ID: 12625.wkm

Mr. Pedro Matos
Quality Manager
CNB/CAMAC
Portugal

Dear Mr. Matos:

This responds to your telefax of October 23, 1996, to this office in which you asked two questions about Federal motor vehicle safety standard (FMVSS) No. 109, New Pneumatic Tires. You first asked why, in Table II of Appendix A, tires with a specified maximum load of 300 kiloPascals (kPa) are tested at a lower inflation pressure than tires for which the specified maximum load is 36 pounds per square inch (psi). You then asked why, in the kPa section of Table II, the test inflation pressures increase then decrease as the maximum kPa inflation pressures increase.

I have enclosed several notices that explain the reasons for these differing test inflation pressures. In 1977 Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company (Goodyear) and the Rubber Manufacturers Association (RMA) petitioned this agency to amend FMVSS No. 109 to permit production of a new P-type tire that was designed to use a higher maximum inflation pressure than the standard 240 kPa then permitted by the standard, but with no increase in load levels. In response to those petitions, this agency amended the standard to include a maximum permissible inflation pressure of 300 kPa because tires with higher inflation pressures have less rolling resistance which may result in increased fuel economy. However, since there would be no increase in load levels, the agency specified that the inflation pressures at which those tires would be tested would remain the same, that is, 180 and 220 kPa respectively (Enclosures 1 and 2).

Then in 1988, the European Tyre and Rim Technical Organisation (ETRTO) petitioned this agency to further increase the maximum inflation pressure, citing requests from member manufacturers. ETRTO petitioned this agency to amend FMVSS No. 109 to permit an inflation pressure of 340 kPa so that the standard maximum inflation pressure then in effect for reinforced tires, 280 kPa, could be increased for special performance requirements, but again, with no increase in tire load capacity. The agency granted the ETRTO petition citing the Goodyear/RMA petition as precedent. Again, because the requested higher inflation pressure carried no increase in load levels, the agency specified that the test pressures for the 340 kPa tires would remain at 220 and 260 respectively (Enclosures 3 and 4).

The latest maximum inflation pressure, 350 kPa, was added to the standard effective August 31, 1994. The test inflation pressures remain the same as the 240 and 300 kPa maximum pressures, namely 180 and 220 kPa respectively, for the same reasons as explained above (Enclosure 5).

I hope this explanation is helpful to you. For your information, I am also enclosing a copy of the latest version of FMVSS No. 109 (as of October 1, 1995) (Enclosure 6). If you have any further questions or need additional information with respect to our tire standards, please feel free to contact Walter Myers of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

John Womack

Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosures

ref:109

d:12/5/96

ID: nht90-4.67

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: November 29, 1990

FROM: John K. Roberts -- Vice President, Muth Advanced Technologies

TO: Richard Van Iderstine -- NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 1-15-91 to John K. Roberts from Paul Jackson Rice (A37; Std. 108)

TEXT:

Thank you for speaking with me yesterday about FMVSS requirements for automobile and truck mirrors. As I said, Muth Advanced Technologies is developing and marketing a unique vehicle mirror device which may be governed by two or more FMVSS rules (108 an d 111). Correct interpretation of those standards as they apply to this device is very important to us. For this reason, we appreciate being able to speak directly to people who understand the letter and intent of those rules.

For your edification, I have enclosed a brief description of the technology we're working on (presently known as "STM", or "Stop Turn Mirror"). We anticipate STM's being used as safety enhancements on certain vehicles, in combination with (or possibly i n place of) CHMSL's. Hopefully, the enclosed description will give you a clear conception of the device.

Following our conversation, a number of specific questions came to mind regarding the STM and applicable FMVSS Standards:

(1) If the STM satisfies the current explicit requirements of FMVSS 111 and FMVSS 108, is there further NHTSA approval we should pursue before fielding the device?

(2) Would it be reasonable for us to apply for a variance or to seek a change in FMVSS 108, if the STM doesn't meet the letter of FMVSS 108 in certain applications, but demonstrably meets or exceeds the intent of the standard?

(3) Before a pick-up truck CHMSL standard is published, would it be possible to certify the STM as a compliant device and ensure that the wording of the new rule doesn't needlessly prohibit utilization of STM's?

