOA-30

On January 5, 1979, we sent the attached letter to Mr. Joseph J. Levin, Jr., who was Chief Counsel at that time. As of this date, we have not received a reply to this letter.

The letter concerns the blank spaces present in the FMVSS 120 portion of our Vehicle Certification Label which Mr. Levin felt were confusing. We do not feel that they could be confusing.

Please review both Mr. Levin's attached letter and our response to his letter and advise us of your findings.

Very truly yours,

MACK TRUCKS, INC.

Thomas F. Brown Executive Engineer- Vehicle Regulations and Standards vy Attach.

January 5, 1979

Mr. Joseph J. Levin, Jr., Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration U.S. Department of Transportation 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Mr. Levin:

SUBJECT: Vehicle Certification Label Ref: NOA-30

In your letter of December 12, 1978, you noted the following:

"The label enclosed with your letter shows spaces to provide information for the front, rear, and three intermediate axles. When this label is used on vehicles with fewer than five axles, you should stamp 'Not applicable', or words of similar import, in the spaces provided for axles which do not exist on the particular vehicle which is being labelled. Without this indication, the label could be confusing and so would fail to clearly provide the required information for that vehicle. An indication of nonapplicability would alert the reader to that fact."

Mack Trucks, Inc. does not understand how one (1) to three (3) blank axle/tire/rim spaces could be confusing since the label is affixed to the vehicle. If, for some reason, the number of axles on the vehicle does not agree with the number represented on the label, obviously, something is wrong. Whether there are "blank spaces" or "not applicable spaces" is of little consequence. The likelihood of a discrepancy between the label and the vehicle is very remote.

Please note the GAWR requirement on the label was effective January 1, 1972. We have used the "FRONT, 1ST INT., 2ND INT., 3RD INIT., REAR AXLE" format with blank spaces since that date (7 years). We are not aware of any problems associated with this format.

Therefore, we would appreciate an explanation of how blank spaces could be confusing under the outlined circumstances.

Very truly yours,

MACK TRUCKS, INC.

T. P. Brown Executive Engineer- Vehicle Regulations and Standards

vy

bcc: Messrs. L. F. Donnelly S. Robson C. D. Trexler

ID: 7008

Mr. S. Watanabe
Manager, Automotive Equipment Legal
& Homologation Sect.
Stanley Electric Co. Ltd.
2-9-13, Meguro-ku
Tokyo 153, Japan

Dear Mr. Watanabe:

This responds to your letter of February 6, l992, to the Administrator, requesting an interpretation of section S7.2(b) of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

Section S7.2(b) requires that headlamp lenses be marked "with the name and/or trademark of the manufacturer, which is registered with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office." Stanley Electric Co., Ltd. of Japan has subsidiaries in Thailand and Taiwan. Each subsidiary uses three manufacturer identification marks, and you have asked whether each subsidiary may use one of the marks as a manufacturer identification under S7.2(b).

You also relate that application has been made to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office with respect to one of those identification marks. Certainly, once registration has been completed, Stanley of Thailand and Stanley of Taiwan may use the registered mark and this will be in compliance with Standard No. 108. Stanley has not registered the other two identification marks (TH STANLEY or TW STANLEY, and STANLEY TH or STANLEY TW) because it has concluded that these are not trademarks but the manufacturer's name.

We agree with your suggestion that the identification marks TH STANLEY, TW STANLEY, STANLEY TH, and STANLEY TW are just the manufacturer's name, not a trademark. Section S7.2(b) of Standard No. 108 does not specify any particular form in which the manufacturer's name must appear on the lens, nor does that section require the manufacturer's name to be registered with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. Therefore, there would be no violation of S7.2(b) if your Thai and Taiwanese subsidiaries mark the lenses of their headlamps with the identification marks identified in your correspondence as manufacturer names.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

ref:108 d:3/12/92