ID: 1021

Mr. Michael A. Norman
2820 Nine Mile Road
Richmond, VA 23233

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 "[t]he 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).

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel ref:108 d:7/13/95

ID: nht95-3.44

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 eval uation 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 tru ck 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 a nd 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 i nstalled 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" s ent 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, distribut or, 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 th e 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 Associatio n 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).

ID: nht89-2.95

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 09/07/89

FROM: STEPHEN P. WOOD -- NHTSA ACTING CHIEF COUNSEL

TO: TERRY HUDYMA -- VICE PRESIDENT, ENGINEERING LAFORZA AUTOMOBILES, INC.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 11/16/88 FROM TERRY HUDYMA -- LAFORZA AUTOMOBILES TO CHIEF COUNSEL NHTSA; REF 49CFR 567, CERTIFICATION; OCC 2857; LETTER DATED 05/06/85 FROM JOFFREY R. MILLER CHIEF COUNSEL TO HAYLEY ALEXANDER

TEXT: Dear Mr. Hudyma:

Thank you for your letter requesting an interpretation of 49 CFR Part 567, Certification. Specifically, you asked about certification requirements for multipurpose passenger vehicles that will be assembled in Italy and in Michigan. I apologize for the d elay in this response. The vehicles in question will be assembled in Italy to the extent that they will be "complete with everything except the engine (and associated equipment such as ignition and air conditioning, etc.), transmission and transfer case in Italy." These assemblies will then be imported into the United States where the vehicles will be completed. You state that both the operations in Italy and in Michigan will be performed pursuant to a contract with LAFORZA, who will have "complete co ntrol over the manufacturing process at all times."

It is your understanding that in the fact situation described above, LAFORZA is considered to be the manufacturer of the vehicle and therefore LAFORZA is responsible for affixing the certification label on the completed motor vehicle pursuant to 49 CFR P art 567. You asked us to confirm this interpretation. We cannot do so. Under our law and regulations, the company that completes the vehicles in Michigan is a "manufacturer" of the vehicles in question. The information provided in your letter is inad equate to allow us to determine whether LAFORZA might also be considered a "manufacturer" of these vehicles.

The first issue to be addressed in our analysis is whether the products in question are "incomplete vehicles" when they arrive in the United States. An "incomplete vehicle" is defined at 49 CFR @568.3 as:

. . . an assemblage consisting, as a minimum, of frame and chassis structure, power train, steering system, suspension system, and braking system, to the extent that those systems are to be part of the completed vehicle, that requires further manufact uring operations, other than the addition of readily attachable components,

such as mirrors or tire and rim assemblies, or minor finishing operations such as painting, to become a completed vehicle.

Your letter states that the products that arrive in the United States will not have an engine or transmission, which means they will not have a power train.

Accordingly, @568.3 makes clear that these products would not be "incomplete vehicles" for the purposes of our regulations. In previous interpretations, we have referred to products that do not qualify as "incomplete vehicles" as an "assemblage of items of motor vehicle equipment". In those previous letters, we have stated that the assemblage should be labeled as items of motor vehicle equipment for importation into the United States and that the importer of the assemblage must certify that each item of motor vehicle equipment that is covered by a Federal motor vehicle safety standard complies with such standard. See the enclosed May 6, 1985 letter to Mr. Hayley Alexander.

This finding also means that the Italian company that produces these "assemblages of items of motor vehicle equipment" is not a "manufacturer" of motor vehicles with respect to the vehicles in question. Section 102(5) of the National Traffic and Motor V ehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1391(5); the Safety Act) defines a "manufacturer" as "any person engaged in the manufacturing or assembling of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, including any person importing motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipme nt for resale." In this case, the Italian company producing the assemblage of items of motor vehicle equipment has not manufactured or assembled any motor vehicles, nor has it imported any motor vehicles. Hence, it does not fit the statutory definition of a "manufacturer" of the vehicles in question.

After these assemblages are imported into the United States, the operations performed by the Michigan company will transform the items of motor vehicle equipment into a motor vehicle. Therefore, the Michigan company would be a "manufacturer" of these ve hicles for the purposes of the Safety Act and our regulations. Since @567.4(g)(1) requires the certification label to include the name of the manufacturer, the vehicles could comply if the name of the Michigan company were shown on the certification lab el.

The information in your letter was inadequate to allow us to make even a tentative determination of whether LAFORZA may also be considered a manufacturer of these vehicles. The agency discussed the issue of vehicles with more than one "manufacturer" at length in its proposal to establish rules of attribution for determining which of the manufacturers would be responsible for complying with the phase-in requirements in Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection (49 CFR @571.208). In that proposal, NHT SA said:

Since the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act places the responsibility of compliance with safety standards on manufacturers, the agency does not have authority to attribute a vehicle to a party other than one of the vehicle's manufacturers. However, the agency considers the language in section 102(5) of the Vehicle Safety Act that a manufacturer is "any person engaged in the manufacturing or assembling of motor vehicles . . ." to be sufficiently broad to

include sponsors, depending on the circumstances. For example, if a sponsor contracts for another manufacturer to produce a design exclusively for the sponsor, the sponsor may be considered the manufacturer. This follows from application of basic princ iples of agency law. In this case, the sponsor is the principal. On the other hand, the mere purchase of vehicles for resale by a company which also is a manufacturer of motor vehicles does not make the purchaser the manufacturer of those vehicles. 50 FR 14589, at 14596; April 12, 1985.

According to your letter, LAFORZA has a contractual relationship with the company in Intaly that is producing the assemblage of items of motor vehicle equipment and a contractual relationship with the company in Michigan that is assembling the motor vehi cle. These contractual relationships led you to assert that ". . . LAFORZA Automobiles will have complete control of the manufacturing process at all times." If LAFORZA merely has contractual relationships under which it purchases products for resale fr om the companies in Italy and Michigan, LAFORZA would not be considered the manufacturer of those vehicles. If you can provide us with information about any role LAFORZA has in producing these vehicles besides contracting with other companies to assembl e the vehicles, we will review that information and offer our interpretation of whether LAFORZA could be considered a "manufacturer" of these vehicles for the purposes of the Safety Act and our regulations.

Sincerely,

ENCLOSURE

ID: 1985-04.50

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/23/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Isis Imports

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. William R. Fink President Isis Imports, Ltd. P.O. Box 2290 U.S. Custom House San Francisco, CA 9412

Dear Mr. Fink:

This is in reply to your letter of November 22, 1985, to the former Chief Counsel of this agency, Frank Berndt. Your company, Isis Imports, is an importer of Morgan passenger cars, and has heretofore imported pursuant to 19 C.F.R. 12.80(b)(1)(iii). Upon advice of your attorney you have concluded that you may instead import them pursuant to 12.80(b)(1)(ix), and wish to inform the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration of that fact.

More specifically, under 12.80(b)(1)(iii) an importer declares that his vehicle was not manufactured in conformity with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards, but that it has been, or will be, brought into conformity: he also is required to furnish a bond for the production of a /conformity statement. Under 12.80(b)(1)(ix), the importer simply declares that the vehicle is an "incomplete vehicle" as defined by 49 CFR Part 568; no bond is required as it is assumed that the vehicle will be completed to conform to the Federal safety standards and bear the certification of its final-stage manufacturer. Because the Morgans are received from Morgan Motor Company without "major components of the fuel system; no fuel tank, fuel lines, carburetor, etc.," you believe that they are (incomplete vehicles," which are defined by S568.3 as "an assemblage consisting as a minimum of frame and chassis structure, power train, steering system, suspension system, and braking system, to the extent that those systems are to be part of the completed vehicle, that requires further manufacturing operations...to become a completed vehicle."

We disagree with your conclusion. The rulemaking history of Part 568 clearly shows that the intent of the regulation is to cover vehicles whose manufacture has customarily been shared. As the agency commented in 1970, "A large number of heavy vehicles of all types, of recreational vehicles, and of special purpose vehicles are manufactured in two or more stages, of which the first is an incomplete vehicle such as a stripped chassis, chassis cowl, or chassis cab to which one or more subsequent manufacturers add components to produce a completed vehicle." (35 FR 4639) The Morgan, on the other hand, is a passenger car ordinarily manufactured in a single stage, and in this instance is nonetheless virtually complete when it arrives in the United States. It is therefore a "motor vehicle" within the meaning of 19 CFR 12.80(b)(1)(iii), and the agency will not accept any HS-7 forms evidencing attempts to enter the vehicles pursuant to 12.80(b)(1)(ix).

I enclose copies of a couple of rulemaking proposals on Part 568 so that you might have a better understanding of its thrust. Were we to accept your interpretation, S568.4(a) would require Morgan Motor Company to furnish a document with each vehicle advising Isis how compliance with each applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard might be affected by its final manufacturing operations. Given the decision of Peter Morgan over the years not to conform his vehicles for the American market, we question whether he would furnish a document attesting that his product complies with all Federal motor vehicle safety standards, except 301, Fuel System Integrity.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Enclosures

November 22, 1985 Frank Berndt, Esq. Chief Counsel NHTSA 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Mr. Berndt:

I write on the advice of counsel to inform NHTSA and your office of a change in our response to Form HS 7. As you may recall, Isis Imports Ltd. is the U.S. outlet for the Morgan motorcar of England. We sell fewer than twenty-five cars a year, and we complete the manufacture of these cars here in San Francisco. (For your reference, I enclose a copy of our earlier correspondence, a brochure and a magazine article.)

We have until now checked Box 3 on Form HS 7. A review by our attorney of our final manufacture of these cars in the context of the applicable regulations, tells us that only a response checking Box 9 is appropriate to our business.

The Morgan chassis, body and engine is received from the Morgan Motor Company less major components of the fuel system; no fuel tank, fuel lines, carburetor, etc. These vehicles are, therefore, according to our attorney, "incomplete vehicles as per 49CFR Part 568.3:

"Incomplete vehicle means an assemblage consisting, as a minimum of frame and chassis structure, power train, steering system, suspension system, and braking system, to the extent that those systems are to be part of the completed vehicle, that requires further manufacturing operations, other than the addition of readily attachable components, such as mirrors or tire and rim assemblies, or minor finishing operations such as painting, to become a completed vehicle.

To: Frank Berndt, Esq.

Since the Morgan cars we sell in the United States operate on a propane fuel system, which is of domestic origin, the addition to the vehicle of this fuel system, as well as implementation of required safety systems, necessitates "further manufacturing operations, other than the addition of readily attachable components" as per 49CFR Part 568.3.

The addition of the fuel tank, in particular, is a fairly detailed manufacturing procedure and without the entire fuel system we add, the car is not a complete vehicle, since it could not be operated. We are aware, of course, of the requirements for "Final Stage manufacturers" as stated in 49 CFR 566 and 49 CFR 568 and are forwarding to the Administrator our identification as a "Final Stage Manufacturer."

Please let us know if your office or your agency require any further information from us. Thank you for your courtesy and cooperation.

Yours sincerely,

W. R. Fink President

WRF:jb

File

CERTIFIED MAIL--RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED

Mr. William R. Fink President Isis Imports, Ltd. P. 0. Box 2290 US Custom House San Francisco, CA 94126

Dear Mr. Fink:

This is in response to your letter of October 21, 1983 requesting confidential treatment for information which was submitted to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) with statements of compliance and which pertained to vehicles imported by Isis Imports, Ltd. into the United States.

In telephone conversations with Heidi Lewis Coleman of my staff, you indicated that you had no objection to the release of HS Forms 189. You requested, however, that submitted drawings, diagrams, specifications and photographs showing the methods and extent of modifications made to Morgan vehicles be treated confidentially by this agency. After carefully reviewing the submitted materials and your justifications I have decided to grant your request in part and deny it in part.

All submitted materials will be afforded confidential treatment with the exception of the photographs. NHTSA does not believe that their release will cause substantial harm to Isis Imports. In order to determine whether release of information will cause such harm, courts consider "how valuable the information will be to the requesting competitors and how much this gain will damage the submitter." Worthington Compressors, Inc. v. Costle. 662 F. 2d 45, 51 (D.C. Cir. 1981).

You indicate that a presumption has been established by 49 CFR Part 512 with respect to blueprints and engineering drawings containing process of production data where the subject could not be manufactured without the blueprints or engineering drawings except after significant reverse engineering. This class determination, however, pertains only to blueprints and engineering drawings; it cannot be interpreted to apply to photographs. Additionally, release of the photographs will not be very valuable to the requesting competitor, and will therefore not cause substantial harm to Isis Imports. Since accompanying diagrams, text and other information will remain confidential, significant reverse engineering will still be required to determine the methods and extent of modifications necessary to bring Morgan vehicles into compliance with Federal standards.

If you wish to submit additional justification explaining why Isis is entitled to confidential treatment for the photographs you must do so within 10 days of your receipt of this letter. At the end of that period, they will be made publicly available. I will notify appropriate agency personnel of this decision, and they will treat your submissions accordingly. Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

ID: 1991y

Mr. Terry Hudyma
Vice President, Engineering
LAFORZA Automobiles, Inc.
3860 Bay Center Place
Hayward, CA 94545

Dear Mr. Hudyma:

Thank you for your letter requesting an interpretation of 49 CFR Part 567, Certification. Specifically, you asked about certification requirements for multipurpose passenger vehicles that will be assembled in Italy and in Michigan. I apologize for the delay in this response. The vehicles in question will be assembled in Italy to the extent that they will be "complete with everything except the engine (and associated equipment such as ignition and air conditioning, etc.), transmission and transfer case in Italy." These assemblies will then be imported into the United States where the vehicles will be completed. You state that both the operations in Italy and in Michigan will be performed pursuant to a contract with LAFORZA, who will have "complete control over the manufacturing process at all times."

It is your understanding that in the fact situation described above, LAFORZA is considered to be the manufacturer of the vehicle and therefore LAFORZA is responsible for affixing the certification label on the completed motor vehicle pursuant to 49 CFR Part 567. You asked us to confirm this interpretation. We cannot do so. Under our law and regulations, the company that completes the vehicles in Michigan is a "manufacturer" of the vehicles in question. The information provided in your letter is inadequate to allow us to determine whether LAFORZA might also be considered a "manufacturer" of these vehicles.

The first issue to be addressed in our analysis is whether the products in question are "incomplete vehicles" when they arrive in the United States. An "incomplete vehicle" is defined at 49 CFR 568.3 as:

... an assemblage consisting, as a minimum, of frame and chassis structure, power train, steering system, suspension system, and braking system, to the extent that those systems are to be part of the completed vehicle, that requires further manufacturing operations, other than the addition of readily attachable components, such as mirrors or tire and rim assemblies, or minor finishing operations such as painting, to become a completed vehicle.

Your letter states that the products that arrive in the United States will not have an engine or transmission, which means they will not have a power train. Accordingly, 568.3 makes clear that these products would not be "incomplete vehicles" for the purposes of our regulations. In previous interpretations, we have referred to products that do not qualify as "incomplete vehicles" as an "assemblage of items of motor vehicle equipment". In those previous letters, we have stated that the assemblage should be labeled as items of motor vehicle equipment for importation into the United States and that the importer of the assemblage must certify that each item of motor vehicle equipment that is covered by a Federal motor vehicle safety standard complies with such standard. See the enclosed May 6, 1985 letter to Mr. Hayley Alexander.

This finding also means that the Italian company that produces these "assemblages of items of motor vehicle equipment" is not a "manufacturer" of motor vehicles with respect to the vehicles in question. Section 102(5) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1391(5); the Safety Act) defines a "manufacturer" as "any person engaged in the manufacturing or assembling of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, including any person importing motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment for resale." In this case, the Italian company producing the assemblage of items of motor vehicle equipment has not manufactured or assembled any motor vehicles, nor has it imported any motor vehicles. Hence, it does not fit the statutory definition of a "manufacturer" of the vehicles in question.

After these assemblages are imported into the United States, the operations performed by the Michigan company will transform the items of motor vehicle equipment into a motor vehicle. Therefore, the Michigan company would be a "manufacturer" of these vehicles for the purposes of the Safety Act and our regulations. Since 567.4(g)(1) requires the certification label to include the name of the manufacturer, the vehicles could comply if the name of the Michigan company were shown on the certification label.

The information in your letter was inadequate to allow us to make even a tentative determination of whether LAFORZA may also be considered a manufacturer of these vehicles. The agency discussed the issue of vehicles with more than one "manufacturer" at length in its proposal to establish rules of attribution for determining which of the manufacturers would be responsible for complying with the phase-in requirements in Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection (49 CFR 571.208). In that proposal, NHTSA said:

Since the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act places the responsibility of compliance with safety standards on manufacturers, the agency does not have authority to attribute a vehicle to a party other than one of the vehicle's manufacturers. However, the agency considers the language in section 102(5) of the Vehicle Safety Act that a manufacturer is "any person engaged in the manufacturing or assembling of motor vehicles . . ." to be sufficiently broad to include sponsors, depending on the circumstances. For example, if a sponsor contracts for another manufacturer to produce a design exclusively for the sponsor, the sponsor may be considered the manufacturer. This follows from application of basic principles of agency law. In this case, the sponsor is the principal. On the other hand, the mere purchase of vehicles for resale by a company which also is a manufacturer of motor vehicles does not make the purchaser the manufacturer of those vehicles. 50 FR 14589, at 14596; April 12, 1985.

According to your letter, LAFORZA has a contractual relationship with the company in Italy that is producing the assemblage of items of motor vehicle equipment and a contractual relationship with the company in Michigan that is assembling the motor vehicle. These contractual relationships led you to assert that "... LAFORZA Automobiles will have complete control of the manufacturing process at all times." If LAFORZA merely has contractual relationships under which it purchases products for resale from the companies in Italy and Michigan, LAFORZA would not be considered the manufacturer of those vehicles. If you can provide us with information about any role LAFORZA has in producing these vehicles besides contracting with other companies to assemble the vehicles, we will review that information and offer our interpretation of whether LAFORZA could be considered a "manufacturer" of these vehicles for the purposes of the Safety Act and our regulations.

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosure

cc: Mr. Hans W. Metzger LAFORZA Safety Consultant 6323 E. Turquoise Avenue Scottsdale, Arizona 85253

ref:567#568 d:9/7/89

ID: glazingquestions23315

Byung-Jae Yoon, President
Dae Kwang Special Glass Co., Ltd.
25-2, Palyong-Dong
Changwon-Si
Kyeong-Nam 641-405, Korea





Dear Mr. Yoon:

Your letter to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) regarding the use of your DOT code has been referred to my office for reply. I apologize for the delay in responding. You ask 1) whether you can mold the DOT code on glass that you manufacture for off-road equipment, 2) whether you must self-certify your products, 3) whether your "coding plan," as provided through an example, is correct, and 4) whether your DOT code needs to be updated every two to three years.

By way of background information, NHTSA has the authority to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. Federal law establishes a self-certification system under which motor vehicle and equipment manufacturers themselves certify that their products comply with all applicable standards. For that reason, NHTSA does not approve or conduct testing of products prior to their introduction into the retail market. Rather, we enforce compliance with the standards by purchasing vehicles and equipment and testing them. We also investigate safety-related defects.

Pursuant to NHTSA's authority, the agency has established FMVSS No. 205, Glazing Materials (49 CFR 571.205). FMVSS No. 205 incorporates by reference the American National Standard "Safety Code for Safety Glazing Materials for Glazing Motor Vehicles Operating on Land Highways" Z-26.1-1977, January 26, 1977, as supplemented by Z26.1a, July 3, 1980 (ANS Z26)." FMVSS No. 205 and ANS Z26 specify performance requirements for various types of glazing (called "items") and specify the locations in vehicles in which each item of glazing may be used.

You first ask whether you may mold your DOT code on your products manufactured for use on off-road equipment. The answer is yes. However, all glazing that is marked with the DOT code must comply with the marking and certification requirements set forth in FMVSS No. 205. S6 of Standard No. 205 establishes marking and certification requirements for manufacturers and distributors of glazing materials. S6.1 requires every "prime glazing material manufacturer" (defined in S6.1 of Standard No. 205 as "one who fabricates, laminates, or tempers the glazing material") to mark all glazing materials it manufactures in accordance with section 6 of ANS Z26. S6.3 requires each prime glazing manufacturer to certify each piece of glazing designed to be cut into components for use in motor vehicles pursuant to the requirements of our statute at 49 U.S.C. 30115. Each manufacturer or distributor who would not be considered a "prime glazing material manufacturer," but who cuts a section of glazing material to which Standard No. 205 applies, must comply with the requirements set forth in S6.4 and S6.5 of Standard No. 205. For sections of glazing that are cut by the manufacturer or distributor, the manufacturer or distributor must mark it in accordance with section 6 of ANS Z26 (S6.4) and certify it in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 30115.

Second, you ask whether your own certification showing that your products passed your own test requirements meeting FMVSS No. 205 is "good enough when they require us to issue certification." Each of the FMVSSs specifies the test conditions and procedures that NHTSA will use to evaluate whether a vehicle or equipment item conforms to the standard's performance requirements. However, the agency does not require a manufacturer to crash test vehicles or to evaluate 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 the applicable FMVSS, provided that the vehicle or item does comply.

Third, you ask several questions regarding your "coding plan" for your products. As a preliminary matter, the designations AS1 and AS2 are codes required on glazing materials by section 6 of ANS Z26 which describe the locations in which the items of glazing are used. These items of glazing must meet the prescribed tests and locations described in sections 4 and 5 of ANS Z26 and in FMVSS No. 205. A copy of ANS Z26 is enclosed. Based on the information provided in your letter, your coding plan does not appear to be correct as different types of glazing, e.g., laminated and tempered, are typically not combined in the same piece of glazing. Coding as described in your letter (AS1 and AS2 with arrows) typically specifies different items of glazing based on differing levels of transparency. (In your letter you incorrectly refer to Items 1 and 2 as AS1 and AS2.) Further, laminated and tempered glass, depending on various factors such as location in vehicle, use, and transparency, may possibly be characterized as item 3 through item 16 glazing. For this reason, you need to examine each item listed in FMVSS 205 and ANS Z26 to determine how to classify and label your glazing. If, after examining FMVSS No. 205 and ANS Z26, you write us again with more information about a particular item of glazing or a glazing code, we would be happy to provide an interpretation as to whether it is correct.

Fourth, you ask whether your DOT code needs to be renewed every two to three years. The answer is no. Under our current requirements, you may continue to use your manufacturer code mark assigned by DOT indefinitely.

For your further information, I am enclosing a fact sheet we prepared entitled Information for New Manufacturers of Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Equipment, and Where to Obtain NHTSA's Safety Standards and Regulations.

I hope this information is helpful. 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.4/1/02

ID: 1984-3.39

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 11/14/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Anthony Lauro, President, Vredusu

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Anthony Lauro President VREDUSA P.O. Box 766 South Plainfield, NJ 07080

This responds to your recent letter asking for an interpretation of the Uniform Tire quality Grading Standards (UTQGS). Specifically, you sought an interpretation of the term "limited production tire," as set forth in 49 CFR S 575.104(c). That section specifies that the UTQGS applies to all new pneumatic tires for use on passenger cars, but does not apply to certain types of tires . The tires excluded from the UTQGS include limited production tires, as defined in 49 CFR S575.104(c)(2). You noted that your company produces two different tread designs in fourteen different sizes, and asked if limited production tires are determined by the number of sizes, the number of tread designs, or both. The UTQGS specify that a tire may qualify as a limited production tire if the annual domestic production or importation of tires of both the same design and size as the tire in question does not exceed 15,000.

Subparagraph (c)(2) of 5575.104 specifies that a tire will be considered a limited production tire if the tire meets the four criteria set forth in that section. Two of those four criteria specify that no more than 15,000 tires of the same design and size may be manufactured in or imported into the United States. The tire design is defined as "the combination of general structural characteristics, materials, and tread pattern, but does not include cosmetic, identifying, or other minor variations among tires." Hence, if you wish to determine how to group these tires to see if they qualify as limited production tires, you must determine how many tires are imported with both the same size and tread pattern.

Judging by the last paragraph in your letter, however, it is not necessary for you to determine if these tires qualify as limited production tires to exclude them from the requirements of the UTQGS. You stated that all of these tires have a nominal rim diameter of 10 to 12 inches. 49 CFR S575.104(c)(1) excludes all tires with a nominal rim diameter of 10 to 12 inches from the requirements of UTQGS, regardless of whether those tires would qualify as limited production tires.

Should you have any further questions or need more information on this subject, please contact Mr. Stephen Kratzke of my staff at this address, or by telephone at (202) 426-2992.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

October 10, 1984

Mr. Frank A. Berndt, Chief Councel Office of the Chief Councel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Nassif Building, Room 5219 400 Seventh Street S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Re: section 575.104 of title 49 Transportation Chapter V of the Code of Federal Regulations

Dear Mr. Berndt:

By way of correspondence with National Tire Dealers & Retreaders Association, manager of Regulatory affairs, Mr. K. Wayne Malbon, I am writing this letter to obtain your opinion to a specific area of concern-namely "limited production of tires".

Vredusa, Inc. is the U.S. Sales and Marketing office of Vredestein Banden B. V. Enschede, Holland, the Manufacturer of Vredestein tires. Our Dutch office has asked us to obtain a clearer understanding into the criteria of what is meant by "limited production tires". More specifically, if the manufacturer produces two different tread designs with fourteen difference sizes, how is the criteria detemined, is it per size, per design or a combination of both?

We raise this question with respect to tires we produce with nominal rim diameters of 10 to 12 inches, which the Dutch office is classifying as "limited production tires".

Your comments and early response would be greatly appreciated.

Very truly yours,

Anthony Lauro President

AL/bf TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 11/16/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHSTA

TO: Mr. Noel M. Torres

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Noel M. Torres 2521-C3 W. Sunflower Santa Ana, California 92704

Dear Mr. Torres:

This is in response to your letter of September 25, 1984 asking questions about the relationship of your "Panic-Stop Detection Brake-Lite System" Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

The photographs you enclosed show a segmented lamp mounted on the centerline of a passenger car directly below the rear window. Another picture shows the lamp installed on the rear of a motorcycle above the license plate. These pictures contain the notation "The harder you brake the faster the lite sweeping motion." Your questions are:

"(1) If I install this as a retrofit on a 1986 car which will have a third brake lite, will it qualify legally as a tail/stop lite if it meets the photometric requirements of SAE-J186A and FMVSS 108?"

Section 108(a)(2) ((A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act forbids manufacturers, dealers, distributors, and motor vehicle repair businesses from rendering inoperative, in whole or in part, any device, or element of design installed in accordance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard. This would appear to preclude removal of the mandated center high-mounted stop lamp on cars manufactured on or after September 1, 1985, and replacement of it with your lamp.

"(2) Is it legally all right to use it now on cars and motorcycles?"

Standard No. 108 was recently amended to permit manufacturers to install the center high-mounted lamp on passenger cars manufactured on or after August 1, 1984, and General Motors is already equipping some of its 1985 models with it. Thus, a center high-mounted stoplamp already installed on a passenger car in accordance with Standard No. 108 would be subject to the prohibition in Section 108(a) (2) (A) discussed above.

As for other passenger cars, we assume that you wish to make your lamp available as an aftermarket device. In this circumstance, where it is installed on a vehicle in use, its permissibility is to be determined under local law; Federal law does not apply.

Finally, as to motorcycles, your photograph, by depicting your lamp mounted above the license plate, indicates that it substitutes for the original equipment stop/taillamp. Inasmuch as the stop/taillamp was installed in accordance with Standard No. 108, the prohibitions of Section 108(a)(2)(A) apply to it as well.

We are returning your tape to you and appreciate your interest in safety.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel Enclosure

2521-C3 W. Sunflower Santa Ana, Ca 92704 September 25, 1984

Madam Diane K. Steed NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMIN. 400 7th Street S.W. Washington D.C. 20590

Dear Madam Steed:

I hope you don't mind my taking the liberty of sending you this letter together with a 10-minute videotape of a brake-lite system for cars and motorcycles which I thought you might want to review and evaluate, if you have the time.

I have been thinking for a while now that it is amazing in this day and age of space shuttles, maze of freeways and fast driving, our cars are still equipped with the most out-dated brake-lite system that have been in use for hundreds of years, and when driving on the road, there's no way of telling if a car braking in front of you is trying to make a panic stop.

An idea came to mind which I developed. I call it "PANIC-STOP DETECTION BRAKE-LITE SYSTEM", applicable for cars and motorcycles. I honestly believe it is a very effective system that would reduce more than 90% of rear-end collisions. You'll see what I mean when you view the videotape enclosed.

I would appreciate it if you could clarify two things for me: 1) If I install this as a retrofit on a 1986 car which will have a third brake lite, will it qualify legally as a tail/stop lite if it meets the photometric requirements of SAE-J186A and FMVSS 108? 2) Is it legally alright to use it now on cars and motorcycles?

Thank you so much for your kind consideration and I hope to hear from you.

Yours truly,

Noel M. Torres

P.S. If you think you might want to see the prototype samples, I'll be more than happy to ship them to you.

Encls./ 3-photos, 1-videotape

ID: Wallach.1

Mr. Mark Wallach
President
Air Chex Equipment Company, Inc.
27 New Street
Nyack on Hudson, NY10960

Dear Mr. Wallach:

This responds to your letters concerning your companys new tire pressure safety devices for use on trucks, buses, and other large vehicles. The attachments to your letters describe three products intended to be mounted on a vehicles wheels which allow the vehicle operator to gauge tire inflation pressure and which facilitate the addition of air up to the proper inflation level. You seek assurance that these planned items of motor vehicle equipment are in compliance with all applicable rules and regulations. I am pleased to have the opportunity to explain our regulations.

By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, nor do we issue permits. Instead, it is the responsibility of manufacturers to certify that their products conform to all applicable safety standards before they can be offered for sale. NHTSA enforces compliance with the standards by purchasing and testing vehicles and equipment, and we also investigate safety-related defects.

The agency does not have any regulations covering tire pressure safety devices for heavy vehicles. However, if your device is installed as original equipment on a new vehicle, the vehicle manufacturer is required to certify that, with the device installed, the vehicle satisfies the requirements of all applicable Federal safety standards. If the device is added to a previously certified new motor vehicle, prior to its first sale, the person who modifies the vehicle would be an alterer of a previously certified motor vehicle and would be required to certify that, as altered, the vehicle continues to comply with all of the safety standards affected by the alteration. You will find the specific certification requirements at 49 CFR Part 567, Certification.

If your device is installed on a used vehicle by a business such as a garage, the installer would not be required to attach a certification label. However, 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. 49 U.S.C. 30122. Thus, these entities could not install your tire pressure system if it would take the vehicle out of compliance with any existing safety standard. Although the "make inoperative" provision does not apply to equipment attached to or installed on or in a vehicle by the vehicle owner, NHTSA urges vehicle owners not to degrade the safety of any system or device in their vehicles.

Beyond compliance with relevant Federal safety standards, manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment have additional responsibilities, including a requirement to notify NHTSA and purchasers about safety-related defects and to provide a remedy free of charge, even if their equipment is not covered by a safety standard. 49 U.S.C. 30118, 30120.

In addition, you should be aware that other governmental entities may have authority over your product. For example, the Department of Transportations Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) has jurisdiction over interstate motor carriers operating in the United States. You should contact FMCSA for further information about any FMCSA regulations that may apply to your system. In addition, States have the authority to regulate the use and licensing of vehicles operating within their jurisdictions. Therefore, you should check with the Department of Motor Vehicles in any State in which the equipment will be sold or used regarding any such requirements.

I note for your information that NHTSA is currently in the process of rulemaking to establish FMVSS No. 138, Tire Pressure Monitoring Systems (TPMSs), which will set forth requirements for TPMSs that are installed in new passenger cars, trucks, multipurpose passenger vehicles, and buses with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of 10,000 pounds or less, except those vehicles with dual wheels on an axle.

For your further information, I am enclosing a fact sheet we prepared entitled Information for New Manufacturers of Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Equipment. I hope you find this information useful. If you have further questions, please feel free to contact Eric Stas of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

Enclosure
ref:138
d.6/25/04

ID: nht76-4.31

DATE: 10/29/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Truck Body and Equipment Association, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to the Truck Body and Equipment Association's letter of September 14, 1976, inquiring as to the effect of Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems, on State laws relating to air brake performance. You ask whether the Commonwealth of Massachusetts can impose requirements pertaining to parking brake release on trucks and buses which differ from provisions contained in the Federal standard.

I believe that the question you raised is identical to a question raised by the State of California, International Harvester Company, and White Motor Corporation in October 1974, prior to the effective dates of Standard No. 121. It was our opinion at that time that promulgation by a State of a more restrictive parking brake requirement providing for the installation of a release not specified in Standard No. 121 was prohibited by @ 103(d) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. A copy of that letter is enclosed for your information.

SINCERELY,

TRUCK BODY AND EQUIPMENT ASSOCIATION, INC.

September 14, 1976

Frank A. Berndt Office of Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

The state of Massachusetts has established a law requiring an air brake equipped truck sold in that state, to have a system that differs from those presently designed and developed for FMVSS 121 compliance. The difference lies in the Massachusetts requirement that the air brake system be equipped with an additional air reservoir or "third tank" capable of supplying air to the spring set parking brakes in case of an air brake failure. (See Attachment # I).

At the present time, all new trucks equipped with air brakes are required by Department of Transportation through National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to be completed in accordance with the performance levels found in FMVSS 121. As a result, all new trucks have air systems that are capable of meeting the application and release times, system build up times and the spring brake modulation requirements found in FMVSS 121.

The Massachusetts law was instituted to provide an additional means by which the spring brakes may be released during emergency situations. This release requirement is already supplied on all new chassis produced today in compliance with FMVSS 121 by a mechanical means.

The Massachusetts law requires that the existing 121 system be repiped to accommodate the new third tank and emergency release circuit. Any modification to the complex 121 system increases the likelihood of system damage or the modification may cross connect the split air system thus defeating the intent of two separate brake systems.

The chances of a modified system failure seems more likely than a FMVSS 121 brake lock up on a railroad grade crossing.

In previous correspondence the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Office of Chief Counsel, has indicated that a state can not set any motor vehicle safety standard that is in variance with an existing Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard. (See Attachment # II).

We at the Truck Body and Equipment Association feel that the Massachusetts requirement for a modified brake system is inconsistent with the requirements outlined in FMVSS 121 and would appreciate the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's opinion of the legality of this state regulation.

Byron A. Crampton Manager of Engineering Services

ATTACHMENTS

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts Registry of Motor Vehicles

August 13, 1976

Dear Sir:

In reply to your inquiry as to brake requirements on commercial vehicle chassis, I am enclosing a copy of that portion of Massachusetts law in regards to brakes.

If a vehicle is equipped with air brakes and the parking or emergency brake portion of the brake system is a spring loaded brake, Massachusetts requires a third air tank and there must be a check valve between your main source (wet/dry tank or tanks) of supply and the third tank.

Under emergency conditions when there is a loss of the service brake, the spring loaded brake is automatically applied. To move the vehicle would require the winding down to release the spring loaded brake. Our requirement of a third tank allows 4 to 6 quick release operations so that the vehicle can be safely moved out of traffic, a roadway, a railroad crossing or an intersection.

Any vehicle equipped with air brakes and a spring loaded parking/emergency brake must be equipped with the third tank for registration and operation in Massachusetts. If we find a vehicle is not so equipped (third tank) we will not permit it to be registered. If it has been registered, statutory law allows the Registrar of Motor Vehicles to suspend the registration. No consideration is given relative to the reinstatement of the suspended registration until the brake system is in compliance and examined by an inspector from this department.

I hope this information will be of some help to you.

Charles V. Mulhern Supervisor Vehicle Inspection Branch

provisions of this section shall be punished by a fine of not less than ten nor more than one hundred dollars.

@ 7. Brakes, Lights and Other Equipment

[MASSACHUSETTS REGULATION OMITTED]

March 21, 1975

Chief Counsel NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION

Recently several members of the Truck Body and Equipment Association have raised questions concerning state versus federal motor vehicle lighting requirements.

The vehicle in question is a multipurpose passenger vehicle less than eighty (80) inches wide, equipped with a raised roof.

Our question is as follow: Can a state require a motor vehicle to be equipped with lights not required under FMVSS #1007

Thanking you in advance for your help, I am,

Byron Crampton Manager of Engineering Services

ID: 1985-03.51

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 10/17/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Jeffrey R. Miller; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Richard A. Gomes

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

October 17, 1985 Mr. Richard A. Gomes, Supervisor Technical Support, Room 28 New York City Transit Authority 25 Jamaica Avenue Brooklyn, New York 11207 Dear Mr. Gomes: This responds to your June 21, 1985 letter to this office concerning our requirements for emergency exits under Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 217, Bus Window Retention and Release. I apologize for the delay in our response. In a July 15 telephone conversation with Ms. Hom of my staff, you explained that your question concerns the side rear door on transit buses which is used to unload passengers. The door in question is not intended as an emergency exit, and the buses have the requisite emergency exits in compliance with Standard No. 217 without the need to count the rear exit door. Typically, passengers can exit the bus by pushing handles which open the door, after the driver activates a mechanism located in the driver's compartment. The Transit Authority would like to place another activating mechanism near the rear exit door that can be operated "in an emergency." You propose to place the second mechanism in a "break-away" plastic case and ask whether we have standards specifying requirements for materials used for that purpose. There are no safety standards setting requirements for the material you wish to use to cover the secondary release mechanism. Your question, however, raises the issue of the applicability of Standard No. 217's emergency exit requirements to the rear exit door. this question arises in cases where a label is attached to a door indicating that is is to be used in an emergency. From your description, it appears that a label would be attached to the mechanism at the rear door instructing passengers how to open the door in an emergency. We have stated in the past that a door that is not labeled or intended as an emergency exit need not comply with the emergency exit requirements of Standard No. 217. However, if a door were labeled with instructions on how to open the door in case of an emergency, such as "To Open Door In Emergency Pull Down," then the label indicates that the door is intended for use as an emergency exit. Such a door must comply with the requirements applicable to emergency doors in Standard No. 217, since the label indicates to the occupants that the door is suitable for use in an emergency and it is likely that rider would use the door as an emergency exit. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has uniformly required this of all doors labeled with instructions for use in emergencies. One purpose of Standard No.217 is to provide a means of readily accessible emergency egress. While the standard does not explicitly prohibit a plastic case around an emergency exit release mechanism, it is obvious that any type of design or device which would inhibit the release of the mechanism would not be allowed. We urge you to ensure that the release mechanism is easily accessible to bus occupants and that the plastic case does not unnecessarily impede its operation. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.), manufacturers of new motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment must certify that their products conform to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. Any person selling you a new bus with the rear exit door marked as an emergency exit must ensure that the door meets Standard No. 217's requirements for emergency exits. The Transit Authority may modify its buses by labeling the rear exit door with instructions for use in an emergency after it receives delivery of the vehicles without regard to our safety standards, since our authority under the Vehicle Safety Act does not extend to the use of vehicles by their owners. However, we would urge the Transit Authority to carefully consider the benefits of assuring continued compliance with all applicable motor vehicle safety standards. I hope this information is helpful. Please contact this office if you have further questions. Sincerely, Original Signed By Jeffrey R. Miller Chief Counsel