ID: aiam3172

Dear Mr. Urban: "This responds to the questions raised in your December 5, 1979 conversation with Roger Tilton of my staff concerning the application of Federal safety standards to devices designed to aid the handicapped. In your conversation, you indicated that you will manufacture some devices that enable the handicapped to operate their own vehicle. These would be sold by you to individuals and installed in either new or used j vehicles. You also will install lifts in vehicles."; The Agency has no specific safety standards applicable to handicappe control devices or other devices designed to aid the handicapped. Therefore, we have no special guidelines that you must follow in constructing these devices. However, other Federal agencies, such as the Veterans Administration, have guidelines for such devices and we suggest that you comply with those guidelines.; The agency requires new vehicles to comply with all applicable safet standards. Accordingly, if you manufacture and install handicapped devices in new vehicles, those vehicles should comply with the standards. However, the agency has long realized that, in the instance of handicapped driver controls, it may be difficult to comply with some safety standards, particularly Standard No. 124, *Accelerator Control Systems* (copy enclosed). As a result of compliance problems and the need for these devices to promote the mobility of the handicapped, the agency has stated that it will not enforce standards whose compliance may be impaired as a result of the installation of handicapped driver control devices. Nonetheless, the agency encourages manufacturers to try to comply with all of the safety standards.; The compliance of vehicles with the safety standards, however, shoul not be affected by the installation of lifts. Many companies now install lifts in regular vans and in school buses. In all instances the compliance if the vehicle with the safety standards is maintained. Therefore, the agency will not allow any noncompliances to result from the installation of lifts in vehicles.; For used vehicles that you modify by addition of devices to aid th handicapped, you need not ensure that the vehicles comply with all safety standards. you should not render inoperative the compliance of the vehicle with the safety standards, however. As in the case of new vehicles, if the addition of handicapped driver controls interferes with the compliance of the vehicle with the safety standards, the agency would not enforce the noncompliance.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel

ID: 571.108--Convertible CHMSL Beam Angle--Magna

April 3, 2023

Doris C. Schaller 

Homologation

Magna Steyr Engineering AG & Co KG

Liebenauer Hauptstrasse 317

8041 Graz Austria 

Dear Ms. Schaller:

This responds to your request for an interpretation regarding the permissibility, under Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 108, Lamps, reflective devices, and associated equipment, of two proposed variants for mounting the center high-mounted stop lamp (CHMSL) on a soft top convertible. Based on the information you provided in your letter, as explained in more detail below, we have concluded that mounting the CHMSL on the “service lid” is permissible under FMVSS No. 108, whereas mounting the CHMSL on the “soft top cover” is not.

Background
The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment (see 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301). NHTSA does  not provide approval of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, and NHTSA does not determine compliance of a vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment outside the context of an actual enforcement proceeding. Instead, manufacturers are required to self-certify that their products conform to all applicable safety standards that are in effect on the date of manufacture. The following represents NHTSA’s opinion regarding the applicability FMVSS No. 108 requirements to your CHMSL designs based on the information you have provided.

FMVSS No. 108 specifies requirements for original and replacement lamps, reflective devices, and associated equipment. Paragraph S6.1.3.1 of FMVSS No. 108 contains requirements for the mounting location of all required lamps, including CHMSLs, and states specifically that:

Each lamp, reflective device, and item of associated equipment must be securely mounted on a rigid part of the vehicle, other than glazing, that is not designed to be

removed except for repair, within the mounting location and height limits as specified in Table 1, and in a location where it complies with all applicable photometric requirements, effective projected luminous lens area requirements, and visibility requirements with all obstructions considered.

You ask how S6.1.3.1 applies to two possible lighting design variations. Although you ask that certain information in your interpretation request be treated as confidential, we do not need to reveal or reference the information other than in general descriptive terms in order to answer your questions. What follows is our interpretation based on our understanding of the facts you provided.

Variant 1: CHMSL mounted on the “service lid”
The first variant you describe places the CHMSL on the vehicle’s “service lid,” which we understand to be an access panel that is fixed in place during normal vehicle operation and that can be opened only with a specialized tool by technicians at certified repair shops. From the illustrations provided with your request, it appears that the service lid is located between the trunk and the passenger cabin at the rear of the vehicle.

