ID: nht92-3.14

DATE: October 20, 1992

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Mindy Lang -- Division Manager, Huntleigh Transportation Services, Inc.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 9/12/92 from Mindy Lang to Office of Chief Council, NHTSA (OCC-7763)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of September 12, 1992, requesting information on regulations concerning bus conversions. Your company converts the interior of buses by installing such materials as carpets, wall coverings, and blinds. In particular you asked for information on regulations concerning the attachment of seats to vehicles and the material used for the construction of seats. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our law and regulations to you.

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Safety Act; 15 U.S.C. 1181 et seq.) authorizes this agency to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. Section 108(a)(1)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(1)(A)) prohibits any person from manufacturing, introducing into commerce, selling, or importing any new motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment unless the vehicle or equipment item is in conformity with all applicable safety standards. 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 meet all applicable safety standards.

NHTSA has exercised its authority to establish one safety standard relevant to seating, Standard No. 207, Seating Systems, which establishes strength and other performance requirements for vehicle seats. However, this standard excludes passenger seats on buses from these performance requirements. There is one other safety standard that could be affected by the work your company performs. Standard No. 302, Flammability of Interior Materials, specifies burn resistance requirements for materials used in motor vehicles, including buses.

If your company converts previously certified buses, it could be considered an alterer under our regulations. Under 49 CFR Part 567, Certification, an alterer is defined as:

A person who alters a vehicle that has been previously certified ... other than by the addition, substitution, or removal of readily attachable components such as mirrors or tire and rim assemblies, or minor finishing operations such as painting, ... before the first purchase of the vehicle in good faith for purposes other than resale ....

If considered an alterer, your company would be subject to the certification requirements of 49 CFR S567.7. These requirements include provisions that

the alterer supplement the original manufacturer's 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, including Standard No. 302. The label must also state the name of the alterer and the month and the year in which the alterations were completed.

Your company would not be subject to the certification requirements of 49 CFR S567.7 if the modifications involve only readily attachable components. However, the modifications would still be affected by section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act. That section provides that:

No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or in part, any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle . . . in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard.

Any violation of this "render inoperative" prohibition would subject the violator to a potential civil penalty of up to $1,000 for each violation.

I hope you find this information helpful. I have enclosed an information sheet for new manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment that briefly explains the responsibilities imposed on manufacturers, and tells how to get copies of the relevant laws and regulations. If you have any other questions, please contact Mary Versailles of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992.

ID: aiam4372

Dear Mr. Fujitani: This letter responds to your inquiries addressed to Joan Tilghman of m staff. Your letters concern buses purchased by the State of California, and manufactured by Champion Home Builders, Commercial Vehicle Division (Champion). You inform us that Champion is a final stage manufacturer of vehicles built on a Ford chassis. You have rejected delivery of these vehicles because you assert that they do not comply with either California or Federal motor vehicle regulations. This response addresses only those issues arising from Federal requirements.; As I understand your letters, you pose two principle questions. First you ask whether classifying an incomplete vehicle as a 'chassis' rather than as a 'chassis cab' means that a final stage manufacturer can not alter the original chassis manufacturer's gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR). You assert that Champion's altering of the GVWR on a vehicle classified as a 'chassis' is a noncompliance under 49 CFR sections 567.5 and 568.4 which you may use as grounds for rejecting delivery of Champion's vehicles.; Your second question involves data set out in your letter of April 14 suggesting that Champion's certified GVWR for these vehicles is less than the sum of the unloaded vehicle weight, the rated cargo load, and 150 lbs. times the vehicles' designated seating capacity. You state that this circumstance is a second noncompliance with Federal regulations upon which you have rejected delivery of Champion's buses.; >>>*The Cutaway Chassis/Chassis Cab Question*.<<< In both your letters, you refer to provisions of 49 CFR 567.5 an 568.4, and to a 1977 Federal Register document (42 FR 37814, 37816, July 25, 1977). You state your interpretation of these 49 CFR provisions as 'mean(ing) that final stage manufacturers (who build on RV cutaways) are not authorized to alter the (GVWR) imposed by incomplete vehicle manufacturers since final stage manufacturers do not have any basis for certifying a greater load carrying capaci(ty) without altering axle components to handle the extra load.' As I understand it, when you speak of an RV cutaway you mean a vehicle chassis with an incomplete occupant compartment, intended for completion as a recreational vehicle. For any incomplete vehicle (including a cutaway or chassis cab), Part 568 requires the incomplete vehicle manufacturer to provide a document that describes how to complete the vehicle without impairing the vehicle's compliance status. This document is *not* a certification.; If the incomplete vehicle is other than a chassis cab, the final stag manufacturer who builds on the incomplete vehicle must certify its compliance with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS). On the other hand, the certification process is different if an incomplete vehicle meets the agency's definition of 'chassis cab.' The Federal Register document to which you refer amended 49 CFR Parts 567 and 568 to conform with a court decision holding that NHTSA could not require a final stage manufacturer to make the 'sole certification' of compliance for a vehicle built on a chassis cab. As a consequence of this decision, NHTSA established a dual certification scheme for such vehicles in which the chassis cab manufacturer makes one certification statement in each of three categories, and the final stage manufacturer makes corresponding statements depending on how the final stage manufacturer affects any applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard (FMVSS).; Under this dual certification scheme, the original chassis ca manufacturer may provide instructions telling a final stage manufacturer how to complete a vehicle so that it conforms with applicable FMVSS. The final stage manufacturer has the choice of either conforming his work to the chassis cab manufacturer's instructions and shifting the burden under Part 567 of certifying compliance to the chassis cab manufacturer, or deviating from those instructions, and assuming the certification burden for himself. Further, the final stage manufacturer must certify compliance respecting any FMVSS for which the chassis cab manufacturer makes no representation.; While you are correct that in the 1977 Federal Register document th agency decided to exclude RV cutaways from the definition of 'chassis cab,' the only effect of this exclusion is that dual certification requirements do not apply to vehicles completed on an RV cutaway.; Therefore, the answer to your first question is that a final stag manufacturer may change the GVWR for any incomplete vehicle, irrespective of whether he builds the completed vehicle on an RV cutaway or a chassis cab. However, if the final stage manufacturer changes the GVWR for the vehicle, it must certify that the vehicle complies with all applicable FMVSS at this new GVWR. Compliance with Standards No. 105, *Hydraulic Brake Systems*, and No. 120, *Tire Selection and Rims for Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars* might well be affected by an increase in the GVWR. The final stage manufacturer is required to exercise 'due care' when certifying that its vehicle complies with all safety standards at this increased GVWR. Our Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance has asked the final stage manufacturer of these vehicles to provide the data and other evidence that were the basis for Champion's certification of compliance at this higher GVWR.; >>>*Champion's Certified GVWR Calculation*.<<< Part 567 of NHTSA regulations sets out requirements for affixing certification label or tag to a motor vehicle. Section 567.4(g)(3) of that Part states that the certified GVWR:; >>>'...shall not be less than the sum of the unloaded vehicle weight rated cargo load, and 150 pounds times the vehicle's designated seating capacity. However, for school buses the minimum occupant weight allowance shall be 120.'<<<; In your April letter, you supply weightmaster readings for the tw Champion motor vehicles that are the subject of your inquiry. While Champion certifies the GVWR for both these vehicles at 12,000 pounds, you indicate that according to your S567.4(g)(3) calculation, the sums are 12,147 pounds and 12,580 pounds. This agency considers vehicle overloading a serious safety problem for the affected vehicle and for the motoring public, and NHTSA may take appropriate remedial action against any manufacturer whose vehicle, laden with its intended cargo load, exceeds the manufacturer's GVWR. NHTSA's Office Of Vehicle Safety Compliance is investigating this matter further.; Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam5147

"Dear Mr. Lee: This responds to your January 14, 1993, letter askin for information on how to have an air bag you wish to import from Korea tested by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our laws and regulations to you. NHTSA is authorized under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq., Safety Act) to issue motor vehicle safety standards that apply to the manufacture and sale of 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 or conduct pre-sale testing of any commercial products. Instead, the Safety Act establishes a 'self-certification' process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards. I note that the term 'manufacturer' is defined by section 102(5) of the Safety Act to mean 'any person engaged in the manufacturing or assembling of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, including any person importing motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment for resale.' (Emphasis added.) NHTSA has exercised its authority under the Safety Act to establish Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection (49 CFR 571.208). Standard No. 208 requires, among other things, that passenger cars provide automatic crash protection. Light trucks will also be required to provide automatic crash protection beginning with the 1995 model year. Vehicles equipped with automatic crash protection protect their occupants by means that require no action by vehicle occupants. Compliance with the automatic crash protection requirements of Standard No. 208 is determined in a dynamic crash test. That is, a vehicle must comply with specified injury criteria, as measured on a test dummy, when tested by this agency in a 30 mph barrier crash test. At this time, manufacturers are not required to use a specific method of automatic crash protection to meet the requirements of Standard No. 208. Instead, each automobile manufacturer is allowed to select the particular method for the automatic crash protection installed in its vehicles. The two types of automatic crash protection currently offered on new passenger cars are automatic safety belts (which help to assure belt use) and air bags (which supplement safety belts and offer some protection even when safety belts are not used). Please note that the automatic crash protection requirement applies to the performance of the vehicle as a whole, instead of setting requirements for the air bag as an individual item of equipment. This approach permits vehicle manufacturers to 'tune' the performance of the air bag to the crash pulse and other specific attributes of each of their vehicle models. However, this approach also means that the Federal standards do not specify specific performance attributes for air bags such as inflated dimensions, actuation time, and the like. It is unclear from your letter if the air bags you wish to import will be sold to manufacturers for installation in new vehicles or if the air bags will be sold as replacement air bags or retrofit air bags for vehicles which do not have air bags as original equipment. If the air bags are sold to manufacturers for installation in new vehicles, the vehicle manufacturer is required to certify that the vehicle complies with all applicable safety standards, including Standard No. 208. If the air bag is added to a previously certified new motor vehicle prior to its first sale, the person who modifies the vehicle would be an alterer of a previously certified motor vehicle and would be required to certify that, as altered, the vehicle continues to comply with all of the safety standards affected by the installation of the air bag. (See 49 CFR Part 567.7.) While most of Standard No. 208's requirements are expressed in terms of the performance of the vehicle as a whole and apply only to new vehicles and not to aftermarket equipment, there is one exception to this. Pressure vessels and explosive devices for use in air bag systems must comply with section S9 of Standard No. 208 whether they are part of a new motor vehicle or are aftermarket equipment. Therefore, the manufacturer of these items must certify that they comply with the requirements of S9 of Standard No. 208. Another Federal requirement that would affect the device if it were installed in a used vehicle, either as a replacement or retrofit air bag, is the 'render inoperative' prohibition in section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)) would apply. That section provides that: No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or in part, any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle ... in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard. The 'render inoperative' provision would prohibit a commercial business from installing an aftermarket air bag in a manner that would negatively affect the vehicle's compliance with Standard No. 208. You should also note that a replacement or retrofit air bag would be considered 'motor vehicle equipment' within the meaning of the Safety Act. Therefore, if the air bag contained a defect (either in manufacture, design, or performance) that relates to motor vehicle safety, the manufacturer would be required to conduct a recall campaign to notify owners and to remedy the defect free of charge. You should be aware that recently the manufacturer of an aftermarket air bag that did not provide crash protection benefits to vehicle occupants ceased offering its air bags following a NHTSA investigation. In addition, NHTSA provided information to the Federal Trade Commission concerning the claims made by the manufacturer in its advertising. We suggest you carefully review the manufacturer's test data on the devices you are considering importing to assure yourself that the air bag would afford adequate protection to vehicle occupants in crashes and that the claims made in the company's advertising are true. I have enclosed an information sheet that identifies relevant Federal statutes and NHTSA standards and regulations affecting motor vehicle and motor vehicle equipment manufacturers, and explains how to obtain copies of these materials. I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Mary Versailles of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel Enclosure";

ID: aiam5010

"Dear Mr. Murphy: This responds to your letter of April 30. 1992 requesting an interpretation of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. You have asked 'whether the lens leg of various lamp assemblies may be included in the calculation' of the minimum effective projected luminous lens area required of certain lamps by Standard No. 108. Specifically, you have enclosed 'Figure 1' which 'shows that the last optic against the lens leg projects light outward beyond the lens leg and yet the light may be beneficial to meeting the twenty degree outward test points for stop, tail, turn lamps.' Accordingly you have concluded 'that this light, though low in intensity due to its distance from the filament, may be significant as far as meeting the photometric requirements of the lamp.' NHTSA adopted a definition of 'effective projected luminous lens area' on May 15, 1990 (55 FR 20158), to mean 'that area of the projection on a plane perpendicular to the lamp axis of that portion of the light-emitting surface that directs light to the photometric test pattern. . . .' No exceptions were made to the definition. In rejecting a petition for reconsideration to include lens parts, such as the rim (or leg), in the calculation of lens area in those instances where the rim transmits unobstructed light, NHTSA explained on December 5, 1990 (55 FR 50182), that areas that do not contribute 'significantly' to light output should not be included in the lens area calculation. It commented that 'the optical parts of the reflector and lens are designed to achieve that purpose', and that 'lens rims or legs do not contribute to the optical design' but instead 'take up surface area that can reduce the area of the optically designed part of the lens if they are allowed to be included in the computation of minimum lens area.' In the comments that both you and we have quoted above, NHTSA has tried to differentiate between optical parts that are specifically designed to contribute to the optical design of a lamp and those whose contribution is only incidental and secondary. Those comments express clearly the agency's opinion that a lens leg, such as shown in your Figure 1, is an optical part that contributes only incidentally to the optical design of a lamp. However, the agency's opinions, as expressed in the preambles on this subject, are not the most definitive answer to your question. Instead, with reference to Figure 1, whether the additional lens area may be included in the computation of the minimum effective projected luminous lens area is determined by the definition of that term set forth in S4 of Standard No. 108. If the lens leg in Figure 1 meets that definition, it may be included in the computation. If not, it may not be included in the computation. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel";

ID: aiam1437

Dear Mr. McCuen: This responds to your February 1, 1974, request for interpretation o the language 'maximum temperature of 500*+*50 degrees F' appearing in S6.1.8.1 of Standard No. 121, *Air brake systems*, 49 CFR 571.121.; The language is intended to specify a temperature range within which t conduct the burnishing procedure in the event brake applications cause the hottest brake on a vehicle to reach 500 degrees F. The word 'maximum' is inappropriate and will be deleted in an upcoming notice responding to petitions that raised the same point.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel

ID: aiam2020

Dear Mr. Baker: This responds to your July 3, 1975, request for confirmation that final-stage manufacturer (as defined in 49 CFR S 568.3) is responsible for certification of its motor vehicle products under Part 568 of Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations (vehicles manufactured in two or more stages) and that it would be illegal for a final-stage manufacturer to complete a truck with a volumetric capacity which would accommodate more weight than the rated cargo load, causing the loaded vehicle weight to exceed the gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) specified by the manufacturer. You also request confirmation that the cargo container designed for a specific commodity must have a load center of gravity (CG) that does not cause the total vehicle CG to exceed the chassis manufacturer's specified CG.; You are correct that Part 568 makes the final-stage manufacture responsible for certification of a completed vehicle which is manufactured in two or more stages.; If a final-stage manufacturer specifies a rated cargo load for th completed vehicle, the weight of the vehicle when carrying that load must not exceed the GVWR. If you supply no rated cargo load, but only the volumetric capacity, the capacity would not on its face lead to a violation of the certification regulations, since the weight of specific commodities can vary considerably.; You should be aware, however, that completing the vehicle so that it apparent carrying capacity exceeds the stated weight ratings may create some risks of liability beyond the certification regulations themselves. If, for example, the vehicle suffers a hazardous malfunction in use that can be traced to overloading, its manufacturer may be liable both under the defect provisions of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1402) and under common law product liability doctrines. As you suggest, the final-stage manufacturer who completes a vehicle for specific commodity is clearly on notice that providing 'overload capacity' could constitute a safety-related defect if that vehicle is involved in an accident due to overloading. I enclose copies of two interpretations on this subject provided to a manufacturer and a trade association.; Part 568 contains no requirements for limitation of cargo load cente of gravity. I assume your question about CG concerns completion of air-braked vehicles in a fashion which permits you to certify to Standard No. 121, *Air brake systems*. I enclose a copy of a notice which explains that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) will test a vehicle under Standard No. 121, whether or not designed for a specific capacity, using a CG height which does not exceed that specified by the chassis manufacturer. I would note that the preamble of the enclosed notice points out that, if the NHTSA should discover vehicles being produced that do not perform safely when loaded in a normal manner and can establish that this condition is attributable to deficiencies in vehicle manufacture or design, it can proceed against their manufacturers under its safety-related defect jurisdiction.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel

ID: aiam1485

Dear Mr. Shue:#This is in reply to your letter of April 15, 1974, t Mr. Schneider requesting an interpretation of identification requirements of Standard No. 101 as it applies to your proposed 1975 headlamp switch identification plate.#The standard provides that a symbol may be used to identify the lighting control. Your plate would use three symbols to identify lighting control operational positions, a different matter. Therefore, your use of the plate is not prohibited by Standard No. 101.#In response to your other questions, as this agency has previously noted (36 F.R. 8296, May 4, 1971), the NHTSA intends the headlamp symbol to be representative only and 'A symbol resembling the one published, with as few as three rays of light, may be used. . . .' The beams of the headlamp symbol, however, must face in the direction shown in Table I, to the right of the lamp. We have proposed adoption of the ISO symbol in which the beams are to the left (38 F.R. 26940, September 27, 1973) but no action has been taken on the proposal.#Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel;

ID: aiam4892

"Dear Mr. Albury: This responds to your letter of June 3, 199 concerning whether your company would be considered the manufacturer of certain vehicles. Your company is planning to use jeep conversion kits on Chrysler Corporation jeeps. Under one approach, your company would purchase the basic stripped down model jeep from Chrysler and add the body, stereo, air conditioning, tires, running lights, carpeting, and high visibility seats. You state that the body would be one solid piece and that your company would add wheel wells, doors, a solid or canvas top, and a windshield. Alternatively, your company would purchase the chassis, with engine and transmission, from Chrysler and add the above items. 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. As you are aware, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized, under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq., the Safety Act), to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and certain 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 meet all applicable safety standards. I will address the responsibilities of your company under the Safety Act in each of the situations you described. First, if your company purchased a stripped down vehicle from Chrysler and made the modifications described, it could be considered an alterer under our regulations. Under 49 CFR Part 567, Certification, an alterer is defined as: A person who alters a vehicle that has previously been certified . . . other than by the addition, substitution, or removal of readily attachable components such as mirrors or tire and rim assemblies, or minor finishing operations such as painting, . . . before the first purchase of the vehicle in good faith for purposes other than resale . . . . As an alterer, your company would be required to certify compliance of its vehicles with the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards in accordance with 49 CFR Part 567. The only exception would be if: 1. The modifications consisted solely of 'readily attachable components,' or 2. The modifications were only 'minor finishing operations.' Whether modifications involve 'readily attachable' components depends on the difficulty in attaching those components. In the past, the agency has looked at such factors as the intricacy of installation and the need for special expertise. Without extraordinary ease of installation, NHTSA would not consider modifications involving the addition or substitution of seats to involve 'readily attachable' components. If considered an alterer, your company 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 would state that the vehicle as altered conforms to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. The label would also state the alterer and the month and the year in which the alterations were completed. In addition to these certification requirements, an alterer is considered a 'manufacturer' for the purposes of the Safety Act. Among other things, this means an alterer is responsible for notification and remedy of defects related to motor vehicle safety and noncompliances with applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards, as specified in sections 151-160 of the Safety Act. Alterers also are subject to the requirements of 49 CFR Part 573, Defect and Noncompliance Reports. Second, as an alternative, your company is considering buying a chassis from Chrysler. In that case, your company would likely be considered a final-stage manufacturer. Under 49 CFR Part 568, Vehicles Manufactured in Two or More Stages, a final-stage manufacturer is defined as: A person who performs such manufacturing operations on an incomplete vehicle that it becomes a completed vehicle. Under the regulation, incomplete vehicle is defined as An assemblage consisting, as a minimum, of frame and chassis structure, power train, steering system, suspension system, and braking system, to the extent that those systems are to be part of the completed vehicle, that requires further manufacturing operations, other than the addition of readily attachable components, such as mirrors or tire and rim assemblies, or minor finishing operations such as painting, to become a completed vehicle. As a final-stage manufacturer, your company's certification responsibilities would depend on the information provided by the manufacturer of the incomplete vehicle. Under 49 CFR Part 568, the incomplete vehicle manufacturer must furnish your company with a document which states one of the following three things concerning the incomplete vehicle: 1. The vehicle when completed will conform to some or all of the applicable safety standards if no alterations are made to any identified components of the incomplete vehicle, 2. The vehicle when completed will conform to some or all of the applicable safety standards if specific conditions are followed by the final-stage manufacturer, 3. Conformity with some or all of the applicable safety standards is not substantially affected by the design of the incomplete vehicle, so the incomplete vehicle manufacturer makes no representation as to conformity with the standards. After receiving this document from the incomplete vehicle manufacturer, your company would be required to certify compliance with the safety standards. In addition to these certification requirements, a final-stage manufacturer is considered a 'manufacturer' for the purposes of the Safety Act. Among other things, this means a final-stage manufacturer is responsible for notification and remedy of defects related to motor vehicle safety and noncompliances with applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards, as specified in sections 151-160 of the Safety Act. In addition, final-stage manufacturers are subject to the requirements of 49 CFR Part 573, Defect and Noncompliance Reports. I am also enclosing a general information sheet for manufacturers of new vehicles. This sheet highlights the relevant Federal statutes and regulations and explains how to obtain copies of the regulations. I hope that this information is useful. If you have any further questions, please contact John Rigby at 202-366-2992. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel";

ID: nht80-3.1

DATE: 06/11/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Kelsey-Hayes Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your December 7, 1979, letter to Docket No. 79-03; Notice 2 on Heavy Duty Vehicle Brake Systems. That letter was in part a comment to the docket and in part a request for an interpretation of Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems. The points raised in your comment to the docket will be considered in our final rule on the issues proposed in Notice 2. This letter responds to your interpretive question whether your trailer emergency valve is permitted in accordance with the requirements of section 5.2.1.1 of the standard. The answer to your question is no.

Section 5.2.1.1 of the standard requires that vehicles be equipped with a reservoir that is capable of releasing the parking brakes when the air in the service brake system fails. The valve that you suggest would not provide such a reservoir but would merely reroute air from the trailer air supply system which would be used to release the parking brakes. The agency does not believe that this complies with the requirement that a reservoir be provided.

Recently, the Berg Manufacturing Company has petitioned the agency to amend the standard in a manner that would permit the type of system that you suggest. The agency is now evaluating that petition and will issue a notice in the near future addressing this issue. We suggest that you closely follow this rulemaking action.

ID: aiam4271

Dear Mr. Burman: This is in reply to your letter of January 9, 1987, asking for a interpretation of 49 CFR 571.108 Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 *Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment*. Your client wishes to import, market, distribute and sell a 'clear, plastic headlamp cover...for all makes of cars manufactured in or imported to the United States.' The stated safety purpose of the headlamp cover is 'to protect the glass headlamps on automobiles from breaking.'; three methods of distribution are contemplated: direct sale by you client, sale through auto parts distribution centers, and sale as optional but uninstalled equipment at the time of the vehicle's original sale (the cover in its wrapping would be in the vehicle trunk). You state that the headlamp cover is not intended to be installed by your client, or its distributors and dealers, but will be accompanied by instructions so that the vehicle owner may install it. Warnings will be provided 'about minimum Federal photometric requirements'. You wish to know whether the headlamp cover is subject to Standard No. 108 or any other Federal regulation and, if so, the effect and impact of such regulation.; A plastic headlamp cover is 'motor vehicle equipment', defined i pertinent part by Section 102(4) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 USC 1391(4)) as 'any...accessory, or addition to the motor vehicle....' Its importer is a 'manufacturer', defined in pertinent part by Section 102(5) of the Act as 'any person importing...motor vehicle equipment for resale'. As a manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment your client has the responsibility imposed by Section 151 *et seq* of the Act to notify and remedy in the event that either it or this agency determines that a safety related defect exists in the product, or that it fails to comply with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. You have already noted that headlamp covers are not 'a regulated safety device' under Standard No. 108. A 'defect' under Section 102(11) includes ' any defect in performance, construction, components, or materials'. Under the best of circumstances a plastic cover when new will reduce light output of a headlamp beneath its designer's intent, whether or not the output falls below the floor established by Standard No. 108 as a *minimum* for headlamp performance. In service, a plastic headlamp cover may contain condensation under certain climatic conditions, or grow increasingly opaque through exposure to ultraviolet rays or other atmospheric components, either of which would further affect the design performance of the headlamp. A conclusion could be reached that such a cover contained a safety related defect and that its importer should notify all purchasers and remedy according to the Act.; Safety problems associated with headlamp covers led to thei prohibition when the headlamp is in use, initially under SAE J580 for sealed beam headlamps and later by its incorporation into Standard No. 108, for both sealed beam and replaceable bulb headlamps. The specific prohibition of J580 is why passenger cars are not manufactured with original equipment headlamp covers. Under Section 108(a)(1)(A) of the Act, if a dealer sells a noncomplying motor vehicle, he is in violation of the Act, and may be subject to civil penalties for it. These penalties, under Section 109, range up to $1000 for a single violation, with a cumulative total of $800,000 for a related series of violations. If a dealer at time of sale provides the means through which a new car meeting all Federal safety standards may be rendered noncompliant immediately after its delivery, we would regard that as tantamount to his having sold a noncomplying motor vehicle in violation of the Act.; Although there is no Federal prohibition against a vehicle owne installing and using headlamp covers, there may nonetheless be local laws covering the sale and use of this equipment. We offer no views of your client's potential exposure under common law, in such situations as use of a deteriorated cover, or when used with a substandard replacement headlamp, except to note that photometric 'warnings' may serve no defensive purpose. Photometric values at the individual test points are judged under laboratory conditions. Service facilities do not contain equipment by which on-vehicle compliance of the headlamp can be judged, and the eye is a subjective and unreliable source to discriminate between complying and noncomplying levels of light output.; I hope that this answers your questions. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel