ID: nht68-1.32

DATE: 04/24/68

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Robert M. O'Mahoney; NHTSA

TO: Carrington; Johnson & Stephens

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of March 16 which asked several questions concerning the applicability of present Federal motor vehicle safety standards to equipment installed, either at the factory or afterwards, "in pickup trucks and other light trucks."

You have asked:

"(1) Does a standard applicable only to passenger cars apply to a vehicle coming within both the definitions of 'truck' and the definition of 'passenger car' as defined in the Standards?"

(2) Does your answer to the foregoing apply to pickup trucks and other light trucks sometimes used for family purposes?

(3) Are these considered to be 'multipurpose passenger vehicles' and therefore specifically excluded from the definition of 'passenger cars'?"

The Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards define a "truck" as a motor vehicle "designed primarily for the transportation of property or special purpose equipment". This includes pickup trucks used occasionally for family purposes. The answer to your questions therefore is that vehicles are not both trucks and passenger cars and a standard applicable only to passenger cars is not applicable to pickup and other light trucks. The distinction between passenger cars and multipurpose passenger vehicles is that the latter are vehicles constructed either on a track chausis or with special features, such as 4-wheel drive, for occasional off-road operation. The Ford Bronco and International Harvester Scout are two examples of multipurpose passenger vehicles.

With regard to your question regarding applicability of standards to dealer-installed equipment, the standards, at this time, do not apply to installation or removal of equipment after the first purchase of a vehicle for purposes other than resale. They do apply prior to sale and dealers should be warned against making modifications which might interfere with the compliance that has been certified by the vehicle manufacturer.

The meaning of your last question is unclear to me. Certification is required by the Act between a manufacturer and a dealer or distributor and then only if there is an applicable standard. Many vehicle manufacturers routinely require by a contract that equipment manufacturer "certify" that equipment supplied meets Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. These clauses are a matter of contract between the parties.

Regardless of the end use of the equipment supplied, and even though no certification is required because the sale is to a vehicle manufacturer and not a dealer or distributor, if there is a Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard applicable to the equipment manufactured the equipment manufacturer is subject to civil penalty for violation of section 108(a)(1) of the Act (15 USC 1397 (a)(1)) if the equipment does not comply with applicable standards.

Sincerely,

CARRINGTON, JOHNSON & STEPHENS

March 16, 1968

Robert M. O'Mahoney, Esq. Assistant General Counsel U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration National Highway Safety Bureau

Dear Mr. O'Mahoney:

We represent a firm which is a "manufacturer" as defined in Sec. 102(5) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (the "Act"), of "motor vehicle equipment" as defined in Sec. 102(4) of the Act. Such firm is the same concern concerning which you and I had correspondence last summer, culminating in your letter of August 1, 1967 wherein you kindly furnished us with guidance in the interpretation of a possibly ambiguous aspect of the Act concerning sale of such equipment in the passenger car after-market, in order that we might in turn be guided in advice to our client.

Now our client proposes to sell such equipment to a concern which is a "manufacturer" of "motor vehicles" under Sec. 102(3) of the Act, which equipment is to be used in pickup trucks and other light truckscoming within the definition of "truck" in the Initial Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards @ 255.3(b). In some cases the equipment will be factory-installed, and in some cases it will be installed by factory-franchised truck dealers as optional equipment specified by the purchaser of the truck.

This letter is to request your advice concerning the applicability of the Initial Standards (and I especially have in mind Standard 201) to this equipment.

Section 255.3(b) of the Initial Standards defines truck as follows:

"Truck' means a motor vehicle with motive power, except a trailer, designed primarily for the transportation of property or special purpose equipment."

The same general section of definitions at the same time defines "passenger car" as follows:

"'Passenger car' means a motor vehicle with motive power, except a multipurpose passenger vehicle, motorcycle, or trailer, designed for carrying 10 persons or less."

The same general section also defines "multipurpose passenger vehicle" as follows:

"'Multipurpose passenger vehicle' means a motor vehicle with motive power, except a trailer, designed to carry 10 persons or less which is constructed either on a truck chassis or with special features for occasional off-road operation."

The structuring and thrust of the Initial Standards and of the Act appear clearly to contemplate that standards applicable to trucks as above-defined are intended to be limited in applicability to trucks, and that standards applicable to passenger cars as above-defined are intended to be limited in applicability to passenger cars. Yet, if literally and superficially read, without the illumination of such purpose and intent, the definition in @ 255.3(b) of "passenger car" would literally cover a pickup truck, or possibly even a large truck, so long as it was "designed for carrying 10 persons or less" unless as to a particular kind of truck it would be said to be a "multipurpose passenger vehicle." An interpretation which includes trucks of any kind under the definition "passenger car" would, in my opinion, be strained and would not further the results desired to be accomplished by the Initial Standards or the Act, but the language used has led us to request your advice with respect to the following:

(1) Does a standard applicable only to "passenger cars" apply to a vehicle coming within both the definition of "truck" and the definition of "passenger car" as defined in the Standards?

(2) Does your answer to the foregoing apply to pickup trucks and other light trucks sometimes used for family purposes?

(3) Are these considered to be "multipurpose passenger vehicles" and therefore specifically excluded from the definition of "passenger cars"?

(4) If your answer to either of the first three questions is that the "passenger car" standards do cover such a vehicle, would the applicability of such standards to equipment installed in such a vehicle be governed to any extent by the fact of installation of such equipment by a dealer, rather than at the factory --

(a) before delivery of the vehicle to the customer?

(b) after delivery of the vehicle to the customer?

(5) If the equipment involves were in noncompliance with the standards if factory-installed in "passenger car" but the Vehicle manufacturer contractually represents that the equipment is purchased for use only on vehicles to which "passenger car" standards do not apply, can the equipment manufacturer rely on such representation so as not to certify the equipment as being in compliance with the standards?

We shall appreciate your assistance to us with respect to these questions.

Sincerely yours,

MARVIN S. SLOMAN

ID: nht76-2.31

DATE: 03/05/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; S. P. Wood; NHTSA

TO: Department of California Highway Patrol

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of March 10, 1976, asking whether S4.6(b) of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 allows a flashing side marker lamp "in any location on the side of a motor vehicle without having to comply with State law pertaining to side-mounted turn signals."

S4.6(b) allows side marker lamps to flash for signalling purposes. Since a flashing side marker lamp is in essence a side turn signal lamp, any State regulation specifically addressed to location and flash rate of side turn signals would appear to be preempted by Standard No. 108, if the side marker lamp is combined with a side turn signal lamp. If the side turn signal lamp is a separate lamp, then it would be subject to State regulation.

Your inquirer wishes to install "a side marker lamp on each side near the middle of the trailer to flash with the turn signal lamps." If the lamp to be added is not the intermediate side marker lamp required by Standard No. 108 for trailers whose length is 30 feet or more, it would be governed by the California Vehicle Code and not preempted.

We intend to address the issues of side mounted turn signal lamps, flashing side marker lamps, and flashing headlamps in a rulemaking proposal whose publication is imminent, and I will include your letter in the Docket as a comment to be considered.

YOURS TRULY,

DEPARTMENT OF CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL

March 10, 1976

File No.: 61.A218.A4343

James C. Schultz Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

We have a question concerning an interpretation of Section S4.6(b) of FMVSS No. 108. This paragraph states that "means may be provided to flash headlamps and sidemarker lamps for signaling purposes".

We have had an inquiry from a supplier to a major trailer manufacturer as to whether or not he can install a sidemarker lamp on each side near the middle of the trailer to flash with the turn signal lamps. The California Vehicle Code provides that "side-mounted turn signal lamps of an approved type projecting a flashing amber light to either side may be used to supplement the front and rear turn signals. Side-mounted turn signal lamps mounted to the rear of the center of the vehicle may project a flashing red light no part of which shall be visible from the front." The Administrative Regulations require the approved side turn signal lamps to meet the same requirements as SAE Standard J914a.

These standards were adopted to assure that lamps installed on a vehicle as a side turn signal lamp had sufficient performance to be of value to other motorists both day and night, whether mounted on a passenger car, a truck or a trailer. A range of mounting heights was established in our regulations so that the side turn signal lamp would be near the eye height of drivers alongside the vehicle.

In the past, the only vehicles flashing the sidemarker lights as allowed by your standard were passenger cars. In these cases, we had read your standard as permitting the minimum number of sidemarker lamps required by your standard to flash but not giving authority for the indiscriminate addition of numerous other sidemarker lamps in other locations on the side of the vehicle.

We do not see any particular problem with allowing a required sidemarker lamp to flash simultaneously with a required turn signal lamp on the same side and on the same end of the vehicle. Unfortunately, one major passenger car manufacturer selected a system that caused the sidemarker lamps to flash alternately with the turn signals which, in our opinion, detracts from the signal value of the required turn signal instead of adding to it, particularily when both signals are seen to flash alternately at certain angles from the front or rear of the vehicle.

We now come to the question. Does Section S4.6(b) permit a manufacturer to install and flash with the turn signal any sidemarker lamp in any location on the side of a motor vehicle or trailer without having to comply with State law pertaining to side-mounted turn signals?

If the answer is "yes", we ask that you consider an appropriate revision to FMVSS No. 108 within the near future. We suggest that an amendment be proposed to require the side turn signals to flash simultaneously and in unison with the appropriate turn signal rather than alternately with the signal. In addition, we request that:

1. Only the minimum required sidemarker lamps on the each end of the vehicle be allowed to flash with the turn signal lamps.

2. Only sidemarker lamps near the eye height of passenger car drivers alongside the vehicle be allowed to flash. Sidemarker lamps at the extreme tops of trucks and trailer lamps are so far removed from the turn signal that another driver seeing them blink would likely be distracted by them instead of relating them to a turn being signaled.

3. New provisions be worded so attempts of various state laws to require higher-performing side mounted turn signals that are effective in the daytime are not placed in limbo because the Federal Standard allows a far less effective lamp of only 0.25 to 0.62 candlepower to flash in its place.

4. High mounted sidemarker lamps on buses not be allowed to flash as part of the turn signal system, because transit buses are permitted in this State to simultaneously flash all clearance and sidemarker lamps as a crime warning signal when driver or passengers are accosted. These signals are visible both from police patrol cars and police helicopters. Before-and-after surveys have shown that they are quite effective in making substantial increases in the rate of apprehension of suspects.

5. Headlamps not be allowed to flash with the turn signal lamps as now permitted. It is more important that a driver of a vehicle be able to see a lighted roadway in the direction in which he is going rather than using the headlamps to supplement an already effective front turn signal.

We would appreciate receiving your interpretation of the flashing headlamp and sidemarker lamp provisions. If you wish, we will be pleased to send you copies of our regulations on side turn signal lamps, alternately flashing headlamps for emergency vehicles, and data on the reduction in crime on buses following the installation of flashing crime warning lamps.

WARREN M. HEATH Commander Engineering Section

ID: 77-1.14

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 01/28/77

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank A. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Fleming Metal Fabricators

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your December 3, 1976, letter concerning the relationship between Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 301-75, Fuel System Integrity, and the fuel tanks that you manufacture for vehicles with a gross vehicle weight rating of 10,000 pounds or less.

Standard No. 301-75 applies to whole vehicles rather than to fuel tanks. Therefore, the responsibility under Federal law for compliance with the standard lies with the vehicle manufacturer. He must exercise due care in certifying that the vehicle will, if tested by the NHTSA as specified in S6 and S7 of the standard, meet the fuel spillage requirements set out in S5. What constitutes "due care" in a particular case depends on all relevant facts, including such things as the limitations of current technology, the availability of test equipment, the size of the manufacturer, and above all the diligence evidenced by the manufacturer.

The vehicle manufacturer who installs a fuel tank manufactured by you may, in order to meet his duty to exercise due care, rely on assurances from you concerning the tank's performance characteristics, to the extent that such reliance is reasonable. Your assurances, in turn, need not necessarily be based on actual crash testing of vehicles equipped with your fuel tanks under the exact conditions prescribed in the standard.

You should both note, of course, that the ability of a vehicle to conform to the standard depends not only on the performance capabilities of the fuel tank itself, but also on other factors including the manner and location in which it is mounted. The fact that your fuel tanks conform with Federal Highway Administration requirements (49 CFR @@ 393.65 and 393.67), therefore, does not by itself imply that vehicles equipped with such tanks are capable of passing the crash test requirements of Standard No. 301-75.

Similarly, the fact that your company's manufacturing procedures and its mounting and installation instructions conform to established industry practices is not sufficient evidence of due care, unless it is reasonable to conclude from it that the vehicles will conform.

SINCERELY,

FLEMING METAL FABRICATORS

3 December, 1976

Frank Berndt Office of Chief Council Dept. of Transportation SUBJECT: 571, 301-75 Fuel System Integrity with certification per Part 567 -- by auxilliary gasoline tank installers (Truck Body Builders, New Truck Dealer, Truck Repair Facility, Etc.). To discover bases for responsible certifying to Safety Standard 301 without performing actual tests or without reference to factory vehicle tests.

Pursuant to our telecon of 2 December, 1976, we present the following information hoping that some answer can be found to this very perplexing problem.

We are strictly manufacturers, and if you will make reference to FMF 76 Minilog our total product line will be clearly presented.

Many of FMF customers are bogged down by the Safety Standard 301 (they currently will not install tanks on vehicles 10,000# or less); and, their attitude is that FMF is responsible for providing a certification basis to them (which of course is not true). Many large manufacturers in the east are providing their dealers (installers) with installation diagrams and stating that a product once installed per their instructions may be certified by the installer. It is highly doubtful that these manufacturers actually performed barrier impact tests, but, rather are relying on the Truck Manufacturers Test Information (Ford, Chev., Etc.), and this information is not available to FMF or to our customers.

It appears to us that by furnishing our customer with a fully representative installation diagram (which would parallel factory procedures), it would provide a clear cut basis to the tank installer to provide a responsible certification. (It should be noted that the installation of an auxilliary gasoline tank does require connecting into existing lines for the supply and vent lines, but it is difficult to see that such additions would in any way create a situation that would be less safe than the vehicle as originally certified by the Truck Factory.

As you probably noted, all of FMF tanks are made to comply with FHWA 393.65 & 393.67; further, the mounting of these tanks has been statically tested far beyond the traditional 5 to 1 safety factor. Our products are in many cases deliberately overdesigned and we do not have product failures. Product failures cannot be tolerated in today's marketplace -- if a company's product liability insurance was every used, it is doubtful that replacement insurance would be available -- even at vastly increased premiums.

Many of our customers are Mom & Pop organizations with up to 10 employees; This type of organization as well as many much larger companies are not able to get involved with extensive testing because of the following reasons; economic, personnel, time and inadequate facilities -- to name just a few.

Since all truck chasses (some with bodies mounted and some without) must be certified by the truck manufacturer -- It would seem reasonable that installers of component parts or auxilliary parts to the truck chassis or body (knowing that their additional certification is to be on that vehicle) will proceed responsibly and especially if fully representative installation diagrams are provided.

Your immediate attention to this letter will be greatly appreciated, & we remain,

Robert I. Fleming, Pres.

ID: 4-15-02 Meier ltr

Mr. Norbert Meier
WIRA Fahrzeug-und Maschinenteile GmbH
Alte Papiermuehle Haemmern 8
D-51688 Wipperfuerth
Bundesrepublik Deutschland

Dear Mr. Meier:

This responds to your e-mail about marking requirements for air brake end fittings in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 106, Brake Hoses (49 CFR 571.106).

You explain that your company manufactures compression and push-in end fittings for air brake systems used on commercial vehicles. You indicate that a major truck builder has asked your company to mark the end fittings in accordance with FMVSS No. 106. You ask how you would go about receiving approval to mark your company's products with the "DOT" symbol. You also note that your company does not produce tubing or hoses, just end fittings, and you indicate that the assembly of the fittings with the tubes/hoses is done by the truck or trailer builder.

At the outset, I would like to make clear that the United States does not use a certification process similar to that used by the European countries, in which a manufacturer delivers its products to be certified to a governmental entity, and that entity tests the products to determine if they comply with the applicable standards. Instead, in the United States, the individual manufacturer of the products is responsible for assuring and certifying that its products meet all applicable U.S. safety standards. After the manufacturer has made the necessary certifications, the products may be sold to the public without any "approvals" or "endorsements" from this agency.

Marking requirements for end fittings are set forth in 49 CFR 571.106, paragraph S7.2.2 (subparagraphs (a) through (d)), copy enclosed. All end fittings, except those that are permanently attached to the hose by crimping or swaging, must be marked. Because the end fittings your company manufactures are not permanently attached, FMVSS No. 106 requires that they be "etched, embossed, or stamped in block capital letters and numerals at least one-sixteenth of an inch high" as described in the following paragraphs.

First, each end fitting must be marked with the symbol "DOT," indicating that the fitting has been certified to meet all applicable FMVSS. (See S7.2.2(a).) Second, the end fitting must be marked with a designation identifying your company as the manufacturer of the fitting ("manufacturer's designation.)" (See S7.2.2(b).) The process for filing a manufacturer's designation with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is discussed in greater detail below. Third, each end fitting must be marked with the letter "A" to indicate that it is intended to be used in air brake systems. In addition, if the fitting is intended to be used in a reusable assembly with brake hose specified in Table III of paragraph S7.1 of FMVSS No. 106, then the letter "A" must be followed by a Roman numeral indicating the hose's type (for example, "AI" signifies Type I air brake hose). (See S7.2.2(c).)

Fourth, if the end fitting is intended for use with air brake hose, it must be marked to indicate the nominal inside diameter of the hose, expressed in inches, fractions of inches, or millimeters. If, on the other hand, the fitting is intended for use with plastic air brake tubing, it must be marked to indicate the nominal outside diameter of the tubing, expressed in inches, fractions of inches, or millimeters, followed by the letters "OD." If the nominal inside/outside diameter is expressed in millimeters, the number representing the size must be followed by the designation "mm." (See S7.2.2(d).)

Prior to marking your products to certify compliance with FMVSS No. 106, you must file a manufacturer's designation with this agency at the following address: Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, Equipment and Imports Division (NSA-32), National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20590. The designation is intended to identify the manufacturer of the end fittings in the event a safety-related defect or noncompliance is determined to exist. There is no standard form for manufacturers to register their designation. Designations may consist of letters, numerals, or a symbol, or any combination of these. If your chosen designation has not been selected previously by another manufacturer, it will be accepted and recorded by NHTSA.

For your information, we also note two procedural requirements that apply to manufacturers headquartered outside the United States. The first is 49 CFR Part 566, Manufacturer Identification (copy enclosed). This regulation requires your company to submit its name, address, and a brief description of the items of equipment it manufactures to the agency within 30 days after it first imports its products into the United States. 49 CFR 566.5, Requirements. This information should also be sent to the Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance at the address listed above.

The second requirement is 49 CFR Part 551, Procedural Rules (copy enclosed). Subpart D of this regulation requires all manufacturers headquartered outside the United States to designate a permanent resident of the United States as the manufacturer's agent for service of all process, notices, orders, and decisions. This designation should be mailed to the Office of the Chief Counsel, General Law Division, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh Street, SW, Washington, DC 20590 and must include the following information:

1. A certification that the designation of agent is valid in form and binding on the manufacturer under the laws, corporate by-laws, or other requirements governing the making of the designation at the time and place where it is made;
2. The full legal name, principal place of business, and mailing address of the manufacturer;
3. Marks, trade names, or other designations of origin of any of the manufacturer's products which do not bear its name;
4. A statement that the designation shall remain in effect until withdrawn or replaced by the manufacturer;
5. A declaration of acceptance duly signed by the agent appointed, which may be an individual, a firm, or a U.S. corporation; and
6. The full legal name and address of the designated agent.

In closing, we note that the agency has been petitioned to update FMVSS No. 106, including the requirements for end fittings. NHTSA granted the petition and is now evaluating the issues raised therein. If you are interested in reviewing a copy of this petition, you may access it at the following web address: http://dms.dot.gov/search/document.cfm?documentid=46189&docketid=4367

I hope this information is helpful. In addition to the above, I am also enclosing a manufacturer's information sheet. If you have any questions, please contact Robert Knop of this office at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,
Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel
Enclosures
ref:106
d.5/13/02

ID: nht94-3.86

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: August 3, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA; Stamped signature by Kenneth N. Weinstein

TO: Dean Lakhani -- President, Gem Manufacturing Corp.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 4/27/94 from Dean Lakhani to Office of Chief Counsel (OCC-9927)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Lakhani:

This responds to your letter requesting our "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 cu stomers 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 o f 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 ne w 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 s tandards.

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 sa fety

2

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 vehicl e 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 ma nner 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 veh icle 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 saf ety 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

3

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 caus e 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 d eparture 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 desig ned 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 t he 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.

ID: 2875yy

Loren Thomson, Esq.
Thomson & Weintraub
105 North Center Street
P.O. Box 3577
Bloomington, IL 61702-3577

Dear Mr. Thomson:

This responds to your letter to Dorothy Nakama of my 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

/ref:205#VSA d:3/l4/9l

ID: nht91-2.32

DATE: March 14, 1991

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Loren Thomson -- Thomson & Weintraub

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 9-14-90 from Loren Thomson to Dorothy R. Nakama (OCC 5213)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter to Dorothy Nakama of my 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 as 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 wind- shield 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 1966 (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. One of the safety standards we have issued under this authority is Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials (49 CFR S571.205). 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, 1981 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.

ID: 18065.nhf

Mr. Ron Smith
Vice-President
Access Wheels, Inc.
7101 North 55^th Avenue
Glendale, AZ 85301

Dear Mr. Smith:

This is in response to your letter in which you asked whether you are required to conduct impact crash tests as a prerequisite to complying with federal safety requirements. I apologize for the delay in my response. You explain that you modify minivans and full-size vans, both before and after the first retail sale, to accommodate persons with disabilities. The modifications you perform typically involve installing wheelchair lift mechanisms in full-size vans and wheelchair ramp assemblies in lowered floor minivans. You explain that you install various combinations of equipment acquired from a large number of manufacturers and suppliers in your modifications. You explain that you rely on an assortment of impact crash test data, other testing, and engineering analysis in determining whether the vehicle complies with the safety standards. You state that you believe you have exercised due care with respect to these determinations and compliance with all the applicable safety standards. In light of these circumstances, you have asked whether you are required to conduct multiple crash tests. As discussed below, Access Wheels is required to assure that each of the vehicles it manufactures complies with all applicable safety standards, but it is not required to conduct crash tests of any of its vehicles to certify compliance with these standards.

We would like to begin by explaining that 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. Manufacturers are required to certify that their products conform to our safety standards before they can be offered for sale. Federal law prohibits any person from manufacturing, introducing into interstate commerce, selling, or importing any new motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment unless the vehicle or equipment item conforms to all applicable safety standards. NHTSA, however, does not approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment items, nor does the agency endorse any commercial products or their vendors. Instead, the motor vehicle safety statutes, found in Chapter 301 of Title 49, U.S. Code, establish a self-certification process under which each manufacturer must certify that its products meet all applicable safety standards.

Each of the safety standards specifies performance requirements. Dynamic tests are prescribed under some of the standards, such as Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, and Standard No. 301, Fuel System Integrity. However, the agency does not require a manufacturer to test its products only in the manner specified in the safety standards. A manufacturer may choose any means of evaluating a vehicle or equipment item to determine whether it complies with the requirements of an applicable standard, provided that the manufacturer assures that the vehicle or equipment item will comply with the standard when tested by NHTSA.

According to 49 U.S.C. 30115, a person may not certify a vehicle as complying with all applicable safety standards "if, in exercising reasonable care, the person had reason to know the certification is false or misleading in a material respect." NHTSA has long said that it is unable to judge what efforts would constitute "reasonable care" in advance of the actual circumstance in which a noncompliance occurs. What constitutes "reasonable care" in a particular case depends on many factors, including such things as the limitations of current technology, the availability of test equipment, the size of the manufacturer, and above all, the diligence exercised by the manufacturer.

Since some of your modifications occur after the first sale of the vehicle to a consumer, you should also be aware of the statutory prohibition against making inoperative any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle in compliance with an applicable standard. After the first sale of the vehicle, manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and repair businesses are prohibited from "knowingly making inoperative" any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle in compliance with an applicable standard. In general, the "make inoperative" prohibition (49 U.S.C. 30122) requires businesses which modify motor vehicles to ensure that they do not remove, disconnect, or degrade the performance of safety equipment installed in compliance with an applicable standard. Violations of this prohibition are punishable by civil penalties of up to $1,100 per violation.

If you have any further questions regarding vehicle certification requirements or the safety standards, please contact Ms. Nicole Fradette of my staff at 202-366-2992.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
Enclosure
d.10/22/98
ref:VSA

ID: nht94-1.30

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: January 26, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Timothy McQuiston -- Vice-President Sales, California Dream

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 9/29/93 from Timothy McQuiston to Taylor Vinson (OCC-9176)

TEXT:

This is in reply to your letter of September 29, 1993, to Taylor Vinson of this Office. Your company provides an aftermarket spoiler which incorporates a center stop lamp "that complies with SAE standards." You have asked us for a statement that you co uld provide your dealers that "would affirm that when the dealer installs a spoiler containing a high mount third brakelight meeting/exceeding SAE standards, they are, in fact providing an equivalent light source, thereby allowing them (dealers) to remai n in compliance with federal regulations." You have also enclosed a November 1992 report from ETL Testing Laboratories rendered to Leegold Enterprises Co., Ltd. covering the lamp that we assume to be the one you are offering in your spoiler.

Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.), in the fact situation you present, the dealer has the following obligations with respect to new and used vehicles. It is obliged to deliver a new vehicle to the buyer with a center highmounted stop lamp that is in full compliance with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, and if it does not, it may be in violation of section 108(a)(10(A) of the Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(1)(A). With respect to a vehicle in use, unde r section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Act, it may not knowingly render inoperative, in whole or in part, the original center highmounted stop lamp unless it provides a conforming equivalent (agency interpretation of 15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)).

Therefore, as a general principle, we affirm your understanding that a dealer may knowingly render an original equipment center highmounted stoplamp inoperative on a vehicle in use, or cause it on a new vehicle to become noncompliant with the requirement s of Standard No. 108 if the dealer provides a substitute lamp that meets Standard No. 108's requirements. The test report you provided indicates that the Model LG 03-60B lamp that was tested meets requirements specified in Standard No. 108 and SAE Reco mmended Practice J186a, and that that particular lamp is an equivalent in performance to an original equipment light source.

Having said that, however, we feel that further comments are in order. The first comment is to clarify a misunderstanding reflected in your letter. The lamp must comply with Standard No. 108, and not with SAE specifications as you have stated. Although Table III of Standard No. 108 does incorporate by reference SAE Recommended Practice J186a, "Supplemental High Mounted Stop and Rear Turn Signal Lamps," September 1977, certain provisions of J186a, such as photometrics, do not apply because they have be en modified by the text of Standard No. 108 itself. We are pleased to note that the summary of the test report appears to recognize this distinction.

Our second comment is that, in addition to the assurances that you as the spoiler manufacturer provide the dealer, both you and the dealer are afforded a degree of protection from violations of the Act if Leegold's lamp, in fact, fails to meet Standard N o. 108. This is true whether the dealer installs the spoiler either as original equipment or as aftermarket equipment.

With respect to original equipment (i.e., installed before delivery of the vehicle to its first purchaser), Leegold, as the manufacturer of the lamp, is required by section 114 of the Act (15 U.S.C. 1403) to certify to its dealers and distributors that t he lamp complies with Standard No. 108 (which may be signified by the symbol "DOT: on the lamp). If the lamp is later discovered to be noncompliant, those who have sold the lamp and any new vehicle on which it has been installed are in technical violati on of the Act, but are protected by section 108(b)(1) of the Act from civil penalties, unless they have actual knowledge that the lamp does not meet Standard No. 108 (15 U.S.C. 1397(b)(1)).

With respect to a nonconforming lamp installed after the vehicle's first sale, the original lamp may have been disconnected or partially blocked by the aftermarket lamp, resulting in either case in a "rendering inoperative" of required equipment within t he meaning of the prohibition. However, we would not view this as a "knowingly" rendering inoperative because the dealer's intent is to install a conforming lamp, as indicated by the lamp's certification.

One final comment, one directed more to Leegold than to you or your dealers. As a result of our experience over the years, we have come to realize the value of surveillance testing of production lamps to assure that the lamps continue to comply with Fed eral requirements. Periodic testing may be regarded as evidence of the manufacturer's exercise of due care in the event of noncompliances. If the November 1992 ETL test is of a prototype lamp, Leegold may wish to have new tests conducted on production lamps. Even if that test were of production lamps, sufficient time has elapsed, in our view, for Leegold to conduct a new test, to ensure that design tolerances have been maintained in production and that the lamp continues to conform to Standard No. 10 8.

ID: nht94-8.41

DATE: January 26, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Timothy McQuiston -- Vice-President Sales, California Dream

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 9/29/93 from Timothy McQuiston to Taylor Vinson (OCC-9176)

TEXT:

This is in reply to your letter of September 29, 1993, to Taylor Vinson of this Office. Your company provides an aftermarket spoiler which incorporates a center stop lamp "that complies with SAE standards." You have asked us for a statement that you could provide your dealers that "would affirm that when the dealer installs a spoiler containing a high mount third brakelight meeting/exceeding SAE standards, they are, in fact providing an equivalent light source, thereby allowing them (dealers) to remain in compliance with federal regulations." You have also enclosed a November 1992 report from ETL Testing Laboratories rendered to Leegold Enterprises Co., Ltd. covering the lamp that we assume to be the one you are offering in your spoiler.

Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.), in the fact situation you present, the dealer has the following obligations with respect to new and used vehicles. It is obliged to deliver a new vehicle to the buyer with a center highmounted stop lamp that is in full compliance with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, and if it does not, it may be in violation of section 108(a)(10(A) of the Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(1)(A). With respect to a vehicle in use, under section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Act, it may not knowingly render inoperative, in whole or in part, the original center highmounted stop lamp unless it provides a conforming equivalent (agency interpretation of 15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)).

Therefore, as a general principle, we affirm your understanding that a dealer may knowingly render an original equipment center highmounted stoplamp inoperative on a vehicle in use, or cause it on a new vehicle to become noncompliant with the requirements of Standard No. 108 if the dealer provides a substitute lamp that meets Standard No. 108's requirements. The test report you provided indicates that the Model LG 03-60B lamp that was tested meets requirements specified in Standard No. 108 and SAE Recommended Practice J186a, and that that particular lamp is an equivalent in performance to an original equipment light source.

Having said that, however, we feel that further comments are in order. The first comment is to clarify a misunderstanding reflected in your letter. The lamp must comply with Standard No. 108, and not with SAE specifications as you have stated. Although Table III of Standard No. 108 does incorporate by reference SAE Recommended Practice J186a, "Supplemental High Mounted Stop and Rear Turn Signal Lamps," September 1977, certain provisions of J186a, such as photometrics, do not apply because they have been modified by the text of Standard No. 108 itself. We are pleased to note that the summary of the test report appears to recognize this distinction.

Our second comment is that, in addition to the assurances that you as the spoiler manufacturer provide the dealer, both you and the dealer are afforded a degree of protection from violations of the Act if Leegold's lamp, in fact, fails to meet Standard No. 108. This is true whether the dealer installs the spoiler either as original equipment or as aftermarket equipment.

With respect to original equipment (i.e., installed before delivery of the vehicle to its first purchaser), Leegold, as the manufacturer of the lamp, is required by section 114 of the Act (15 U.S.C. 1403) to certify to its dealers and distributors that the lamp complies with Standard No. 108 (which may be signified by the symbol "DOT: on the lamp). If the lamp is later discovered to be noncompliant, those who have sold the lamp and any new vehicle on which it has been installed are in technical violation of the Act, but are protected by section 108(b)(1) of the Act from civil penalties, unless they have actual knowledge that the lamp does not meet Standard No. 108 (15 U.S.C. 1397(b)(1)).

With respect to a nonconforming lamp installed after the vehicle's first sale, the original lamp may have been disconnected or partially blocked by the aftermarket lamp, resulting in either case in a "rendering inoperative" of required equipment within the meaning of the prohibition. However, we would not view this as a "knowingly" rendering inoperative because the dealer's intent is to install a conforming lamp, as indicated by the lamp's certification.

One final comment, one directed more to Leegold than to you or your dealers. As a result of our experience over the years, we have come to realize the value of surveillance testing of production lamps to assure that the lamps continue to comply with Federal requirements. Periodic testing may be regarded as evidence of the manufacturer's exercise of due care in the event of noncompliances. If the November 1992 ETL test is of a prototype lamp, Leegold may wish to have new tests conducted on production lamps. Even if that test were of production lamps, sufficient time has elapsed, in our view, for Leegold to conduct a new test, to ensure that design tolerances have been maintained in production and that the lamp continues to conform to Standard No. 108.