You state that you believe that a configuration in which the CHMSL is located on the vehicle’s service lid complies with the mounting location requirement in S6.1.3.1 of FMVSS No. 108. We agree. As noted above, S6.1.3.1 of FMVSS No. 108 states that required lamps “must be securely mounted on a rigid part of the vehicle, other than glazing, that is not designed to be removed except for repair.” NHTSA believes that the service lid is “a rigid part of the vehicle,” based on the information that you have provided, which suggests that the service lid is similar (albeit adjacent) to a trunk lid. NHTSA has previously interpreted a vehicle’s “deck lid” (i.e., trunk lid) as a rigid part of the vehicle,[1] and while the service lid you describe is not a trunk lid, we believe that interpretation covers other similar lids on a vehicle, such as the service lid, that are solid and cannot be easily removed. Additionally, you expressly describe the service lid as “only [able to] be moved with special tools in qualified garages,” which is consistent with the “not designed to be removed except for repair” requirement.  Therefore, so long as the CHMSL meets all photometric and other requirements, NHTSA believes that it would be permissible under FMVSS No. 108 to mount the CHMSL on the vehicle’s service lid.

Variant 2: CHMSL mounted on the “soft top cover”
The second variant you describe places the CHMSL on the “soft top cover,” which we understand to be the lid that covers the compartment at the rear of the vehicle in which the convertible soft top is stored while it is open (i.e., retracted). In this variant, the CHMSL would comply with all applicable photometric requirements while the soft top cover is fully open or closed.  However, for the approximately 20-second duration of the soft top opening or closing process, the soft top cover tips backward, causing the CHMSL to be temporarily out of compliance with photometric requirements. The driver can initiate the opening or closing process when the vehicle is traveling at speeds of up to 50 kilometers per hour. From your description, there is no auxiliary CHMSL in operation while the soft top cover is in the process of opening or closing.

Based on the information you have provided, this second variant is not permissible. As noted above, S6.1.3.1 of FMVSS No. 108 states that a required lamp must be mounted “in a location where it complies with all applicable photometric requirements, effective projected luminous lens area requirements, and visibility requirements with all obstructions considered.” If there are obstructions that would cause the lamp to fail to meet photometric and visibility requirements, S6.2.2 of FMVSS No. 108 requires that “the vehicle must be equipped with an additional lamp or device of the same type which meet[s] all applicable requirements of this standard, including photometry and visibility.”

In a past interpretation request, a vehicle manufacturer sought to install a CHMSL on a movable rear spoiler, such that it would occasionally not comply with the photometric requirements for CHMSLs. The manufacturer stated that it would employ an additional CHMSL that met the requirements when the “primary” CHMSL on the movable spoiler did not. NHTSA responded[2] that this approach to compliance would be permissible under what is now S6.2.23 of FMVSS No. 108, which states that “If any required lamp…is obstructed by motor vehicle equipment…, and cannot meet the applicable photometry and visibility requirements, the vehicle must be equipped with an additional lamp … which meet[s] all applicable requirements of the standard, including photometry and visibility.”4 The situation you describe, where the CHMSL on the soft top will occasionally not comply with FMVSS No. 108, is similar to the one described above, except that it does not appear that your vehicle is equipped with an auxiliary CHMSL. Accordingly, it is our conclusion that the “soft top cover” CHMSL mounting variant is not permissible under FMVSS No. 108.

If you have further questions, you may refer them to Eli Wachtel of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Ann Carlson

Chief Counsel

Dated: 4/3/23

Ref: FMVSS No. 108

[1] See letter to M. Iwase (Sept. 15, 1988), available at https://www.nhtsa.gov/interpretations/2954o

[2] Letter to Michael Love (July 7, 1992), available at https://www.nhtsa.gov/interpretations/nht92-528. 3 The original reference was to S5.3.1.1.

ID: aiam4701

"Dear Mr. Kmiecik: This responds to your January 5, 1990 lette requesting our review of your rear wheel steering system for trucks, buses and special application vehicles. This system is intended to replace one rear axle on these vehicles, and when activated, enables the axle to rotate slightly on its vertical axis. It is intended to improve the maneuverability of these vehicles in low-speed situations such as making sharp turns. During a February 9, 1990 telephone conversation with David Greenburg of this office, you explained that, while your product uses air from the vehicle's compressed air suspension system to operate the axle, it is isolated from the air brake system. You also explained that, as a result of this design, a failure in the air system connected to your product would not affect the operation of the vehicle's braking system. By way of background information, NHTSA has no authority to approve, endorse or offer assurances of compliance for any motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment. Instead, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 makes manufacturers of motor vehicles or items of motor vehicle equipment responsible for certifying that each of its products conforms with all applicable safety standards. In this instance, there are no specific provisions in the safety standards that set forth requirements for steerable rear axles. Thus, your company as the manufacturer of such a product would not have to certify that a steerable rear axle complies with any safety standard before offering it for sale to the public. However, the addition of a steerable rear axle to a vehicle before its first sale to the public could affect the vehicle's compliance with various safety standards. In such a case, the manufacturer or alterer that installed this product on a new vehicle would have to certify that the vehicle, with the steerable rear axle installed, complied with all applicable safety standards. For example, installation of the steerable axle could affect the vehicle's compliance with the applicable braking standard (Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 121, Air brake systems) or the tire and rim selection standard (FMVSS No. 119, New pneumatic tires for vehicles other than passenger cars). Of course, you will need to consider other safety effects that operation of the steerable axle system could have. Among these considerations would be ensuring that the trailer's gross axle weight rating (GAWR) is not exceeded when the steering system is in operation and the the trailer is supported by only the steerable axle instead of by both the steerable and fixed axles. Although we do not have any standards that directly apply to your product, we do have several statutory provisions that could affect it. Manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment such as your steerable rear axle are subject to the requirements in sections 151-159 of the Vehicle 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 company or this agency determines that a safety-related defect exists in your product, your company as the manufacturer must notify purchasers of the safety-related defect and must either: (1) repair the parts so that the defect is removed, or (2) replace the parts with identical or reasonably equivalent parts 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. In addition, the use of your product could be affected by section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)). That section prohibits any manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or repair business from knowingly 'rendering inoperative' any device or element of design installed on or in a vehicle to comply with an applicable safety standard. To avoid a 'rendering inoperative' violation, the above-named parties should examine the proposed installation instructions for the steerable rear axle and compare those instructions with the requirements of our safety standards, to determine if installing the steerable rear axle in accordance with those instructions would result in the vehicle no longer complying with the requirements of the safety standards. If the installation of the steerable rear axle would not result in a rendering inoperative of the vehicle's compliance with the safety standards, the product can be installed by dealers, distributors, and repair shops without violating any Federal requirements. The Safety Act places the initial responsibility for determining whether the installation of this steerable rear axle on vehicles would result in a 'render inoperative' violation on your company. This agency may reexamine your determination in the context of an enforcement action. For your information, I have enclosed a copy of an information sheet for new manufacturers of motor vehicles and new motor vehicle equipment. This sheet gives a brief description of our regulations and explains how to obtain copies of those regulations. You should also be aware that State laws may apply to your product. I hope this information is helpful. Please feel free to contact this office if you have any further questions or need additional information. Sincerely, Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel Enclosure";

ID: aiam5173

"Dear Mr. Brinton: This responds to your letter inquiring about th legality of an auxiliary parking system in addition to the spring parking brake system. According to your letter, you are familiar with certain refuse type vehicles with right hand side drive that are equipped with an I.C.C. flip switch valve or a push pull valve. These valves permit a driver to temporarily park the vehicle while the driver leaves the vehicle and picks up trash. You explained that while the auxiliary brake system is applied, the spring brakes are not applied to help the spring avoid extreme wear cycles. You asked whether the auxiliary brake system is legal under Standard No. 121. In your letter, you indicate your view that these auxiliary systems do not comply with the parking brake requirements in S5.6.3 of Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems. Based on our understanding of the brake system you describe, I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our regulations to you. By way of background information, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act ('Safety Act') requires this agency, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), to promulgate motor vehicle safety standards that specify performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. One such standard is Standard No. 121, which establishes performance and equipment requirements for braking systems on vehicles equipped with air brake systems, and applies to almost all new trucks, buses, and trailers equipped with air brake systems. The purpose of the standard is to ensure safe braking performance under normal and emergency conditions. A vehicle equipped with air brakes is required to comply with the requirements set forth in Standard No. 121. Among other things, S5.6 of the Standard requires air-braked vehicles to be equipped with a parking brake system that meets specified performance requirements. The requirements in Standard No. 121, however, do not preclude the installation of a braking system in addition to the systems installed to comply with the Standard's requirements. Accordingly, the agency would not consider the requirements of S5.6 to prohibit an auxiliary parking brake system in addition to the brake systems required to comply with Standard No. 121. Nevertheless, as an item of motor vehicle equipment subject to the requirements in sections 151-159 of the Safety Act concerning the recall and remedy of products with defects related to motor vehicle safety, an auxiliary parking brake system should be built in such a manner that the public is protected against unreasonable risk of injury that might occur as a result of its design, construction, or performance. Please note that this interpretation is consistent with the agency's long- standing view about the use of auxiliary parking brake systems. I am enclosing a December 9, 1976 interpretation letter to Mr. Leon Steenbock which addressed this issue. I hope this information is helpful. If you have any questions about NHTSA's safety standards, please feel free to contact Marvin Shaw at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel Enclosure";

