ID: aiam2698

Dear Mr. Zeiler: This responds to your September 26, 1977, letter asking severa questions about the applicability of Standard No. 120, *Tire Selection and Rims for Motor Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars*, to rims modified subsequent to their initial marking by the rim manufacturer.; Standard No. 120, as it applies to rim manufacturers, requires onl that the manufacturer mark the rim with the information outlined in section S5.2 of the standard, The standard does not contain substantive performance requirements for tire rims that would necessitate extensive testing to comply with the requirements.; In cases where your client modifies previously marked rims, he migh have some responsibilities for compliance with the standard. For those rims where the center disc is only added or altered by your client, there would be no requirement for him to provide his own markings on the tire rim. The rim manufacturer's markings would still contain the accurate size information.; For rims that your client modifies by the insertion of a steel plat increasing the dimensions of the rim, he becomes the rim manufacturer, As a rim manufacturer, it is his responsibility to mark the rim with the information listed and in the manner prescribed in S5.2 of the standard. This information includes the DOT symbol which indicates that he has complied with the requirements of Standard No. 120. Since the rim would have been marked initially with a different size, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) would require that the first markings be removed from the rim the avoid the possibility of confusion to persons who might read the incorrect size listing. This could result in the mismatching of a tire to the modified rim.; In a conversation between Ms. Maryanne Kane of your office and Mr Roger Tilton of my staff, it was asked whether the NHTSA Standard No, 120 requirements would be applicable to rim manufactured entirely for off-road use. The NHTSA regulates only motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. by definition a motor vehicle is a vehicle used on the roads. Accordingly, vehicles designed for off-road use do not fall within the ambit of our regulations. The same is true for equipment designed for use on those off-road vehicles. The determination of whether a vehicle is an off-road vehicle depends upon its use. I have enclosed an interpretive letter that described the criteria for determining what vehicles are motor vehicles under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Pub. L. 89-563) (the Act).; You should note further that any time your client undertakes a alteration of a rim, he is performing a manufacturing function that places him within the scope of the Act. Therefore, he would be responsible for any safety-related defects resulting from his manufacturing processes.; Sincerely, Joseph J. Levin, Jr., Chief Counsel

ID: aiam3624

Dear Mr. Bettridge: This is in reply to your letters of September 27 and October 7, 1982 concerning your wish for a temporary exemption from Standard No. 301.; In our letter of August 12, 1982, we informed you that the statemen which 49 CFR Part 568 requires an incomplete vehicle manufacturer to furnish with the vehicle affords a basis for certification without the necessity of testing. We asked you which of the statements had been provided you. Your subsequent correspondence with us does not answer this question. You refer to a print furnished you by AM General Corporation after August 12 which, with your engineering studies, leads you to believe that you may comply, but the print is extraneous to the Part 568 statement.; Therefore, we would still like to know whether AM General has provide you with a statement of specific conditions of final manufacture under which the completed vehicle will conform with Standard No. 301, or, alternatively, with a statement that the vehicle will conform if no alterations are made in certain specified components of the incomplete vehicle. Perhaps you could send us a copy of that portion of the Part 568 statement pertaining to Standard No. 301.; We shall consider your petition further when we have this information. Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam3623

Dear Mr. Bettridge: This is in reply to your letters of September 27 and October 7, 1982 concerning your wish for a temporary exemption from Standard No. 301.; In our letter of August 12, 1982, we informed you that the statemen which 49 CFR Part 568 requires an incomplete vehicle manufacturer to furnish with the vehicle affords a basis for certification without the necessity of testing. We asked you which of the statements had been provided you. Your subsequent correspondence with us does not answer this question. You refer to a print furnished you by AM General Corporation after August 12 which, with your engineering studies, leads you to believe that you may comply, but the print is extraneous to the Part 568 statement.; Therefore, we would still like to know whether AM General has provide you with a statement of specific conditions of final manufacture under which the completed vehicle will conform with Standard No. 301, or, alternatively, with a statement that the vehicle will conform if no alterations are made in certain specified components of the incomplete vehicle. Perhaps you could send us a copy of that portion of the Part 568 statement pertaining to Standard No. 301.; We shall consider your petition further when we have this information. Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam4923

"Dear Mr. Lushan: This responds to your letter concerning the use o tinted flexible plastic glazing in certain jeep-type vehicles. You explained that a customer has asked you to manufacture a bronze-tinted clear plastic flexible window for installation in the rear side and rear windows of its vehicles. You indicated that this glazing material would not satisfy the minimum light transmittance requirement of Standard No. 205 and requested confirmation of your understanding that Standard No. 205 permits the use of such glazing for rear and side windows in these vehicles. Further, during two telephone conversations on October 29, 1991 and October 30, 1991, you informed Elizabeth Barbour of my staff that your question specifically refers to the use of this glazing on the two-door Suzuki Sidekick and the two-door Geo Tracker. You also confirmed to Ms. Barbour that the glazing materials to which your letter refers would be installed as original equipment, but added that your company is also involved with after-market products. I am pleased to have this opportunity to answer your question. By way of background information, 103 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Safety Act, 15 U.S.C. 1392) authorizes the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to issue safety standards for new motor vehicles and new motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA does not, however, approve or certify any vehicles or items of equipment, nor do we endorse any commercial products or processes. 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. The agency periodically tests vehicles and items of equipment for compliance with the standards, and also investigates alleged safety-related defects. Pursuant to NHTSA's authority, the agency has established Standard No. 205, which specifies performance requirements for various types of glazing (called 'items'), and specifies the locations in vehicles in which each item of glazing may be used. The standard also incorporates by reference 'ANSI Z26,' the American National Standards Institute's Safety Code for Safety Glazing Materials for Glazing Motor Vehicles Operating on Land Highways. Among Standard No. 205's requirements are specifications for minimum levels of light transmittance, measured by Test 2 in ANSI Z26. A minimum of 70% light transmittance is required in glazing areas requisite for driving visibility, which includes all windows in passenger cars. In trucks, buses and multipurpose passenger vehicles, only the windshield and the windows to the immediate left and right of the driver are considered requisite for driving visibility (if they are equipped with dual outside mirrors satisfying sections S6.1(b) of FMVSS No. 111) and thus, subject to the minimum light transmittance requirement. The windows to the rear of the driver in trucks, buses and multipurpose passenger vehicles, including the rear side and rear windows, are not required to meet the light transmittance requirement. Thus, Standard No. 205 permits the use of tinted glazing materials (i.e. items of glazing that are not subject to Test 2) for windows to the rear of the driver in such vehicles when they are equipped with dual outside mirrors larger than those usually used on passenger cars. As stated above, you described the product you wish to manufacture as tinted flexible plastic, Item 7 glazing, which would be installed in the rear side and rear windows of the two-door Suzuki Sidekick and Geo Tracker. According to the agency's information about these vehicles, the rear side and rear windows are part of a removable soft-top. Standard No. 205 permits glazing used for readily removable windows in these locations to be manufactured out of flexible plastic glazing (Items 6, 7 and 13), among other types of glazing. Thus, since these specific window locations on the two-door Suzuki Sidekick and Geo Tracker are not subject to the light transmittance requirement, and since Standard No. 205 permits use of flexible plastic glazing for readily removable windows, the Standard would permit you to manufacture the bronze-tinted flexible plastic glazing for the use your customer requested. You also stated that your company is involved with after-market glazing materials. After a vehicle is first sold to a consumer, 108 (a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act prohibits any manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or repair business from 'rendering inoperative' any device or element of design installed in a vehicle in compliance with any safety standard. According to this provision, your company, for example, could install the Item 7 glazing in the rear side and rear windows of a Suzuki Sidekick or Geo Tracker after that vehicle is first sold to a consumer. This provision would, however, prohibit the after-market installation of tinted flexible plastic glazing in the front side windows of that vehicle because such installation would cause the glazing of the front side windows to no longer comply with the requirements of Standard No. 205. The 'render inoperative' provision of the Safety Act does not apply to the actions of vehicle owners themselves. No section of the Safety Act prevents vehicle owners themselves from installing any product on their vehicles, regardless of whether the installation causes the vehicle to no longer comply with Standard No. 205. The actions of individual vehicle owners may be regulated or precluded by individual States, which have the authority to regulate owner modifications and the operational use of vehicles. I hope this information is helpful. Please contact Elizabeth Barbour of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992 if you have further questions. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel";

ID: aiam1475

Dear Mr. Hospodor: This is in reply to your letter of March 26, 1974, concerning th defect notification campaign involving your 1972 Open Road motor home. You object to Open Road's insistence that you sign an authorization for repair and alteration form which contains a rather comprehensive indemnity and hold-harmless provision.; The NHTSA is without authority to compel the making of any repairs t potentially defective vehicles in the hands of purchasers. Manufacturers are free to make repairs subject to conditions, or to not make them at all. The NHTSA has issued regulations regarding the content of defect notification letters (49 CFR Part 577) but does not consider these regulations to apply to the campaign in question as the campaign was initiated before the regulations became effective.; We have corresponded with Open Road regarding this matter, which wa first brought to our attention by another purchaser whose objections were similar to your own. That purchaser signed a modified authorization form with Open Road, who has provided us with a copy which we enclose for your information. Open Road has informed us that the *sole* purpose of the indemnity and hold-harmless clause to which you object is to protect Open Road from third party claims for unauthorized repairs. A copy of Open Road's letter to us with that representation is enclosed should you wish to undertake further negotiations with the company.; We have notified Open Road that future campaign notification letter must be revised if the company insists on the continued use of the indemnity and hold- harmless provision in its present form. Copies of this correspondence with Open Road are also enclosed.; We appreciate your bringing this matter to our attention. Sincerely, Lawrence R. Schneider, Chief Counsel

ID: 571.108 School Bus Focused Illuminated Projection Lanyon NCC-230125-001

March 21, 2023

Mr. Bobby Lanyon
Access Innovations Global LP dba AIG Safety
PO Box 511
Orefield, PA 18069 

Dear Mr. Lanyon,  

This letter responds to your request that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) allow, but not mandate, your company’s product, the “Focused Illuminated Projection” system, for application on school buses under Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 131, School bus pedestrian safety devices. Your request was referred to my office to determine whether the feature you describe is allowed under existing FMVSSs. While you asked for an amendment to FMVSS No. 131, we believe it is appropriate to consider whether your product would be permitted as an auxiliary lighting device under FMVSS No. 108, Lamps, reflective devices, and associated equipment. Based on the information you have provided, our answer is that your device is permissible under FMVSS No. 108 for the reasons explained below. 

By way of background, NHTSA does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Instead, manufacturers are required to self-certify that their products conform to all applicable FMVSSs that are in effect on the date of manufacture before the products can be offered for sale. Manufacturers must also ensure their products are free of safety-related defects. This letter represents NHTSA’s opinion concerning whether your product, as you describe it, would be permitted under FMVSS No. 108. It is not an approval of your product, nor is it an endorsement of the safety claims made in your interpretation request.  

Under FMVSS No. 108 S6.2.1, non-required additional lamps are prohibited on new
vehicles if they impair the effectiveness of lighting devices required by FMVSS No. 108. The question as to whether an auxiliary lamp impairs required lighting equipment is usually decided on a case-by-case basis.1 Based on the information you have provided, we have concluded that the “Focused Illuminated Projection” system will not impair the effectiveness of a school bus’s required lighting. 

1 Letter to Michael Haas (May 6, 2019), available at https://isearch.nhtsa.gov/files/571.108%20--%20HDC%20Supplemental%20Turning%20Lamps%20--%20HAAS%20--%2015-4155.htm. 

Page 2
Mr. Bobby Lanyon 

Description of the “Focused Illuminated Projection” system 

Your letter describes the system as a “low technology, high reliability solution designed and implemented to re-enforce the explicit and implied scope (S1) and Purpose (S2) of Section 571.131 by statically illuminating the 10ft stopping threshold” onto the roadway in front of and behind a school bus during a school bus stop. AIG also describes it as creating an “illuminated crosswalk” for students. 

The system consists of red LED lights mounted onto the front and rear of the bus adjacent to or below the signal warning lamps above the front windshield or rear window. It projects a red line onto the road 10 feet in front of and behind the bus. It is controlled by the “same electrical relay that illuminates” the lamps on the stop signal arm. We assume, for the purposes of this interpretation, that this device only activates when the vehicle is stopped and is in a loading/unloading state, when the stop arm is also activated or the door is open. 

Discussion 

FMVSS No. 108 requires that school buses be equipped with a system of two red signal lamps, and optionally two amber signal lamps, installed at both the top front and top rear. These lamps must flash alternately at a rate of 60-120 cycles per minute. We have previously stated that auxiliary lamps can impair the effectiveness of required lighting in four ways: brightness, activation pattern, color, and mounting location.2 

Brightness will cause impairment if the additional lamp is so bright as to obscure or distract from required lighting. Based on the photographs provided in your submission, it does not appear that your device would cause impairment of a school bus’s required lighting due to brightness. Additionally, because your device is a projection system, brightness concerns, particularly at a distance, are mitigated by the ability to apply a shade to the device to ensure that only the projected image is visible.  

Regarding activation pattern, FMVSS No. 108 requires all auxiliary lamps, with the exception of certain specified types of lamps such as turn signal lamps, to be steady burning.3 You state that the “Focused Illuminated Projection” is “statically illuminating” 

2 Letter to Paul Schaye (September 9, 2019), available at https://isearch.nhtsa.gov/files/571.108%20--%20AMA%20--%20Schaye--front%20color%20changing%20light.htm. 
3 Prior to 2007, FMVSS No. 108 included an explicit requirement that, with the exception of certain types of required lamps (e.g., turn signal lamps), all lamps on a vehicle, including auxiliary lamps, must be steady burning. In 2007, NHTSA implemented an administrative reorganization of FMVSS No. 108 which, among other things, converted the blanket steady burning requirement (and its exceptions) into individual activation requirements for each type of required lamp. See 72 FR 68234 (Dec. 4, 2007). Although the reorganized rule no longer includes a blanket steady burning requirement, NHTSA stated in the preamble to the reorganized rule that its rewrite of FMVSS No. 108 is considered administrative in nature because the standard’s existing requirements and obligations are not being increased, decreased, or substantively modified. Moreover, NHTSA continues to believe that flashing auxiliary lamps would impair the effectiveness of required lamps by distracting or confusing other road users. See Id., at FN 7. 

Page 3
Mr. Bobby Lanyon 

the stopping threshold in front of and behind the bus, which we understand to mean that the device is steady burning. Therefore, your device’s activation pattern is unlikely to distract other road users from the required lighting and will not impair the effectiveness of the vehicle’s required lighting due to activation pattern. 

Regarding color, NHTSA has stated that impairment concerns prohibit the use of lamps of colors that are likely to cause confusion to other road users.4 For example, NHTSA has previously stated that red lamps placed on the front of non-school-bus vehicles impair the effectiveness of lighting required under FMVSS No. 108 because drivers understand red to mean stop and those lamps can be confused with stop lamps.5 However, this is not necessarily the case with school buses because they are required to have red signal warning lamps on the front of their cabs. Here, the question is whether your device would impair a school bus’s required lighting, in particular the red signal warning lamps that are required on the front and rear of school buses. The purpose of the signal warning lamp is to “identify a vehicle as a school bus and to inform other users of the highway that such vehicle is stopped on the highway to take on or discharge school children.”6 Your device is designed to increase the conspicuity of a stopped school bus and benefit that purpose. It supplements the signal warning lamp by activating only while the required red signal lamp is activated, which occurs when the bus is in a stopped and loading/unloading state. This matches the purpose of the red signal lighting. In addition, nearby drivers are likely to understand the red indicator to mean “stop” and “do not enter the projected zone,” which may further the purpose of the required signal lamps. Therefore, it is our opinion that it is unlikely to impair the effectiveness of lamps required by FMVSS No. 108 due to color. 

Regarding mounting location, lamps impair the effectiveness of required lighting under FMVSS No. 108 if they are mounted in locations that cause them to interfere with the ability of a vehicle’s required lamps to achieve their purpose.7 Generally, we have found that this requires auxiliary lighting to be mounted “far enough away” from other lamps that it does not impair their effectiveness.8 Although your device is mounted adjacent to or just below the signal warning lamps, your device’s mounting location is not likely to impair the signal warning lamps because your device is a projection system. At distance, especially if there is a shade on the device, other road users are unlikely to observe any interference with the signal lamp. 

Previously, we have found that certain auxiliary stop signal lamps on school buses were likely to impair the effectiveness of required lighting under FMVSS No. 108. For example, we found the ALLSTOP system, a red flashing light affixed to the roof of a 

4 Letter to Paul Schaye (September 9, 2019), available at https://isearch.nhtsa.gov/files/571.108%20--%20AMA%20--%20Schaye--front%20color%20changing%20light.htm. 
5 Id.
6 49 CFR 571.108 S4.
7 Letter to Paul Schaye (September 9, 2019), available at https://isearch.nhtsa.gov/files/571.108%20--%20AMA%20--%20Schaye--front%20color%20changing%20light.htm.  
8 See, e.g., Letter to Redacted (January 21, 2004), available at
https://isearch.nhtsa.gov/files/GF007705.html. 
 

Page 4
Mr. Bobby Lanyon 

school bus that only activated when the school bus door was open, “would divert a
driver’s attention from the required signal lamps and cause confusion with respect to their meaning….”9 Your device is distinguishable from the ALLSTOP and is unlikely to cause confusion with the signal warning lamp for two reasons: first, it is steady burning, and second, the meaning of your device’s signal appears to be unambiguous. The ALLSTOP had a much higher likelihood of distracting or confusing drivers because it was a flashing and rotating device like a police light. NHTSA has found impairment where it is likely that an auxiliary or alternative lighting scheme could confuse drivers due to an ambiguous meaning.10 For example, NHTSA recently stated that the HELP system, which flashed the turn signal lamps to create an additional hazard warning system, had an ambiguous meaning if used in any situation other than while parked.11 Your device, however, as two static projected red lines on the road, plainly indicates “do not enter.” Therefore, it is our opinion that your device is unlikely to impair the effectiveness of the required lighting under FMVSS No. 108 and is permissible under that standard.  

With respect to the aftermarket, 49 U.S.C. 30122 has the effect of requiring that the installation of any aftermarket vehicle lamp, by a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business, must not “make inoperative” any element of design or device installed on a vehicle in accordance with FMVSS No. 108. As with original equipment, we regard the addition of a projection lamp that is used in the way we understand your “Focused Illuminated Projection” system to operate not to make inoperative a vehicle’s original required lighting equipment. 

If you have further questions, please contact Eli Wachtel of my staff at (202) 366-2992. 

Sincerely, 

John Donaldson
Acting Chief Counsel
 

9 Letter to J. Adam Krugh (May 22, 2003), available at https://isearch.nhtsa.gov/files/002769drn.html. 
10 Letter to Steven T. Powers (January 19, 2021), available at https://isearch.nhtsa.gov/files/571.108--HELP%20System--Powers.htm. 
11 Id. 

Dated: 3/21/23
Ref: Standard No. 131

ID: aiam5078

"Dear Mr. Klamp: This responds to your letter of October 28, 1992, wit respect to problems encountered by your wife in her use of a 1992 Canadian Ford Tempo passenger car. Your letter indicates that your wife works in Canada, and uses the Ford, a company car owned by her employer, to travel to and from her home in the United States. Because the vehicle is not certified as meeting the U.S. Federal motor vehicle safety standards, she has been informed by U.S. Customs officials at the border that it may not be admitted in the future without going through the formal entry process for conversion to the U.S. standards. You have asked for our consideration of this matter. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act prohibits the importation into the United States of motor vehicles that do not conform, and that are not certified by their manufacturers to conform, to all applicable U.S. Federal motor vehicle safety standards. As a legal matter, each time the Ford crosses the border from British Columbia to Washington, it is being imported into this country. It has been the policy of this agency for many years to regard Canadian and Mexican-registered vehicles engaged in daily cross-border traffic as subject to the importation prohibitions of the Act, and to require their compliance with the U.S. Federal motor vehicle safety standards. This is the reason why your wife is encountering difficulties at the border. We have several suggestions. If the Ford is equipped with automatic occupant protection such as an air bag or automatic belts, it may, in fact, comply with all the U.S. standards. If this is the case, then Ford of Canada may be willing to provide your wife with a letter certifying its compliance to the U.S. standards which she could present at the border. Customs should honor such a letter, and allow the vehicle to proceed with no further delay. If this is not the case, perhaps her employer could provide her with a Canadian-manufactured car that does meet, and is certified as meeting, the U.S. standards. Otherwise, your wife may have to use a U.S.-registered and certified vehicle and seek reimbursement for travel expenses from her Canadian employer. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel";

ID: aiam0005

Dear Mr. Batten: This responds to your letter and telephon conversation with Ms. Fujita of my staff concerning Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 124, Accelerator Control Systems. You asked about the standard's 'applicable mileage requirement or time domain' for a truck with a gross vehicle weight rating greater than 10,000 pounds. You informed Ms. Fujita that, stated differently, your question is whether NHTSA requires a used vehicle to continue to meet an FMVSS, and if the answer is yes, for what mileage or amount of time the vehicle must meet the standard. Generally speaking, the answer is no. NHTSA is authorized by the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Safety Act) to regulate the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. The Safety Act requires a vehicle to comply with applicable FMVSS's until its first purchase in good faith for purposes other than resale. However, you should be aware that manufacturers, distributors, dealers, or motor vehicle repair businesses modifying a vehicle (new or used) are prohibited by section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act from knowingly rendering inoperative any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle in compliance with an applicable FMVSS. Thus, in the context of Standard No. l24, a person in the aforementioned categories is prohibited from rendering inoperative an accelerator control system that has been installed in compliance with that standard. In addition, if the in-use deterioration of the performance of a vehicle or one of its components creates a safety risk, it could constitute a safety-related defect. Pursuant to sections l5l-l54 of the Safety Act, manufacturers are required to notify NHTSA and owners of such safety-related defects and to remedy such defects without charge. Thus, if the accelerator control systems on your vehicles deteriorate such that they no longer would comply with Standard No l24 and create an unsafe situation, that could be the basis for a defect determination, even though the vehicles met all applicable safety standards when they were new. I also note that our sister agency in the Department, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), has operational and equipment requirements for trucks used in interstate commerce. If you are interested in that agency's requirements, you can write to them at the following address: Office of Motor Carrier Standards Federal Highway Administration 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590 I hope this information is helpful. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel;

ID: aiam0006

Dear Mr. Batten: This responds to your letter and telephon conversation with Ms. Fujita of my staff concerning Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 124, Accelerator Control Systems. You asked about the standard's 'applicable mileage requirement or time domain' for a truck with a gross vehicle weight rating greater than 10,000 pounds. You informed Ms. Fujita that, stated differently, your question is whether NHTSA requires a used vehicle to continue to meet an FMVSS, and if the answer is yes, for what mileage or amount of time the vehicle must meet the standard. Generally speaking, the answer is no. NHTSA is authorized by the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Safety Act) to regulate the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. The Safety Act requires a vehicle to comply with applicable FMVSS's until its first purchase in good faith for purposes other than resale. However, you should be aware that manufacturers, distributors, dealers, or motor vehicle repair businesses modifying a vehicle (new or used) are prohibited by section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act from knowingly rendering inoperative any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle in compliance with an applicable FMVSS. Thus, in the context of Standard No. l24, a person in the aforementioned categories is prohibited from rendering inoperative an accelerator control system that has been installed in compliance with that standard. In addition, if the in-use deterioration of the performance of a vehicle or one of its components creates a safety risk, it could constitute a safety-related defect. Pursuant to sections l5l-l54 of the Safety Act, manufacturers are required to notify NHTSA and owners of such safety-related defects and to remedy such defects without charge. Thus, if the accelerator control systems on your vehicles deteriorate such that they no longer would comply with Standard No l24 and create an unsafe situation, that could be the basis for a defect determination, even though the vehicles met all applicable safety standards when they were new. I also note that our sister agency in the Department, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), has operational and equipment requirements for trucks used in interstate commerce. If you are interested in that agency's requirements, you can write to them at the following address: Office of Motor Carrier Standards Federal Highway Administration 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590 I hope this information is helpful. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel;

ID: aiam4967

"Dear Mr. Watanabe: This responds to your letter of February 6, l992 to the Administrator, requesting an interpretation of section S7.2(b) of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. Section S7.2(b) requires that headlamp lenses be marked 'with the name and/or trademark of the manufacturer, which is registered with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.' Stanley Electric Co., Ltd. of Japan has subsidiaries in Thailand and Taiwan. Each subsidiary uses three manufacturer identification marks, and you have asked whether each subsidiary may use one of the marks as a manufacturer identification under S7.2(b). You also relate that application has been made to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office with respect to one of those identification marks. Certainly, once registration has been completed, Stanley of Thailand and Stanley of Taiwan may use the registered mark and this will be in compliance with Standard No. 108. Stanley has not registered the other two identification marks (TH STANLEY or TW STANLEY, and STANLEY TH or STANLEY TW) because it has concluded that these are not trademarks but the manufacturer's name. We agree with your suggestion that the identification marks TH STANLEY, TW STANLEY, STANLEY TH, and STANLEY TW are just the manufacturer's name, not a trademark. Section S7.2(b) of Standard No. 108 does not specify any particular form in which the manufacturer's name must appear on the lens, nor does that section require the manufacturer's name to be registered with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. Therefore, there would be no violation of S7.2(b) if your Thai and Taiwanese subsidiaries mark the lenses of their headlamps with the identification marks identified in your correspondence as manufacturer names. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel";