ID: 7689

Mr. Leonard Marks
211 East Grand Avenue
Old Orchard Beach, ME 04064

Dear Mr. Marks:

This responds to your letter asking how the laws and regulations administered by this agency would apply to a device you intend to market. According to your letter, this device is "a new adjustable attachment to seat belts which allows the user to lower the level so that it will no longer cut them in the neck and yet give them the safety of the belt." I am pleased to provide the following information.

It is not entirely clear how your proposed device would work. However, we have explained how our regulations apply to several different types of belt positioning devices. One such device is a "comfort clip," which is attached to the safety belt and can be positioned by an occupant to introduce and maintain slack in the belt system by physically preventing the belt slack from being taken in by the belt's retractor. We have explained how our regulations apply to comfort clips in a February 7, 1986 letter to Mr. Lewis Quetel (copy enclosed). Another device is one that clips the shoulder belt to the lap belt nearer the middle of the wearer's abdomen. We have explained how our regulations apply to these belt positioning devices in a February 11, 1988 letter to Mr. Roderick Boutin (copy enclosed). Yet another device is a covered foam pad that is fastened around the belt. We have explained how our regulations apply to these devices in a November 22, 1988 letter to Ms. Claire Haven (copy enclosed). Since your device would be considered "motor vehicle equipment," within the meaning of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, I have also enclosed an information sheet for new manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment. This information sheet also explains how to get copies of our regulations.

As you will see from reviewing the enclosed letters, aftermarket sales and installation by individual vehicle owners of devices to reposition belts are not prohibited by any Federal statutory or regulatory requirements. Nevertheless, the use of such devices could raise serious safety concerns if the devices inadvertently reduce the safety protection afforded by the original equipment safety belts.

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

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

Enclosures

ref:208 d:9/15/92

ID: 77-1.1

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 01/12/77

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Philsco Products Company, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your December 27, 1976, letter concerning the effect of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 301-75, Fuel System Integrity, on the auxiliary fuel tanks that you manufacture for pickup trucks. The question you have asked was addressed in my November 10, 1976, letter to Mr. Charles Atkinson. It does not appear that you are in danger of going out of the auxiliary tank business.

A copy of that letter is enclosed for your convenience.

ID: 77-1.10

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: January 24, 1977

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; John W. Snow; NHTSA

TO: Transcon Lines

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

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

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

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

(2)(A) No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or part, any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard [except for repair]. . . .

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

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

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

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

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

December 6, 1976

Please Refer To: File A.599.pm

John W. Snow -- National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Sir:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Very truly yours,

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

ID: 77-1.11

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 01/26/77

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Mercedes-Benz of North America, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of December 21, 1976, asking whether Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment applies to fog lamps installed on the rear of passenger cars.

No requirements of Standard No. 108 apply to fog lamps and they are subject to regulation by the individual states. Pursuant to S4.1.3, however, they may be prohibited if they impair the effectiveness of lighting equipment required by Standard No. 108.

You also asked that, absent inclusion of these lamps in Standard No. 108, your letter be treated as a petition "for rulemaking to amend Standard No. 108 to include such lighting requirements . . . for optional use on passenger cars." Your submission does not meet the requirements of our procedural regulations, a copy of which I enclose. Specifically, pursuant to 49 CFR 552.4(c) you should "set forth facts which it is claimed establish that an order is necessary." Among these facts should be reasons why you are petitioning for "optional" rather than mandatory use on passenger cars, and why other vehicles are not included in your petition (if, in fact true).

SINCERELY,

MERCEDES - BENZ OF NORTH AMERICA. INC.

December 21, 1976

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Office of the Chief Counsel

Subject: Request for Interpretation FMVSS 108

FMVSS 108 specifies performance requirements for certain lamps, reflective devices and associated equipment for use on passenger cars. Mercedes-Benz of North America, Inc. hereby requests interpretation as to whether or not this standard applies to the performance and installation of fog lamps installed on the rear of passenger cars.

This request for interpretation specifically concerns those fog lamps currently used in Europe and subject to EEC regulations, a copy of which is enclosed for your review.

These requirements include a minimum candela output of 150 cd to a maximum of 300 cd measured at any test point within +/- 10 degrees right and left of the lamp axis and +/- 5 degrees up and down on the vertical axis.

The effective projected luminous area for these types of lamps is 140 sq. cm (21.7 sq. in.) maximum. These lamps are wired so as to be switched on with the headlamps and front fog lamps. The color emitted from the lamp when lighted is red within the appropriate SAE-CIE coordinates. The lamp is installed on/or at the rear of the vehicle, left of the centerline, no closer than 100 mm from the stop lamp.

Should this type of lighting device be subject to the current requirement of FMVSS 108, an interpretation is requested as to which aspect of performance this lamp should be designed.

Should this type of lighting device not be subject to the above standard, Mercedes-Benz of North America, Inc. hereby petitions for rulemaking to amend Standard 108 to include such lighting requirements as previously described for optional use on passenger cars.

Samples of these types of lighting devices can be made available for review and testing. Should additional data be necessary to further evaluate this type of lighting system as currently regulated by EEC, please do not hesitate to contact this office.

HEINZ W. GERTH

ID: 77-1.12

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 01/26/77

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank A. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Nissan Motor Co. Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This will confirm your November 11, 1976, telephone conversation with Tad Herlihy of this office, concerning the certification label required by 49 CFR Part 567.

On the vehicles in question, the certification labels mistakenly indicated 1977 as the year of manufacture, even though manufacturing was actually completed in 1976. You proposed correcting this error before sale by crossing out the digits "77" and inserting "76" directly below them.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has no objection to certification labels that have been corrected in this manner, provided that all other requirements of the certification regulation are also met.

ID: 77-1.13

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 01/26/77

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank A. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Chrysler Corporation

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: I have acknowledged receipt of Chrysler Corporation's November 29 and December 20, 1976, petitions for rulemaking to amend the definition of "unloaded vehicle weight" that appears in 49 CFR 571.3. Copies of these petitions are attached.

The November 29 petition requests an amendment to reflect the interpretation that appeared in your July 16, 1976, letter to Jeep Corporation (copy attached). That interpretation, you will recall, was: "[the] weight of those accessories that are ordinarily removed from a vehicle when they are not in use . . . is not included in [unloaded vehicle weight]." I recommend that the November 29 petition be granted. The requested amendment of the definition can be issued as an interpretive amendment, without a prior notice of proposed rulemaking. Incidentally, such an amendment does not impinge on the agency's long-standing position that a motor vehicle is expected to comply with all applicable standards in the form in which it actually rolls off the dealer's lot, regardless of the accessories and optional equipment with which it is equipped. Instead, it affects the meaning of compliance, by implicitly requiring the agency to remove from the vehicle certain accessories -- which it has already determined ought not to be considered a part of the vehicle -- before compliance testing.

The December 20 petition requests a much more substantial amendment of the definition. Please note that, to the extent that it would affect Standard No. 301-75, Fuel System Integrity, the agency is constrained by the Congressional ratification of that standard in Section 108 of the Motor Vehicle and Schoolbus Safety Amendments of 1974. The requested amendment, which appears as if it would significantly reduce amendment does not impinge on the agency's long-standing position that a motor vehicle is expected to comply with all applicable standards in the form in which it actually rolls off the dealer's lot, regardless of the accessories and optional equipment with which it is equipped. Instead, it affects the meaning of compliance, by implicitly requiring the agency to remove from the vehicle certain accessories -- which it has already determined ought not to be considered as part of the vehicle -- before compliance testing.

The December 20 petition requests a much more substantial amendment of the definition. Please note that, to the extent that it would affect standard No. 301-75, Fuel System Integrity, the agency is constrained by the Congressional ratification of that standard in Section 10a of the Motor Vehicle and Schoolbus Safety Amendments of 1974. The requested amendment, which appears as if it would significantly reduce the severity of the standard's crash tests, could not be issued without an affirmative agency finding that it would not diminish the level of motor vehicle safety.

Please advise me of your recommendations on these petitions so that a response may be prepared.

ID: 77-1.14

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 01/28/77

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank A. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Fleming Metal Fabricators

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

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

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

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

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

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

SINCERELY,

FLEMING METAL FABRICATORS

3 December, 1976

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Robert I. Fleming, Pres.

ID: 77-1.15

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/02/77

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Department of California Highway Patrol

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of December 16, 1976, which raises several questions with respect to motor vehicle lighting and Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

First I want to comment upon this statement:

"A NHTSA representative recently indicated that the standard applies to 'original equipment' replacement items such as lenses and lamps designed for specific year model vehicles, but does not apply to 'aftermarket' lighting equipment that is not manufactured for a particular vehicle but is sold for general use on any vehicle."

This is not entirely true. Standard No. 108 applies in pertinent part "to lamps, reflective devices, and associated equipment for replacement of like equipment or vehicles to which this standard applied." The standard applies to motor vehicles manufactured on or after January 1, 1972. Thus, any replacement of an original equipment item specified by Standard No. 108 must meet original equipment requirements. This not only includes lenses and lamps, such as parking lamps and tail lamps designed for specific year model vehicles but also lighting equipment sold for general use, such as headlamps, clearance lamps, and identification lamps, whose dimensions do not vary over the years.

Your first question is:

"1. Some aftermarket-type manufacturers produce lamps and other devices that are shown in their catalogs for universal use with no vehicle model being mentioned. Some of these lamps may also be supplied to producers of motor homes, boat trailers, horse trailers, commercial trucks and trailers, etc., as original equipment on those vehicles. Does the fact that a portion of the production of a particular lamp is sold as replacements for the original equipment mean that the other portion sold for use on any 1976 truck or trailer is also governed by Standard No. 108 with respect to the "aftermarket" sales?"

The answer is yes, as I explained in my preliminary remarks about the applicability of Standard No. 108 to all replacement equipment.

"2. In the past, motor vehicles were equipped with round-type sealed beam units. Now that rectangular units are available, some owners are interested in converting the original round headlamps to the rectangular type. Are these rectangular sealed beam units and conversion kits sold to the user considered replacement of like equipment on vehicles to which this standard applies or are they subject to state regulations?"

We construe the words "like equipment" broadly. If one headlighting system is being replaced with another, the replacement headlighting system must meet the requirements of Standard No. 108, even though its configuration differs from that of the original. Obviously, a State may also regulate sale of this equipment if its requirements are identical with the Federal ones.

"3. Manufacturers of nonsealed, quartz-halogen headlamp units are energetically promoting the sale of the units in many areas of the country. These lamps differ considerably from the sealed beam units originally required on late model vehicles at the time of first sale. Do these lamps fall within federal jurisdiction or are they subject only to state regulation?"

Quartz-halogen headlamps sold in the aftermarket, intended as replacement for headlamps that comply with Standard No. 108, must also meet Federal requirements. If the lamps do not conform, not only would their sale be a violation of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Section 108(a)(1)(A), but the removal of sealed beam headlamps by the seller or a motor vehicle repair shop to facilitate the installation of the nonconforming ones would also be a violation of the Act (Section 108(a)(2)(A).

"4. A number of items such as flashers, school bus warning lamps, and headlamp units are sold for universal use. They might be part of a new vehicle at time of sale or be sold separately as a replacement for vehicles manufactured both before and after 1972 or as an addition to such vehicles. Does this mean that dual regulations are permissible with NHTSA setting standards for the production items used as original equipment replacement and the states setting standards and requiring approval for the identical item for usage not regulated by the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards?"

It is NHTSA's position, as explained earlier, that if an item of lighting equipment "sold for universal use" is capable of replacing equipment on a vehicle manufactured on or after January 1, 1972, then it must meet Standard No. 108, and a State may also regulate it in an identical manner.

You also asked our advice "on the problem of not being able to recognize whether a particular item has been certified or not." As an alternative to the DOT mark permitted by S4.7.2 of Standard No. 108, replacement lighting equipment may be certified in two other ways. Pursuant to Section 114 of the Act 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." Thus, access by a State enforcement officer to corporate records is not required. If an item subject to Standard No. 108 is not marked "DOT," if it bears no certification label or tag, and if its container is unmarked, then it has not been certified as required.

I hope this answers your questions.

SINCERELY,

DEPARTMENT OF CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL

December 16, 1976

File No.: 61.A218.A3107

Frank Berndt Acting Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

The finding of the U.S. District Court in Pennsylvania against state requirements for presale approval of items of motor vehicle equipment regulated by the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards, if upheld, will eventually result in all states curtailing their approval programs. The question then becomes one of determining specifically which items of equipment are federally regulated.

The answer appears clear-cut with respect to equipment standards that apply to an individual item such as brake hoses, safety glazing, emergency triangular reflectors, seat belts, etc. It is not so clear with respect to the part of Standard No. 108 which applies to "lamps, reflective devices, and associated equipment for replacement of like equipment on vehicles to which this standard applies". A NHTSA representative recently indicated that the standard applies to "original equipment" replacement items such as lenses and lamps designed for specific year model vehicles, but does not apply to "aftermarket" lighting equipment that is not manufactured for a particular vehicle but is sold for general use on any vehicle. It is important to us to know whether or not we may have misinterpreted the discussion.

We are investigating how best to amend our laws, regulations, and approval procedures if the Pennsylvania decision becomes binding upon all states. The following questions have arisen with respect to which items of lighting equipment are regulated by Standard No. 108 and which are not:

1. Some aftermarket-type manufacturers produce lamps and other devices that are shown in their catalogs for universal use with no vehicle model being mentioned. Some of these lamps may also be supplied to producers of motor homes, boat trailers, horse trailers, commercial trucks and trailers, etc., as original equipment on those vehicles. Does the fact that a portion of the production of a particular lamp is sold as replacements for the original equipment mean that the other portion sold for use on any 1976 truck or trailer is also governed by Standard No. 108 with respect to the "aftermarket" sales?

2. In the past, motor vehicles were equipped with round-type sealed beam units. Now that rectangular units are available, some owners are interested in converting the original round headlamps to the rectangular type. Are these rectangular sealed beam units and conversion kits sold to the user considered "replacement of like equipment on vehicles to which this standard applies" or are they subject to state regulations?

3. Manufacturers of nonsealed, quartz-halogen headlamp units are energetically promoting the sale of the units in many areas of the country. These lamps differ considerably from the sealed beam units originally required on late model vehicles at the time of first sale. Do these lamps fall within federal jurisdiction or are they subject only to state regulation?

4. A number of items such as flashers, school bus warning lamps, and headlamp units are sold for universal use. They might be part of a new vehicle at time of sale or be sold separately as a replacement for vehicles manufactured both before and after 1972 or as an addition to such vehicles. Does this mean that dual regulations are permissible with NHTSA setting standards for the production items used as original equipment replacement and the states setting standards and requiring approval for the identical item for usage not regulated by the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards?

Lighting equipment subject to FMVSS No. 108 is not required to be marked in any way with the manufacturer's name or model number nor is a DOT certification symbol required. Without such markeings and symbol, neither a potential customer nor an officer inspecting devices offered for sale at retail outlets has any way of knowing whether a particular device is one that has been certified by the manufacturer as meeting the standard or whether it is a bootleg product that is locally produced or imported without complying with the standard. Neither the customer nor the officer has access to the store's records to determine whether or not the manufacturer included the federally-required certification with the shipment.

If the federal standards totally preempt the state requirements on lighting devices, manufacturers will no longer need to place any markings on their products, since the federal standards make no such requirement. It, therefore, becomes impossible for any local agency to attempt to enforce the federal standard and, in view of the limited enforcement personnel in NHTSA, it means that anyone can sell almost anything he wants with little change of being detected by NHTSA and being prosecuted by the Department of Justice.

We would appreciate your answers to the above questions and your advice on the problem of not being able to recognize whether a particular item has been certified or not.

WARREN M. HEATH Commander Engineering Section

cc: AAMVA; VESC

ID: 77-1.16

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/02/77

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Caravan Trailer Rental Co. Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to Caravan Trailer Rental Company's December 22, 1976, question whether trailers manufactured prior to January 1, 1975, may be imported into the United States for sale without being required to conform to Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems.

Standard No. 121 only regulates the manufacture and importation of trailers that are produced on or after January 1, 1975. Standard No. 121's only limitation on the importation and sale of trailers manufactured prior to January 1, 1975, would be that any repair, refurbishment, or other modification of the trailer must not be so significant as to constitute the manufacture of a new vehicle. To qualify as a repair the NHTSA requires that the running gear assembly of the existing trailer be used in the refurbished trailer and that certain other identification and ownership (or leasing) aspects of the existing trailer be continued in the refurbished trailer. I have enclosed a copy of a notice which explains the NHTSA regulations in this area.

You are reminded that a trailer imported into the United States as you described must bear a label that states the month and year of manufacture.

SINCERELY,

CARAVAN TRAILER RENTAL CO. LTD.

December 22, 1976.

Fred Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Our Company is looking at the feasibility of exporting, from Canada, used trailers to be sold in the American market.

We are concerned with a potential problem vis a vis, the M.V.S.S. 121 Brake Regulation.

Our question to you is this:

Does the existing M.V.S.S. 121 Brake legislation prohibit us in any way from selling used trailers, manufactured in years 1974 and prior, into the American market? Would the braking system on these trailers have to be altered in any way, as they are obviously presently not equipped with any of the M.V.S.S. 121 specifications?

We would appreciate an early reply to this inquiry and thank you in advance for your co-operation.

CARAVAN TRAILER SALES - DIVISION OF CARAVAN TRAILER RENTAL CO. LTD.

Jack D. Livingston, Executive Vice-President.

cc: MARY SWEENEY

ID: 77-1.17

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/02/77

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Commercial Plastics

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your letter of December 7, 1976, regarding the use of plastic glazing materials for side windows of school buses. You asked what materials are permitted by Federal regulations for school bus side windows and whether Federal laws concerning the materials that may be used preempt State laws on the same subject.

Section 103(d) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. @ 1381 et. seq.) provides in part:

Whenever a Federal motor vehicle safety standard established under this title is in effect, no State or political subdivision of a State shall have any authority either to establish, or to continue in effect, with respect to any motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment any safety standard applicable to the same aspect of performance of such vehicle or item of equipment which is not identical to the Federal standard.

Safety Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials (49 CFR 571.205) currently does not permit the use of plastic glazing in bus side windows. Therefore, State laws that permit plastic glazing are in direct conflict with Standard No. 205, and it is the agency's opinion that they would be preempted.

I would point out that the agency recently issued a proposal to amend Standard No. 205 that would permit the use of rigid plastic glazing in bus side windows (41 FR 56837, Dec. 30, 1976). I am enclosing a copy of this proposal for your information. I am also enclosing a copy of Standard No. 205 and the ANS Z26 standard that is incorporated by reference in Standard No. 205. From these standards you can determine the various types of glazing materials that are permitted for side windows and the requirements that the glazing must meet.

Regarding your question about replacement glazing, Standard No. 205 is not a vehicle standard and is applicable to all glazing for use in motor vehicles, whether the glazing is to be installed in new vehicles or as replacement in used vehicles. Therefore, glazing manufacturers and fabricators cannot produce glazing to be used in a given location in a vehicle unless the standard permits that type of glazing to be used in that location, regardless of whether it is original or replacement glazing.

SINCERELY,

COMMERCIAL PLASTICS & SUPPLY CORP.

December 7, 1976

Office of Chief Council National Hway Traffic Safety Admin.

Att: Mr. Oates:

We have received many inquiries in recent months regarding the use of plastic glazing materials for the side windows of school buses. Naturally, our primary concern is what material is permitted by the Department of Transportation for this use.

On Thursday, November 18, I was in telephone contact with you regarding this subject of school bus glazing. My question is, does the jurisdiction of the Department of Transportation supercede that of the State Agencies concerning material permitted in the buses? If so, then why are there states that presently have their own requirements for these buses, which greatly differ from those of your department.

My second question is, what material is accepted by your department for side window glazing and what are the specifications and requirements this material must meet? If it is possible, please send me a copy of this for examination.

Finally, please explain in detail the Standard 205 with respect to replacement window glazing and new equipment requirements. I feel a full explanation will clear up many of my questions.

Thanking in in advance, I remain

David Munafo Transportation Division