ID: aiam5420

"Dear Mr. Lakhani: This responds to your letter requesting ou 'unequivocal opinion on the issue of whether the attachment of a bumper guard to the front bumper of a vehicle will interfere with' an air bag. Your company is a manufacturer of bumper guards. Recently your customers have indicated that auto manufacturers have stated that installation of a bumper guard in front of a bumper will interfere with the air bag and could void the warranty. This letter will address the effect under Federal laws of the installation of a bumper guard, however, our agency cannot comment on the effect on a manufacturer's warranty. By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized under 49 U.S.C. 30101 et seq. to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards that apply to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. Federal law 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 does not approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, nor do we endorse any commercial products. Instead, each manufacturer is responsible for 'self-certifying' that its products meet all applicable safety standards. NHTSA has exercised its authority to establish Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection (49 CFR 571.208). Among other things, Standard No. 208 requires that cars be equipped with automatic crash protection. 'Automatic crash protection' means that a vehicle is equipped with occupant restraints that require no action by vehicle occupants. The performance of automatic crash protection is dynamically tested, that is, the automatic systems are required to comply with certain injury reduction criteria as measured by test dummies in a barrier crash test at speeds up to 30 mph. 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). A new Federal statutory requirement will make air bags mandatory in all cars and light trucks by the late 1990's. Standard No. 208 applies to new vehicles, therefore, if a bumper guard is installed before the vehicle's first purchase for purposes other than resale, the vehicle manufacturer would have to certify that the vehicle complied with all applicable standards, including Standard No. 208, with the bumper guard installed. After the first purchase of a vehicle for purposes other than resale, the only provision in Federal law that affects the vehicle's continuing compliance with an applicable safety standard is set forth in 49 U.S.C. 30122. That section provides 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 violation of this provision would subject the violator to a potential civil penalty of up to $1,000 for each violation. This provision would prohibit a commercial business from installing a bumper guard on a vehicle equipped with an air bag in a manner that would negatively affect the vehicle's compliance with Standard No. 208 or any other safety standard. Please note that this provision would apply to a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair business installing your product, and not to your company as the manufacturer of the product. Also note that this provision does not apply to modifications vehicle owners make to their own vehicles. Thus, Federal law would not apply in situations where individual vehicle owners install a bumper guard on their own vehicles, even if the installation were to result in the vehicle no longer complying with the safety standards. However, States have the authority to regulate modifications that individual vehicle owners may make to their own vehicles. You should also note that a bumper guard would be considered 'motor vehicle equipment' under Federal law. Therefore, if it contained a defect (either in manufacture, design, or performance) that relates to motor vehicle safety, you would be required to conduct a recall campaign to notify owners and to remedy the defect free of charge. It is not possible for NHTSA to provide an 'unequivocal opinion on the issue of whether the attachment of a bumper guard to the front bumper of a vehicle will interfere with' an air bag. This is because the answer to the question would depend on the designs of the bumper guard, the air bag, and the vehicle as a whole. The discussion which follows illustrates possible problems, identified by our technical staff, which bumper guards could cause with respect to air bags. First, a bumper guard attached to the bumper could possibly induce unwarranted air bag deployments if the guard extended vertically below the car bumper. Such a bumper guard could snag on travel surface irregularities, sharp inclines, or sharp incline departure angles which might otherwise not engage the vehicle structure. The potential impulsive nature of bumper guard snag might cause air bag deployment to occur at conditions differing from the crash severity for which the original manufacturer designed the air bag. Second, if a bumper guard were attached to the vehicle structure, rather than the bumper, it too could possibly produce deployments that are not intended. Such a system might impose direct loading into the vehicle frame without the energy absorption of the bumper moderating the impulse experienced by the crash sensor system which is calibrated to measure crash severity. Third, if a bumper guard were added to the front bumper of a vehicle in such a manner as to change the load path through the bumper to the car structure behind the bumper, it is possible that the crash impulse arriving at the crash sensor location might be altered from that of the original bumper, causing air bag deployment to occur either above or below the original manufacturer's deployment threshold. We cannot provide an opinion of whether, or under what circumstances, your bumper guard might cause these or other problems. We suggest that you consult with vehicle manufacturers and air bag manufacturers concerning how, and whether, your bumper guard can be installed on air bag-equipped vehicles in a manner that does not create problems. 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";