(4) Is it possible that someone at NHTSA would like to see this thing or test it before we go too far in our development and marketing? It may be a useful development in vehicle safety devices with importance to industry and the public. It also may be a ready solution to the difficult issue of requiring CHMSL's on pick-up trucks. We would be happy to support any such investigative effort by supplying a model, information, etc.

If you have any further thoughts on these subjects I would be very interested in hearing them. I'll call next week to follow-up on this.

Enclosure

Muth Advanced Technologies Stop/Turn Mirror The Stop/Turn Mirror (STM) is a system which integrates the functions previously performed separately by rear view mirrors and the Center High Mounted Stop Lamp (CHMSL). The system may be particularly well suited for vans, pick-up and medium duty trucks , sports cars, motorcycles and other vehicles where design of a suitable CHMSL is difficult. The STM offers superior performance as a highly visible stop and turn indication system and simultaneous function as a mirror. Additional benefits are the elim ination of parts and improved aesthetics at a reasonable cost. Field prototypes of the STM will be available by early spring, 1991.

The basis for this product is the observation that vehicle rear view mirrors are placed such that they are quite visible to operators of following vehicles. This same placement is ideal for high visibility stop and turn signals. The STM takes advantage of this geometry by functioning as mirror and a stop/turn lamp.

The STM contains a carefully designed filter and a directional film; these allow the STM to appear as a mirror to a vehicle's driver while appearing as a lamp to the operator of a following vehicle. The filter is a multi-layer dielectric coating applied to the interior surface of the glass to form a dichroic beam splitter or cold mirror. This allows the mirror to reflect a majority of the visible spectrum while transmitting a majority of a discrete band (in this case, red). The directional film conta ins tiny "microlouvers" which allow light rays to radiate directly aft and outboard towards following vehicles. The lamp is actuated by the same circuitry that actuates the standard brake and turn lamps.

Since the STM has an average reflectivity in excess of 65%, it appears to conform with FMVSS 111 requirements for minimum mirror reflectivity.

In some applications, it is anticipated that the STM will directly satisfy the requirements of FMVSS 108, thereby qualifying as a replacement for the standard CHMSL. In other applications, the STM may fulfill the intent of FMVSS 108 without meeting it's explicit requirements. In these cases, the STM may be used in conjunction with an approved CHMSL as an enhancement.

The K.W Muth Company Inc. has applied for US and foreign patents on the STM.

ID: 10824

K. Olsen
8577 South State
Spanish Fork, UT 84660

Dear Ms. Olsen:

This responds to your letter of March 12, 1995, requesting an opinion as to the liability of the manufacturer, dealer, or customer in an accident involving a trailer originally sold with used tires. I apologize for the delay in our response.

By way of background information, Chapter 301 of Title 49, U.S. Code, authorizes this agency to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. Section 30112 of Title 49 provides that no person may manufacture for sale, sell, or import a new motor vehicle or a new item of motor vehicle equipment unless that vehicle or equipment complies with all applicable FMVSSs and is covered by a certification of such compliance. Generally speaking, upon the sale of that vehicle or item of equipment to the first retail purchaser, the use of that vehicle or equipment becomes a matter of state regulation.

This office cannot give you an opinion as to who may be liable in the accident you described. The question of liability would be a matter of state law. You may wish to consult with a local attorney on the question of liability.

I can advise you that FMVSS No. 120, Tire selection and rims for motor vehicles other than passenger cars, generally requires tires installed on new trailers to be new, but includes certain specified exceptions which do not appear to be relevant here. In that connection, please find enclosed a copy of a letter we wrote to a gentleman in Odessa, Texas, dated September 4, 1992, which discusses in some detail our requirements for tires installed on new trailers.

This agency does not have any standards for trailer brakes other than air brakes. Also, as indicated above, matters relating to the use of a vehicle, such as connection of the electric brake control to the towing vehicle and loading of the trailer, are not under the jurisdiction of this agency.

I hope this information is helpful to you. Based on your March 12, 1995 letter and your telephone and facsimile communications with the staff of this agency's Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, that office has initiated an inquiry to the trailer manufacturer to determine if a noncompliance exists with FMVSS No. 120. If you have further information or data to offer in this regard, please contact Mr. Luke Loy at this address or at (202) 366-5288 or by FAX at (202) 366-3081.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosure

ref:120 d:6/14/95

ID: 8091a

Mr. L. Schmidt
610 Fulton Street
Seymour, WI 54165

Dear Mr. Schmidt:

Your letter requesting information about regulations that might affect substitution of a diesel engine for a "worn out" gasoline engine has been referred to my office for reply. I apologize for the delay in answering.

By way of background, NHTSA is authorized by the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Safety Act) to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS's) that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA is not authorized to certify or approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment for compliance with the FMVSS's. Instead, under the Safety Act, each manufacturer of a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards.

We do not have any requirements that would apply to the conversion of a vehicle from gasoline to diesel if the conversion is made by you on your own vehicle. The Safety Act and our regulations generally do not apply to a vehicle after the vehicle is sold to a consumer for purposes other than resale. Although the Safety Act prohibits certain entities from tampering with or removing federally required safety systems, the prohibition does not apply to modifications by a vehicle owner to his or her own vehicle.

If the diesel engine were substituted for the gasoline engine by a vehicle manufacturer, distributor, dealer or repair business, the installer would not have to certify the vehicle as described above. Instead, 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act requires any of these parties making the substitution to ensure that it did not knowingly render inoperative any device or system of design installed in compliance with any applicable safety standard, such as Standard 301, "Fuel System Integrity" (49 CFR 571.301, copy enclosed). The purpose of Standard 301 is to reduce deaths and injuries occurring from fires that result from fuel spillage during and after motor vehicle crashes.

The prohibition of 108(a)(2)(A) does not apply to individual vehicle owners who alter their own vehicles. Thus, under our requirements, individual owners may install any item regardless of its effect on compliance with the FMVSS's. However, NHTSA encourages vehicle owners not to tamper with vehicle safety equipment if the modification would degrade the safety of the vehicle.

You also asked if any law forbade diesel conversions in zones within your state in which emissions tests are required. We suggest you contact the Environmental Protection Agency for any questions concerning emissions and air quality. The general telephone number for the EPA is (202) 382-2090. You should also contact the state of Wisconsin for emissions testing regulations.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any more questions about NHTSA's safety standards, please contact David Elias of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosure

ref:301 d:5/6/93

ID: 23112.ztv

Mr. Edward M. Kronk
Butzel Long, PC
Suite 500
150 West Jefferson
Detroit, MI 48226-4430





Dear Mr. Kronk:

This is in reply to your letter of April 26, 2001, asking three questions about the relationship of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 108 to lighting equipment that may be marketed as being for off-road use but that is capable of being installed on-road vehicles and used on the public highways. You remarked that "there is interest in the automotive enthusiast community in using so-called 'European-styled' or 'E-Code' Headlamps as replacement headlamps," and that they are not certified as complying with Standard No. 108. Your questions, and our responses, are set forth below.

"1. May automotive headlamps that do not comply with FMVSS 108 be imported and sold in the US for "off-road" use on "off-road" vehicles?

"Off-road" and "off-road vehicles" are not terms defined in Standard No 108 or in any other regulation or law that we administer, and have no legal meaning. You identify the headlamps as "replacement headlamps." In our view, S5.8, Replacement equipment, of Standard No. 108 requires that any motor vehicle replacement headlamp that is offered for sale in the United States must comply with the same requirements as are applicable to the original equipment that it replaces. I enclose letters on related subjects that we sent to Mitch L. Williams of Hella on July 17, 1998, and to Tobin Tracy of Clr Alt Accessories on April 17, 2001. We informed Mr. Tracy that "any item of motor vehicle lighting equipment manufactured to replace lighting equipment that is required on a new vehicle by Standard No. 108 must itself comply with Standard No. 108," and that such a term as "off-road" has no exclusionary meaning under Federal law.

"2. Does the answer to question 1 change if, despite the express intent of the manufacturer and seller of the headlamps that they be used only "off-road," they are capable of being installed and used "on-road" in conventional "on-road" vehicles?

As noted above, if the headlamps are capable of being installed and used in motor vehicles subject to the Federal motor vehicle safety standards (i.e., "conventional 'on-road' vehicles"), they are motor vehicle headlamps that must comply with Standard No. 108 in order to be imported or sold regardless of the "intent" of the importer or seller. Even if we assume the best of intentions, we recognize that a seller has no control over the use of a product after it is sold.

"3. If the importation and sale of such noncompliant headlamps intended for off-road use only is permitted, what packaging and labeling requirements, if any, apply to their importation and sale?

As we have indicated in response to question 2, such lamps may not be imported or sold regardless of their packaging or labeling.

I hope that this answers your questions.

Sincerely,

John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosures
ref:108
d.6/28/01

ID: 77-3.4

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/16/77

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; E. T. Driver; NHTSA

TO: J. R. Green

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Your letter of April 8, 1977, to the President of the United States concerning the need for improved motor vehicle headlamp standards has been referred to this office for consideration and reply.

We have received considerable information regarding the effects of foreign and domestic motor vehicle headlighting equipment, including engineering papers and test data on "selective yellow" headlamps. All information concluded that filtering of headlamps to produce yellow reduces the photometric intensity of the lamp, thereby reducing the actual seeing distance. Some vehicle operators subjectively concluded they can see further with yellow headlamps, but objective seeing distance tests with specific target characteristics and distances indicate a loss of seeing distance.

It is also true that while the original intent in using yellow headlamps was to reduce the glare from oncoming vehicle headlamps, our current test data indicates that a yellow light does not reduce glare. The white light is, therefore considered safer and is the basis for requiring white light in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 (copy enclosed).

Although this lighting standard is generally in accordance with standards developed and published by the Society of Automotive Engineers, it does not specifically require sealed-beam headlamps. However, it does require headlamps which are designed to be aimed properly when installed in prealigned mechanical assemblies. The lamp itself may be sealed-beam (filament is enclosed only by the lamp shell in an inert atmosphere) or it may be a halogen lamp (filament is surrounded by a small envelope containing a halogen gas). Specifically, the halogen-bulb headlamp is legal if incorporated into an otherwise legal motor vehicle headlamp.

I trust the foregoing is fully responsive to your inquiry.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

AUGUST 18, 1977

James R. Green 3396 Alma Street Lynwood, California 90262

Dear Mr. Green:

In his letter of June 16, 1977, our Mr. Driver, Director of the Office of Crash Avoidance, commented that although the Federal motor vehicle lighting standard "is generally in accordance with standards developed and published by the Society of Automotive Engineers, it does not specifically require sealed-beam headlamps."

This should not be interpreted as an opinion that Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 does not require sealed beam headlamps. While there is no such requirement per se in the text of the standard, Standard No. 108 incorporates by reference SAE Standard J579a Sealed Beam Headlamp Units for Motor Vehicles, August 1965, and SAE Standard J580a Sealed Beam Headlamp, June 1966. Compliance of headlamps with these standards is required, whether as original or replacement equipment.

Sincerely, Joseph J. Levin -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

ID: nht87-3.5

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 09/25/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: John R. Niemela -- President, Ranger International Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. John R. Niemela, President Ranger International Inc. P.O. BOX 311 Peterborough, NH 03458

This responds to your letter asking whether a "Mototractor" you may import into the United States would be considered a motor vehicle. The vehicle looks like a conventional motorcycle, except tractor tires are mounted on wheels that enclose auxiliary fue l storage tanks. It has a maximum speed of 40 miles per hour. Based on the information provided with, your letter, it appears that your Mototractor would not be a motor vehicle.

Section 102(3) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, as amended (15 U.S.C. 1391(31) defines a "motor vehicle" as any vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power manufactured primarily for use on the public streets, roads, and highways, ex cept any vehicle operated exclusively on a rail or rails.

We have interpreted this language as follows. Vehicles that are equipped with tracks or are otherwise incapable of highway travel are plainly not motor vehicles. Agricultural equipment, such as tractors, are not motor vehicles. Further, vehicles designed and sold solely for off-road use (e.g., airport runway vehicles and underground mining vehicles are not considered motor vehicles, even though they may be operationally capable of highway travel.

On the other hand, vehicles that use the public highways on a necessary and recurring basis are motor vehicles. For instance, utility vehicles like the Jeep are plainly motor vehicles, even though they are equipped with special features to permit off-roa d operation. If a vehicle's greatest use will be off-road, but it will spend a substantial amount of time on-road, NHTSA has interpreted the vehicle to be a "motor vehicle". Further, if a vehicle is readily usable on the public roads and is in fact used on the public roads by a substantial number of owners, NHTSA has found the vehicle to be a motor vehicle. This finding was made with respect to dune buggies and regardless of the manufacturer's stated intent regarding the terrain on which the vehicles we re to be operated.

Your vehicle is not easily classified under either of these groupings. On the one hand, your vehicle has a body configuration nearly identical to a motorcycle and a top speed that would allow it to keep up with the flow of traffic on low speed roads. The se factors suggest that the vehicle should be classified as a motor vehicle. On the other hand, you state repeatedly that this vehicle is intended to be used as a two-wheeled tractor, it comes equipped with tires and wheels that are suited to off-road us e, your advertising shows it pulling and powering a number of off-road attachments, and there is no evidence that it has been or will be substantially used on-road in this country. This suggests that the vehicle should not be classified as a motor vehicl e. In past instances where the agency was asked whether a vehicle Has a motor vehicle when it had both off-road and on-road operating capabilities and about which there is little or no evidence about the extent of the vehicle's on-road use, we have appli ed five factors in offering our advice.

These factors Here:

1. whether States or foreign countries have permitted or are likely to permit the vehicle to be registered for on-road use. The vehicle shown in your brochures does not have lights, mirrors, or a speedometer. we are not aware of any State that would license a vehicle without this equipment for on-road use. Further, the Canadian Tax Court has ruled that the vehicle should be c lassified as a tractor, which presumably means that the vehicle will not be licensed for use on public roads. Hence, this factor suggests that the vehicle should not be considered a motor vehicle.

2. Whether the vehicle is or will be advertised for use-on-road as well as off-road, or whether it is or will be advertised exclusively for off-road use.

Your brochure shows that one of the functions the Mototractor can perform is "road and trail maintenance." Additionally, your advertising shows an attachment that is described "ATT Transport, On/Off Road" (Part No. 1043301. We generally consider such adv ertising to be evidence that the vehicle should be considered a motor vehicle, since purchasers have reason to believe the vehicle is intended to be used on the public roads.

3. Whether the vehicle's manufacturer or dealers Hill assist vehicle purchasers in obtaining certificates or origin or title documents to register the vehicle for on-road use.

You stated that the Chinese manufacturer will provide a certificate of origin/title document. However, this is not the sort of action to which we were referring. Assuming that neither your company nor the Chinese manufacturer assist purchasers in registe ring Mototractors. for on-road use, this would tend to indicate that the vehicle is not a motor vehicle.

4. Whether the vehicle is or will be sold by dealers also selling vehicles that ace classified as motor vehicles.

You did not provide any information on U.S. dealers for this vehicle. However, you stated that the foreign dealers of Mototractors are agricultural equipment dealers. Assuming this is also true in the United States, this fact would indicate that the vehi cle is not a motor vehicle.

5. Whether the vehicle has or will have affixed to it a warning label stating that the vehicle is not intended for use on public roads.

You stated in your letter that a label limiting the vehicle's use will be placed on the Mototractors. Assuming that this label states that the vehicle is not intended for use on public roads, this would indicate that the vehicle is not a motor vehicle.

At this time and after considering the available information, he believe that the Mototractor does not appear to be a motor vehicle. However, we will reexamine this conclusion if we learn that, for example, the vehicle is in fact used on the public roads by a substantial number of its owners.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

ID: 21257.ztv

Officer Ron Weeks
Biloxi Police Department
1045 Howard Avenue
Biloxi, MS 39530

Dear Officer Weeks:

We are replying to your email of February 15, 2000, to our Webmaster, asking for information about the substitution of" white" ( clear) lenses on the taillamps of motor vehicles. You report that officers in your locale have started citing drivers of vehicles with white lenses for improper equipment.

As you know, Federal requirements for original and replacement motor vehicle lighting equipment are established by 49 CFR 571.108 Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment. Under the preemption authority of 49 U.S.C. 30103(b), Mississippi may enact and enforce its own motor vehicle lighting equipment standard, provided that it is identical to Standard No. 108.

Table I and Table III of Standard No. 108 require taillamps and stop lamps to be red in color. The color red is defined by SAE Standard J578c Color Specifications for Electric Signaling Devices, February 1977 which S5.1.5 of Standard No. 108 incorporates by reference. Although Standard No. 108 does not specifically say that the lens must be red and the bulb clear to achieve the color red, we know of no original equipment manufacturer who is producing and certifying compliance with Standard No. 108 of a taillamp consisting of a red bulb and a white (clear) lens. Nor do we know of any red bulb in production that conforms to Standard No. 108's color specification.

In addition, if any replacement lens is plastic, S5.1.2 requires the plastic material to conform to the specifications of SAE Recommended Practice J576 Plastic Materials for Use in Optical Parts, Such as Lenses and Reflectors, of Motor Vehicle Lighting Equipment, JUL91. Since conformance is judged through a three-year outdoor exposure test, we have substantial doubts that any aftermarket white (clear) plastic lens intended for use on taillamps is manufactured from materials that have been tested in accordance with SAE J576 JUL91. Finally, it has been our experience that most white (clear ) replacement taillamp lenses do not incorporate a red side or rear reflex reflector as contained in the original red taillamp lens. Many vehicle manufacturers use the configuration of a red lens incorporating a reflex reflector to meet the additional requirement of Table I and Table III that vehicles be equipped with two red reflex reflectors on the rear, and one on each side at the rear.

For all the above reasons, we believe it likely that the use of white (clear) replacement lenses and red bulbs will result in a taillamp that does not comply with the specifications of Standard No. 108 for taillamps.

We hope that this information is helpful in your enforcement efforts. If you have any questions, you may call Taylor Vinson of this Office (202-366-5263).

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
ref:108
d.5/4/00

ID: AmericanSweeperltr

Mr. Ranger Kidwell-Ross
Editor, American Sweeper Magazine
2778 Barrel Springs Road
Bow, WA 98232





Dear Mr. Kidwell-Ross:

This responds to your letter regarding small parking area sweepers.

You describe the process by which certain companies in the sweeper industry remove the beds of small pickup trucks manufactured by Dodge, Toyota, GM, Ford, and other manufacturers and mount, in their place, sweeper machinery. You ask whether any of this agency's safety requirements apply to such altered or modified vehicles. The answer is yes, but the particular requirements that apply depend on whether the company adding the sweeper machinery is considered an alterer of a vehicle prior to its first sale or a modifier of a used vehicle.

By way of background information, pursuant to the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, as amended, 49 U.S.C. 30101 et seq. (Safety Act), the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has the authority to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. Under the Safety Act, manufacturers of vehicles and equipment have the duty to ensure that their vehicles and equipment meet all applicable standards and to certify them accordingly.

You indicate that the vehicles on which the sweeper machinery is being mounted are "completed vehicles." We assume, therefore, that prior to the sweeper machinery being mounted, these vehicles have been certified by their manufacturers as complying with all applicable FMVSS. You further indicate that the sweeper machinery is mounted to the vehicles either prior to being sold to consumers or after the vehicles are sold to consumers.

In the case of the vehicles upon which sweeper machinery is mounted prior to the first purchase in good faith of the vehicles for purposes other than resale, those companies would be considered "alterers." Persons are considered alterers if (1) they alter the vehicle in any manner "other than by the addition, substitution, or removal of readily attachable components . . . or minor finishing operations," or (2) they alter "the vehicle in such a manner that its stated weight ratings are no longer valid." 49 CFR 567.7. Since the conditions you describe involve the addition of equipment that is not readily attachable, the companies adding the sweeper machinery would be considered alterers.

As alterers, the companies would be subject to the certification requirements of 49 CFR 567.7. These requirements include provisions that the alterer supplement the existing manufacturer certification label, which must remain on the vehicle, by affixing an additional label. The label must state that the vehicle as altered conforms to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. The label must also identify the alterer and the month and the year in which the alterations were completed.

In the case of the vehicles upon which sweeper machinery is mounted after the first purchase in good faith of the vehicles for purposes other than resale, those companies would be considered modifiers of used vehicles. Unlike alterers, modifiers of used vehicles are not required to affix a label stating that the vehicle, as modified, continues to conform to all applicable FMVSS. The only provision in Federal law that affects the vehicle's continuing compliance with applicable safety standards is set forth at 49 U.S.C. 30122, which states, in part, that a "manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business may not knowingly make inoperative . . . any part of a device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable motor vehicle safety standard." Any person who will accept compensation to repair a vehicle is a motor vehicle repair business.

In general, this "make inoperative" provision would require any of these named entities to ensure that any additional equipment installed in a vehicle would not negatively affect the compliance of any component or design on the vehicle with applicable safety standards. Violations of 49 U.S.C. 30122 are punishable by civil penalties up to $5,000 per violation. The prohibition of Section 30122 does not apply to individual owners who install equipment in their own vehicles, but does apply to any person paid to do so. While it may not be a violation of law for individual owners to install themselves any item of motor vehicle equipment regardless of its effect on compliance with Federal motor vehicle safety standards, NHTSA encourages consumers not to degrade the safety of their vehicles or equipment.

Finally, you inquired as to the effect that the alteration or modification of these vehicles might have on the warranties supplied by the original vehicle manufacturers. Vehicle warranties do not fall within the purview of NHTSA; you may wish to contact the Federal Trade Commission, whose jurisdiction does include new vehicle warranties. You may also wish to contact individual States to determine whether there are any State requirements applicable to the alteration, modification, and warranty concerns you raised.

If you have any additional questions or would like to discuss this matter further, you may contact Robert Knop of this Office at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:567
d.4/2/02

ID: 1083

Mr. Robert J. Ponticelli
President
American International
1040 Avenida Acaso
Camarillo, CA 93012

Dear Mr. Ponticelli:

This replies to your letter of July 25, 1995, asking for an opinion "on the use of Electro-Luminescent Strip Lighting on motor vehicles." The device in question "is an ornamental light which produces less than .05 candela/sq. inch." You have enclosed a brochure which shows the strip in use as a license plate frame and to mark the sides or perimeter of a vehicle. We assume that you are not asking about the license plate frame but only the "Lighted Pin Striping". The "Lighted Pin Striping" comes in "basic white" but once applied, seven colors of overlay tape are available to change the color. The brochure shows it in shades of blue and pink. You would like our views "on the installation of this product by regulated parties such as new car dealers and non-regulated entities such as aftermarket specialty shops and vehicle owners."

We are pleased to provide you with the interpretation you seek. The basic obligation of a new-car dealer is to deliver a new car that remains in compliance with all the applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards for which its manufacturer has certified compliance. In other words, the dealer must ensure that none of its actions before the sale of a new vehicle create a noncompliance with a safety standard. Further, if a dealer alters a vehicle before sale other than by the addition, substitution, or removal of readily attachable components, or minor finishing operations such as painting, is required to certify that the altered vehicle continues to meet the standards.

The Federal new vehicle standard that relates to your product is Standard No. 108 Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment. This standard permits a new car dealer to add supplementary lighting equipment such as the luminescent strip if the supplementary equipment does not impair the effectiveness of the lighting equipment required by Standard No. 108. The most common cause of impairment is lighting equipment that creates confusion with, or distraction from, the purpose of any item of required lighting equipment. Under Standard No. 108's lighting scheme, the color of lamps on the front of a vehicle are restricted to white and amber. On the side of the vehicle, side marker lamps and reflectors must be only amber to the front and red to the rear. Rear lighting is red or amber, with the color white permitted for the backup lamp only. The Lighted Pin Striping comes in a variety of colors. Your brochure shows one that is pink or red in color mounted on the front of a vehicle. We believe it possible that a motorist seeing a color of light on the front of the vehicle generally used on the rear or on the side at the rear could be distracted from the driving task. There is also the possibility that the strip would be bright enough to mask and thereby reduce the effectiveness of an adjacent front or rear turn signal, or stop lamp. In general, the agency tries to discourage the use of novelty lighting devices because of the uncertain reaction an unfamiliar light or reflection may cause in other drivers on the roadway. However, the determination as to whether installation of the lighting strip would impair the efficiency of required lighting equipment is initially that of the new car dealer who must determine whether his modifications to a new vehicle might take it out of compliance. Unless that determination is clearly erroneous, NHTSA will not contest it.

With respect to sales in the aftermarket, installation by a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business of the lighting strip would be prohibited if the use of the strip would, in the words of the statute, "make inoperative" any of the required lighting equipment. We tend to equate "make inoperative" and "impair effectiveness" so that the same considerations would have to be taken into account in installing the lighting equipment on a used as well as a new car. However, this prohibition does not extend to the vehicle owner who, under Federal law, may install the lighting strip regardless of its effect upon compliance.

Nevertheless, even if novelty lighting equipment does not violate Federal law, the ultimate decision of its acceptability is that of the State in which the lighting strip is to be used. It is our understanding that, for example, that California requires any emitted or reflected light from the front of vehicles to be white or yellow in color, which would appear to preclude installation of the lighting strip in colors other than these. For an opinion on the treatment of

the lighting strip under State laws, we suggest that you write for an opinion to the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Va. 22203.

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

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

ref:108 d:8/18/95