ID: 2874yy

William F. Canever, Esq.
Staff Attorney
Office of General Counsel
Ford Motor Company
The American Road
Dearborn, MI 48l2l

Dear Mr. Canever:

This responds to your letter concerning Ford's plan to allocate MY l986 light truck credits to cover MY l985 and MY l989 shortfalls. For each of those model years, manufacturers have the option of complying with separate 4x4 and 4x2 standards or a combined standard. Ford elected to comply with the separate standards for MY l985 and the combined standard for MY l986 and MY l989. The MY l986 credits are applied in the plan on a prorated basis to MY l985.

In response to your letter, we have reviewed Ford's credit allocation plan in light of 49 CFR 535.4(e). That section provides, among other things, that "(c)redits may not be applied between classes of light trucks, except as determined by the Administrator to account for changes made in the definitions of classes between model years." Since Ford's plan involves applying credits earned by exceeding the MY l986 combined standard to shortfalls incurred against the MY l985 separate 4x4 and 4x2 standards, we have considered whether the plan represents a cross-class application of credits that is prohibited by 535.4(e). As discussed below, we have concluded that Ford's allocation plan is not prohibited.

In your letter, you suggest that the regulatory scheme creates two methods of complying with light truck CAFE standards and not three classes of light trucks. You also state that the term "class" is nowhere applied to the combined light truck fleet. You conclude that there is no cross-class application of credits.

We do not agree with your suggested analysis. Section 535.3(a)(4) states that the term "class of light trucks" is used in accordance with the determinations in Part 533 of this chapter. Section 535.4(b) then indicates that credits are earned "whenever the average fuel economy for a class of light trucks manufactured by a manufacturer exceeds an applicable average fuel economy standard established in Part 533 of this chapter." The term "class" in Part 535 thus refers to each possible grouping of light trucks that is averaged together for determining compliance with CAFE standards. Looking at Part 533, there are, in fact, six classes of light trucks for the model years in question: (l) Combined captive import, (2) Combined other, (3) 2-wheel drive captive import, (4) 2-wheel drive other, (5) 4-wheel drive captive import, and (6) 4-wheel drive other.

While we do not agree with your suggested analysis, we believe that there is ambiguity with respect to how 535.4(e) applies to the factual sitation at issue. First, Ford's plan involves overlapping classes. Thus, while there is a degree of cross-class application of credits, it is limited. Second, NHTSA has never addressed in rulemaking the issue of whether manufacturers should, in effect, forfeit credits as a result of choosing particular compliance options for particular years. This situation is analagous in some respects to the issue of whether forfeiture of credits should occur where NHTSA changes the definitions of classes between model years. In that situation, the agency decided, based on its understanding of statutory intent, against forfeiture. Third, in a letter dated April 26, l988, NHTSA approved a Ford carryback plan for MY l985 light trucks which set forth Ford's proposed allocation methodology. While the agency did not expressly address that methodology in the letter approving the plan, Ford could have assumed that the agency considered the proposed allocation to be permissible.

Given the ambiguity surrounding this issue, NHTSA believes that it is appropriate to decide the issue, for now, in favor of the manufacturer. The agency believes that this is a type of ambiguity that should be resolved, for the future, by rulemaking. However, the issue will become moot, at least for the time being, since, beginning with the MY l992 light truck CAFE standards, NHTSA decided not to set optional separate two-wheel drive and four-wheel drive standards. Should the agency decide to issue optional CAFE standards at some future time, it will address this issue in rulemaking.

For now, NHTSA will treat situations where a manufacturer changes compliance options between model years in the same manner as situations where the agency changes the definitions of classes between model years. In both types of situations, NHTSA will follow the policy first announced in a November 8, 1979 notice of interpretation (44 FR 64943), and reaffirmed in a December 18, 1980 Federal Register notice (45 FR 83233), of attempting to assure that credits are applied to offset shortfalls on the same types of vehicles which generated the credits.

Ford's plan to apply, on a prorated basis, credits earned by exceeding the MY l986 combined standard to shortfalls incurred against the MY l985 separate 4x4 and 4x2 standards, is consistent with the examples set forth in the November l979 and December l980 notices. Ford's plan then to apply remaining MY l986 credits to its MY l989 shortfall, incurred against the MY l989 combined standard, does not involve any cross-class application of credits. I therefore conclude that Ford's allocation plan is not prohibited.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel ref:535#502 d:3/l4/9l

ID: 2875yy

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

Dear Mr. Thomson:

This responds to your letter to Dorothy Nakama of my staff in which you asked for an explanation of the responsibilities of installers and repairers of motor vehicle glazing. I apologize for the delay in this response. In a subsequent telephone conversation with Ms. Nakama, you asked that we provide a response to the following two questions:

1) Would it be a violation of Federal law if, after fixing a broken or cracked windshield, an aftermarket business still did not make the windshield comply with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205?

2) What would be the consequences if an installer knowingly installed in a motor vehicle new glazing that did not comply with Standard No. 205?

Your questions are addressed below.

By way of background information, section 103 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of l966 (Safety Act, l5 U.S.C. l392) authorizes the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to issue safety standards for new motor vehicles and new motor vehicle equipment. One of the safety standards we have issued under this authority is Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials (49 CFR 571.205). Standard No. 205 establishes performance requirements for all windows (called "glazing" in the standard) in new motor vehicles and for all new replacement windows for motor vehicles.

Section 108(a)(1)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(1)(A)) specifies that no person may manufacture, import, sell, or introduce into interstate commerce any new vehicle or new replacement window that does not conform with the performance requirements of Standard No. 205. Pursuant to section 108(b)(1) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(b)(1)), this prohibition no longer applies to the motor vehicle after the vehicle is sold to a consumer. However, both before and after the first sale to a consumer, section 108(a)(2) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)) provides that: "No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or in part, any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard . . . ."

Your first question asked whether it would be a violation of Federal law if, after fixing a broken or cracked windshield (by repairing instead of replacing it), an aftermarket business still did not make the windshield comply with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205. The answer depends upon whether or not the vehicle with the broken or cracked windshield has already been sold to a consumer.

If the vehicle has not yet been sold to a consumer, the "aftermarket business" would violate section 108(a)(1)(A) of the Safety Act if the vehicle with the repaired or replaced windshield did not comply with Standard No. 205 in all respects. As noted above, that section of the Safety Act prohibits any person from manufacturing, selling, importing, or introducing into interstate commerce any new vehicle that does not comply with Standard No. 205. Thus, even if a windshield is broken while a vehicle is being delivered from the factory to a new car dealer, the windshield that is in the new vehicle when it is delivered to the first purchaser must meet all requirements of Standard No. 205.

Once the vehicle has been sold to a first purchaser for purposes other than resale, any repairs or replacement of the windshield would not violate the "render inoperative" prohibition in the Safety Act. I have enclosed a September 3, l98l letter to the National Glass Dealers Association explaining that NHTSA does not consider repairing a damaged windshield to constitute rendering inoperative with respect to Standard No. 205, even if the repaired windshield does not meet the requirements of the standard once repaired. This is because the agency considers the object or event which damaged the windshield in the first place, not the repair shop, to have rendered the windshield inoperative with respect to Standard No. 205. Upon reconsideration, we reaffirm this interpretation.

Your second question asked about the consequences of an installer knowingly installing in a motor vehicle new glazing that did not comply with Standard No. 205. This would be a violation of section 108(a)(1)(A) of the Safety Act, because the installer would be introducing into interstate commerce an item of motor vehicle equipment (the windshield) that did not comply with the applicable safety standard. By so doing, the installer would be subject to a civil penalty of up to $1,000 for each time it installed a noncomplying windshield, per section 109 of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1398).

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

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

Enclosure

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

ID: 2876o

Mr. Joseph J. O'Brien
Chairman of the Board
ITD Industries, Inc.
2544 Terminal Drive South
St. Petersburg, FL 33712

Dear Mr. O'Brien:

This responds to your letters of January 29, 1988, and March 15, 1988, requesting a determination concerning the installation of one of your products in used vehicles. You enclosed a sample of a clear plastic film with a scratch-resistant coating on it and a pressure sensitive adhesive used to attach the plastic film to the glass. You asked whether it is "legal to retrofit existing cars of windshields with a 4 mil clear film with a scratch-resistant coating that meets the anti-lacerative windshield spec as far as scratch resistance.." I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our statute and regulations to you.

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (Safety Act; 15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.) authorizes this agency to issue safety standards for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. The Safety Act establishes a "self-certification" process in which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards. Accordingly, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not approve motor vehicles or items of motor vehicle equipment.

We have issued Standard 205, Glazing Material (49 CFR 571.205), which establishes performance criteria for the types of glazing that may be used in various types and locations of motor vehicles. Your clear plastic film is not itself glazing material, so it does not have to comply with the requirements of Standard 205. Even though Standard 205 does not apply specifically to your product, there are several statutory provisions of which you should be aware.

Clear plastic film would be considered motor vehicle equipment, under section 102(4) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1391(4)). Thus, as a manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment, you would be subject to the requirements in sections 151-160 of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1411-1420) concerning the recall and remedy of products with defects related to motor vehicle safety. You also should be aware of section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)), which prohibits any manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or repair business from knowingly "rendering inoperative" any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable motor vehicle safety standard. Standard 205 specifies 14 performance elements with which glazing might not comply if your clear plastic film were installed. If the application of your film to windshields in used vehicles would render inoperative the glazing's compliance with these provisions of Standard 205, any manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or repair business that applied your film would be subject to a civil penalty of up to $1,000 for each application, as specified in section 109 of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1398).

If the windshield continues to comply with the requirements of Standard 205 after application of this film, it may legally be installed by any business. Because of this potential liability, a repair shop or other business that installs glazing films may ask your company to provide some assurance that the motor vehicle windshield, as modified by the installation of your film, continues to meet the performance requirements set forth in Standard 205.

Please note that the "render inoperative" prohibition does not apply to individual vehicle owners. Federal law permits individual vehicle owners to install any materials on the glazing in their vehicles, regardless of the effect on compliance with Standard 205. However, the individual States govern the operational use of vehicles by their owners and it is within the authority of the States to preclude owners from installing certain films on their own vehicles.

I appreciate your interest in safety and your desire to ensure that your company complies with all Federal requirements. If you have any further questions or need additional information, please let me know.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel ref:205 d:7/11/88

ID: 2876yy

Mr. Delbert N. Pier
Legislation and Compliance Coordinator
Hyundai America Technical Center, Inc.
5075 Venture Drive
Ann Arbor, MI 48108

Dear Mr. Pier:

This is in reply to your letter of February 11, l99l, asking for an interpretation of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. l08.

With respect to a contemplated headlamp design using a standardized replaceable light source, you have asked "whether the bulb fixture can be rotated approximately 11 degrees", and have informed us that this will not change the "constants . . . or the relationship of the terminals to the constants."

Standard No. 108 does not specify the orientation of replaceable light sources in headlamps; the socket in the reflector may be in any orientation. In the configuration you present, for the bulb assembly, the terminals appear to remain perpendicular to the base and parallel within plus or minus 1.5 degrees as required in Figure 3-3. The rotation of the socket (in the reflector) of Figure 3-7, is not regulated and, therefore, is acceptable under Standard No. l08.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

ref:l08 d:3/l4/9l

ID: 2878o

Mr. Michael Rose
Technical Secretary for Executive Director
Jamaica Bureau of Standards
6 Winchester Road
Kingston l0
JAMAICA

Dear Mr. Rose:

This responds to your letter, addressed to the Director of the Office of the Federal Register, concerning Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. l09, New Pneumatic Tires. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is the Federal agency which issued and administers that standard. Your questions are addressed below.

By way of background information, NHTSA issues Federal motor vehicle safety standards under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, l5 U.S.C. l38l et seq. The term "motor vehicle safety standard" is defined by the Act as "a minimum standard for motor vehicle performance, or motor vehicle equipment performance, which is practicable, which meets the need for motor vehicle safety and which provides objective criteria" (section l02(2)). NHTSA does not grant approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Instead, section ll4 of the Act requires manufacturers to certify compliance of each motor vehicle and item of equipment with all applicable standards. The Act requires that manufacturers exercise "due care" to ensure that their products conform to each applicable standard (section l08(b)(l)).

I will address your first two questions together. The questions are:

l. In the clause dealing with Test Sample, why are the batch size and sample size not mentioned?

2. Why does the standard make no reference to the frequency of testing.

As indicated above, Standard No. l09 is a minimum performance standard. All tires must be capable of meeting the standard's requirements.

The purpose of the test sample paragraph (S4.2.2.l) in Standard No. l09 is to indicate that a test set for a compliance test consists of three tires. One tire is checked for physical dimensions and is then subjected to resistance to bead unseating and strength, in sequence. The second tire is subjected to the endurance test, and the third tire is subjected to the high speed test.

Paragraph S4.2.2.l is not intended to address the question of how many sets of tires a manufacturer should test as a surveillance procedure during production or what batch size the test sets should be drawn from. A manufacturer is not required to conduct any particular frequency of testing or even to run the actual tests specified by Standard No. l09. Instead, a manufacturer must take whatever steps are necessary to ensure that each of its tires, if tested according to the requirements of the standard, would meet those requirements. (For test purposes, however, any one given tire would only be subjected to one of the three test sequences discussed above.) Since Standard No. l09 includes a number of specific test requirements, it is likely that a manufacturer would find it necessary to do some testing in order to ensure that a tire complied with the standard. For enforcement purposes, NHTSA would test a tire according to the specific test requirements of Standard No. l09.

Your third question is as follows:

3. Why does the standard make no reference to tolerances for tyre concentricity?

NHTSA's standards cover aspects of performance for which the agency has determined there is a safety need. To date, NHTSA has not determined that there is a need for requirements covering tire concentricity tolerances. We note that tire concentricity appears to be primarily an issue of occupant comfort rather than safety.

I hope this information is helpful.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

ref:109 d:7/11/88

ID: 2879o

Robin C. Gelburd, Esq.
Morrison & Foerster
415 Madison Avenue
New York, NY 10017-1193

Dear Ms. Gelburd:

This is a response to your letter of January 12, 1988, asking for NHTSA's evaluation of your client's product intended for use with an add-on child restraint system to "cushion and insulate the child." The product, a sample of which was enclosed with your letter, is a fabric-covered rectangular seat-pad about 1/2 inch thick, surrounded at the top and both legs by a fabric-covered cushion. The product has a crotch-strap in the front, through which is inserted a belt that anchors on the legs of the rectangle. On the back of this product are two clips apparently to be used for anchoring the seat pad to the child restraint system. You asked generally whether this product will "contravene or compromise" Federal safety standards, particularly Standard 213, Child Restraint Systems (49 CFR 571.213). Additionally, you asked us to "determine whether the product complies with relevant statutes and regulations within (NHTSA's) jurisdiction."

Your client's product falls within NHTSA's jurisdiction if it is an item of "motor vehicle equipment" as that term is defined in 102(4) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Vehicle Safety Act). Section 102(4) defines "motor vehicle equipment" as:

...any system, part, or component of a motor vehicle as originally manufactured or any similar part or component manufactured or sold for replacement or improvement of such system, part, or component, or as any accessory, or addition to the motor vehicle.

In determining whether an item is an "accessory," the agency assesses two factors: first, whether the item has no ostensible purpose other than use with a motor vehicle; and second, whether the item is intended to be used principally by ordinary users of motor vehicles. Applying these criteria to your client's seat-pad, we conclude that the seat-pad has no purpose other than use with a child restraint system and that it is intended to be used principally by consumers. Thus, the seat-pad would be an "accessory," and, therefore, is "motor vehicle equipment" within the meaning of the Vehicle Safety Act. The Vehicle Safety Act gives this agency the authority to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. We have exercised this authority to establish Standard 213, which applies to all new child restraint systems sold in this country. However, Standard 213 does not apply to aftermarket items for child restraint systems, such as your client's seat-pad. Hence, your client is not required to certify that this product complies with that standard before selling the seat-pad.

Although Standard 213 does not directly apply to your client's product, there are several statutory provisions of which you should be aware. First, 108(a)(2)(A) of the Vehicle Safety Act states that:

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...

There is an element of design incorporated in a child restraint system that may be affected by installing Hasbro's seat-pad. Standard 213 sets flame-retardant performance requirements for materials used in a child restraint system. (See 49 CFR 571.213, S7, referencing 49 CFR 571.302, S4. For your information, I enclose a copy of 571.302.)

If installing this seat-pad would denigrate the flammability resistance attributes of the child restraint system, then a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair business installing this product would "render inoperative" a design element installed in the child restraint system in compliance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard. The person who committed such an act would have violated 108(a)(2)(A), and would be subject to a civil penalty of up to $1000 for each 108 violation on each child restraint system where this design element was "rendered inoperative."

Second, your client should know that it will be a motor vehicle equipment manufacturer if it offers this product for sale. As a manufacturer, your client will be subject to the requirements of 151-159 of the Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1411-1419), concerning the recall and remedy of products with defects related to motor vehicle safety. If your client or the agency determined that this seat-pad had a defect related to motor vehicle safety, your client would have to notify all product purchasers of the defect, and either:

1. repair the seat-pad so that the defect is removed; or

2. replace the seat-pad with an identical or reasonably equivalent product that does not have the defect.

Your client, as the manufacturer, would have to bear the full expense of the notice-and-recall campaign, irrespective of the option chosen, for any owner who purchased the product less than eight years before the notice-and-recall campaign. Except in the context of a defect proceeding, the agency does not determine the existence of safety-related defects. Therefore, we are unable to say whether your client's seat-pad might contain such a defect.

However, I wish to express my concern with one aspect of this product. The cushion that surrounds the seat pad is uninterrupted, and seems to have no provision for passing the child restraint system belt around or through the pad and cushion. If the installation of your seat-pad would impair the function of a belt installed to restrain the child, then any manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business installing the seat-pad would render inoperative a Federally required element of design that applies to child restraint systems. That kind of action would violate 108(a)(2)(A) of the Vehicle Safety Act, and subject the offender to a civil penalty of $1000.00 for each violation.

Further, the seat pad has a crotch and lap belt assembly. I think it is possible that some parents may use the belt assembly on the seat-pad as a lap restraint for restraining a child's lower torso. Given that your client's seat-pad has a belt configuration similar to that which a user might expect to see in a child restraint with a crotch strap and lap belt assembly, parents may assume that the belt meets the performance requirements that apply to belts installed on child restraint systems. For example, a nonmetallic belt buckle (such as the buckle on the Hasbro sample) in a child restraint system must meet the temperature resistant specifications of the American Society for Testing and Materials "Standard Practice for Determination of Weight and Shape Changes in Plastic," D756-78. (49 CFR 571.213, S5.4.2.) There are load requirements for both the buckle assembly and the webbing in a lap belt restraint system. (49 CFR 571.213, S5.4.1.) There are several other performance requirements in Standards 209 and 213 applicable to belts, buckles, and materials used on belts installed in child restraint systems.

I am sure that your client will want to minimize the chances of a parent mistakenly using the seat-pad belt assembly as a torso restraint. Hasbro may choose to alert parents not to misuse the belt on the seat-pad. One possible means of alerting parents would be to affix a "warning label" to the product.

Please understand that this explanation is not an agency "recommendation". NHTSA does not offer its opinion as to the value or practicality of motor vehicles or equipment. When a potential motor vehicle or equipment manufacturer presents us with questions concerning a product, we use the information presented to explain how our statute and regulations may apply to such products. It is up to the manufacturer to assess the value and practicality of the product.

I hope you find this information helpful.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Enclosure ref:VSA#213 d:5/31/88

ID: 2880o

Lisa Cappalli, Esquire
Gager, Henry & Narkis
One Exchange Place
P.O. Box 2480
Waterbury, CT 06722-1791

Dear Ms. Cappalli:

This is a response to your letter of last year to Ms. Tilghman of my staff, seeking an interpretation of Standard 125, Warning Devices (49 CFR 571.125). I apologize for the delay in this response. Specifically, you asked whether your client may proceed with the manufacture and distribution of a warning device, which you described further as an equilateral triangle with legs of 10 3/8 inches each. You also enclosed a diagram of the proposed device.

Let me begin by explaining that your client does not need approval from this agency to manufacture or distribute this product. Section 108(a)(1)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(1)(A); Safety Act) 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 ... 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 ..." Section 114 of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1403) establishes a certification process under which each manufacturer is required to certify that its products meet all applicable Federal safety standards. Therefore, your client, as a manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment, must certify that this product complies with all applicable standards. This agency has no authority under the Safety Act to approve, certify, or otherwise endorse any commercial product.

The warning device your client plans to produce is motor vehicle equipment, within the meaning of section 102(4) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1391(4)). Thus, the question is whether this warning device complies with applicable safety standards.

Paragraph S3 of Standard 125 reads as follows: "This standard applies to devices, without self-contained energy sources, that are designed to be carried in motor vehicles and used to warn approaching traffic of the presence of a stopped vehicle, except for devices designed to be permanently affixed to the vehicle." Since your client's product falls within this description, your client must certify that the product complies with all requirements of Standard 125. Section 108(b)(2) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(b)(2)) requires your client to exercise "due care" in making any such certification.

Based on the description in your letter, it does not appear that your client can certify that this device complies with one of the requirements in Standard 125. Paragraph S5.2.2 of Standard 125 states that, "Each of the three sides of the triangular portion of the warning device shall be not less than 17 and not more than 22 inches long, and not less than 2 and not more than 3 inches wide." According to your description, the sides of your client's proposed device would be only 10 3/8 inches long. Your client will have to increase the length of the sides in order to certify that this proposed warning device complies with Standard 125. We do not have enough information to offer any opinions as to whether this product appears to comply with the other requirements of Standard 125.

You asked for information on how your client could obtain an exemption from Standard 125 if necessary. There is no provision in the Safety Act for exempting items of motor vehicle equipment from any applicable safety standard. However, section 157 of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1417) gives this agency the authority to exempt equipment manufacturers from the requirement to give notice to owners and to remedy noncompliances with applicable standards, if the agency determines that the noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety. The procedures for implementing this statutory authority are set forth in 49 CFR Part 556, Exemption for Inconsequential Defect or Noncompliance.

Since your client plans to become a manufacturer subject to the requirements of the Safety Act, I am enclosing a copy of a general information sheet that briefly outlines the new manufacturer's responsibilities and explains how to get copies of relevant regulations. If you have some further questions or need further information on this subject, please contact Joan Tilghman of my staff at this address, or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Enclosure

ref:125 d:7/18/88

ID: 2881o

Mr. Terry E. Quinn
Corporate Director of Quality
Hehr International, Inc.
PO Box 39160
Los Angeles, CA 90039-0160

Dear Mr. Quinn:

This responds to your letter of last year concerning Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials. I regret the delay in our response. You explained that your company, Hehr International, is a prime glazing material manufacturer that tempers glazing material used in vehicular windows produced by your company and other companies. You stated that a prospective customer for your tempered glass does not wish to have your trademark appear on the glazing etch of its windows since it is a competitor of yours. You asked whether a prime manufacturer may sell its tempered glass without its distinctive designation or trademark. As explained below, Standard No. 205 requires that a manufacturer's distinctive designation appear on the glass. However, if the glass in question is marked with the prime manufacturer's DOT code mark, the designation marked on the glass may be the designation of the company that sells the glass, instead of the prime manufacturer.

Section S6 of Standard No. 205 (49 CFR 571.205) sets forth the certification and marking requirements for glazing materials. Paragraphs S6.1 and S6.2 of the standard specify that each "prime glazing material manufacturer" shall mark glazing materials manufactured by him in accordance with Section 6 of the American National Standard "Safety Code for 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 Z-26). Paragraph S6.1 defines a "prime glazing material manufacturer" as one who fabricates, laminates, or tempers the glazing material. Your company is therefore a "prime glazing material manufacturer" of all glazing material that it tempers, and so you are subject to these marking requirements.

One of the requirements of S6 of ANS Z-26 is that a manufacturer mark its glazing with its own "distinctive designation or trademark." In addition to the marking requirements of S6 of ANS Z-26, S6.1 of Standard No. 205 requires prime glazing material manufacturers to mark each piece of glazing they temper with an "AS" number, indicating that the glazing meets all of the performance requirements set for that glazing item number. S6.2 of Standard No. 205 further requires a prime glazing manufacturer to mark each item of glazing material designed to be used in a specific vehicle with the symbol "DOT" and a manufacturer's code mark assigned by this agency.

Standard No. 205, through its incorporation of ANS Z-26, requires that all glazing be marked with a distinctive designation or trademark by the prime manufacturer. Therefore, your company cannot do what you asked to do in your letter; that is, sell glazing without any distinctive designation or trademark appearing on the glazing. However, NHTSA has previously concluded that the designation or trademark on the glazing need not be that of the prime glazing material manufacturer, if the glazing is marked with the prime manufacturer's DOT code mark. This is because NHTSA can easily and accurately identify the prime manufacturer from the DOT code mark, regardless of the distinctive designation or trademark that appears on the glazing. The agency needs to be able to identify the prime glazing material manufacturer, since that is the party responsible for any defect or noncompliance recall campaigns.

When the agency can use the DOT code mark to identify the prime manufacturer, the agency does not need the distinctive designation or trademark appearing on the glazing to also identify the prime manufacturer. When a prime manufacturer sells glazing to another glazing company that sells the glazing to the public, the company selling the glazing to the public has a legitimate competitive interest in having its logo appear on that glazing. In recognition of these factors, we said in an October 16, 1986 letter to Mr. Edward T. Fennell, Jr. (copy enclosed) that Standard No. 205 permits a prime glazing material manufacturer to mark windshields with the logo of the company that was buying windshields from the prime manufacturer, with the permission of the purchasing company.

Your company would be permitted to do the same for the glazing you are selling to a competitor, if your company's assigned DOT code mark appears on the glazing you are selling. If your company's assigned code mark does not appear on that glazing, or if the glazing company that is purchasing the glazing from you will not give you permission to use its logo, Standard No. 205 would require you to mark your company's distinctive designation or trademark on the glazing.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Enclosure ref:205 d:5/31/88

ID: 2882o

Mr. Frank V. Tanzella
Tek Tron, Inc.
10R Rainbow Terrace Unit E
Danvers, MA 01923

Dear Mr. Tanzella:

This responds to your letter of April 5, 1988, concerning the installation of credit card mobile telephones into taxi cabs that already have been sold to the first purchaser. You noted that you may have to cut into the back of the front seat in order to provide clearance for the phone. You asked what safety regulations would apply to this situation and whether any additional testing would be necessary.

Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A); the Safety Act) provides that: "No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle ... in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard ... For purposes of this paragraph, the term 'motor vehicle repair business' means any person who holds himself out to the public as in the business of repairing motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment for compensation."

Standard No. 207, Seating Systems (49 CFR 571.207; copy enclosed) sets forth minimum performance requirements for the seating systems installed in new passenger cars, such as the taxi cabs you plan to modify. Assuming that your company would be a "motor vehicle repair business" for the purposes of this contract, this statutory provision prohibits you from knowingly making any modifications that would render inoperative the taxis' compliance with any safety standards. You should be aware that by adding the telephone you will be adding weight to the seat. This change in weight may effect the general performance requirements in S4.2. Nevertheless, the "render inoperative" provision in the Safety Act does not require your company to test vehicles after installing the mobile telephone, to ensure that the vehicles continue to comply with Standard No. 207. Instead, the "render inoperative" provision in the Safety Act requires your company to carefully compare your planned installation instructions with the requirements of Standard No. 207, to determine if installing the mobile telephones in accordance with your planned installation procedures would result in the vehicles no longer complying with Standard No. 207. If it would, you will have to devise some alternative means of installing the mobile telephones in the taxis. If your planned installation procedures do not render inoperative the taxis' compliance with Standard No. 207, you may follow those procedures without violating any provisions of the Safety Act.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Enclosures ref:VSA#108#207 d:7/18/88

ID: 2883o

Gary Evans, President
Westex Automotive Corporation
40880 Encyclopedia Circle
Fremont, CA 94538

Dear Mr. Evans:

This is a response to your letter of February 26, 1988, where you asked the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) whether a product you wish to import and sell in the United States "complies with any standards which may affect it.". You describe the product as a warning triangle that is designed to be attached to the side window of a car. You tell us that this side-mounted triangle is about 20% smaller than the warning device specified in this agency's regulations in Standard 125, Warning Devices. The answer to your question is that the device you described would not comply with Standard 125.

Standard 125 sets uniform specifications for warning devices. Paragraph S3 of Standard 125 states that the standard "applies to devices, without self-contained energy sources, that are designed to be carried in motor vehicles, and used to warn approaching traffic of the presence of a stopped vehicle, except for devices designed to be permanently affixed to the vehicle." By its own terms, then, Standard 125 applies to all warning devices that are not designed to be permanently affixed to the vehicle. You are mistaken in suggesting that because the device attaches to the vehicle, Standard 125 is inapplicable. As I understand your description, the device is not "permanently affixed" to the vehicle. Rather, it is carried in the vehicle, and the vehicle operator may attach or remove the device as necessary. Therefore, this device is subject to the requirements of Standard 125.

According to your letter, this device fails to comply with the minimum size requirements set forth in paragraph S5.2.2 of Standard 125. Section 108(a)(1)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(1)(A)) specifies that, "No person shall ... import into the United States any ... item of motor vehicle equipment manufactured on or after the date any applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard takes effect unless it is in conformity with such standard..." Standard 125 took effect on January 1, 1974. Thus, Federal law prohibits you from importing any of the devices described in your letter that were manufactured on or after January 1, 1974. I hope you find this information helpful. If you have further questions, please contact Joan Tilghman of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

ref:125 d:7/18/88