Mr. Karl Genest
518 Jodoin
St-Bruno, Quebec
CANADA
J3V 6G8

Dear Mr. Genest:

This responds to your letter of December 9, 2004, asking if any Federal regulations apply to your invention, which you describe generally as an accessory that attaches to the seatback of a vehicles front seat. You did not provide a description of your product except to note that it attaches to the seatback, and that "when attached to the back of a cars front seat, [my device] would intrude somewhat into the space occupied by passengers of the back seat". You state that the intrusion would be similar to those of two "car seat organizers," the photographs of which you enclose in your letter. In a phone conversation with George Feygin of my staff, you indicated that you intend to market your product in stores directly to consumers (in the "aftermarket").

By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) issues Federal motor vehicle safety standards applying to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles and certain items of motor vehicle equipment sold in or imported into this country. NHTSA does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301, manufacturers are required to certify that their vehicles and equipment meet applicable requirements.

Because you did not describe your product, we are unable to provide an interpretation of the standards that could apply. However, we have the following general observations. Most of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) apply to the completed motor vehicle. Some FMVSSs apply to aftermarket equipment, including lamps and reflective devices, seat belt systems, and child restraints. Even if an FMVSS does not directly apply to your aftermarket product, there are several requirements that may affect you.

First, 30122 of the Safety Act (49 U.S.C. Chapter 301) prohibits a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business from "making inoperative, in whole or in part" any part of a device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle in compliance with an applicable safety standard. That is, your device could not be installed by such businesses if they determine that the installation of your invention would adversely affect the vehicles compliance with any safety standard.

With regard to your question about "possible intrusion zone" requirements affecting your product, it is possible that installation of this device could affect compliance with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 201, Occupant protection in interior impact. This standard establishes performance requirements designed to reduce the risk of injury in the event an occupant strikes the interior of a vehicle during a crash. S5.2 of FMVSS No. 201 specifies that an area of the seat back that is within the "head impact area," as defined in 49 CFR 571.3 (enclosed), is subject to the head impact protection requirements of the standard. In addition, installation of your product could affect the vehicles compliance with the flammability resistance requirements of FMVSS No. 302, Flammability of interior materials (enclosed). That standard establishes flammability resistance requirements for certain vehicle components, including seat backs.

The make inoperative provision does not apply to vehicle owners modifying their own vehicles. However, we recommend that owners not degrade the safety of their vehicles.

Second, please note that motor vehicle accessories are items of "motor vehicle equipment" subject to the notification and remedy (recall) provisions of 49 U.S.C. 30118-30120. If a manufacturer or NHTSA determines that the product contains a safety-related defect, the manufacturer is responsible for notifying purchasers of the product and remedying the problem free of charge.

Third, I am enclosing a copy of a procedural rule that applies to all manufacturers subject to the regulations of this agency. 49 CFR Part 551, Procedural Rules, Subpart D, requires all manufacturers headquartered outside of the United States to designate an agent for service of all process, notices, orders and decisions. This designation should be mailed to the Chief Counsel, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20590, and must include the following information:

1. A certification that the designation of agent is valid in form and binding on the manufacturer under the laws, corporate-by-laws, or other requirements governing the making of the designation at the time and place where it is made;
2. The full legal name, principal place of business and mailing address of the manufacturer;
3. Marks, trade names, or other designations of origin of any of the manufacturer's products which do not bear its name;
4. A statement that the designation shall remain in effect until withdrawn or replaced by the manufacturer;
5. A declaration of acceptance duly signed by the agent appointed, which may be an individual, a firm or a United States corporation; and,
6. The full legal name and address of the designated agent.

In addition, the designation must be signed by a person with authority to appoint the agent. The signer's name and title should be clearly indicated beneath his or her signature.

If you need further assistance, please contact George Feygin of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

Enclosures
ref:201
d.2/16/05

John Russell Deane III, Esq.
General Counsel
Specialty Equipment Market Association
1317 F Street, NW, Suite 500
Washington, DC 20004

Dear Mr. Deane:

This is in response to your November 30, 2005, letter concerning legal responsibilities of vehicle modifiers (i.e., entities that modify motor vehicles after the first retail sale) with respect to the requirements of S4.3 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 110, Tire selection and rims for motor vehicles with a GVWR of 4,536 kilograms (10,000 pounds) or less. Specifically, you ask whether vehicle modifiers are obligated to replace the tire safety information placard required by S4.3, if the relevant information on the placard becomes inaccurate as a consequence of their actions. As discussed below, the answer is no.

By way of background, S4.3 of FMVSS No. 110 requires that vehicles with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less contain a placard showing certain critical tire safety information, including but not limited to, the vehicle capacity weight, the recommended inflation pressure, and the tire size designation. This information enables consumers to ascertain the cargo carrying limitations of their vehicles, and to properly inflate their tires. It also enables consumers to purchase correct size replacement tires.

49 U.S.C. 30122 prohibits manufacturers, distributors, dealers, or motor vehicle repair businesses from "making inoperative, in whole or in part" any part of a device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle in compliance with an applicable safety standard.

In your letter, you ask whether it would be a violation of the 30122 make inoperative provision if modifiers change a vehicles tire size, cold inflation pressure, and/or cargo capacity rating but do not update the tire placard.

In evaluating this question, we have focused on the language of S4.3 of FMVSS No. 110. One of the items of safety information required by that section is identified in paragraph (d), which reads as follows:

"Tire size designation, indicated by the headings "size" or "original tire size" or "original size," and "spare tire" or "spare," for the tires installed at the time of the first purchase for purposes other than resale. For full size spare tires, the statement "see above" may, at the manufacturer's option replace the tire size designation. If no spare tire is provided, the word "none" must replace the tire size designation;" [Emphasis added]

Thus, the requirement for one of the critical items of safety information to be provided on the tire placard is specifically expressed in terms of the "tires installed at the time of first purchase for purposes other than resale." We also note that there is a relationship between a number of the items required to be specified on the tire placard.

We observe that regardless of what changes a modifier may make to a vehicle, it does not change the size of the tires that were installed at the time of the first purchase for purposes other than resale (the information S4.3 of FMVSS 110 requires to be on the placard). Given this, and recognizing the relationship between a number of the items required to be specified on the tire placard, it is our opinion that it would not be a violation of the 30122 make inoperative provision, with respect to S4.3 of FMVSS 110, if modifiers change the vehicles tire size, cold inflation pressure, and/or cargo capacity rating but do not update the tire placard.

We note that while our regulations do not require changes to the tire safety information placard if the changes to the vehicle occur after it is first sold for the purposes other than retail, the potential inconsistency between the information on the placard and the actual vehicle could in some cases be misleading and dangerous to vehicle operators. Specifically, relying on what has become inaccurate information, vehicle operators could over-inflate or under-inflate their tires, thereby creating a safety hazard. Also, vehicle operators could overload their vehicles, which also would create a safety hazard. Finally, vehicle operators could end up purchasing incorrect replacement tires (e.g., original tire size not appropriate for aftermarket rim), erroneously relying on the placard that is no longer accurate.

In light of these concerns and consistent with previous interpretation letters concerning post-sale modifications relating to a vehicles Gross Vehicle Weight Rating (May 24, 1993, letter to Mr. John Paul Barber, Esq., and April 2, 1997, letter to Mr. James Baker), we would urge a party which modifies a used vehicle so that the tire safety information is no longer accurate to either add a new label to the vehicle which indicates the correct tire safety information or add a warning label (preferably proximate to the placard) indicating that the tire safety information placard is no longer accurate.

We would like to conclude this letter with a couple of observations. First, I note that your letter suggested that the "make inoperative" provision should not apply to the situation because it was not discussed by the agency during the FMVSS 110 rulemaking. However, because the "make inoperative" provision is statutory and applies to all FMVSSs, the agency does not separately address this statutory prohibition in each rulemaking action.

I also note that this interpretation applies only to modifications occurring after the first retail sale. With respect to vehicles altered prior to first retail sale, S4.3.2 of FMVSS No. 110 specifically requires that a new tire information placard replace the original placard if the previously certified vehicle has been altered such that the information on the existing placard is no longer valid.

If you have further questions, you may contact Mr. George Feygin of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Wood,
Acting Chief Counsel

ref:110
d.4/7/05

Christopher E. MacDonald, President
Best Golf Cars, Inc.
P.O. Box 2717
Myrtle Beach, SC 29578

Dear Mr. MacDonald:

This is in response to your letter asking whether the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 110; "Tire selection and rims for motor vehicles with a GVWR of 4,536 kilograms (10,000 pounds) or less" apply to low-speed vehicles. As explained below, they do not.

By way of background, a low-speed vehicle is defined in 49 CFR 571.3 as follows:

"Low-speed vehicle (LSV) means a motor vehicle,

(1) that is 4-wheeled,

(2) whose speed attainable in 1.6 km (1 mile) is more than 32 kilometers per hour (20 miles per hour) and not more than 40 kilometers per hour (25 miles per hour) on a paved level surface, and

(3) whose GVWR is less than 1,134 kilograms (2,500 pounds)".

There are only two FMVSSs applicable to low-speed vehicles. They are, FMVSS No. 500; "Low speed vehicles," and FMVSS No. 205 "Glazing materials."I enclose both standards. I note FMVSS No. 500 incorporates certain requirements found in other FMVSSs by reference. However, the requirements in FMVSS No. 110 are not referenced in FMVSS No. 500.

I hope you find this information helpful. If you have further questions, you may contact Mr. George Feygin of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Wood
Acting Chief Counsel

2 Enclosures

ref:110
d.4/7/06

Mr. Richard Coffel
456 Coos Bay Wagon Rd.
Roseburg, OR 97470

Dear Mr. Coffel:

This responds to your e-mail dated December 14, 2004, asking "what wattage bulb is legal in a motorcycle headlight?"

By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301, manufacturers are required to certify that their vehicles and equipment meet applicable requirements.   The issues raised by your letter are addressed below.

The Federal standard applicable to lighting equipment, including motorcycle headlamps, is Federal motor vehicle safety standard (FMVSS) No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment. FMVSS No. 108 does not regulate the wattage of light sources (bulbs) used in replaceable bulb headlamps that are marked "motorcycle".Instead, these headlamps must conform to the photometric requirements, measured in candela, in Figure 32 of FMVSS No. 108.

For all other motorcycle headlamps that incorporate replaceable bulbs, S7.7 of FMVSS No. 108 requires, in part, that each replaceable light bulb be designed to conform to the dimensions and electrical specifications furnished with respect to it pursuant to 49 CFR Part 564, Replaceable Light Source Information (these specifications are available online at http://dms.dot.gov/search/searchFormSimple.cfm, Docket No. NHTSA-1998-3397). That is, a replacement bulb must be manufactured to conform to specifications applicable to the original bulb. Replaceable light bulb manufacturers are required to certify compliance with the requirements of S7.7 by marking the light bulb with the symbol "DOT".

I hope you find this information helpful. If you need further assistance, please contact George Feygin of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

/s

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:108
d.3/17/05

Ms. Susan Gabel
Rockland Coach Works LLC
120 Lyons Road
Mertztown, PA 19539

Dear Ms. Gabel

This responds to your December 14, 2004, letter asking whether a "coach" manufactured by your company using a previously used bus chassis requires a new Vehicle Identification Number (VIN) in accordance with 49 CFR Part 565.

By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) issues Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) applicable to new motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. Chapter 301 of Title 49 of the United States Code, "Motor Vehicle Safety" (49 U.S.C. 30101 et seq.), establishes a "self-certification" process under which motor vehicle manufacturers are responsible for certifying that their vehicles meet all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards.

NHTSA does not generally regulate rebuilding or re-manufacturing of used motor vehicles. However, if the rebuilding or remanufacturing involves sufficient manufacturing operations and new parts, the vehicle may be considered newly manufactured. This would mean that it would be required to meet all applicable safety standards in effect at the time of rebuilding (re-manufacture), and to be certified as conforming to those standards. Because of the variety of fact situations involved, the agency has found it difficult to establish a general requirement, and it provides opinions on a case-by-case basis.

In this case, your letter (and the pictures on your web site) demonstrates an extensive manufacturing process, which includes the following:

1. A used MCI-9 bus is "stripped" completely leaving only the chassis and certain frame components;
2. Damaged frame components are replaced;
3. The rear of the vehicle is extended by 5 feet;
4. The vehicle roof is raised 8 inches;
5. All exterior body panels are replaced with a custom fiberglass body panels;
6. The vehicle is equipped with a different (new or remanufactured) engine and transmission;
7. Wiring, heat, and air components are all replaced;
8. The vehicle is equipped with a new, custom designed interior featuring living quarters.

The extent of manufacturing operations and new parts described in your letter indicate that the vehicles in question are newly manufactured motor vehicles. Particularly, we note that vehicles remanufactured by your company feature different, engines, transmissions, and entirely new bodies except for certain frame components. Thus, your company must assign a new VIN to these remanufactured vehicles. We note that these vehicles would be treated as newly manufactured for the purposes of NHTSAs safety standards and regulations. Among other things, this would mean that your company is required to certify that the vehicles comply with all applicable safety standards in effect as of the date the remanufacturing operations are completed on the vehicles. The information for new vehicle manufacturers is available at our web site at www.nhtsa.gov.

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

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:565
d.2/16/05

Dick Keller, Director of Business Development
Bruno Independent Living Aids
1780 Executive Drive
P.O. Box 84
Oconomowoc, WI 53066

Dear Mr. Keller:

This is in response to your letter regarding Federal motor vehicle safety standard (FMVSS) No. 202; "Head restraints".That standard provides several compliance options until September 1, 2008. You ask whether a vehicle modifier; i.e., (an entity that modifies a motor vehicle after the first retail sale) would be permitted to substitute seats in vehicles certified to one compliance option with seats that would enable the vehicle to meet a different compliance option during this period.

By way of background, on December 14, 2004, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) issued a final rule upgrading our head restraint standard. See 69 FR 74848.The new standard becomes effective September 1, 2008. In the final rule, we explained that between the date of issuance and September 1, 2008, vehicle manufacturers may comply with the existing NHTSA standard, the upgraded NHTSA standard, or the current European regulations pertaining to head restraints.

In your letter, you explain that Bruno is a manufacturer of motor vehicle devices designed to assist mobility impaired persons. One of your products is "Turning Automotive Seating" (TAS). The TAS is designed to swivel in order to allow easier egress/ingress for mobility impaired persons. The TAS is installed in place of regular seats provided by vehicle manufacturers. You state that vehicles equipped with TAS meet the requirements of the existing FMVSS No. 202, but not the requirements of the upgraded standard or the applicable European regulations. With respect to vehicles manufactured before September 1, 2008, you ask whether replacing a seat in a vehicle certified to the upgraded standard or the applicable European regulations with a seat that enables vehicles to meet the existing FMVSS No. 202 would violate 49 U.S.C. 30122.

49 U.S.C. 30122 prohibits manufacturers, distributors, dealers, or motor vehicle repair businesses from "making inoperative, in whole or in part" any part of a device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle in compliance with an applicable motor vehicle safety standard.

With respect to FMVSSs providing several compliance options, it is our opinion that the "make inoperative provision" does not prohibit substitution of equipment in vehicles certified to one compliance option with equipment enabling vehicles to meet a different option. Thus, until September 1, 2008, the substitution of seats in vehicles certified to the upgraded or European requirements with seats enabling vehicles to meet the existing FMVSS No. 202 would not violate 30122 with respect to our standard on head restraints.

I hope you find this information helpful. If you have further questions, you may contact Mr. George Feygin of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Wood
Acting Chief Counsel

ref:202
d.4/7/06

Mr. Dale Kardos
Dale Kardos & Associates, Inc.
3906 Huntington Street, NW
Washington, DC 20015

Dear Mr. Kardos:

This responds to your letter asking whether a "keyless-go" key-locking system being contemplated by your client would meet the requirements of S4.2 of Federal motor vehicle safety standard (FMVSS) No. 114, Theft protection.

By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301, manufacturers are required to certify that their vehicles and equipment meet applicable requirements.  The following represents our opinion based on the facts you provided in your letter.

Your letter describes a "keyless-go" system that unlocks the door when an electronic key code is transmitted from the key to the vehicle.If the door is opened following transmission of the key code to the vehicle, the steering column is automatically unlocked.For engine activation, an operator must insert the key into the electronic ignition lock. As soon as the key is removed from the electronic ignition lock, the steering column locks, the immobilizer is activated, and the electronic key code is removed from the system.

You ask if S4.2 of FMVSS No. 114 permits a system that unlocks the steering column when an electronic key code is transmitted from the key to the vehicle, and the driver opens the door.

S4.2 of FMVSS No. 114 reads as follows:

Each vehicle shall have a key-locking system which, whenever the key is removed, prevents:

(a) The normal activation of the vehicle's engine or motor; and

(b) Either steering or forward self-mobility of the vehicle or both.

We note that the standard does not specify under what conditions a steering column may become unlocked.However, the system described in your letter appears to operate in the manner consistent with the requirements of S4.2 because removal of the key from the electronic ignition lock prevents activation of the engine and locks the steering.

NHTSA has issued several letters of interpretation pertaining to keyless systems similar to the one described in your letter (see our 7/17/2002 and 8/15/2002 letters to unnamed parties).You may find these letters useful in ascertaining whether your system complies with other requirements in FMVSS No. 114.

I hope you find this information helpful.If you need further assistance, please contact George Feygin of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

2 Enclosures
ref:114
d.2/22/05

The Honorable John J. Duncan, Jr.
U.S. House of Representatives
Washington, DC 20515-4202

Dear Congressman Duncan:

Thank you for your letter on behalf of your constituent, Mr. Jon Schaffer.
Mr. Schaffer is interested in marketing a new product and asks whether the Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) permit flashing stop lamps. As discussed below, the answer is no.

By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration is authorized to issue motor vehicle safety standards that apply to the manufacture and sale of new motors and new motor vehicle equipment, in order to reduce the number of fatalities and injuries that result from motor vehicle crashes.

The Federal standard applicable to lighting equipment is FMVSS No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment.The relevant section of that standard reads as follows:

"S5.5.10 The wiring requirements for lighting equipment in use are:

(a) Turn signal lamps, hazard warning signal lamps, and school bus warning lamps shall be wired to flash;
(b) Headlamps and side marker lamps may be wired to flash for signaling purposes;
(c) A motorcycle headlamp may be wired to allow either its upper beam or its lower beam, but not both, to modulate from a higher intensity to a lower intensity in accordance with section S5.6;
(d) All other lamps shall be wired to be steady-burning" [emphasis added].

In short, S5.5.10(d) of FMVSS No. 108 mandates that all lamps be steady burning, unless otherwise permitted. In the present case, stop lamps do not fall under any exception enumerated in S5.5.10 (a) through (c). Accordingly, stop lamps must be steady burning and cannot be flashing.

We believe that motor vehicle safety is best promoted by standardization of lighting signals. The information currently provided by signal lamps, such as stop lamps, is well understood by the driving public, is instantly recognized and unambiguously informative.

While we recognize that a new idea for the operation of signal lighting might improve safety, we have taken the position that, given the safety benefits associated with the standardized operation and meaning of required lighting, the burden is on the proponents of a new signaling idea to demonstrate that the use of the new idea would yield a positive safety benefit large enough to more than offset the adverse safety effects of giving up the standardized operation and meaning of signal lights. We have enclosed a copy of a November 4, 1998, Federal Register notice which fully explains our policies concerning evaluating new signal lighting ideas.

In his letter to your office, Mr. Schaffer mentioned a Tennessee law permitting flashing stop lamps on motorcycles.For your reference, enclosed please find our January 14, 2004, letter to the manager of City of Memphis Motor Vehicle Inspection Bureau, in which we inform him that FMVSS No. 108 does not permit flashing stop lamps on motorcycles.

With respect to Mr. Schaffers question about Federal preemption of State laws, 49 U.S.C. 30103(b)(1) provides in pertinent part:

"Preemption. When a motor vehicle safety standard is in effect under this chapter, a State or a political subdivision of a State may prescribe or continue in effect a standard applicable to the same aspect of performance of a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment only if the standard is identical to the standard prescribed under this chapter."

This means that, under 49 U.S.C. 30103(b)(1), a State cannot authorize flashing stop lamps since the applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard prohibits such lighting devices.

We further note that installation of a non-steady burning lamp by a manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or motor vehicle repair business after the initial sale is subject to the restrictions of 49 U.S.C. 30122, which prohibits "making inoperative, in whole or in part" any part of a device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle in compliance with an applicable motor vehicle safety standard. Depending on the circumstances, installation of a non-steady burning lamp after the initial sale of a vehicle could be viewed as a violation of this "make inoperative" provision.

I hope you find this information helpful. If you need further assistance, please contact Stephen Wood, Assistant Chief Counsel for Vehicle Safety Standards and Harmonization,at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

Enclosures
ref:108
d.2/6/04

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

Dear Mr. Yoon:

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

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

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

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

Second, you ask whether your own certification showing that your products passed your own test requirements meeting FMVSS No. 205 is "good enough when they require us to issue certification." Each of the FMVSSs specifies the test conditions and procedures that NHTSA will use to evaluate whether a vehicle or equipment item conforms to the standard's performance requirements. However, the agency does not require a manufacturer to crash test vehicles or to evaluate its products only in the manner specified in the safety standards. A manufacturer may choose any means of evaluating a vehicle or equipment item to determine whether it complies with the requirements of the applicable FMVSS, provided that the vehicle or item does comply.

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

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

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

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any questions or need additional information, feel free to contact Nancy Bell of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

Enclosure
ref:205
d.4/1/02

Via Facsimile and Regular Mail

Howard A. Silverman, Esquire
General Motors Corporation
Legal Staff
Mail Code 480-106-304
Research Engineering Building
30500 Mound Road
Warren, Michigan 49090-9055

Dear Mr. Silverman:

This is in response to your letter of June 7, 2000, requesting an interpretation of the vehicle certification regulations at 49 CFR Part 567. Section 567.4(g) of those regulations prescribes the contents of the certification label that manufacturers are required to affix to new motor vehicles. One item of information that the certification label must contain is the name of the vehicle's manufacturer. Section 567.4(g)(1) provides that the "full corporate or individual name of the actual assembler of the vehicle" must be stated on the certification label, unless any of three specified exceptions apply. The only pertinent exception is the one stated at section 567.4(g)(1)(i). That section provides that "[i]f a vehicle is assembled by a corporation that is controlled by another corporation that assumes responsibility for conformity with the standards, the name of the controlling corporation may be used."

In your letter, you have asked whether General Motors Corporation's (GM's) name can appear on the certification label of the future Hummer H2. You state that GM is solely responsible for the design of this vehicle, which is based on a current GM model. You further state that GM is solely responsible for manufacturing and purchasing all of the parts used to make the vehicle, with the exception of those that you identify as "indirect materials." As described in your letter, these parts will be shipped by GM and its suppliers to an assembly plant built and operated by AM General Corporation (AMG) as a subcontractor to GM, where the vehicles will be assembled and finished. The vehicles will then be delivered to GM for inspection, acceptance, and shipment to GM dealers, which will be exclusively responsible for their sale to the public. Pursuant to a contract that it has entered with AMG, GM will provide the new vehicle warranty to dealers and customers. Your letter states that GM is further "responsible for warranty and recall campaign administration and for representing GM and AMG in connection with any requests for information and allegations about alleged safety defects or noncompliance with safety or emissions laws and regulations."

In light of these circumstances, you contend that it is appropriate for GM's name to appear on the certification label for the Hummer H2 because "GM is the 'manufacturer,' as that term is used in the certification statute," and "the assembler is 'controlled' by GM and GM has assumed responsibility for conformity with the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards, as provided in 567.4(g)(1)(i)." You observe that GM's agreement with AMG provides that GM has "responsibility for product engineering related to the [Hummer H2], including but not limited to testing, certification and compliance with applicable governmental regulations and shall be considered the Original Equipment Manufacturer of the [Hummer H2]." Noting that "GM is the final decision-maker on recalls and conducts recall campaigns," you state that with respect to this vehicle, "GM has assumed responsibility for conformity with standards and the consequences of non-conformity."

You further contend that with respect to the Hummer H2, GM "controls" AMG in the sense that is contemplated within the certification regulations. Although you acknowledge that GM owns no AMG stock, you assert that GM's "control" over AMG is evidenced by the fact that under its agreement with AMG, GM is responsible not only for product engineering, but also "has the right to approve the Vehicle Assembly Specifications and Quality Control Standards." Additionally, you note that "GM has the opportunity to inspect the vehicle assembly process and to inspect vehicles before accepting them."

You note that in an October 13, 1981 letter to Paccar, Inc., this Office stated that Paccar's name could appear on the certification labels for vehicles assembled by Kenworth Mexicana, a Mexican affiliate. The letter observed that even though Paccar owned only a 49 percent interest in Kenworth Mexicana, it was responsible for the design of the vehicles produced in Mexico and exercised control over all matters relating to their compliance with safety standards. In this circumstance, the letter concluded that Paccar's name could appear on the certification label, notwithstanding its less than majority interest in the Mexican company. The letter noted that

the agency has previously stated in one of its interpretations that the "purpose of the manufacturer's designation in the certification regulations is to identify the company that has primary technical responsibility for conformity of the design and quality control of the assembly." Particularly with respect to the design aspects, Paccar meets this test.

Applying this interpretation, you suggest that NHTSA's focus should be on whether the company that seeks to have its name appear on the certification label has "primary technical responsibility" for the vehicle. You contend that "[w]hether that responsibility is established by contract or by partial ownership is not material." You observe that "GM will have total, not just primary, responsibility for conformity of the design of [the Hummer H2]," and that "GM's responsibility for these vehicles is no less than was Paccar's even though GM does not own AMG stock."

Notwithstanding the broad responsibility that you have identified GM as assuming with respect to the Hummer H2, we have concluded that GM may not be identified as the manufacturer on the certification labels to be affixed to those vehicles. In reaching this conclusion, we are principally motivated by the fact that AMG, and not GM, will be the "actual assembler" of the Hummer H2, and that GM does not "control" AMG, in the sense that it lacks any equity interest in that company. Unless GM were the "actual assembler" of the Hummer H2, or "controlled" the actual assembler, there is no basis for its name to appear on the certification label as the vehicle manufacturer under the express requirements of 49 CFR 567.4(g)(1), or under the exception to those requirements stated at 49 CFR 567.4(g)(1)(i).

In contrast to this circumstance, we observed in our letter of October 13, 1981, permitting Paccar to be identified as the manufacturer of vehicles assembled by Kenworth Mexicana, that Paccar held a 49 percent ownership interest in Kenworth Mexicana, the maximum permitted under Mexican law. We further noted that allowing Paccar to be identified as the manufacturer in this instance was in keeping with the reasons the agency had articulated for adopting the "controlling corporation exception to the requirement that the vehicle assembler's name must appear on the certification label." The letter stated that this exception was adopted

in recognition of the fact that "particularly in some foreign countries, assembly of a vehicle may be performed by a subsidiary corporation controlled by a parent that is the generally known 'nameplate company.'" The agency determined that in such a situation, "no important purpose is served by requiring the name of a lesser-known subsidiary corporation on the label." See 34 FR 11360, July 9, 1969.

Because GM owns no stock in AMG, and because both companies are domestic entities, these factors, which influenced our decision to allow Paccar to be identified as the manufacturer of vehicles assembled by Kenworth Mexicana, are not present here.

If GM wishes its name to appear on the certification label for the Hummer H2, there is nothing to preclude the label from stating that the vehicle was manufactured by AMG for GM. We are aware of circumstances in which such wording has been used on the certification labels of vehicles manufactured by one company for another. Enclosed for your reference is a copy of such a certification label, from a 1997 Ford Aspire, which identifies the vehicle as being manufactured "by Kia Motors Co. for Ford Motor Co." Please note that if the certification label states that the vehicle was manufactured by AMG for GM, AMG would have responsibility for the vehicle with respect to all requirements imposed under the Corporate Average Fuel Economy program.

If you have any further questions regarding vehicle certification, feel free to contact Coleman Sachs of my staff at 202-366-5238.

Sincerely,

Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel

Enclosure

ref:567
d.11/15/00