ID: nht91-1.15

DATE: January 8, 1991

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Oliver M. Sprangers -- A. T. Kearney, Inc.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 8-20-90 from Harry B. Skinner to Olivier M. Sprangers (OCC 5444); Also attached to letter dated 6-27-90 from Olivier M. Sprangers to James T. Brooks

TEXT:

This responds to your letter to Mr. James Travis Brooks of the Federal Highway Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation. Because you had questions about one of this agency's regulations, I have been asked to respond to your letter.

Your letter concerns a product that was developed by your client. Although no description of the product was provided, you state that it was manufactured so that it "fits within" 49 CFR S571.125 Warning devices. Your first question asked for advice on any approval process or other procedures that must be followed before your client's product may be sold in the United States. As will be more fully explained below, this agency cannot "approve" your client's product.

Some background information on U. S. requirements in this area may be helpful. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.; the Safety Act) gives this agency the authority to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. We have exercised this authority to establish Standard No. 125, Warning Devices (49 CFR S571.125; copy enclosed). When the agency has issued an applicable safety standard, section 108(a)(1)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(1)(A)) 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 new motor vehicle or new item of motor vehicle equipment unless the vehicles or equipment are in conformity with the applicable standard. NHTSA has no authority under the Safety Act to approve, certify, or otherwise endorse any commercial product. Instead, section 114 of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1403) establishes a self-certification process under which every manufacturer is required to certify that each of its products meet all applicable Federal safety standards. Therefore, your client, the manufacturer of the product, must certify that it conforms to Standard No. 125.

Section 108(b)(2) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(b)(2)) requires the manufacturer of the warning device to exercise "due care" in certifying that it conforms to Standard No. 125. To comply with these legal obligations, I suggest that you carefully examine the requirements of Standard No. 125 and determine if your client's product conforms with those requirements. As you will see, Standard No. 125 contains specific requirements related to a warning device's material, container, labeling, configuration, color, reflectivity, luminance, stability, and durability.

You should be aware that the Vehicle Safety Act establishes a civil penalty of $1,000 for each violation of a safety standard and a maximum penalty of $800,000 for a series of violations. In addition, the Act requires manufacturers to remedy their products if they fail to comply with any applicable safety standards.

Regarding other procedures that must be followed before your client's product may be sold in the United States, 49 CFR Part 566, Manufacturer Identification (a copy of which is enclosed) requires manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment to which a motor vehicle safety standard applies to submit to this agency identifying information and a description of the items they produce.

You next ask about the term "collapsible" in Standard No. 125. You state that, unlike the product offered by many manufacturers that fold into a long thin package, your client's product only folds to the extent that the support for the triangle may be turned and brought into the same flat surface as the triangle. Since this would result in a flat, triangular thin package, you ask whether this storage configuration would still be within the meaning of the term "collapsible."

Although the term "collapsibility" is used in S5.2.1(b) of Standard No. 125, the requirements for storing warning devices are set forth at S5.1.2. If your product complies with the requirements of S5.1.2, it is not required to meet any additional requirements to be "collapsible" for the purposes of Standard No. 125.

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

ID: 23092.ztv

Mr. Bing Kam
6902 Midhurst
Memphis, TN 38119





Dear Mr. Kam:

This is in reply to your letter of May 7, 2001, "seeking approval of pending patent title 'Automatic Warning Signal System for Vehicles,'" as supplemented by your letter of June 28, 2001. We have no authority to approve or disapprove items of motor vehicle equipment such as your invention. We can, however, advise you as to the legality of your patented system under the laws that we administer.

Your automatic warning signal system (the System) is intended to reduce rear end collisions by providing an early warning signal to following drivers. According to the Abstract of your patent (US 6,225,918 BI, May 1, 2001), the System produces "a warning signal which includes activating the brake light or lights of the leading vehicle without the actual application of the brakes to caution the driver of the following vehicle."

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment, and 49 U.S.C. 30122 are the Federal laws and regulations that are determinative of the legality of the System. A motor vehicle must be manufactured to comply with Standard No. 108. Paragraph S5.5.4 of Standard No. 108 requires the stop lamps to be activated upon application of the service brakes. We view this requirement as meaning that stop lamps can only be activated in this manner. Because the System activates the stop lamps without the brakes being applied, or downshifting, or retarders, it would not be legal for the System to be used as original equipment on motor vehicles. The System is also subject to the restrictions of S5.1.3 of Standard No. 108. This paragraph prohibits the installation of accessory equipment that impairs the effectiveness of lighting equipment required by Standard No. 108. We regard activation of the stop lamps without commensurate braking as impairing the effectiveness of the stop lamps because this activations does not indicates an intent to slow or stop the vehicle which is the purpose of the stop lamps.

Because the System is not legal as original equipment, there are Federal restrictions on it in the aftermarket as well. Installation of the System on a vehicle would create a noncompliance with Standard No. 108, specifically S5.1.3 and S5.5.4. Section 30122 prohibits manufacturers, dealers, distributors, and motor vehicle repair businesses from "making inoperative" equipment such as stop lamps that are installed on a vehicle pursuant to a Federal motor vehicle safety standard. However, this prohibition does not extend to acts by the vehicle owner. Nevertheless, after reviewing your patent, we believe that a purchaser of the System would require the technical services of a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business to install the System. Even if a vehicle owner installs the System, the legality of its use must be determined under the laws of each state in which the vehicle is registered and used. We are unable to provide you with advice on state laws.

We receive numerous letters from inventors such as yourself who seek to improve traffic safety, and we appreciate your concern. Most of these ideas have an appealing intuitive basis but are not supported with data demonstrating their efficacy. I am enclosing copies of a statement we published on November 4, 1998 (63 FR 59482), discussing the agency's policy regarding evaluation of new signal lighting ideas with the thought that it may be of interest to you.

Sincerely,

John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosure
ref:108
d.7/6/01

ID: nht93-9.19

DATE: December 17, 1993

FROM: Tim Adamson -- PITT Power Systems

TO: Wm. J. (Bill) Lee -- Representative, Georgia House of Representatives

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 2/8/94 from John Womack to Sam Nunn (A42; Part 571.7), letter dated 1/11/94 from Sam Nunn to Jackie Lowey, and letter dated 12/22/93 from Bill Lee to Sam Nunn

TEXT:

The enclosed literature is some of the notes covering the Military vehicles I spoke to you about at Kiwanis the other night. They are the AM General HMMWV M998's.

The Military sold a few of these and then suddenly put all sales of these vehicles on hold. We Don't Know Why. Certain Military vehicles are sold in good condition, but with the contract provisions that they be scraped before being removed from the Base. One of these vehicles was the M151 jeep. The reason stated for the sale of M151 jeeps to be scraped was they supposedly did not meet Federal Safety regulations and would turn over. Tens of thousands of these jeeps have been sold for nearly nothing per vehicle ($5.00 to $25.00 each) simply because none of the parts were usable on anything else. This has been a tremendous waste of good vehicles that could have been sold for considerably more ($1,000.00 to $1,500.00 each) if they were allowed to be removed from the Base in usable condition.

I am trying to prevent this tremendous waste from happening to the Hum V series. These trucks in anything close to one piece will bring on a sale from $3,500.00 to $12,000.00 each. The sale of these vehicles in usable condition will not only help reduce the Federal Deficit but increase profits by any number of Military truck dealers around the country which will generate the Federal Government more money through income tax, the State more money from sales tax of the complete vehicle and related parts to supply them. It will provide jobs such as mechanics, painters and truckers for the rebuilding and transportation of these vehicles for the end user and the snowball effect of helping the economy.

The bottom line is this vehicle was built especially for the U.S. Military, but is being sold to the civilian market by the manufacturer. It has no safety problems and as stated in one of the articles enclosed - is a vehicle that is built to withstand any type of terrain without handling problems. In other words its no different selling a M1000 series Chevrolet pickup or a Hummer. They are both offered to the civilian market as a pickup by the manufacturer.

