ID: AFTERMARKETWINDSCREEN

Mr. Rick Mckeon
P.O. Box 1845
Laguna Beach, CA 92652-1845

Dear Mr. Mckeon:

This responds to your letter asking for information about the application of United States safety standards to an "after-market product for the Mazda Miata intended to eliminate back-draft on the driver and passenger when the top is down or the plastic rear window is removed."

You ask whether the device must be transparent or translucent, or be a "screen" type material.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has the statutory authority to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA, however, does not approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment or pass on the compliance of a vehicle or item of equipment outside the context of an actual enforcement proceeding. Instead, Federal law establishes a self-certification system under which motor vehicle and equipment manufacturers themselves certify that their products comply with all applicable standards.

NHTSA also has the authority to investigate and order recalls to remedy safety related defects in motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment.

As far as we can tell from your letter, your product appears to be an item of motor vehicle equipment regulated by NHTSA. Our statute defines "motor vehicle equipment," in relevant part, as any system, part, or component "sold as an accessory or addition to a motor vehicle" (49 U.S.C. 30102(a)(7)(B)). An item of equipment is an accessory if it meets the following criteria:

1. A substantial portion of its expected uses are related to the operation or maintenance of motor vehicles; and
2. It is purchased or otherwise acquired, and principally used by ordinary users of motor vehicles.

Your back-draft eliminator appears to be an accessory because it was presumably designed with the expectation that a substantial portion of its expected use will be with motor vehicles. (We make this assumption because you designed the product for use in a Mazda Miata). Further, you state that the back-draft eliminator is an aftermarket product and, therefore, intended to be purchased and principally used by ordinary users of motor vehicles.

The installation of a back-draft eliminator by a commercial entity is subject to certain restrictions. The Federal Vehicle Safety Act at 49 U.S.C. 30122 provides that a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or vehicle repair business may not knowingly "make inoperative" any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle in accordance with any FMVSS. Therefore, the back-draft eliminator could not be installed by any of those entities if such use would adversely affect the ability of a vehicle to comply with any FMVSS. I have enclosed an information sheet that describes how you can obtain copies of the FMVSSs. You should carefully review the FMVSSs, particularly FMVSS Nos. 111 and 205 as discussed below, to determine whether installation of your back-draft eliminator would affect a vehicle's compliance with the standards.^up>

Pursuant to NHTSAs authority, the agency has established FMVSS No. 205, Glazing materials, which specifies performance and location 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 an industry standard, the American National Standard "Safety Code for Safety Glazing Materials for Glazing Motor Vehicles Operating on Land Highways (ANSI Z26)."

Your companys product, as described in your letter, would be considered either item 4 or item 5 glazing subject to the requirements of FMVSS No. 205 and ANSI Z26 if constructed of a glazing material, e.g., plastic or glass. Item 4 glazing includes safety glazing material for use in motor vehicles in auxiliary wind deflectors at levels requisite for driving visibility. We would consider the back-draft eliminator to be at a level requisite for driving visibility if it is at a level through which any size driver may view the road and traffic to the rear of the vehicle. Under FMVSS No. 205 and the ANSI standard, item 4 glazing must comply with Test Nos. 10, 13, 16, 17, 19, 20, 21, and 24 of the ANSI Z26 as well as Test No. 2. Test No. 2 applies a 70 percent light transmittance requirement to areas of glazing that are at levels requisite for driving visibility. Item 5 glazing includes safety glazing material for use in motor vehicles in auxiliary wind deflectors. This glazing must comply with the Tests cited above for item 4 glazing except for Test No. 2.

NHTSA has also issued FMVSS No. 111, Rearview Mirrors, to establish performance and location requirements for rearview mirrors in each new motor vehicle. Under this standard, your back-draft eliminator may or may not affect compliance of a vehicle with this standard, depending on its particular material, size or location within the vehicle. "Inside" rearview mirrors are required for "passenger cars" by the standard (paragraph S5.1). Since a passenger car, such as the Mazda Miata, must meet FMVSS No. 111's requirements by way of an inside rearview mirror, a back-draft eliminator could not obstruct the view provided by the inside rearview mirror (i.e., the mirror must continue to provide the scope of view required by the standard).

In addition, the manufacturer, whether your client or a licensee, is subject to the requirements of 49 U.S.C. ''30118-30120, which set forth the notification and remedy procedures for products with defects related to motor vehicle safety. Thus, if NHTSA or the manufacturer determines that the product contains a safety-related defect, the manufacturer is responsible for notifying purchasers of the defective equipment and for remedying the problem free of charge. This responsibility is borne by the vehicle manufacturer in cases in which the product is installed on a new vehicle by or with the express authorization of that vehicle manufacturer.

I hope this information is helpful. For your further information, I am enclosing a fact sheet we prepared entitled Information for New Manufacturers of Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Equipment. If you have any questions or need additional information, feel free to contact Nancy Bell of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,
Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel
Enclosure
ref:205
d.6/7/02

^[1] The 'make inoperative" provision does not apply to equipment attached to or installed on or in a vehicle by the vehicle owner. However, NHTSA urges vehicle owners not to degrade the safety of any system or device on their vehicles.

ID: 21871.ztv

Mr. Thomas C. Bliss
3M Traffic Control Materials Division
3M Center
St. Paul, MN 55144-1000





Dear Mr. Bliss:

This is in reply to your letter of June 30, 2000, asking for interpretations of S5.7, Retroreflective Sheeting, of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment.

Several of your customers would like "to incorporate their company logo directly into the conspicuity markings used on their vehicles." You understand that "our customer is permitted to use their logo on markings placed on the vehicle in excess of the amount required to satisfy the minimum coverage stated in the regulation," and you ask that we confirm that interpretation.

S5.7.1.4.2(a) requires that a strip of retroreflective sheeting, "originating and terminating as close to the front and rear as practicable," be applied to the side of trailers, but that "the strip need not be continuous as long as not less than half of the length of the trailer is covered. . . ." This exception is intended to accommodate different trailer configurations by allowing breaks in the conspicuity material where the features of the trailer are such that it may not be feasible to install continuous sheeting. A manufacturer must comply when half the trailer length is covered, but if it wishes to add more conspicuity material to the portion of the trailer length that is not covered, the material must comply with S5.7. We view the installation of nonconforming material on the side as subject to the prohibition in S5.1.3 that no additional reflective material or other motor vehicle equipment shall be added that impairs the effectiveness of lighting equipment required by the standard. For this reason, the appropriate question is, as you have asked in your first question, "do conspicuity markings that incorporate a logo conform to FMVSS 108?"

First, because the standard requires conspicuity markings to be either red or white, the introduction of a third color (or white on a red section and vice versa) would not conform to Standard No. 108. Thus, any logo must be red or white. Assuming the logo is red or white, the answer is similar to that which we have provided inquirers as to whether logos are acceptable on the lens of the center high-mounted stop lamp. Both the lamp and retroreflective sheeting must meet the color and photometric requirements that are specified for each. If the sheeting meets the color, photometric, and all other requirements with the logo in place, then retroreflective sheeting incorporating a logo would comply with Standard No. 108. This, of course, would permit a logo that straddles red and white segments of retroreflective sheeting as well as a logo that is contained entirely within either a red or white segment. However, because the standard requires segments of red and white, a red logo could not appear in a white segment and vice versa. A logo (or portion of a logo) in a red segment could, however, be shown in a different shade of red, and a logo (or portion) in a white segment could be shown in a different shade of white, provided that both shades of red and both shades of white complied with the red and white color specifications of SAE J578c.

Your next question is whether conspicuity markings that incorporate a logo would "qualify as conspicuity markings under FMVSS 108." S5.7 prescribes dimensions for the width of the sheeting and the length of the individual segments. As noted above, a logo could be inserted in otherwise conforming sheeting if the sheeting meets the photometric, color, and all other requirements with the logo in place.

You have also asked whether "conspicuity markings that incorporate a logo [are] taken into account when assessing conformance to FMVSS standard 108." The coefficients for retroreflection of each segment of red and white sheeting must be not less than the minimum values specified in Fig. 29 of Standard No. 108. In determining conformance with S5.7, if a logo prevented a segment of sheeting from complying with the photometric or any other requirement, we would consider that the segment failed to comply with Standard No. 108. Thus, the answer to this question is yes.

Finally, you have asked whether "a 48mm (2 inch) wide marking with a logo [which] conforms to the performance requirements necessary for DOT -C2, can . . . be considered DOT-C2 marking." The answer is no. S5.7.1.3(d) requires DOT -C2 sheeting to have a width of not less than 50mm. The sheeting in your question is 2mm too narrow to be DOT-C2, even if it meets the photometric requirements for DOT -C2 sheeting with the logo in place.

If you have any questions, you may call Taylor Vinson of this Office (202-366-5263).





Sincerely,

Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel

ref:108
d.10/6/00

ID: nht87-1.50

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/20/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: James R. Mitzenberg -- Project Engineer, The Flxible Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. James R. Mitzenberg Project Engineer The Flxible Corporation 970 Pittsburgh Drive Delaware, Ohio 43015

This is in reply to your letter of January 22, 1987, asking further questions of permissible lamp operations.

With reference to the deceleration warning system discussed previously in our correspondence, you have asked whether there would be a noncompliance with Standard No. 108 if the triple steady burning amber lamps are operated simultaneously with the steady burning rear stop lamps, or with the flashing turn signal lamps (either red or amber). In neither instance do we believe that an impairment of required lighting equipment world result, within the prohibition of paragraph S4.1.3.

I hope that this answers your questions.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Dear Ms. Jones

The Flxible Corporation has received your interpretation, dated December 8, 1986, concerning the operation of deceleration lights. This interpretation stated that the flashing mode of the amber deceleration lights impaired the effectiveness of the steady burning red stop lamps. Also, the amber deceleration lights must be steady burning in every mode.

Two additional issues require an interpretation from NHTSA concerning amber steady burning deceleration lights. The amber deceleratin lights would be activated steady burning when the accelerator is released and deactivated when the accelerator is depres sed. Would a noncompliance with FMVSS 108 result with the simultaneous operation of the amber steady burning deceleration lights with the following required FMKVSS 108 lights?

1. Activation of the steady burning red stop lights.

2. Activation of flashing red or amber (color depending on customer) turn signal lights.

In order to assure compliance with FMVSS 108 with an OEM installation of amber steady burning deceleration lights, we request an additional interpretation on their simultaneous operation with the normal rear stop anbd turn signal lights.

Sincerely,

James r. Mitzenberg Project Engineer

ID: 2105y

Robert N. Levin, Esq.
Hudock & Levin
1101 Connecticut Avenue, NW
Suite 910
Washington, DC 20036

Dear Mr. Levin:

This responds to your letter on behalf of one of your clients, seeking information on how our law and agency regulations might affect the installation of sun roofs in vehicles. You stated that your client is an automobile repair facility. According to your letter, you recently discovered this agency's regulation (49 CFR /567.7) requiring vehicle alterers to affix to the vehicles they alter a label certifying that the vehicle as altered continues to comply with all applicable safety standards. You asked whether such certification labels must be affixed by your client to those vehicles on which it installs a sun roof. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain the requirements of our laws and regulations for you.

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.) authorizes this agency to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. Two of those safety standards could be relevant to a repair shop's installation of sun roofs on motor vehicles. Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials, (49 CFR /571.205) sets performance requirements for glazing materials installed in new motor vehicles and for new glazing materials for use in motor vehicles. Any glazing incorporated in a vehicle's sun roof would have to conform to the applicable performance requirements set forth in Standard No. 205. In addition, installation of a sun roof could affect a vehicle's compliance with Standard No. 216, Roof Crush Resistance - Passenger Cars, (49 CFR 571.216), which sets forth strength requirements for roofs of passenger cars.

Section 108(a)(1)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(1)(A)) specifies that, "No person shall manufacture for sale, sell, offer for sale, or introduce or deliver for introduction in interstate commerce, or import into the United States, any motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment manufactured on or after the date any applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard takes effect under this title unless it is in conformity with such standard ..." Because of this statutory requirement, any person or business that installs sun roofs in new motor vehicles must certify that the vehicle continues to comply with the requirements of all applicable safety standards, including Standards No. 205 and 216.

The form and contents for this certification are set forth in 49 CFR Part 567, Certification. Any manufacturer that installs a sun roof on a new motor vehicle is required by /567.4 or /567.5 to certify that the vehicle conforms to the requirements of all applicable safety standards. Any person or business that adds a sun roof to a previously certified new motor vehicle prior to its first sale for purposes other than resale would be required to certify the vehicle's continuing compliance with all applicable safety standards, in accordance with /567.7. Such a person or entity is an "alterer" for the purposes of Part 567. (Persons or entities that modify vehicles by using a "readily attachable component" or performing a "minor finishing operation" are not considered "alterers." Modifications involving a readily attachable component or a minor finishing operation are instead subject to the requirements of 49 CFR /567.6. However, NHTSA does not consider a sun roof to be a "readily attachable component" nor is the installation of a sun roof a "minor finishing operation." Hence, this exception is not relevant to your client's activities.).

In addition to these certification requirements, an "alterer" is considered a "manufacturer" for the purposes of the Safety Act. Among other things, this means an alterer is responsible for notification and remedy of defects related to motor vehicle safety and noncompliances with applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards arising from the alterations, as specified in sections 151-160 of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C 1411-1420). I have enclosed a general information sheet for new manufacturers that generally describes our statutory and regulatory requirements, and explains how to obtain copies of those statutes and regulations.

