ID: 24625.ztv

Mr. Anthony Dowling
5290 45^th Avenue N.
St. Petersburg, FL 33709

Dear Mr. Dowling:

This is in reply to your letter of June 17, 2002, asking for an interpretation regarding the legality under Federal law of your "U-Turn Traffic Signal Indicator" (the "Indicator)."

The patent drawings that you enclosed show a U-shaped lamp 3 to 4 inches in height with a crossbar bearing the word "TURN;" the lamp and crossbar are illuminated by flashing yellow LEDs. We assume that the device operates independently of the turn signal system of the vehicle on which it is installed.

I enclose a copy of a 1988 interpretation letter of this Office addressed to Wayne Apple who wrote on the general subject of U-turn indicators. In that letter, we advised Mr. Apple that a supplemental lighting device such as a U-turn indicator would be acceptable as original vehicle equipment provided that it did not impair the effectiveness of a vehicles required lighting equipment. We also addressed the indicator as aftermarket equipment. The general principles expressed in the letter remain valid, but 15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A) has been recodified as 49 U.S.C. 30122. Further, the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators (AAMVA) has moved to 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA 22203.

However, Mr. Apple asked a hypothetical question while you have presented a detailed design of a U-turn indicator for our analysis. Under Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment, turn signal lamps are permitted to flash but accessory lamps must be steady burning (S5.5.10). We cannot regard your flashing U-turn indicator as a supplemental turn signal lamp and permitted to flash as it appears to operate independently of the turn signal system of the vehicle on which it would be installed. Further, it does not indicate either a right or left turn. Therefore, it would not be permissible as original vehicle equipment under S5.5.10.

Our second reservation concerns the unique design of the indicator and the presence of the word "TURN" on the crossbar. The shape of the indicator is one that is unfamiliar to motorists. Further, we discourage the use of words or messages on lighting equipment because we believe that they may distract a following driver from reacting to signals from stop or turn signal lamps, hence, impair the effectiveness of lighting equipment required by Standard No. 108 within the meaning of paragraph S5.1.3 of that standard (see our letter to Mr. Apple). Therefore, in our opinion, your indicator would not be permitted as original vehicle equipment by S5.1.3 because of its shape and use of the word "TURN."

Aftermarket lighting equipment may not be installed by a manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or motor vehicle repair business if it "makes inoperative" any element of design or device installed in accordance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard. As a general rule, if an accessory lamp is not permitted as original equipment, it is also not permitted as replacement equipment. However, neither Section 30122 nor any other Federal law would prohibit the owner of a vehicle from installing the U-turn indicator. Nevertheless, the U-turn indicator would be subject to the laws of the individual States in which it is used and which may or may not permit it. We regret that we are unable to provide you with interpretations of State laws.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

Enclosure
ref:108
d.12/12/02

ID: 24724_PruittTray

Ms. Ondiya Pruitt
956 Zion Circle
Roswell, GA 30075

Dear Ms. Pruitt:

This responds to your letter asking about safety regulations for a "car seat tray" that you wish to manufacture. The documents you have provided indicate that the tray is intended to provide an "eating/play surface that can be positioned within the reach on an infant or young child that is sitting in a child restraint seat."From the sketch you provided, it appears that the tray attaches to the child restraint by flexible straps. You state that the tray would be sold to owners of child restraints through stores selling baby products and related items.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has the authority to issue safety standards for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA has used its authority to issue Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 213, "Child Restraint Systems," to reduce the number of children killed or injured in motor vehicles. (This standard is found in volume 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations, 571.213.^[1]) Each new child restraint system, which includes "car seats," must be certified as complying with the requirements of Standard No. 213. This means that, if your car seat tray were sold as part of a new child restraint, the child restraint would be required to comply with all of the requirements of the standard with the tray attached.

As Part of A New Child Restraint

It does not appear that a new child restraint could meet Standard No. 213 with the tray installed. Section S5.2.2.2 of the standard prohibits any fixed or moveable surface in front of the child except for surfaces that adequately restrain a test dummy in a 20 mile per hour test (see also S6.1.1(b)(2) and S6.1.2(a)(2)). The requirement is to prevent items that could injure a child in a crash from being installed where they could be impacted by a child. It appears that your tray would not be able to restrain the test dummy in the test. If so, a child restraint with the tray would not comply with Standard No. 213. In other words, a manufacturer of a child restraint could not sell such a tray as a part of its new child restraint system.

Also, a new child restraint with the tray attached to it might not comply with S5.2.4 of Standard No. 213. S5.2.4 requires any rigid part of the child restraint that can be contacted by the head or torso of the dummy in the dynamic test to have a height of not more than 3/8 inch above any adjacent surface, and have no exposed edge with a radius of less than 1/4 inch. If the head or torso of a restrained dummy could impact the tray, these requirements apply.

Further, child restraint systems recommended for use by children weighing less than 20 pounds must comply with paragraph S5.2.3.2 of FMVSS No. 213. That paragraph requires that each child restraint surface contactable by the child dummys head during a crash test shall be covered with slow recovery energy absorbing materials with specified characteristics. This requirement ensures that children riding in these child restraints will not suffer unnecessary head injuries during crashes.

Aftermarket Item

If your product will be sold to consumers as an aftermarket item, Standard No. 213 does not apply to it, since the standard only applies to new child restraints and not to accessory items. There is no Federal motor vehicle safety standard that applies to a tray.

However, while Standard No. 213 does not apply to the child restraint tray, your product is considered to be an item of motor vehicle equipment. As a manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment, you are subject to the requirements of 49 U.S.C. 30118-30121 concerning the recall and remedy of products with safety-related defects. I have enclosed an information sheet that briefly describes those and other manufacturer responsibilities. In the event you or NHTSA determines that your product contains a safety-related defect, you would be responsible for notifying purchasers of the defective equipment and remedying the problem free of charge. If information indicated that a child seat accessory exposed occupants to an unreasonable risk of injury, the agency might conduct a defect investigation which could lead to a safety recall.

In addition, manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and motor vehicle repair businesses are subject to 49 U.S.C. 30122. This section prohibits them from installing the tray if it "makes inoperative" compliance with any safety standard, such as Standard No. 213. It appears unlikely that your product would be attached to a child restraint by persons in the aforementioned categories. However, if such a person were to attach the tray, he or she could violate 30112 if the child restraints compliance with Standard No. 213 were compromised.

The "make inoperative" prohibition of 30122 does not apply to the actions of vehicle owners in adding to or otherwise modifying their vehicles or items of motor vehicle equipment.

Thus, child restraint owners could attach the tray without having to meet Standard No. 213. However, we urge consumers not to degrade the safety systems of their vehicles or equipment.

I hope this is helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Ms. Deirdre Fujita of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

Enclosure
ref:213
d.11/26/02





---




^[1] The agency recently proposed a number of revisions to the standard, including proposals for incorporating new test dummies and extending the standard to apply to restraints recommended for use by children up to 65 pounds. 67 FR 21806 (May 1, 2002).

ID: 24739.drn

Ms. Rhonda Lordet
4130 Commonwealth Avenue
Culver City, CA 90232

Dear Ms. Lordet:

This responds to your letter seeking confirmation that "there are no standards or regulations concerning hubcaps or wheel covers." You are correct in your understanding that there is no longer a Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) regulating hubcaps or wheel covers.

In the past, FMVSS No. 211 (Standard No. 211), Wheel nuts, wheel discs, and hub caps, (49 CFR Section 571.211) precluded certain wheel nuts, wheel discs, and hub caps from having "winged projections." We were concerned that the winged projections could catch on clothing or strike legs or other body parts, posing a hazard to pedestrians and cyclists. Standard No. 211 was rescinded in a final rule published in the Federal Register on May 6, 1996, (61 FR 20172).The final rule took effect on June 5, 1996.

However, a hubcap or wheel cover designed to be used on motor vehicles is an item of "motor vehicle equipment," and is subject the recall and remedy provisions of the Vehicle Safety Act.If a manufacturer or NHTSA determines that the product contains a safety-related defect, the manufacturer is responsible for notifying purchasers of the defective vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment and remedying the problem free of charge.(This responsibility is borne by the vehicle manufacturer in cases in which a device is installed on or in a new vehicle by or with the express authorization of that vehicle manufacturer.)I have enclosed an information sheet that describes these and other responsibilities.

I hope this information is helpful.If you need any further information, please contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

Enclosure
ref:#211
d.9/24/02

ID: 2498y

Joseph R. Wheeler, Esq.
P.O. Box 2808
424 Church St., Suite 2900
Third National Financial Center
Nashville, TN 37219

Dear Mr. Wheeler:

This is in response to your letter to Kenneth Weinstein of my staff requesting information about actions by the Secretary of Transportation pursuant to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection (49 CFR 571.208). More specifically, you noted that S4.1.4.1 of Standard No. 208 states that, "Except as provided in S4.1.5 [and another section not relevant to your inquiry], each passenger car manufactured on or after September 1, 1989 shall comply with the [automatic restraint requirements]." S4.1.5 of Standard No. 208 provides that: "If the Secretary of Transportation determines, by not later than April 1, 1989, that state mandatory safety belt usage laws have been enacted that meet the criteria specified in S4.1.5.2 and that are applicable to not less than two-thirds of the total population . . ., [the automatic restraint requirements will not go into effect]." You asked whether the Secretary ever made a determination under S4.1.5 regarding State safety belt use laws. The answer is no.

Under S4.1.5, the Secretary was not required to make any determination about any State safety belt laws. In fact, the Secretary never did so. Because no determination was made under S4.1.5, the automatic restraint requirements are now in effect for all passenger cars.

This letter expresses no opinion about the implications under Tennessee law of the absence of a determination by the Secretary of Transportation regarding any State's safety belt law.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel /ref:208 d:6/l4/90

ID: 24740GMF_width_of_latchbelt

Mr. Agus The
Project Engineer
AMSAFE Commercial Products
240-C N. 48^th Avenue
Phoenix, AZ 85043

Dear Mr. The:

This responds to your August 8, 2002, letter concerning whether Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 213, Child Restraint Systems, permits the use of 1-inch webbing for use in "Lower Anchor and Upper Tether assemblies." [1] We understand you to ask whether you may use 1-inch webbing to permanently attach the components to a child restraint that enable the restraint to be securely fastened to the child restraint anchorage system specified in Standard No. 225. Our answer is yes, provided that the webbing meets the applicable performance requirements.

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 213 requires at S5.9 that "Each add-on child restraint system manufactured on or after September 1, 2002, other than a car bed, harness and belt-positioning seat, shall have components permanently attached to the system that enable the restraint to be securely fastened to the lower anchorages of the child restraint anchorage system specified in Standard No. 225 (571.225)." S5.4 of the standard addresses belts, belt buckles and belt webbing of child restraint systems. S5.4.1 states:

The webbing of belts provided with the child restraint system and used to attach the system to the vehicle or to restrain the child within the system shall

1. After being subjected to abrasion as specified in S5.1(d) or S5.3(c) of FMVSS 209 (571.209), have a breaking strength of not less than 75 percent of the strength of the unabraded webbing when tested in accordance with S5.1(b) of FMVSS 209.
2. Meet the requirements of S4.2 (e) and (f) of FMVSS No. 209 ( 571.209); and
3. If contactable by the test dummy torso when the system is tested in accordance with S6.1, have a width of not less than 1 inches when measured in accordance with S5.4.1.1." (Emphasis added.)

Based on your letter, it is our understanding that you are exploring the use of 1-inch wide webbing only for use in attaching the "LATCH" components to a child restraint. Therefore, we assume that the proposed webbing would not be "contactable by the test dummy torso." If it is so, the requirements of S5.4.1(c) are inapplicable to the webbing in question and do not prohibit you from using 1-inch-wide webbing.

While Standard No. 213 does not expressly restrict the use of webbing for the LATCH components on the basis of width, each child restraint must meet Standard No. 213s performance requirements in a dynamic test. Therefore, in making your decision on whether to provide slimmer webbing to child restraint system manufacturers, you should ensure that the restraints can comply with the dynamic testing requirements in the standard.

Finally, you ask whether 1-inch webbing would violate any future Federal motor vehicle safety standard. Please be advised that this interpretation letter pertains to current requirements and makes no representations about any future or proposed rule changes. Although we do not have any pending rulemakings pertaining to the width of webbing used to attach LATCH components, manufacturers bear the responsibility to keep abreast of all developments with the Federal standards.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have further questions, please feel free to contact Deirdre Fujita of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:213
d.1/30/03





---




[1] We believe that you are referring to the term "Lower Anchors and Tethers for Children (LATCH)," which was developed by child restraint manufacturers and retailers to refer to the standardized child restraint anchorage system specified by Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 225, Child Restraint Anchorage Systems (49 CFR 571.225).

ID: 24778rbm

Mr. Klaus Hillenbrand
Siemens Restraint Systems GmbH
Carl-Zeiss-Strasse 9
63755 Alzenau

Dear Mr. Hillenbrand:

This responds to your letter asking about the seat positioning procedure in S8.1.2 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 208, Occupant crash protection, and S6.3 of FMVSS No. 214, Side impact protection.The text of the two different provisions is the same. You have requested clarification of the seating procedure because your interpretation of the language in these two sections differs from an explanation of the language that was provided in a 1995 legal interpretation provided to Patrick Raher of Hogan & Hartson, L.L.P. I am pleased to provide a response.

The seat position specifications of FMVSS No. 208 (S8.1.2) and FMVSS No. 214 (S6.3) read as follows:

Adjustable seats are in the adjustment position midway between the forwardmost and rearmost positions, and if separately adjustable in a vertical direction, are at the lowest position. If an adjustment position does not exist midway between the forwardmost and rearmost positions, the closest adjustment position to the rear of the midpoint is used.

In your letter, you stated that you read this language to mean that the longitudinal midposition would be determined by moving the seat in the most forward and most rearward position without moving the height adjustment and then marking the midposition at the seat rails. Height adjustment would then be made to the lowest level without any readjustment of the seat rails. Your primary question is whether the reference for the longitudinal midposition must be measured at the seat rails (where determination of the most forward/rearward position would be independent of any height adjustment) or if it can be measured somewhere at the seat pan (where height adjustment could influence the most forward/rearward position).

As discussed in the 1995 interpretation, there are two conditions concerning how an adjustable seat is positioned in a crash test. The first condition, for the longitudinal position of the seat, is for the seat to be in the adjustment position midway between the forwardmost and rearmost positions, irrespective of seat height in those positions. The second condition is that the vertical position be in the lowest position obtainable with the seat in the longitudinal midposition. Depending on whether the vertical position is separately adjustable, this may or may not be the lowest achievable position for the seat in any of its longitudinal positions.

The critical issue is whether the longitudinal midposition is referenced along a longitudinal plane at the point midway between the forwardmost and rearmost positions of the seat at any height.The midposition is not qualified by height, so absolute forwardmost and rearmost positions are used to determine the midposition irrespective if height at those positions. The vertical position of the seat is only determined after the longitudinal midposition has been established.

The seat position specification does not require that the longitudinal midposition be referenced at the seat rail, or at any other specific location.Any place in the vehicle that allows for the accurate marking of the longitudinal midposition is acceptable.While many test laboratories may choose to mark the midposition at the seat rail, there is no requirement that they do so.

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

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:208
d.10/15/02

ID: 24780.drn

Mr. Kenneth Reed
Product Legislation and Compliance
Jaguar Cars
555 MacArthur Blvd.
Mahwah, NJ 07430-2327

Dear Mr. Reed:

This responds to your request for an interpretation of "daylight opening" in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 104, Windshield wiping and washing systems. You ask whether the daylight opening should be measured to the edge of complete blackout area, the start of dot fade area, or to some point in between. As explained below, the daylight opening is measured to the edge of complete blackout area on the windshield.

Daylight opening is defined at S3 of Standard No. 104 as: "the maximum unobstructed opening through the glazing surface, as defined in paragraph 2.3.12 of section E, Ground Vehicle Practice, SAE Aerospace-Automotive Drawing Standards, September 1963."

Paragraph 2.3.12 of the SAE standard states:

The term "Daylight Opening" (abbreviated DLO) refers to the maximum unobstructed opening through any glass aperture, including reveal or garnish moldings adjoining the glass, according to a given direction or projection. If not specified the dimension will be the vertical projection.

I note that SAE Recommended Practice J1100, which you quote, is a later SAE document, and not the one referenced in Standard No. 104. One difference between the definition of "daylight opening" in the older document and the one in J1100 is that the newer one treats "opaque coatings" in the same manner as reveal or garnish moldings.

Opaque coatings around the edge of the windshield are now used for the function once served by moldings, i.e., covering the glue around the edges of the windshield. Given this changed technology, we believe it is appropriate to treat opaque coatings around the edge of the windshield in the same manner as moldings, in interpreting the term "daylight opening" in Standard No. 104. However, this is only true for what you refer to as "complete blackout" or "truly opaque" areas. The dot fade area is not truly opaque, and is not analogous to moldings. Thus, daylight opening is measured to the edge of complete blackout area.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please contact Ms. Dorothy Nakama this address or at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:104
d.5/6/03

ID: 2499y

Mr. Douglas Mayes
President
Creative Products, Inc.
Number One Carissa
Littleton, CO 80127

Dear Mr. Mayes:

This responds to your letter asking questions in relation to your product called "gyroscopic wheel covers." We apologize for the delay in our response.

According to your letter and accompanying information, you claim that use of "gyroscopic wheel covers" can reduce stopping distance. You stated that Dr. Carl Clark of this agency suggested that you request this office to provide a letter specifically outlining the requirements of the agency's braking test, and a list of the various testing facilities used by the agency when testing a product for this purpose. You then asked for a letter stating the "stopping distance test guidelines" of Safety Standard No. l05, Hydraulic Brake Systems," and a list of laboratories acceptable to DOT that could be used to test your product. You also asked whether an SAE standard is a proper example of a stopping distance test. You stated that it is your intention to use these testing standards and one of the acceptable laboratories so as to properly document your product's test results in compliance with the DOT testing standards.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, it is the responsibility of the manufacturer to ensure that its products meet applicable standards.

Safety Standard No. l05, Hydraulic Brake Systems, applies to passenger cars and other motor vehicles. The standard specifies, among other things, a number of stopping distance tests that each motor vehicle must meet. I have enclosed a copy of the standard for your information.

I note that Standard No. l05 was not designed for the purpose of evaluating whether a product such as yours can improve stopping distance. We are unable to offer an opinion as to the appropriateness of using Standard No. l05's stopping distance tests for that purpose, or how such a test program would best be carried out.

This agency does not provide recommendations or endorsements for particular testing laboratories. I have, however, enclosed a list of the independent laboratories conducting compliance tests for NHTSA's Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance during the current fiscal year.

I have also enclosed a copy of an information sheet we have prepared which provides information for new manufacturers of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment.

I hope this information is helpful.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel ref:l05 d:6/l8/90

ID: 2500y

Normand Laurendeau, Esq.
Guy & Gilbert
Place Mercantile
770 Sherbrooke Street West
Suite 2300
Montreal, Quebec
CANADA H3A 1G1

Dear Mr. Laurendeau:

Thank you for your letter on behalf of your client, who distributes auto glass parts in Canada. You had two questions regarding your client's status as an "intermediate" in the motor vehicle industry.

Before I address your specific questions, I believe some background information about this agency may be of assistance to you. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has the authority under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Safety Act) to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA, however, does not approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, nor do we endorse any commercial products. Instead, the Act establishes a "self-certification" process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet our safety standards. The agency periodically tests vehicles and equipment items for compliance with the standards, and also investigates other alleged safety-related defects. I have enclosed an information sheet which briefly describes each of a manufacturer's responsibilities under the Safety Act. The information sheet also explains how a company offering an item of motor vehicle equipment for importation into the United States must designate an agent within this country for service of process.

Your letter describes your client as "one of the major distributors of auto glass parts in all of Canada." Your letter states that your client's customers demand that your client "certifies all glasses shipped with D.O.T. number AS1 or AS2 for domestic and export purposes in all countries." I will now address the specific questions raised in your letter.

Your first question was whether your client, as a distributor of automotive safety glass, needs a D.O.T. number to operate in the United States. The answer to this question depends on what role your client has in the process that results in glazing being sold to the customer.

The agency has issued Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials (49 CFR 571.205) which specifies performance requirements for glazing for use in motor vehicles. S6 of Standard No. 205 establishes marking and certification requirements for manufacturers and distributors of glazing materials.

The marking and certification requirements differ, depending upon whether your client is a "prime glazing material manufacturer" or simply a manufacturer or distributor. A "prime glazing material manufacturer" is defined in S6.1 of Standard No. 205 as "one who fabricates, laminates, or tempers the glazing material." If your client performs any of these operations, it must comply with the marking and certification requirements set forth in S6.1 through S6.3 of Standard No. 205. S6.1 requires every prime glazing material manufacturer to mark all glazing materials it manufactures in accordance with 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 (hereinafter referred to as "ANS Z26). S6.2 of Standard No. 205 requires each prime glazing material manufacturer to certify each piece of glazing designed as a component of any specific motor vehicle or camper by adding to the mark required by S6.1 the symbol "DOT" and a manufacturer's code mark that is assigned by this agency. 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 section 114 of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1403).

Assuming that your client would not be considered a "prime glazing material manufacturer," but is simply a distributor, it would not need to be assigned a DOT number pursuant to S6.2 of Standard No. 205. In your letter, however, you incorrectly identified the codes AS1 and AS2 as DOT numbers. Those codes are required on glazing materials by section 6 of ANS Z26. As explained below, your client may be required to add such markings to glazing materials, even if your client is only considered a distributor for the purposes of Standard No. 205.

Each manufacturer or distributor who cuts a section of glazing material to which Standard No. 205 applies, for use in a motor vehicle or camper, 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 section 114 of the Safety Act (S6.5).

Your second question asked about the potential liability of a distributor for the certification of automotive safety glazing for importation into the United States.

If your client is required to certify glazing it distributes pursuant to the provisions in either S6.2, S6.3, or S6.5 of Standard No. 205, the failure to so certify would be a violation of the standard. Section 108(a)(1)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(1)(A)) provides 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 ...

Thus, if your client is required by Standard No. 205 to certify some glazing it distributes, the failure to make such a certification would be a violation of section 108(a)(1)(A) of the Safety Act. Even if your client is not required to certify the glazing it distributes pursuant to Standard No. 205, section 114 of the Safety Act requires every distributor of motor vehicle equipment (such as glazing) to furnish a certification. Section 114 provides:

Every manufacturer or distributor of ... motor vehicle equipment shall furnish to the distributor or dealer at the time of delivery of such ... equipment by such ... distributor the certification that each such ... item of motor vehicle equipment conforms to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. In the case of an item of motor vehicle equipment such certification may be in the form of a label or tag on such item or on the outside of a container in which such item is delivered.

Section 108(a)(1)(C) of the Safety Act provides that no person shall fail to issue a certificate required by section 114, or issue a certificate to the effect that a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment conforms to all applicable safety standards, if such person in the exercise of due care has reason to know that such certificate is false or misleading in a material respect. Section 109 of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1398) provides that any violations of section 108 subject the violator to a civil penalty of not to exceed $1,000 for each such violation, up to a maximum penalty of $800,000.

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

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

Enclosure /ref:205#VSA d:6/l4/90

ID: 2501y

Mr. Michael F. Pickholz
President, Panda Technik
35656 Ashford
Sterling Heights, MI 48077

Dear Mr. Pickholz:

This is in reply to your letter of April l9, l990, enclosing a sample of a motor vehicle reflector, expressing your concern that "no laws or regulations are violated in the use" of it.

It is contemplated that the reflector will be distributed in the United States to enhance nighttime and adverse weather visibility of slow moving/stationery vehicles. The reflective efficiency is represented to be up to ten times that of conventional reflectors, such as those "required by law" on motor vehicles. The photograph you enclosed shows the reflectors mounted on a large, wide truck or trailer. The reflector "can be installed with simple hand tools", on either the front or rear of the vehicle.

It is apparent from your letter that Panda intends the reflector to be an aftermarket device, and one that is capable of installation by the vehicle owner. There are no Federal motor vehicle safety standards that apply to the reflector as an aftermarket device, and there is no Federal prohibition applicable to installation of the reflector by a vehicle owner.

There is a general prohibition of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act under which modifications may not be performed to vehicles in use, by manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and motor vehicle repair businesses, if they result in rendering inoperable, in whole or in part, any device or element of design installed in accordance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard. Should the reflective efficiency and mounting location of your reflector result in a reduced ability of drivers of other vehicles to perceive the turn and stop signals of the vehicle on which the reflector is mounted, we would regard the turn and stop signals to have been rendered inoperable in part within the meaning of the prohibition. Thus, you should ensure that the device would not have this effect.

Supplementary lighting devices are also subject to the laws of the States in which they are sold and used. We are unable to advise you on State laws and suggest that you write the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Va. 22203, for an opinion.

We are returning your sample.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel ref:l08 d:6/l3/90