ID: aiam5612

Dear Mr. Ponticelli: This responds to your letter asking about how th National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's (NHTSA's) regulations apply to your product. You described your product as an aftermarket anti-theft device that is installed between the steering wheel and the steering shaft. The device is activated by 'a key switch' and causes the steering wheel to become freewheeling, thus preventing actual steering of the vehicle. In an August 29, 1995 meeting with NHTSA staff, you demonstrated this device and stated that you also have plans to market it to vehicle manufacturers as original equipment. For the original equipment version of the device, you plan to incorporate a starter interrupt that will prevent the vehicle from starting while the device is in the freewheeling mode. You also requested information on how our regulations apply to regulated parties such as new car dealers and aftermarket service businesses. I will respond to your questions below. First, I will give you some background information. NHTSA is authorized to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. The FMVSSs are contained in title 49, part 571 of the Code of Federal Regulations. NHTSA does not have any specific regulations covering an item of motor vehicle equipment such as your anti-theft device. However, since the steering wheel, steering column, and the area in front of the driver are among the most closely regulated parts of a vehicle, your device could affect a vehicle's compliance with several safety standards. Because the purpose of your device is to prevent vehicle theft, I will first discuss FMVSS No. 114, the safety standard that deals with theft protection. The pertinent part of Standard No. 114 requires most vehicles to 'have a key- locking system which, whenever the key is removed, prevents: (a) t he normal activation of the vehicle's engine or motor, and (b) e ither steering or forward self-mobility of the vehicle or both.' Most motor vehicle manufacturers have chosen to comply with this requirement by installing a steering lock. Because a device that causes the steering wheel to become freewheeling prevents actual steering, or maneuvering of the vehicle, it could also be used to meet this requirement. However, to be used as a basis for certification with FMVSS No. 114, the device would have to be activated by removal of the key that controls engine activation. In addition to possibly being used as a means of complying with FMVSS No. 114, your device could alternatively be operated by a separate key and installed in addition to a steering lock, assuming that it did not affect compliance of the vehicle with that or other safety standards. However, you should evaluate whether the device might pose a safety hazard if used without your planned starter interrupt. A driver who doesn't know (or forgets) about your device could start the vehicle in motion without realizing that the turning of the wheel is not affecting the vehicle. Other standards that you should be concerned about include FMVSS Nos. 203 (impact protection for the driver from the steering control system), 204 (steering control rearward displacement), and 208 (occupant crash protection). As our engineers explained in our meeting, even small changes to the steering column can affect vehicle compliance with these standards. Turning to the second part of your question, which legal requirements apply depends on how your product is marketed. If your product is installed by a vehicle manufacturer as original equipment, the vehicle manufacturer would have to certify that the vehicle with your device installed complies with all applicable FMVSS's, including Standard Nos. 114, 203, 204, and 208. If the device is added to a previously certified new motor vehicle prior to its first sale, e.g. by a new car dealer, 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 alteration. If your device is installed on a used vehicle by a commercial business, such as an aftermarket service business or new car dealer, that business would have to make sure that it did not knowingly make inoperative any part of a device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable FMVSS. Any violation of this 'make inoperative' prohibition would subject the violator to a potential civil penalty of up to $1,000 for each violation. The 'make inoperative' prohibition does not apply to modifications that vehicle owners make to their own vehicles. Thus, Federal law would not apply in situations where individual vehicle owners installed your device in their own vehicles, even if the installation were to result in the vehicle no longer complying with the safety standards. However, NHTSA encourages vehicle owners not to degrade any safety device or system installed in their vehicles. In addition, individual States have the authority to regulate modifications that individual vehicle owners may make to their vehicles, so you might wish to consult State regulations to see whether your device would be permitted. You as the product's manufacturer are subject to the requirements in sections 30118-30122 of Title 49 of the U.S. Code concerning the recall and remedy of products with defects related to motor vehicle safety. In the event that the manufacturer or NHTSA determines that the product contains a safety related defect, the manufacturer would be responsible for notifying purchasers of the defective equipment and remedying the problem free of charge. I hope this information is helpful. I am also enclosing a copy of a fact sheet titled 'Information for New Manufacturers of Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Equipment.' It outlines other laws and regulations that you should be aware of. If you have any further questions about NHTSA's safety standards, please feel free to contact Mr. Paul Atelsek at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel Enclosure;

ID: aiam4842

"Dear Mr. Thomson: This responds to your letter to Dorothy Nakama of m staff in which you asked for an explanation of the responsibilities of installers and repairers of motor vehicle glazing. I apologize for the delay in this response. In a subsequent telephone conversation with Ms. Nakama, you asked that we provide a response to the following two questions: 1) Would it be a violation of Federal law if, after fixing a broken or cracked windshield, an aftermarket business still did not make the windshield comply with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205? 2) What would be the consequences if an installer knowingly installed in a motor vehicle new glazing that did not comply with Standard No. 205? Your questions are addressed below. By way of background information, section 103 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of l966 (Safety Act, l5 U.S.C. l392) authorizes the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to issue safety standards for new motor vehicles and new motor vehicle equipment. One of the safety standards we have issued under this authority is Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials (49 CFR 571.205). Standard No. 205 establishes performance requirements for all windows (called 'glazing' in the standard) in new motor vehicles and for all new replacement windows for motor vehicles. Section 108(a)(1)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(1)(A)) specifies that no person may manufacture, import, sell, or introduce into interstate commerce any new vehicle or new replacement window that does not conform with the performance requirements of Standard No. 205. Pursuant to section 108(b)(1) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(b)(1)), this prohibition no longer applies to the motor vehicle after the vehicle is sold to a consumer. However, both before and after the first sale to a consumer, section 108(a)(2) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)) 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 or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard . . . .' Your first question asked whether it would be a violation of Federal law if, after fixing a broken or cracked windshield (by repairing instead of replacing it), an aftermarket business still did not make the windshield comply with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205. The answer depends upon whether or not the vehicle with the broken or cracked windshield has already been sold to a consumer. If the vehicle has not yet been sold to a consumer, the 'aftermarket business' would violate section 108(a)(1)(A) of the Safety Act if the vehicle with the repaired or replaced windshield did not comply with Standard No. 205 in all respects. As noted above, that section of the Safety Act prohibits any person from manufacturing, selling, importing, or introducing into interstate commerce any new vehicle that does not comply with Standard No. 205. Thus, even if a windshield is broken while a vehicle is being delivered from the factory to a new car dealer, the windshield that is in the new vehicle when it is delivered to the first purchaser must meet all requirements of Standard No. 205. Once the vehicle has been sold to a first purchaser for purposes other than resale, any repairs or replacement of the windshield would not violate the 'render inoperative' prohibition in the Safety Act. I have enclosed a September 3, l98l letter to the National Glass Dealers Association explaining that NHTSA does not consider repairing a damaged windshield to constitute rendering inoperative with respect to Standard No. 205, even if the repaired windshield does not meet the requirements of the standard once repaired. This is because the agency considers the object or event which damaged the windshield in the first place, not the repair shop, to have rendered the windshield inoperative with respect to Standard No. 205. Upon reconsideration, we reaffirm this interpretation. Your second question asked about the consequences of an installer knowingly installing in a motor vehicle new glazing that did not comply with Standard No. 205. This would be a violation of section 108(a)(1)(A) of the Safety Act, because the installer would be introducing into interstate commerce an item of motor vehicle equipment (the windshield) that did not comply with the applicable safety standard. By so doing, the installer would be subject to a civil penalty of up to $1,000 for each time it installed a noncomplying windshield, per section 109 of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1398). 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. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel Enclosure";

ID: aiam4533

"Dear Mr. Baldwin: This responds to your May 7, 1988 letter, concernin the 'Baldwin Rear-View Mirror Safety System.' You stated that this mirror system contains both a flat mirror of unit magnification and a convex mirror, and stated your belief that this mirror system 'offers the latest in technology and safety.' You requested that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) evaluate and approve your mirror system. We have no authority to approve any motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, as explained below. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, as amended (the 'Safety Act') authorizes this agency to issue safety standards applicable to motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. The Safety Act also requires that these safety standards establish minimum levels of performance for vehicles or equipment. Once the necessary performance level has been established, vehicle or equipment manufacturers are free to choose any means they wish to achieve the required level of performance. In other words, the safety standards do not require the use of any particular manufacturer's product, the standards permit the use of any manufacturer's product that achieves the necessary performance level. Section 114 of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1403) requires manufacturers to certify that each of its vehicles or items of motor vehicle equipment complies with all applicable safety standards. Because of this provision in the law, NHTSA cannot approve, endorse, or certify any motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA has exercised its authority to establish performance requirements for new vehicles in Standard No. 111, Rearview Mirrors (49 CFR 571.111, copy enclosed). As you will see, Standard No. 111 establishes performance and location requirements for the rearview mirrors installed in any new vehicle. This means that vehicle manufacturers must certify that each of their new vehicles complies with the applicable requirements of Standard No. 111. Standard No. 111 does not apply to rearview mirrors as items of equipment. The effect of this is to place the certification responsibility for original equipment rearview mirror systems entirely on the vehicle manufacturer. You as the manufacturer of the mirror are not required to certify that your mirrors comply with Standard No. 111 or any other standard. With respect to your new mirror system, NHTSA has said in many previous interpretations that vehicle manufacturers may install mirror systems that combine flat and convex mirrors on their new vehicles, provided that the flat mirror portion by itself complies with the requirements of Standard No. 111 that are applicable to the vehicle type on which the mirror system is installed. Assuming that the flat mirror portion of your mirror system complies with the requirements of Standard No. 111 for the vehicle type on which it is to be installed, this new mirror system can legally be installed on new vehicles of that type. Please note that the requirements of Standard No. 111 do not apply to mirrors installed as aftermarket equipment. The only limitation on such installations is set forth in section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)). That section prohibits any manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business from knowingly rendering inoperative any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle in compliance with an applicable safety standard. The rearview mirror system in a vehicle is a device installed in compliance with Standard No. 111. If the installation of an aftermarket mirror system resulted in a vehicle no longer complying with Standard No. 111, a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair business that removed a complying system and replaced it with the noncomplying system would have rendered inoperative a device (the mirror system) installed in the vehicle in compliance with Standard No. 111. Section 109 of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1398) specifies a civil penalty of up to $1,000 for each violation of the 'render inoperative' provision. Again assuming that the flat mirror portion of your mirror system complies with the requirements of Standard No. 111 for the vehicle type on which it is to be installed, this new mirror system can legally be installed on used vehicles of that type. If your mirror system does not comply with the requirements of Standard No. 111 for a vehicle type, it cannot be installed on used vehicles of that type by any manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair business. Please note that the Safety Act does not establish any limitations on an individual vehicle owner's ability to alter his or her own vehicle. Under Federal law, individual owners can install any mirror system they want on their own vehicles, regardless of whether that mirror system renders inoperative the vehicle's compliance with the requirements of Standard No. 111. I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Marvin Shaw of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel Enclosures";