The certification and labeling requirements set forth in section 114 of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1403) and in Part 567 apply to vehicles only until the first sale of the vehicle for purposes other than resale. Thus, once a vehicle has been purchased by a consumer, persons that modify that vehicle for its owner (e.g., by installing a sun roof) are not required to certify or label the vehicle by this agency's statutes or regulations. A different statutory provision applies to modifications made by a repair shop to vehicles after the first purchase. Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)) 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, ..."

To comply with the obligations imposed by this "render inoperative" provision, your client should examine the sun roofs it installs and the means of installation for those sun roofs, and compare those with the requirements of Standards No. 205 and 216. After such an examination and comparison, your client should be able to decide if the sun roof installations it performs result in any apparent violations of the "render inoperative" provision of the Safety Act. If your client decides there is no apparent "render inoperative" violation, Federal law does not require any additional actions, such as labeling or certification, on your client's part in connection with the installation of sun roofs in vehicles after the first purchase of those vehicles. You should be aware that NHTSA may reexamine your client's decision and make its own determination of whether your client's sun roof installations may have violated the "render inoperative" provision in the Safety Act in the context of an enforcement proceeding.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any additional questions, please feel free to contact Mr. Marvin Shaw of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosures

/ref:567#205#216 d:ll/l/89

ID: 7236

John J. Jacoby
President
Cleartec
1919 Paper Mill Road
Huntington Valley, PA 19006-5813

Dear Mr. Jacoby:

I have been asked to respond to your April 6, 1992 letter to former Secretary Skinner, because our agency, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), is the part of the Department of Transportation that administers the program about which you asked. Specifically, your letter asks whether there are any Federal regulations that affect a new product Cleartec has developed. The product, Clean Sweep Strips, is a transparent material applied to the windshield in a herringbone pattern, in the path of the wipers, to clean the wipers. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our regulations to you.

By way of background information, 103 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Safety Act, 15 U.S.C. 1392) authorizes NHTSA to issue safety standards for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA does not, however, approve or certify any vehicles or items of equipment. 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. In addition, the Safety Act requires manufacturers to recall and remedy any motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment that contains a safety-related defect.

Your letter states that Clean Sweep Strips could be manufactured into new windshields. If a windshield with Clean Sweep Strips were installed as original equipment by a manufacturer of a new motor vehicle, the manufacturer would have to certify that the vehicle, with the Clean Sweep Strips installed, complies with all applicable safety standards. NHTSA has issued two safety standards, compliance with which might be affected by the installation of your Clean Sweep Strips. First, Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials, establishes a number of requirements for light transmittance, abrasion resistance, and optical deviation and visibility distortion for windshields. Second, Standard No. 104, Windshield Wiping and Washing Systems, establishes requirements for a minimum area that must be wiped by the wiping system, and the frequency at which the wiping system must operate. Any manufacturer that installed your product as original equipment on a windshield would have to certify that the windshield continued to comply with Standards No. 205 and 104 with your product installed.

After the first sale to a consumer, a vehicle is no longer required by Federal law to conform to all safety standards. However, 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act provides as follows:

No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or 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...

This provision means that a manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or repair business cannot install your Clean Sweep Strips on any vehicle if such installation results in the vehicle no longer complying with Standard No. 205 or 104. Violations of this "render inoperative" prohibition are punishable by civil fines of up to $1,000 per violation.

I note that the "render inoperative" prohibition does not affect modifications made by vehicle owners to their own vehicles. Thus, individual vehicle owners may install your Clean Sweep Strips on their own vehicles, even if this installation causes the vehicles to no longer comply with applicable safety standards. Such installations may be regulated, however, by State law. If you are interested in further information on the provisions of State laws, you may wish to contact the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Virginia 22203.

Additionally, under the Safety Act, Clean Sweep Strips would be considered an item of motor vehicle equipment. Your company, as a manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment, would be subject to the requirements in 151-159 of the Safety Act concerning the recall and remedy of products with safety defects. In the event that NHTSA or a product's manufacturer determines that a product that is an item of motor vehicle equipment contains a safety-related defect, the manufacturer is responsible for notifying purchasers of the defective equipment and remedying the problem free of charge.

Finally, I have enclosed a general information sheet for new manufacturers which summarizes NHTSA's regulations and explains where to obtain copies of Federal motor vehicle safety standards and other regulations.

I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Mary Versailles of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

Enclosure

ref:104#205 d:5/29/92

ID: nht92-6.23

DATE: May 29, 1992

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: John J. Jacoby -- President, Cleartec

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 4/6/92 from John J. Jacoby to Samuel K. Skinner (OCC 7236)

TEXT:

I have been asked to respond to your April 6, 1992 letter to former Secretary Skinner, because our agency, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), is the part of the Department of Transportation that administers the program about which you asked. Specifically, your letter asks whether there are any Federal regulations that affect a new product Cleartec has developed. The product, Clean Sweep Strips, is a transparent material applied to the windshield in a herringbone pattern, in the path of the wipers, to clean the wipers. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our regulations to you.

By way of background information, S 103 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Safety Act, 15 U.S.C. 1392) authorizes NHTSA to issue safety standards for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA does not, however, approve or certify any vehicles or items of equipment. 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. In addition, the Safety Act requires manufacturers to recall and remedy any motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment that contains a safety-related defect.

Your letter states that Clean Sweep Strips could be manufactured into new windshields. If a windshield with Clean Sweep Strips were installed as original equipment by a manufacturer of a new motor vehicle, the manufacturer would have to certify that the vehicle, with the Clean Sweep Strips installed, complies with all applicable safety standards. NHTSA has issued two safety standards, compliance with which might be affected by the installation of your Clean Sweep Strips. First, Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials, establishes a number of requirements for light transmittance, abrasion resistance, and optical deviation and visibility distortion for windshields. Second, Standard No. 104, Windshield Wiping and Washing Systems, establishes requirements for a minimum area that must be wiped by the wiping system, and the frequency at which the wiping system must operate. Any manufacturer that installed your product as original equipment on a windshield would have to certify that the windshield continued to comply with Standards No. 205 and 104 with your product installed.

After the first sale to a consumer, a vehicle is no longer required by Federal law to conform to all safety standards. However, S108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act provides as follows: No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or 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...

This provision means that a manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or repair business cannot install your Clean Sweep Strips on any vehicle if such installation results in the vehicle no longer complying with Standard No. 205 or 104. Violations of this "render inoperative" prohibition are punishable by civil fines of up to $1,000 per violation.

I note that the "render inoperative" prohibition does not affect modifications made by vehicle owners to their own vehicles. Thus, individual vehicle owners may install your Clean Sweep Strips on their own vehicles, even if this installation causes the vehicles to no longer comply with applicable safety standards. Such installations may be regulated, however, by State law. If you are interested in further information on the provisions of State laws, you may wish to contact the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Virginia 22203.

Additionally, under the Safety Act, Clean Sweep Strips would be considered an item of motor vehicle equipment. Your company, as a manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment, would be subject to the requirements in SS 151-159 of the Safety Act concerning the recall and remedy of products with safety defects. In the event that NHTSA or a product's manufacturer determines that a product that is an item of motor vehicle equipment contains a safety-related defect, the manufacturer is responsible for notifying purchasers of the defective equipment and remedying the problem free of charge.

Finally, I have enclosed a general information sheet for new manufacturers which summarizes NHTSA's regulations and explains where to obtain copies of Federal motor vehicle safety standards and other regulations.

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: 77-1.10

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: January 24, 1977

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; John W. Snow; NHTSA

TO: Transcon Lines

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Thank you for your December 6, 1976, letter in which you detail the difficulties experienced by Transcon Lines with certain antilock devices installed in satisfaction of Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems. You explain that Transcon disconnected both defective and potentially defective antilock devices, and you ask for an explanation of your legal responsibilities for the disconnections under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. @ 1391, et seq.).

After the first purchase of the vehicles for purposes other than resale, the only statutory prohibition against disconnection of safety equipment such as the antilock system is found in @ 108(a)(2)(A) which provides:

@ 108(a)(1) * * * * *

(2)(A) No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or 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 [except for repair]. . . .

A person that does not fall a within the enumerated categories is not prohibited from disconnection of the antilock system after purchase. Also, I have spoken to Federal Highway Administration officials who assure me that, because a defective system is involved, the Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety would not require that the system be connected.

Two National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) staff engineers visited the manufacturer of the antilock systems installed on the tractors and trailers in question to investigate the problems you describe. In replacing the sensors on the trailers, it was discovered that improperly manufactured exciter rings (all produced on August 9, 1976) appear to be the source of the problem. In addition to agreeing to replace all the sensors on the trailers in question, the antilock manufacturer has identified all of the sensors manufactured on the day in question and has initiated a defect recall campaign with the NHTSA. In the case of tractor malfunction, a shuttle valve that has been used for years on trailers appears to be sticking because of excessive corrosion on the particular vehicles in question. It is our understanding that the rate of air loss caused by the sticking can be compensated for by the air compressor and does not pose a safety hazard.

With regard to your concern that the systems "fail safe," Standard No. 121 specifies that "electrical failure of any part of the antilock system shall not increase the actuation and release times of the service brakes" (S5.5.1). This provision does not require that the system be completely incapable of malfunction, but the manufacturers have made concerted efforts to make the systems "fail safe." Quite apart from the requirements of the standard, each of the antilock manufacturers faces the same prospects for product liability suits on its antilock products as in the case of any other of its products.

We will continue to monitor the defect campaign efforts of the antilock manufacturer to ensure that an unsafe condition does not arise.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

December 6, 1976

Please Refer To: File A.599.pm

John W. Snow -- National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Sir:

This is to inform you that Transcon Lines has disconnected the FMVSS-121 brake systems on all vehicles so equipped operating in our fleet.

In the latter half of 1976, Transcon purchased 100 White Freightliner tractors and 800 Trailmobile trailers equipped with Berg Anti-Wheel Lock Air Brake Systems. Shortly after placing these vehicles in service, two distinct problems surfaced concurrently.

1. After the tractors had operated 20,000-25,000 miles, severe air loss was experienced from the anti-lock control valve (Berg "CALM" valve) in a significant number of tractors. The air leakage occurred in highway operation and resulted in insufficient reservoir pressure to make full service brake application.

2. During the first week in November, several of our drivers reported that they experienced non-functioning trailer brakes at operational speeds above about 45 MPM. When, as an emergency measure enroute, the trailer anti-lock systems were disconnected on the affected trailers, normal brake function was restored for the rest of the trip. Extensive road tests by our maintenance department were conducted on the affected trailers at Los Angeles and Dallas on November 4 and 5. These tests confirmed that with the anti-lock systems connected and apparently functioning, the trailer brakes were inoperative above about 45 MPH. Further, when the anti-lock systems were disconnected, the trailer brakes functioned normally throughout the vehicle speed range. On November 5, the Los Angeles Berg representative was notified of the problem and further testing was conducted at Los Angeles on November 6 to demonstrate the malfunction to him. He subsequently reported his observations to Berg's Engineering Department in Iola, Kansas. ock%Prior to specifying the Berg anti-lock system, Transcon was assured that in the event of any system component failure, the system would be de-activated and revert to a normal (pre-121) branking mode, thereby being a "fail-safe" system. The results on the road and in our tests indicate that the system is far from fail safe, and in fact, appears to hold explosive potential for being extremely dangerous to our drivers, the general highway-using public, our customers' property and our equipment.

In view of these findings, and until the real nature, extent and causes of the problem can be determined and corrected to insure confidence in the reliability of the anti-lock system, we have no responsible choice but to disconnect the anti-lock systems on all our vehicles which are so equipped. Action was immediately taken to disconnect the systems starting November 6. This leaves us with brakes which are adequate to control the vehicles and which are not liable to sudden inexplicable failure on the road.

We are concerned with the legal ramifications of the action we have taken, in light of current federal regulations. However, we do not feel that we could, in any good conscience, continue to operate the anti-lock systems with knowledge of the possibility of catastrophic brake failure without warning. While we have every desire to comply with all applicable federal safety standards and regulations, the safety of our operation must be our prime concern. We want to assure you of our continued cooperation and interest in a satisfactory and safe resolution of this critically important problem. We are hopeful that you can provide some insight and guidance in the resolution of this matter.

Very truly yours,

Benjamin C. Throop -- Senior Vice President, Administration, TRANSCON LINES

ID: 77-5.18

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/29/77

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Joseph J. Levin Jr.; NHTSA

TO: Hendrickson Mfg. Co.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your October 25, 1977, letter and subsequent conversation with Roger Tilton of my staff asking several hypothetical questions concerning the date of manufacture of vehicles and the applicability of Federal motor vehicle safety standards to those vehicles.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is interested in the compliance of motor vehicles with safety standards. The agency does not regulate the model year designation of vehicles. You should note that sale as "new" of a vehicle, which for our purposes is "used," is regulated in many instances by the States. Further, you should consult the Federal Trade Commission with respect to the legality of calling such vehicles new, since that agency is concerned with any consumer fraud that might arise when a vehicle with used parts is sold as a new vehicle.

In your conversation with Mr. Tilton, you stated that you might alter the dates on the certificates of title for the chassis mentioned in your first question. This alteration would change, for example, a 1975 manufacturing date on the chassis title documents to a 1977 manufacturing date. I strongly urge you to obtain legal advice on the practice of altering the dates on these documents.

With respect to the application of Federal safety standards to your vehicles, you ask whether several vehicle chassis manufactured in previous years can be used in the manufacture of new 1977 motor vehicles. For purposes of the applicability of Federal safety standards, a manufacturer is permitted to select as the date of manufacture of a vehicle, the date of manufacture of the chassis, the date of manufacture of the completed vehicle, or any date between those two dates (Volume 49, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 568, Vehicles Manufactured in Two or More Stages). Therefore, for a chassis manufactured in previous years and subsequently included in a completed vehicle, the manufacturer has some freedom in the selection of the manufacturing date of the final vehicle. The date of manufacture of the vehicle, as chosen by the manufacturer, would be the date upon which the applicability of all safety standards would be judged, including those applicable to the chassis.

You should note that your Crane Chassis and Yard Tractor may not have to comply with our requirements regardless of the date of their manufacture. The NHTSA's regulations apply only to motor vehicles which are primarily for use on the public streets, roads, and highways. Accordingly, vehicles designed for off-road use do not have to comply with the agency's requirements. The determination of whether a vehicle is an off-road vehicle depends upon its use. I have enclosed an interpretive letter that describes the criteria for determining which vehicles are motor vehicles under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Pub. L. 89-563).

In your final two questions you ask whether our regulations applicable to glider kits and to rebuilt tractors allow you to consider those vehicles "used" for the purposes of compliance with Federal safety standards, but "new" for purposes of their sale. Our glider kit regulation, Part 571.7(e), and our regulations concerning combining new and used components in trailers, Part 571.7(f), describe the limited circumstances under which reconstructed vehicles are not required to meet new motor vehicle safety standards. If the vehicles you reference meet the guidelines established in Parts 571.7(e) and (f) they will not be considered new motor vehicles for purposes of application of Federal motor vehicle safety standards.

I trust that this fully responds to your questions.

ID: 18147.ztv

Mr. Robert M. Currie
Senior Vice President
Fiber Light Solutions, LLC
1408 One Hancock Plaza
Gulfport, MS 39501-1980

Dear Mr. Currie:

This is in reply to your letter of June 1, 1998, to Taylor Vinson of this Office, seeking an opinion "regarding the legality of LIGHTRAIL," a product of your company, although you believe that "each state has the final authority of all after market products." You have enclosed an advertising flyer describing a new model of this product. As you note, we previously advised you about LIGHTRAIL on January 31, 1997, in relation to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment, and the "make inoperative" provisions of 49 U.S.C. Sec. 30122.

The earlier version of LIGHTRAIL had three modes of operation: steady-burning yellow or red in normal operation, steady-burning red when the stop lamps are applied, and flashing yellow/red when the turn signals were operated. We advised you that we considered LIGHTRAIL to be a supplementary side marker lamp, permitted to flash with the turn signal lamps, and that "the operation of the device causes us no concern." We also advised that the color should be red for those devices mounted on the side of the box of pickup trucks, and, on trailers, "amber up to the midpoint of the trailer, and red to the rear of the midpoint."

You inform us that "as described before, LIGHTRAIL, has three modes of operation, steady-burning yellow/amber in normal operation, steady burning red when the brakes are applied, and flashing yellow/red when the turn signals are activated." The flyer states that the "running color" of the device is "yellow," and you confirmed, in a recent phone call to Taylor Vinson, that the entire rail is yellow in normal operation, changing to red when the brakes are applied. This means that you have not addressed our previous concern that a yellow rail, running the length of the bed, will conflict with the red color of the rear side marker system below it. Yellow is the color prescribed by Standard No. 108 for lamps and reflectors at the front and on the middle of vehicles. In our opinion, any lamp or reflector to the rear of the midpoint must be red.

The flyer advertises the availability of two other light systems. The system we have just discussed is called "Flasherz." The other two systems are available in "optional colors . . . to match your truck," and other rails are shown in chartreuse and violet. These two systems are "Thumperz" which "pulsate with your stereo" and "Color Cruiserz" which "glow with steady color." I would like to repeat our previous advice about after market equipment. The sole provision in Federal law that relates to "LIGHTRAIL" as an after market product is a prohibition contained in 49 U.S.C. 30122 against making safety devices and elements inoperative. Under this section, "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 [Federal] motor vehicle safety standard. . ." In applying this prohibition to specific products, we first determine whether the product will prevent the regulated elements of the vehicle from operating. Since "LIGHTRAIL" does not involve disconnection of lighting items, we next examine the effect of its performance on the performance of lighting equipment that Standard No. 108 requires as original equipment on motor vehicles. If the auxiliary lighting device is likely to detract from the purpose of a required lighting device, or create confusion, we regard that effect also as a "making inoperative" within the meaning of the prohibition.

For new vehicles, Standard No. 108 requires that all supplementary lamps be wired to be steady burning (S5.5.10(d)). This requirement would prohibit the "Thumperz" system as original equipment because it pulsates with the vehicle's stereo. There are sound safety reasons for not allowing this system because of the confusion and distraction that such a novel system is likely to create when viewed by other motorists. We believe that its installation in the after market by a "manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business" would make the vehicle inoperative with Standard No. 108 within the meaning of Sec. 30122 because Thumperz is not permitted as original equipment. However, the flyer indicates that the LIGHTRAIL system may be designed for installation by the vehicle owner ("Easy to install (little or no drilling required)"). Sec. 30122 does not prohibit the vehicle owner from installing Thumperz , although, as you recognize, the individual states may regulate after market products. Although owner-installation of Thumperz is not prohibited under Federal law, we would encourage states to prohibit the installation and use of an exterior light system that pulses with the vehicle's stereo.

We are also concerned about the optional colors for both Thumperz and Color Cruiserz which, on the latter, "glow with steady color." Under Federal and local laws, red, amber, white, and blue (for emergency vehicles) are the colors specified for motor vehicle lighting equipment. Although Standard No. 108 does not specifically prohibit the use of other colors for supplementary lighting equipment, the availability of non-standard colors for auxiliary equipment adds an element of distraction affecting other motorists. Distraction may turn to confusion when the stop lamps or turn signal lamps operate in the same visual environment as a steady-burning rail lamp in a color other than red. Our remarks in the paragraph above about Sec. 30122 apply to this situation as well, i.e., the installation by a manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or repair business would make the vehicle inoperative with Standard No. 108, and we would encourage states to prohibit the installation and use of a steady-burning exterior light system in colors other than red or amber.

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

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
ref:108
d.8/24/98

ID: nht95-5.23

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: July 13, 1995

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Michael A. Norman

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 6/30/95 LETTER FROM MICHAEL A. NORMAN TO JOHN WOMACK

TEXT: Dear Mr. Norman:

This responds to your letter of June 30, 1995, with respect to the "Auto Truckers Courtesy Light." This is the device that you discussed with Taylor Vinson of this Office on June 29. You have applied to the Virginia Department of Transportation for evaluation of this product who will make a decision on July 13. We assume that you wish to know whether the product is permitted by Federal regulations.

As we understand it from the description, photos, and drawings that you enclosed, the device consists of a large sign with a "thank you" message that would be illuminated by two small amber lamps in the upper corners. The device could be mounted on the rear underride guard of a large truck or trailer, or on the rear cargo door. The purpose of the device is to enable the driver of the vehicle on which it is installed to show appreciation "to a trailing motorist for blinking his lights to assist the truck operator in changing back to the right hand lane after passing." In addition "[the] device operates with audio and visual indicators with three second automatic delay cut off."

You told Taylor Vinson that the intent is to sell this product in the aftermarket. As Mr. Vinson indicated, the Federal motor vehicle safety standard on motor vehicle lighting (Standard No. 108) contains no specifications applicable to the manufacture and sale in the aftermarket of supplementary motor vehicle lighting equipment such as this. This means that the device may be manufactured and sold without violating any Federal law administered by the Department of Transportation.

There remains, however, the issue of whether its installation and use would violate a Federal proscription that forbids manufacturers, dealers, distributors, and motor vehicle repair businesses from "making inoperative" motor vehicle lighting equipment installed in accordance with Standard No. 108 (or equipment installed that was necessary to comply with any other Federal motor vehicle safety standard). With respect to supplementary lighting equipment, we generally ask ourselves whether the "message" sent by required lighting equipment is likely to be made less effective if it and the device are used simultaneously. The effectiveness of the required lighting equipment is especially important with respect to oversized vehicles such as large trucks and trailers. With respect to your device, we foresee the possibility that the driver of a large vehicle on which it is installed might have to apply the brakes at the moment that the two small amber lamps are activated that illuminate the "thank you" sign, thus impairing the effectiveness of the stop lamps (we would probably reach a different conclusion if the message was related to the brake lamps, i.e., if it said "Stop"). Therefore, the installation of your device by a manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or motor vehicle repair business would appear to violate the Federal proscription against making safety equipment inoperative.

The proscription, however, does not apply to the owner of the vehicle which, if a company, could have the device installed in its own private repair facilities, or if the owner is a person, by the owner. This means that the individual States in which the device is to be used may accept or reject the device as they determine to be appropriate. We are unable to advise you how the laws of the individual States would apply to the device, and suggest that you write for an opinion to the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Va. 22203.

If you have further questions, Taylor Vinson will be pleased to assist you (202-366-5263).