The U.S. Department of Transportation claims these vehicles are "unsafe." This cannot possibly be true because anyone with common sense would know the manufacturer is not going to make an entirely different vehicle for the civilian market. The only difference is the electrical system which is 24 volts for the Military and probably 12 for the civilian market. The voltage in the electrical system makes no difference from a safety standpoint.

Apparently quite a few other people are complaining to the Defense Reutilization Market Service in Memphis about this claim. Most likely what has happened is someone at AM General has paid off someone in the U.S. Department of Transportation to declare these vehicles unsafe with the anticipation of selling new ones to the civilian market. The retail price for one of these vehicles is approximately $60,000.00. Anyone who would pay $60,000.00 for one of these vehicles certainly would not buy one from a surplus equipment dealer.

This is the U.S. Government wasting millions of dollars worth of Military trucks just so one corporation can sell a few new vehicles to a select high end clientele. This is unfair to the American Taxpayer and something should be done about it.

The U.S. Government agency responsible for selling Military surplus is the DRMO in Memphis, TN. They can be reached at 1-800-222-3676 or 1-901-775-6821. The person I spoke with name was Evelyn Jones. She is a contracting officer, but someone else may be able to talk to you.

Please contact Senator Nunn with this information to see if he would be willing to help us get the Military to take these vehicles off hold and release them for sale.

Please feel free to contact me at anytime at the numbers above or at my home number (404) 473-0354.

ID: nht89-3.9

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 10/06/89

FROM: STEPHEN P. WOOD -- ACTING CHIEF COUNSEL NHTSA

TO: JOHN E. HAMMER -- JOHN E. HAMMER & ASSOCIATES

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 6/15/89 FROM JOHN HAMMER OF JOHN E. HAMMER AND ASSOCIATES TO KATHLEEN C. DEMETER; OCC 3626

TEXT: Dear Mr. Hammer:

This responds to your inquiry about the attachment of a rigid hood ornament onto a motor vehicle. You explained that you were developing an aftermarket kit to help prevent the theft of such hood ornaments. You asked about the legalities of an individua l owner using such a kit to attach a hood ornament. As explained below, while the agency does not regulate the actions of an individual vehicle owner, you as the manufacturer will have responsibilities under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act ("Vehicle Safety Act").

A replacement hood ornament kit would be considered "motor vehicle equipment" under section 102(4) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Vehicle Safety Act). That section defines, in relevant part, the term "motor vehicle equipment" as:

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

The Safety Act gives this agency the authority to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. Although NHTSA has issued motor vehicle safety standards for certain types of motor vehicle equipment, the re is no standard directly applicable to hood ornaments. Thus, the manufacture and sale of the aftermarket product to a vehicle owner for use with his or her vehicle would not be affected by the requirements of any Federal motor vehicle safety standard.

Although no standard directly applies to a hood ornament, there are several statutory provisions of which you should be aware. First, @ 108(a)(2)(A) of the Vehicle Safety Act states that:

No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall 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 appli cable Federal motor vehicle safety standard . . .

If using the hood ornament would adversely affect compliance with a safety standard, then a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair business installing this product would "render inoperative" a design element in compliance with a Federal motor vehic le safety standard. The person who committed such an act would have violated @ 108(a)(2)(A), and would be subject to a civil penalty of up to $ 1000 for each @ 108 violation where a design element was "rendered inoperative." However, the provisions of 1 08(a)(2)(A) do not apply to the actions of a vehicle owner in adding or otherwise modifying his or her vehicle. Thus, a vehicle owner would not violate the Act by using the hood ornament kit even if doing so would adversely affect some safety feature in his or her vehicle or equipment.

Second, you will be a motor vehicle equipment manufacturer if you offer this product for sale. As a manufacturer, you will be subject to the requirements of @@ 151-159 of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1411-1419), concerning the recall and remedy of products with defects related to motor vehicle safety. Section 102(11) of the Vehicle Safety Act defines "defect" as "any defect in performance, construction, components, or materials in motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment." (emphasis added). Section 102 (1) defines "motor vehicle safety" as "the performance of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment in such a manner that the public is protected against unreasonable risk of accidents occurring as a result of design, construction or performance of motor vehicles . . ." (emphasis added).

If you or the agency determined that the product had a defect related to motor vehicle safety, you would have to notify all product purchasers of the defect, and either:

1. repair the product so that the defect is removed; or

2. replace the product with an identical or reasonably equivalent product that does not have the defect.

The manufacturer would have to bear the full expense of the notice-and-recall campaign, irrespective of the option chosen, for any owner who purchased the product less than eight years before the notice-and-recall campaign.

The agency does not determine the existence of safety-related defects, except in the context of a defect proceeding. I note that hood ornaments typically are constructed to yield to pressure so as to reduce the risk of injuries to pedestrians. Therefor e, it is possible that a rigid, non-yielding ornament might be considered a safety related defect if the rigid design were determined to pose an unreasonable safety risk.

I hope you find this information helpful.

Sincerely,

ID: 2073y

Mr. John E. Hammer
John E. Hammer & Associates
235 W. Hamilton Lane
Battle Creek, MI 49015

Dear Mr. Hammer:

This responds to your inquiry about the attachment of a rigid hood ornament onto a motor vehicle. You explained that you were developing an aftermarket kit to help prevent the theft of such hood ornaments. You asked about the legalities of an individual owner using such a kit to attach a hood ornament. As explained below, while the agency does not regulate the actions of an individual vehicle owner, you as the manufacturer will have responsibilities under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act ("Vehicle Safety Act").

A replacement hood ornament kit would be considered "motor vehicle equipment" under section 102(4) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Vehicle Safety Act). That section defines, in relevant part, the term "motor vehicle equipment" as:

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

The Safety Act gives this agency the authority to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. Although NHTSA has issued motor vehicle safety standards for certain types of motor vehicle equipment, there is no standard directly applicable to hood ornaments. Thus, the manufacture and sale of the aftermarket product to a vehicle owner for use with his or her vehicle would not be affected by the requirements of any Federal motor vehicle safety standard.

Although no standard directly applies to a hood ornament, there are several statutory provisions of which you should be aware. First, /108(a)(2)(A) of the Vehicle Safety Act states that: No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall 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...

If using the hood ornament would adversely affect compliance with a safety standard, then a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair business installing this product would "render inoperative" a design element in compliance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard. The person who committed such an act would have violated /108(a)(2)(A), and would be subject to a civil penalty of up to $1000 for each /108 violation where a design element was "rendered inoperative." However, the provisions of 108(a)(2)(A) do not apply to the actions of a vehicle owner in adding or otherwise modifying his or her vehicle. Thus, a vehicle owner would not violate the Act by using the hood ornament kit even if doing so would adversely affect some safety feature in his or her vehicle or equipment.

Second, you will be a motor vehicle equipment manufacturer if you offer this product for sale. As a manufacturer, you will be subject to the requirements of //151-159 of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1411-1419), concerning the recall and remedy of products with defects related to motor vehicle safety. Section 102(11) of the Vehicle Safety Act defines "defect" as "any defect in performance, construction, components, or materials in motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment." (emphasis added). Section 102(1) defines "motor vehicle safety" as "the performance of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment in such a manner that the public is protected against unreasonable risk of accidents occurring as a result of design, construction or performance of motor vehicles..." (emphasis added).

If you or the agency determined that the product had a defect related to motor vehicle safety, you would have to notify all product purchasers of the defect, and either:

1. repair the product so that the defect is removed; or

2. replace the product with an identical or reasonably equivalent product that does not have the defect.

The manufacturer would have to bear the full expense of the notice-and-recall campaign, irrespective of the option chosen, for any owner who purchased the product less than eight years before the notice-and-recall campaign.

The agency does not determine the existence of safety-related defects, except in the context of a defect proceeding. I note that hood ornaments typically are constructed to yield to pressure so as to reduce the risk of injuries to pedestrians. Therefore, it is possible that a rigid, non-yielding ornament might be considered a safety related defect if the rigid design were determined to pose an unreasonable safety risk.

I hope you find this information helpful.

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel

ref:VSA#108(a)(2)(A)#102(4)#102(11) d:l0/6/89

ID: warner.ztv

Mr. Robert J. Warner
Member of Assembly
124th District
State of New York
State Office Building, Floor #17
44 Hawley Street
Binghamton, NY 13901-4416

Dear Assemblyman Warner:

Your letter of August 16, 1996, to the Office of Public & Consumer Affairs of this agency has been forwarded to the Office of Chief Counsel for reply. We are pleased to assist you in your development of a proposal for economical, energy-efficient alternative vehicles.

You mention that an important issue is "whether all four-wheeled vehicles manufactured in this country (excluding trucks, etc.) must comply with the Safety Standards for the 'Passenger Vehicle' category." As a general rule, the answer is yes; all four-wheeled passenger cars manufactured primarily for use on the public streets, roads, and highways must comply with the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS). However, through letters of interpretation, this Office presently excludes from compliance specific on-road vehicles whose configuration is "abnormal" and whose top speed does not exceed 20 mph. The agency has been asked to raise the speed to 25 mph but has taken no action yet on this request.

You also ask whether a vehicle called the Intruder "has been subjected to crash testing and emissions compliance? Is this vehicle actually legal for sale in the United States? Has it been approved by the DOT for sale in this country? If not, how can they claim it is U.S. Legal?"

Under the basic Federal vehicle safety regulatory statute, 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301 - Motor Vehicle Safety, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has no authority to approve a vehicle for sale. The legislation establishes a self-certification scheme under which a manufacturer permanently affixes a label to each motor vehicle upon its manufacture which certifies that the vehicle complies with all applicable FMVSS. No submission of data to NHTSA or prior approval is required. A manufacturer must have a reasonable basis for its certification, but there is no legal requirement that it test according to the procedures set out in the FMVSS. For example, it is not necessary to crash test a vehicle in order to certify compliance with those

FMVSS which specify performance requirements to be met in barrier impacts if the manufacturer has satisfied itself through computer simulations, engineering studies, mathematic calculations, or other bases, that the vehicle would meet the performance requirements were it to be crash tested.

Our legislation establishes no requirements for vehicles constructed from used parts, or a mixture of them. It is possible that the Intruder consists of a new body placed on the chassis of a vehicle previously in use from which its original body has been removed. If this is the case, no certification is required, and a state may establish its own equipment requirements as a condition of registration.

In summary, the manufacturer of the Intruder has been under no obligation to report to us whether it has crash tested its vehicle. The Intruder is legal for sale in the U.S. under Federal law if it is constructed on a used chassis, or, if it is a new vehicle and it bears its manufacturer's certification of compliance with the FMVSS. We have no knowledge of its compliance with emissions requirements as those standards are issued and enforced by the Environmental Protection Agency.

You also asked "Is there an exemption to the safety . . . regulations for small volume 'passenger vehicle' manufacturers? If so, what are the rules for such an exemption?"

NHTSA is authorized by 49 U.S.C. 30113 to exempt, on a temporary basis, a manufacturer whose total yearly production does not exceed 10,000 motor vehicles, from any FMVSS that would cause the manufacturer substantial economic hardship were it required to meet it immediately. The application procedures for such an exemption are contained in 49 CFR 555.5 and 555.6(a). The applicant must not only show hardship but also that it has tried in good faith to meet the standard from which it requests relief..

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

Sincerely,

John Womack

Acting Chief Counsel

ref:555

d:9/13/96

ID: 2812o

Mr. Joseph P. Faia
9703 Lilac Ave.
Garfield Heights, OH 44l25

Dear Mr. Faia:

This is in reply to your recent undated letter regarding a vehicle lighting accessory for trucks and trailers. It appears from your letter and enclosed diagram that the purpose of the device is to illuminate "two dimensional displays" on the side or rear of vehicles. A number of such devices would be required, depending on the size of the display to be illuminated. You have not stated the candlepower of the device. Reference is made to a transparent section through which the light is emitted, and to a "semi-translucent" section which is "tinted and arranged to function as the running lights commonly seen on trailers." The color of the light is not specified, but we shall assume that it is amber or red when emitted through the "semi-translucent" sections, and white when emitted through the transparent sections to illustrate the display.

You have asked four questions with regard to this device. The first question is whether it can be used as a "combination side illumination and marker light." As a general rule, supplementary lighting devices such as yours are permissible as original equipment if they do not impair the effectiveness of lamps, reflective devices, and associated equipment required by Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. l08. They are permissible as aftermarket equipment under Federal law if their installation by a person other than the vehicle owner does not "render inoperative in whole or in part" lighting equipment installed in accordance with Standard No. l08, but their legality is otherwise determined by the laws of the States in which the vehicle is registered and operated. As for whether your device may be used as a combination side illumination and marker light, if you mean as the only side marker lamp, the combination per se is not prohibited by Standard No. l08. However, the side marker lamp in such a combination must comply with photometric, location, color, and other requirements for such lamps, and its effectiveness must not be impaired. One example of impairment would be if the glare from the device's white light masked the conspicuity of the side marker. As a combined device supplementing the required side marker lamp, it is permissible if it does not impair the effectiveness of the required side marker. For purposes of this letter and with respect to Standard No. 108 we equate "impairment of effectiveness" with "partially inoperative."

Your second question is whether it can be used "as a backup light and parking light, to be used only in these situations." It is unclear whether you intend the device to be the backup lamp required by the standard, or one that supplements it. If the former, its use is permissible provided that the backup function meets all requirements of Standard No. l08 that are specified for backup lamps, such as color and photometrics, and provided that the display function does not impair the effectiveness of the backup function. Because the color of light in both functions would be identical, care must be taken to ensure that the backup signal is clearly perceived. If you intend it as a supplementary backup lamp, it is permissible as long as it does not impair the effectiveness of the primary backup lamp. Your term "parking light" is unclear; because front parking lamps are not required on vehicles whose overall width is 80 inches or more, I assume you mean a lamp on the rear of a vehicle that is not a backup lamp but which can be used to indicate that the vehicle is moving slowly while being parked. The device appears permissible as long as it does not impair the effectiveness of the other lighting equipment on the rear.

Your third question is whether the device may be used as a stop lamp, activated only when the brake is applied. Two devices may be used as the original equipment stop lamps, provided all requirements of Standard No. l08 are met and that the display function does not impair the effectiveness of any other lighting equipment. One or more devices could be used as supplementary stop lamps under the same restriction.

Your final question is whether it may be used alone as a display light. The answer is yes, subject to the impairment prohibition. The only specifically prohibited use of the lamp is its combination with a clearance lamp, a configuration which appears depicted by the uppermost lights, front and rear, of your Figures 2 and 3.

I hope that this answers your question.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

ref:VSA:108 d:8/l9/88

ID: nht73-1.46

DATE: 04/26/73

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Young Windows, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of March 27, 1973, requesting information on requirements for marking glazing materials for use in motor vehicles, and whether you must finish cleaning instructions for glazing you manufacture.

Your questions regarding marking requirements are similar to those raised by Mrs. Lewis Cook of your company, in a letter of February 20, 1973. We responded to that letter on April 4, 1973 (a copy is enclosed), and you should have received our response by this time. In that letter we stated that your responsibilities as a manufacturer who cuts glazing materials are to mark that material in conformity with section 6 of ANS Z26.1-1966. We should amplify our response in that letter by stating that if the glazing material as you receive it already contains the required markings, you may use those markings in meeting the requirements.

You indicate your question concerning requirements for cleaning instructions arises from a customer to whom you furnished Rohm and Haas Plexiglas. Paragraph S5.2.1.3 of Standard No. 205 provides that glazing materials designated AS-12 or AS-13 must be labeled (using a label that is removable by hand) with cleaning instructions. If the Rohm and Haas Plexiglas is of either of these glazing designations, it must be so labeled. If it is not, there are no requirements that cleaning instructions be furnished.

Yours truly,

Enclosure

March 27, 1973

Office of Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Sirs:

We at Young Windows, Inc. are in the business of manufacturing custom windows for the transportation industry. Recently a few questions were raised that have sent me seeking the correct answers.

My questions concern certification of certain glazing materials we presently use in our windows. Before I go any farther, let me explain that we do not manufacture windshields for the automotive industry but rather windows for campers earthmoving equipment, marine windows, and some rear windows for the truck industry. Therefore, what type of certification is needed concerning Federal Standard Number 205 of the Safety Code. I have heard a label is needed on the window, a label could be placed on the outside of the box, or a tag,(Illegible Word) that the glass in the windows meets Standard 205. Since our glass comes in stenciled with all necessary markings, would this be sufficient? If not, what would we be required to do to meet and conform to Standard #205?

Another question has been brought to our attention by one of our customers. We recently shipped 360 windows to a manufacturer of food serving and ice cream vending trucks. We supplied the sliding serving window. Per customer request, we supplied the windows using Rohm and Haas Plexiglas. The material was branded with all the necessary marking. Our customer has now come back and ask for cleaning instructions on the Plexiglas. Are we required by any Federal Standard to supply cleaning instructions with these windows?

I would appreciate your kind and prompt reply, as we want to conform to all standards without delay.

Regards,

Yours truly,

YOUNG WINDOWS, INC.

Charles E. Smith,

Purchasing Manager

ID: nht81-3.9

DATE: 08/20/81

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Blue Bird Body Company -- Thomas D. Turner

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

ATTACHMT: 4/26/76 letter from Frank Berndt to W G. Milby

TEXT:

This responds to your July 13, 1981, letter asking whether the joints in your school buses that fall within the rear cargo compartment or rear engine compartment must comply with Standard No. 221, School Bus Body Joint Strength.

Standard No. 221 applies to joints that connect body panels to body components. Body panels are defined to include those components that enclose the bus' occupant space. The agency has stated in the past that those portions of a bus falling below the floor level would not be considered as having a function in enclosing occupant space, and accordingly, joints in those area would not be required to comply with the standard's requirements.

Applying the standard to the joints that you question, appears that they would not be required to comply with the standard. The agency would consider the walls separating the cargo area or the engine from the remainder of the occupant compartment to be a continuation of the bus floor. Accordingly, joints falling behind and below those walls would not be required to comply with the standard. We do note, however, that the joints along the walls themselves must comply with the standard, since the wall panels enclose the occupant space and provide the separation of the engine or cargo area from the occupant space.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

July 13, 1981

SUBJECT: FMVSS 221: 41 F.R. 3872, 1-27-76

REFERENCE: 1. Letter Frank Bernett to W.G. Milby dated 4-26-76; N40-30

Dear Mr. Berndt, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 221 School Bus Body Joint Strength covers body panel joints for body panels that enclose the bus occupant space. NHTSA has issued interpretations, see reference, that state components that are not considered to have a function in enclosing the occupant space (Example "...located entirely below the level of floor line...") are not considered a body component and are not subject to the standard.

The enclosed drawing 1034917 illustrates the configurations of a rear center luggage compartment and a rear engine "Pusher" bus. The cross-hatched areas of these cross-sectional views are the occupant space and body panels enclosing this occupant space are covered by the standard.

It is our interpretation that components located entirely within the shaded areas of the drawing, below the floor and below and/or to the rear of the walls between the occupant space and the compartments shown, do not enclose the occupant space, are not considered body components, and are not subject to the standard. Using this interpretation components such as trim panels inside the luggage compartment and panels forming the inner and outer skin of the body that are "located entirely" in the shaded area would not have to meet the joint strength requirements of FMVSS 221.

We feel that this interpretation conforms to the letter of the standard and subsequent interpretations and further conforms to the intent of the standard. We therefore request your early consideration of this matter and confirmation that our interpretation is correct.

Very truly yours,

Thomas D. Turner Manager, Engineering Services

slt

Enclosure

[April 26, 1976 letter from Frank Berndt to W. G. Milby omitted here]

ID: 7402

Mr. Jeffrey Puentes, President
Sacramento Registration Service
11684 Ventura Blvd., Suite 271
Studio City, CA 91604

Dear Mr. Puentes:

This responds to your request for information on laws and regulations administered by this agency that would apply to motorcycle frames, a product that your client wishes to manufacture and sell. Since motorcycle frames would constitute "motor vehicle equipment," the product would be subject to NHTSA's jurisdiction as follows.

Your letter stated that your client intends the frames to be sold to the "retail public" and to be used to replace frames of damaged Harley Davidson motorcycles. In a telephone conversation with Dorothy Nakama of my staff, you stated that your client is a domestic manufacturer, and the term "serial number" in your letter meant vehicle identification numbers (VINs), as specified by this agency.

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Safety Act) authorizes this agency to regulate "motor vehicles" and items of "motor vehicle equipment." Section 102(4) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1391(4)) defines "motor vehicle equipment," in part, 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 ...

In your letter, you stated that your client intends its motorcycle frames to be used to replace frames in damaged motorcycles. Thus, the motorcycle frames would be "motor vehicle equipment" since they are "similar parts" that will be "sold for replacement" of a part.

If your client's motorcycle frames should be installed into a motorcycle by a commercial business, Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act could affect such installations. 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 or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS).

The above-named businesses could sell the motorcycle frames but could not install them if the installation would adversely affect a motorcycle's compliance with any of the applicable FMVSS's. 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 motorcycle. Thus, a motorcycle owner would not violate the Safety Act by replacing the motorcycle frame, even if doing so would adversely affect some safety feature in his or her motorcycle.

Manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment such as motorcycle frames are also subject to the requirements in sections 151- 159 of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1411-1419) concerning the recall and remedy of products with defects related to motor vehicle safety. The Safety Act specifies that if either your client's company or this agency determines that a safety-related defect exists in the motorcycle frame, that company as the manufacturer must notify purchasers of the safety-related defect and must either:

(1) repair the product so that the defect is removed; or

(2) replace the product with identical or reasonably equivalent products which do not have a defect.

Whichever of these options is chosen, the manufacturer must bear the full expense and cannot charge the owner for the remedy if the equipment was purchased less than 8 years before the notification campaign.

You also asked about vehicle identification numbers (VINs) (referred to in your letter as "serial numbers") and whether motorcycle frames must be identified with VINs. As you may be aware, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 115; Vehicle identification number- basic requirements specifies that vehicles manufactured in one or more stages must have a VIN assigned by the manufacturer. Your client is a motorcycle frame manufacturer, not a motor vehicle manufacturer. Therefore, your client should not assign VINs to the motorcycle frames that it manufactures. Please note, however, that NHTSA regulations would not preclude your client from assigning "serial numbers" to the frames it manufactures, if the numbers are for its own inventory, recordkeeping, or other internal purposes.

You further requested information about laws regulating retail businesses that may affect your client. Other than the matters that have previously been discussed in this letter, NHTSA has no laws or regulations affecting your client as a retail business selling motorcycle frames. Regulation of retail businesses is generally a matter of state law. For more specific information, I would suggest you investigate the requirements for each state in which your client intends to begin a retail establishment.

For your information, I have enclosed a copy of an information sheet for new manufacturers of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. This sheet gives a brief description of our regulations and explains how to obtain copies of those regulations. If you have any further questions, 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

Enclosure ref:VSA#115 d:7/l3/92