ID: aiam4256

Dear Mr. Tokunaga: This responds to your letter seeking an interpretation of Part 541 *Federal Motor Vehicle Theft Prevention Standard*. Specifically, you indicated that you would like to mark the engines and transmissions of your high theft car lines by affixing metal plates with the vehicle identification number (VIN) inscribed thereon to the engines and transmissions. I will answer your questions in the order they were set forth in your letter.; 1. The VIN's are inscribed directly on parts in Isuzu's curren production. You do not think that a change from direct inscription to VIN plate affixation constitutes a violation of Part 541. Is this correct?; Yes. Section 541.5(d) specifies that required markings must 'be affixe by means that comply with paragraph (d)(1) of this section *or* inscribed by means that comply with paragraph (d)(2) of this section.' Manufacturers are free to choose whether to affix or inscribe the required markings, and are free to change that choice at any time. The only limitation set by Part 541 on this choice is that the markings that appear on the parts must comply with the requirements of either S541.5(d)(1) or (d)(2).; 2. May the 17- digit VIN be expressed in two lines, for example nin digits on the top line and eight on the bottom line?; Yes. In a June 9, 1986 to Messrs. Waimey and Hansell, I addressed thi topic as follows:; >>>In the agency's view, S541.5(b)(1) requires that the ful 17-character VIN be marked in such a way that police can easily determine what VIN is marked on the part, and then check to see if that part is stolen. If a VIN is divided into segments, the proper sequence of those segments must be readily determinable. If the VIN were placed on two lines, beginning on the first line with the remainder of the VIN directly below the first line, as suggested in your letter, we do not believe it would be confusing or difficult for law enforcement officers to easily read the marking in the correct order. Accordingly, we conclude that marking the VIN on two separate lines, with the second directly below the first, would not violate any of the requirements of Part 541.<<<; 3. As shown in the drawings attached to your letter, you are planing t affix the VIN plate carrying the inscribed VIN either by rivets or breakaway-head bolts. Part 541 specifies requirements which must be met when the VIN is affixed, in S541.5(d)(1), or when it is inscribed, in S541.5(d)(2).; 3.1 With which set of requirements should an affixed VIN plate wit inscribed markings comply?; We have stated in several past interpretations that the language o S541.5(d) means that *all* markings that are affixed to a part, whether by means of adhesive, screws, rivets, or welding, must satisfy the performance requirements for labels set forth in S541.5(d)(1). Since your VIN plate would be affixed, it would be subject to the performance requirements for labels.; 3-2-1. Section 541.5(d)(1)(i) says that the number must be printe indelibly on a label. You believe that the number inscribed on a metal plate meets this requirement. Is this correct?; Your belief is correct. The requirement that the marking be printe indelibly on a label was included in Part 541 to ensure that the markings would remain legible to investigators for as long as the label was affixed to a part. *See* 50 FR 43166, at 43170-71, October 24, 1985. Inscribing a number on a metal plate ensures that the number will be legible for the life of the metal plate, and complies with the requirement of S541.5(d)(1)(i).; 3-2-2. Since the number is inscribed on a metal plate, you believe tha subparagraphs (ii), (vii), and (viii) of paragraph 541.5(d)(1) are not applicable. Is this correct?; No, it is incorrect. *All* of the requirements of S541.5(d)(1) must b satisfied by any marking affixed to satisfy the requirements of S541.5.; 3-2-3. If this metal plate were removed from the engine o transmission, parts of the rivets or breakaway-head bolts will remain in the area where the plate was affixed. You think these pieces are 'residual parts of the label' within the meaning of S541.5(d)(1)(v)(B). Is this opinion correct?; It may be correct, but we do not have sufficient information to offe an opinion. Section 606(c) of the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act (15 U.S.C. 2026(c)) requires each *manufacturer* to certify that its vehicles comply with the theft prevention standard. Therefore, this agency does not approve, endorse, or certify that any manufacturer's marking system complies with the theft prevention standard. We will, however, state whether a particular marking system appears to comply with the standard if we are provided with sufficient information on which to base that opinion. In this case, your letter does not give us enough information to offer an opinion.; The regulatory language of S541.5(d)(1)(v)(B) requires that removal o the label must 'discernibly alter the appearance of that area of the part where the label was affixed by leaving residual parts of the label or adhesive in that area, so that investigators will have evidence that a label was originally present.' If we are to offer an opinion as to whether your marking system satisfies this requirement, we must be able to determine what remains on the part after the affixed label is removed. Ideally, we would have several labels affixed to a metal section by the means described in your letter. We could then remove these labels and examine those areas of the metal section to which the labels were affixed to see what residual parts remained. If we are to offer an opinion on this topic, we at least need some means of determining what residual parts of these labels remain if they are removed, and whether such residual parts would give investigators evidence that a label was originally present. The drawings enclosed with your letter do not give us a means for making these determinations.; Your fourth question presented six alternative means for affixing th VIN plate. My response to these alternatives is the same as that set forth above in response to your question 3-2-3. Without additional information, I cannot offer an opinion as to whether any or all of these alternatives appears to comply with the requirements of S541.5(d)(1).; Please feel free to contact me if you have any further questions o need some additional information about our theft prevention standard.; Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam5294

"Dear Mr. Keitges: This is in reply to your letter of January 14, 1994 in which you ask to be provided the statement 'that once the company has complied with all Federal NHTSA statutes, regulations, and standards, then the company has also complied with the State and Local requirements as applicable to NHTSA.' It is not possible to provide you with a statement in this form. We are unaware of any State and local requirements that are literally 'applicable to NHTSA.' However, there may be state and local laws that require compliance with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards, issued by NHTSA, in order for vehicles to be sold or registered for use on state and local roads. We believe it likely that this is your concern, and we will take this opportunity to explain the relationship between Federal and State or local requirements. Section 103(d) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (l5 U.S.C. 1392(d)), in effect, allows a State or a political subdivision of a State to enact a safety standard covering the same aspect of performance as a NHTSA Federal motor vehicle safety standard if it is identical to the NHTSA standard. A State or local standard cannot impose a higher level of performance than a NHTSA standard, except for vehicles procured for use by the State or the political subdivision. Further, a State or a subdivision is specifically permitted to enforce its own identical safety standard. Finally, State or local standards are permitted in areas of performance where there is no NHTSA standard, such as horns and fog lamps. Section 114 of the Act (15 U.S.C. 1403) requires each motor vehicle to bear its manufacturer's permanently affixed certification of compliance with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. This certification raises the presumption that the vehicle, in fact, conforms with those standards. If a State or local law is worded so as to require compliance with all Federal motor vehicle safety standards as a condition of vehicle sale or registration, then the manufacturer's certification should be accepted as fulfilling this State or local requirement. We believe, however, that in spite of the certification, a vehicle could be rejected as not in conformance with Federal requirements within the meaning of State or local law if the nonconformance was manifest on its face (e.g., failure of a new passenger car to be equipped with a center highmounted stop lamp) in spite of the facts that a State cannot enforce a Federal standard, and that neither the manufacturer nor NHTSA may have made a formal determination of noncompliance. If the State or local law is worded so as to require compliance with all State or local requirements as a condition of sale or registration, the manufacturer's certification may be accepted as indicating compliance with all identical State or local requirements if the governing authority so chooses, but obviously the certification could not cover compliance with State or local requirements in areas not covered by the Federal safety standards. We hope that this explanation is useful to you, and will be glad to answer any further questions you may have. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel";