ID: 8867

Harold R. Burke, Esq.
Duel and Holland
289 Greenwich Avenue
Greenwich, CT 06830-6595

Re: Importation of Type M-151 Military Vehicle

Dear Mr. Burke:

We have received your letter of July 8, 1993, asking several questions about the motor vehicle importation regulations as they apply to M-151 military vehicles. I apologize for the delay in our response. Your client wishes to import for resale in the U.S. approximately 8,000 such vehicles built in the U.S. between 1973-75, and which, according to you, have never been used.

Before I answer your questions, you should know that it has been the policy of the Department of Defense (DOD) for at least two decades to section and scrap M-151s at the end of their useful military life rather than to sell them for civilian use or allow further use by other government agencies. This policy, which was developed with the participation and support of this agency, is based on the tendency of the M-151 to turn over during quick turning maneuvers or when driven by unskilled operators. DOD has followed this policy consistently, notwithstanding the economic benefits that would accrue to the government were the vehicles allowed to be sold to the public or to be operated by other Federal agencies, such as the U.S. Park Service, in non- military applications. The unvarying applicability of this policy highlights the safety concern of two Federal Departments for civilian use of the M-151, and we believe that your client should be aware of the potential liability that sale to the public would entail.

Your client should also be aware that, under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.), (the Act), any person importing motor vehicles for resale is considered the "manufacturer" of these vehicles, and would have the same responsibility as the original manufacturer to notify owners and remedy safety related defects in the event they occurred in the M-151. (15 U.S.C. 1391(5)). For example, the agency has the authority to determine that a tendency to overturn is a defect in performance, a safety related defect which would require the importer for resale to notify and remedy in accordance with statutory requirements (l5 U.S.C. 1411 et seq.)

You have asked the following three questions:

"1. As U.S. origin vehicles which have been outside this country since 1975 are they now classified as 'foreign' vehicles which are subject to current D.O.T. and E.P.A. safety and emissions criteria?"

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration does not classify motor vehicles as "domestic" and "foreign." Any motor vehicle, whether manufactured in the U.S. or elsewhere, must conform to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) in order to be sold in the U.S. The FMVSS that apply to a motor vehicle to be imported into the U.S. are those that were in effect at the time the vehicle was manufactured, not those in effect at the time of its importation. We are unable to advise you on the regulations of the Environmental Protection Agency as it is an agency independent of the Department of Transportation.

In order to be imported into the U.S., a motor vehicle must conform with (or be brought into conformity with) any applicable FMVSS. Although the M-151 is a "motor vehicle" under the Act, from the beginning the agency on its own volition has excluded motor vehicles manufactured for and sold directly to the Armed Forces of the United States in conformity with contractual specifications from compliance with the FMVSS (49 CFR 571.7(a)), though retaining jurisdiction over them for safety defect notification and remedy campaigns. This means that the M-151 was not designed to comply with FMVSS at the time of its manufacture.

For importers of an M-151 other than the Armed Forces of the United States, the importer would be required, as a condition of importation, to bring the M-151 into compliance with the FMVSS that applied at the time of its manufacture. However, because of the restrictions imposed by the Imported Vehicle Safety Compliance Act of 1988 (PL 100-562), it is no longer simple to import nonconforming motor vehicles to which the FMVSS apply. Under this recent legislation, the agency must make a formal determination, either pursuant to a petition or on its own motion, that the vehicles are capable of conversion to meet the FMVSS. Following this, a vehicle may be imported by its owner, only if the owner has a contract with a "registered importer" (one whom the agency has recognized as a converter) to convert the vehicles, or if the importer itself is a registered importer. However, nonconforming vehicles which are imported for resale can only be imported by a registered importer. We would require any prospective civilian importer of an M-151 manufactured in 1973-75 to demonstrate that the vehicle is capable of conversion to comply with the FMVSS that applied to multipurpose passenger vehicles during that period. A bond equal to 150% of the value of the vehicle as determined by the U.S. Customs Service must also be posted during the conversion process.

"2. If they are not considered 'foreign' vehicles what, if any, D.O.T. regulations would apply to the registration of such vehicles for use on U.S. roads?"

"3. If they are considered 'foreign' vehicles . . . ."

There are no Federal registration requirements for vehicles sold to persons other than Federal agencies. State regulations apply. We are not conversant with State registration laws, and refer inquirers for an opinion to the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA 22203.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

ref:591 d:3/17/94

ID: 8868

Mr. Tom Delapp
Executive Coach Builders, Inc.
One Executive Boulevard
Springfield, MO 65802

Dear Mr. Delapp:

This responds to your letter requesting an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 206, "Door locks and door retention components," as it pertains to the locking mechanism of a so-called "5th" door installed on your limousines. I apologize for the delay in responding. We conclude that the locking mechanism on the 5th door is not prohibited by Standard 206.

Based on your letter and a conversation with David Elias of my office, I understand that you have replaced the extra panel on the right side of a 1993 Lincoln Town Car based limousine with a passenger door (i.e., the 5th door). The door consists completely of the original equipment manufacturer's materials and hinges. The 5th door is a supplementary door, and does not replace or effect in any way the two side rear doors with which your vehicles are normally equipped.

When the 5th door is closed, its locking mechanism engages automatically, and the door cannot be opened from the inside or the outside. A solenoid locking mechanism that unlocks the 5th door is located inside the vehicle in a "privacy panel" behind the driver's seat. For the driver to unlock the 5th door, the car must be stopped and the driver must then get out of the car and reach through a window into the area behind the driver's seat. The locking mechanism cannot be reached by the driver while seated in the driver's seat, and cannot be reached by the passengers in the rear seats. The 5th door cannot be accidentally opened; unless the locking mechanism has been actively disengaged, the door remains locked. Disengaging the locking mechanism for the 5th door allows the driver to open the door from the outside, although passengers could push the door open from the inside, as well.

There are two pertinent requirements of FMVSS No. 206 to your situation. First, S4.1.3 (Door Locks) states that:

Each door shall be equipped with a locking mechanism with an operating means in the interior of the vehicle.

In two prior letters, to Mr. Charles Murphy on May 10, 1974, and to Mr. Gary Hackett on April 11, 1988, the agency interpreted S4.1.3 to mean that the locking mechanism must also be operable from within the vehicle.

The first question to be addressed is whether the 5th door meets the requirement of S4.1.3. We believe the answer is yes, the door is equipped with a locking mechanism with an operating means in the interior of the vehicle that is operable from within the vehicle. The operating means for the locking mechanism is in the interior of the vehicle in that the locking mechanism engages automatically when the 5th door is closed. While the means to disengage the operating mechanism is not accessible to occupants in the vehicle, Standard 206 does not require the locking mechanism to be capable of being disengaged by an occupant. This is because the purpose of the standard is to minimize the chance that occupants of the vehicle will be ejected in a collision. Thus, the thrust of the standard is to ensure that occupants are retained within the vehicle, such as by requiring doors to have door locks that occupants are capable of locking.

The second pertinent requirement is S4.1.3.2 (Side Rear Door Locks), which states that:

... when the locking mechanism is engaged both the outside and inside door handles or other latch release controls shall be inoperative.

The 5th door appears to comply with S4.1.3.2, in that it cannot be opened from the outside or inside when the locking mechanism is engaged.

In a letter to Ms. C.D. Black, dated April 10, 1987, the agency interpreted a question on child safety locks that is relevant to your situation. The child safety lock operated as a "secondary locking system" that, when activated, rendered the inside rear door handle incapable of opening the door. (It had no effect on the outside door handle.) As we stated in that letter, our conclusion was that Standard 206 permitted the child safety lock because the standard prohibits only secondary locking systems that interfere with the engagement, but not with the disengagement, of the primary locking system. In that letter, we wrote:

The answer to your question about the child locking systems is dependent on whether the systems interfere with an aspect of performance required by Standard No. 206. We have determined that the answer is no, because the requirements of... S4.1.3.2 are written in terms of what must occur when the primary system is engaged and impose no requirements regarding the effects of disengaging the system. Thus, the aspect of performance required by S4.1.3 for the interior operating means for the door locks is that it be capable only of engaging the required door locking mechanisms. The aspect of performance required by S4.1.3.2 for door locks on the rear doors is that the inside and outside door handles be inoperative when the locking mechanism is engaged. Since we have determined that... S4.1.3.2 do[es] not address the effects of disengaging the required door locks--i.e., S4.1.3.2 does not require that the inside rear door handles be operative (capable of releasing the door latch) when the required locking system is disengaged--a child locking system may be provided on a vehicle if it does not negate the capability of the door lock plunger (the operating means) to engage the door locks.

I hope this information has been helpful. If you have any further questions, feel free to contact Mr. Elias at the above address or by phone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

ref:206 d:3/29/94

ID: 8871

Mr. James Z. Peepas
Selecto-Flash, Inc.
P.O. Box 879
Orange, NJ 07051

Dear Mr. Peepas:

We have received your letter of July 9, 1993, to Taylor Vinson of this Office requesting interpretations of the trailer conspicuity requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment.

Your questions are directed towards a 48-foot container chassis, but in a telephone conversation with Mr. Vinson you have explained that a 40-foot container chassis is also involved. For simplicity's sake we shall refer to trailers of both lengths collectively as the "trailer". The gooseneck on the trailer is 8 feet long.

Paragraph S5.7.1.4.2(a) of Standard No. 108 specifies in pertinent part that the side horizontal strip of retroreflective sheeting "need not be continuous as long as not less than half of the length of the trailer is covered." You have asked whether the length of the gooseneck is included in the 50% computation. The answer is yes. The gooseneck is similar to a trailer tongue, and is included in determining the overall length of the trailer for purposes of compliance with Standard No. 108. From the photos you enclosed, we see that retroreflective sheeting has been applied to the gooseneck and the frame rail with approximately the same spacing between segments. If you determine that this configuration meets S5.7.1.4.2(a) without the container load in place, there would be no need to increase the amount of retroreflective sheeting on the trailer behind the gooseneck.

The same paragraph also requires that retroreflective sheeting shall be located "as close as practicable to 1.25 m. above the road surface." You enclosed a photo of a Maersk loaded chassis and note that "because of space limitations, the striping may not be 4 foot (sic) from the road surface." You have asked whether there has been a change in height allowance to compensate for space adjustments. The agency has been petitioned for reconsideration of this specification, and to allow a mounting height as low as the 15 inches originally proposed. We have not reached a determination on this point, and the height remains at 4 feet. However, if the manufacturer of a new trailer determines that something less than 4 feet is "as close as practicable to 1.25 m. above the road surface" with respect to a particular trailer design, it may certify conformance of the trailer with the mounting height requirement on that basis.

Finally, paragraph S5.7.1.4.2(a) requires that the spaces between sheeting be "distributed as evenly as practicable." In a telephone call on July 16, you informed Mr. Vinson that in some instances equal spacing may not be possible because of trailer unit numbers and other identification, and structural characteristics. As we have advised in the preceding paragraph, the requirement is modified by what is practicable under the circumstances.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

NCC-20 ZTVinson:mar:7/l9/93:OCC 8871:62992 cc: NCC-0l Subj/Chron interps. Std. 108; Redbook (3) 8871; ztv; U:\ncc20\interp\108\8871.ztv

ID: 8874

Mr. Cary Klingner
Trison Inc.
1414 Merryview Lane
Hibbing, MN 55746

Dear Mr. Klingner:

We have received your letter of July 12, 1993, with respect to Trison's "Daytime Running Lights" module. You have heard that "federal regulations were modified earlier this year that may affect this concept", and ask whether the device "complies with the regulations."

As you have described it, the product activates the lower beam headlamps whenever the engine is running, and may be overridden by the vehicle's headlamp switch. The module "can be installed by any car owner."

On January 11, 1993, we amended Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment to permit motor vehicles to be manufactured with front lamps (other than parking and fog lamps) wired to operate automatically during daytime. Before the amendment, paragraph S5.5.3 of Standard No. 108 required taillamps to be activated when the headlamps are activated. However, the amendment modified this requirement to state that taillamps "need not be activated if the headlamps are activated at less than full intensity" when in use as daytime running lamps. I enclose a copy of the amendment for your information. We have received petitions for reconsideration of aspects of the rule other than S5.5.3, and it is possible that the standard will eventually be amended in response to them.

The amendment does not establish requirements for aftermarket equipment such as your module. There is no Federal restriction on the sale of the module, but there are restrictions on its installation on new vehicles. A manufacturer, distributor, and dealer of a new motor vehicle must deliver it in full compliance with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. As we understand it, your module would activate the lower beam headlamps at their full intensity, and the taillamps would not be activated until the main headlamp switch was used. This would create a noncompliance with S5.5.3, since the taillamps must be activated when the headlamps are activated at full intensity. In addition, the module also impairs the effectiveness of the taillamps within the meaning of a prohibition imposed by S5.1.3. For these reasons, a manufacturer or dealer could not legally install the module on a new motor vehicle before its sale to its first purchaser for purposes other than resale.

With respect to installation of the module in a vehicle after its first sale, under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Act), no manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business may "render inoperative, in whole or in part," lighting equipment required by Standard No. 108. Because the taillamps apparently will not operate when the lower beam headlamps are activated at full intensity by the module, in our opinion, the taillamps have been rendered inoperative within the meaning of the statutory prohibition.

However, the module can be installed by the vehicle owner. The statutory prohibition does not apply to the vehicle owner, and modifications by the owner are subject only to State law. We are unable to advise you on State laws and recommend that you seek an opinion from the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA 22203.

We do not understand your remark that "Minnesota law only requires that the headlamps be on so with our module no other lights or markers will be illuminated," and believe that your interpretation must be incorrect. Under the Act, if a State has a standard on lighting performance, it must be identical to the Federal standard.

I hope that you find this information helpful.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosure ref:108#VSA

ID: 8877

Ken Simons, Esq.
P.O. Box 883
Fairmont, WV 26555

Dear Mr. Simons:

This responds to your letter asking about brake requirements for trailers used in tractor trailer combinations. I apologize for the delay in our response. You asked whether all such trailers are required to be equipped with "maxi" brakes on one or both axles. You state that a "maxi" brake is found on all road tractors and "sets the brakes automatically when the air pressure gets down to a minimum level." Please note that the term "maxi" brakes ordinarily refers to spring brakes used in parking and emergency brake applications. I further note that most, but not all, trailers are equipped with spring brakes. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our requirements.

By way of background information, under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act ("Safety Act," 15 U.S.C. 1392), the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA does not approve vehicles or equipment. Instead, manufacturers are required to certify that their vehicles or equipment meet all applicable standards.

Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems (49 CFR 571.121, copy enclosed), specifies performance requirements for trucks, buses and trailers equipped with air brake systems. The purpose of the standard is to insure safe braking performance of vehicles under normal and emergency conditions.

While Standard No. 121 does not require manufacturers to use spring brakes or any other particular type of brake system, many manufacturers use spring brakes to comply with the standard's requirements concerning parking brake performance (trucks, buses and trailers; see S5.6), emergency brake performance (trucks and buses only; see S5.7), and trailer pneumatic system failure performance (see S5.8). I note that while the requirements of S5.6 and S5.8 apply to most air- braked trailers, S3 of Standard No. 121 excludes some trailers from all of the standard's requirements. In addition, S5.6 and S5.8 specify alternative requirements for some trailers.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions about NHTSA's safety standards, please feel free to contact Marvin Shaw of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosures

ref:121 d:4/25/94

ID: 8882

October 15, 1993

Mr. Michael F. Hecker Micho Industries Post Office Box 2017 Lompoc, CA 93438

Dear Mr. Hecker:

This responds to your letter concerning our June 29, 1993, letter to your associate, Mr. Michael Dunn, about the R-Bar Passenger Restraint System (R-Bar). The R-Bar, an item of motor vehicle equipment, is a padded restraining device designed to be mounted on the seat backs of school buses to fold down to restrain the passengers in the next rearward seats. You have further questions about the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) and NHTSA regulations, as applied to R-Bars.

In our letter to Mr. Dunn, we addressed several statements that we believed were potentially misleading that Micho made to school officials. These statements include, among other things, that NHTSA has "approved" R-Bars and that R-Bars are certified as complying with Federal safety standards. We noted that, while Micho indicated that it would refrain from suggesting that NHTSA has approved the R-Bars, we sought assurances that Micho would not continue to represent that it can "certify" the compliance of R-Bars.

You ask for clarification of that letter. You state that there "appears to be some confusion" resulting from past correspondence with this agency regarding certification of compliance with applicable FMVSSs. You believe, based on previous correspondence, that the R-Bar must comply with FMVSSs that apply to the school bus seat and "the general safety of school buses," such as school bus exits and flammability resistance. Accordingly, you believe that Micho can properly "certify" the R-Bar to these school bus FMVSSs.

I appreciate this opportunity to clarify our requirements. By way of background, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, 15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq. (Safety Act), authorizes this agency to issue FMVSSs for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. The Safety Act establishes a self-certification system whereby the manufacturer of the vehicle or item of equipment is responsible for exercising due care in certifying that the product will, if tested as specified in the applicable FMVSSs, meet the safety requirements in the standards applicable to the product. 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 of the manufacturer.

Because of the self-certification system established by law, NHTSA can neither approve, disapprove, endorse, nor offer assurances of compliance for any product in advance of the manufacturer's certification of the product. Rather, this agency enforces the standards after the fact by purchasing a vehicle or item of equipment in the retail market and conducting the compliance tests specified in the pertinent standards. The agency also investigates safety-related defects. If a manufacturer or NHTSA determines that a noncompliance or safety-related defect exists, the manufacturer is responsible for notifying purchasers of its product and remedying the problem free of charge. The recall responsibility for noncomplying or defective vehicles is borne by the vehicle manufacturer in cases in which a product is installed on a new vehicle by that vehicle manufacturer.

As stated in our previous letters to your company, there are no FMVSSs specifically applicable to R-Bars. Our school bus FMVSSs apply to whole vehicles, rather than to individual items of school bus equipment. If R-Bars are installed as original equipment on a new school bus, the vehicle manufacturer is required by the Safety Act to certify that, with the devices installed, the vehicle complies with all applicable safety standards, including Standard 222, School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection (49 CFR 571.222); Standard 217, Bus Window Retention and Release (571.217); Standard 302, Flammability of Interior Materials (571.302); and, with regard to small school buses, the pertinent provisions of Standard 208, Occupant Crash Protection (571.208). 15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(1), 15 U.S.C. 1403, and 49 CFR Part 567. Because these FMVSSs apply to the vehicle, there are no standards to which Micho can, or must, certify compliance.

If the R-Bars are added to a previously-certified new school bus prior to its first sale to a customer, the person who so modifies the vehicle would be an "alterer" of a previously certified new vehicle. As an alterer, the person would be required to certify that, as altered, the vehicle continued to comply with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. 49 CFR 567.7.

The vehicle manufacturer or alterer that installs an R-Bar may, in order to meet its duty to exercise due care, in part rely on information from you concerning the R-Bar's performance characteristics, to the extent such reliance is reasonable. Since compliance with Standard 222 appears to be a significant concern with respect to the installation of R-Bars, you might wish to test a bus or buses equipped with an R-Bar, using the test procedures set out in Standard 222. The results of such tests might be useful to a school bus manufacturer in determining whether it could certify a school bus equipped with R-Bars as complying with Standard 222.

If R-Bars were installed on a used school bus, the installer would not be required to attach a certification label. However, a manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or motor vehicle repair business would be required to ensure that by installing the R-Bars, the installer did not knowingly render inoperative, in whole or in part, any device or element of design installed on or in the vehicle in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard. See 15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A). In this case, the installer would be responsible for ensuring that the R-Bars did not cause the school bus to fail to comply with any safety standards, including but not limited to the standards enumerated above.

This agency has addressed various compliance issues and other safety concerns applicable to R-Bars and similar devices on a number of occasions in the past. As we stated in a letter to Mr. Kenneth A. Gallo dated February 19, 1993, (copy enclosed) the agency believes that the concept of using "safety bars" as occupant restraining devices in school buses raises significant safety concerns, including whether the bar could result in excessive loads (e.g., abdominal, leg, or chest) on occupants during a crash, as a result of contact between the bar and the occupants. We explained in a July 14, 1992, letter to you (copy enclosed) that the vehicle in which R-Bars are installed must meet the requirements of Standard 222 with the device in any position in which it may be placed. We have said that if a padded restraining device similar to the R-Bar is attached to the seat back, it becomes part of the seat and the device, as folded into its position, must not intrude into the leg protection zone described in S5.3.2 of Standard 222 (NHTSA letter of January 31, 1991, to Mr. Scott Hiler, enclosed). Also enclosed are NHTSA letters of March 10, 1989, and November 3, 1988, to Mr. Joseph Nikoll, which discuss issues concerning installation of "safety bars" in small school buses in addition to or in lieu of the seat belts required by Standard 208.

You asked for our comments on two statements you intend to make to your customers. The first statement is that there are no FMVSSs directly applicable to R-Bars. As discussed above, that statement is correct. The second statement is that, when properly installed, R-Bars will not violate any standard or regulation or render inoperative any safety feature on a school bus. NHTSA lacks information on which to assess the accuracy of that statement. However, it appears unlikely that you could provide such assurances for school buses in general, since the question of whether adding R-Bars would result in a school bus no longer complying with safety standards is likely to depend, at least in part, on factors specific to a particular school bus, such as the seats, floor, etc. Accordingly, absent data to substantiate this statement for all bus configurations and potential installation procedures, we believe that is would not be proper for you to make such a statement.

I hope this resolves the issues raised in your letter.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosures

ref:222#571#VSA d:10/15/93

ID: 8899

Mr. Calin Moldovean
Vehicle Technology Engineer
TUV America, Inc.
5 Cherry Hill Drive
Danvers, MA 01923

Dear Mr. Moldovean:

This responds to your inquiry asking about how this agency's regulations would apply to the introduction into the United States of a new "aftermarket" gas cap. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our regulations to you. I am also enclosing a copy of a fact sheet entitled "Information for New Manufacturers of Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Equipment."

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized to issue Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA is not authorized to certify or approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment for compliance with the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. Instead, under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, each manufacturer of a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards.

There is currently no Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard that is directly applicable to a replacement gas cap. Nevertheless, you should be aware of Safety Standard No. 301, Fuel System Integrity, which may be relevant to the product in question. Standard No. 301 applies only to new motor vehicles and specifies performance requirements that must be met by the fuel system as a whole following crash tests. The standard does not apply to individual components of a fuel system or to aftermarket equipment for use on fuel systems.

Although Standard No. 301 would not directly apply to a replacement gas cap, there are responsibilities under Federal law of which you should be aware. Manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment, which includes gas caps, are subject to the requirements in sections 151-159 of the Safety Act concerning the recall and remedy of products with defects relating to motor vehicle safety.

In addition, there are prohibitions against certain modifications of new and used vehicles. Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act specifies 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 new or used motor vehicle in compliance with any applicable Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard. Therefore, no person in any of the aforementioned categories may place the gas cap on a motor vehicle if by so doing the vehicle's compliance with Standard No. 301 were negatively affected. Whether your gas cap could be installed on a vehicle by a person in one of those categories without taking the vehicle out of compliance with Standard No. 301 or any other applicable Federal safety standard is a determination that must be made by the entity making the installation.

Please note that the prohibition of 108(a)(2)(A) does not apply to individual vehicle owners who alter their own vehicles. Thus, under Federal law, a vehicle owner may install or remove any item of motor vehicle equipment regardless of its effect on compliance with the Federal safety standards. However, the agency encourages vehicle owners not to remove or otherwise tamper with vehicle safety equipment if the modification would degrade the vehicle's safety.

We suggest that you also contact the Environmental Protection Agency to see whether EPA has any type of emissions standard that might affect you as the manufacturer of a gas cap. The general telephone number for EPA is (202) 382-2090.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions about NHTSA's safety standards, please feel free to contact Marvin Shaw of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosure ref:301 d:8/18/93

ID: 8902

Mr. Joel Trim
Manager
Mechanical Service Department
Neal & Massy Motors
P.O. Box 1298
Port of Spain
Trinidad, West Indies

Dear Mr. Trim:

We have received your letter of July 7, 1993, asking the Secretary of Transportation for assistance in obtaining copies of any regulations and standards that govern the certification and operation of modified vehicles (stretch limousines), kit cars, and homemade vehicles. Your country, Trinidad, has no such regulations.

Under the dual Federal-State system of government in the United States, the registration, inspection, and operation of motor vehicles is a State function. We are unable to advise you on the laws of the individual States, but you may find assistance by writing the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA 22203.

Federal regulation of motor vehicles is primarily concerned with establishing and enforcing standards to be met when the vehicle is manufactured, the Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS). With one minor exception the United States has no laws or regulations that apply specifically to the types of vehicles you have named. I am pleased, however, to explain how we have treated them over the years in the interpretive letters we have written.

A. Modified vehicles As you may know, each vehicle manufactured for sale in the United States must bear its manufacturer's label certifying that it complies with all FMVSS. If a vehicle is modified after it has left the factory and before it is sold, the modifier is required to affix its own label stating that the vehicle as modified complies with all FMVSS affected by the alteration. However, this label is not required if the modifications are minor changes affecting readily attachable equipment items. Further, under our law, no label is required if the vehicle is modified after it has been sold. I enclose a copy of our certification regulation, 49 CFR Part 567 and call your attention to Section 567.7 Requirements for persons who alter certified vehicles.

We have discovered instances in which modified vehicles (stretch limos) failed to conform to the FMVSS on braking and passenger protection. In accordance with our procedures, the modifiers were required to correct the noncompliances and to pay civil penalties for their violations.

B. Kit cars We have no definition of "kit cars" but we understand them to be passenger cars consisting of a mixture of old and new parts, assembled into vehicle form by either the supplier or purchaser of a kit of motor vehicle equipment. Some of the FMVSS apply to individual equipment items (for example, tires, glazing, seat belt assemblies), and if these items are new and furnished with the kit, they will have been certified by their manufacturers. If the vehicle is assembled entirely from new parts, the kit supplier must furnish certification with the kit that, when assembled, the vehicle will comply with all applicable FMVSS. However, if the vehicle is manufactured incorporating a number of previously used parts, particularly involving the chassis and/or drive train, we generally have considered the vehicle to be a used one, and none of the FMVSS that apply to new completed vehicles (as contrasted with those that apply to equipment items) apply to it.

In order to be registered for use, a kit car must meet the requirements of the State of licensing.

C. Homemade cars We have no definition of a "homemade car" but we understand such a vehicle to be a "one-off" and not intended for production. The FMVSS apply to every newly manufactured vehicle without exception, so that a vehicle built in a series of one must conform to the FMVSS if it is constructed entirely from new parts, and if the agency has not exempted it from compliance.

A homemade car must meet the requirements of the State where it is to be licensed.

For your information, I am also enclosing a booklet containing a brief description of each FMVSS, and an order blank for "Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations Parts 400-999" which contains the complete text of the FMVSS. If you have any further questions on this subject, we will be happy to answer them.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosures ref:567 d:9/27/93

ID: 8907ar2

Mr. Richard G. Meier
Deputy Assistant
Office of the U.S. Trade Representative
600 17th Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20506

Dear Mr. Meier:

This letter follows up on the July 23, 1993, meeting in which you and Ms. Suzanne Troje discussed with representatives of this agency concerns of the Mexican Government that tires produced in Mexico for sale in the U.S. must be labeled in English and tested in Texas.

We would like to explain our regulations and correct an apparent misimpression of the Mexican government. Tires manufactured for sale in the United States must be labeled with safety and consumer information that is required by statute (the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act) and by regulation. The regulations require that the information be in English.

There is no available exception to the English labeling requirement for the safety information, but there is an exception to the consumer information requirement of our uniform tire quality grading standards (UTQGS, copy enclosed). The UTQGS do not apply to "limited production tires," as defined in that standard. This exception could provide the basis for a Mexican tire manufacturer to import a limited number of tires into this country to assess the market. However, the annual importation of that tire into the U.S. must not exceed 15,000 tires. To qualify as a limited production tire, neither the annual production of that tire in the U.S. nor the importation of that tire into the U.S. by a manufacturer or brand name owner may exceed 15,000 tires (49 CFR 575.104(c)(2)(i) and (ii)). In addition, the tire's size cannot have been listed by a vehicle manufacturer as the recommended tire size designation for a new motor vehicle produced in or imported into the U.S. in quantities greater than 10,000 during the calendar year preceding the year of the tire's manufacture (49 CFR 575.104(c)(2)(iii)). Finally, while a manufacturer or brand name owner may produce or import several different types or sizes of tires as limited production tires, the total number of tires that the manufacturer or brand name owner may produce or import is limited to 35,000 tires.

The UTQGS do not require that manufacturers test their tires at this agency's test track at San Angelo, Texas. Manufacturers may test their tires where they choose, and may even choose not to test their products at all. However, the specification in the UTQGS regulations that testing is done at San Angelo means that NHTSA must use that track in any compliance testing of tires. In order to protect themselves against the possibility that the agency will find a noncompliance based on testing at San Angelo and initiate an enforcement action, it would be prudent for tire manufacturers to base their assigned grades on their own testing at San Angelo or on some substitute means whose results demonstrably correlate with the results of testing at San Angelo.

We hope this information is helpful. For your information, I have attached a general information sheet discussing NHTSA's requirements for new manufacturers. Please let us know if we can be of further assistance.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel Enclosure

ref:109#119#575 d:10/1/93

ID: 8935

Air Mail

Mr. Reuven Koter Director Baran Advanced Technologies Ltd. P.O. Box 3153 Beer Sheva 84131 Israel

Dear Mr. Koter:

We are replying to your FAX of July 21, 1993, to Mr. Van Iderstine of this agency, and are enclosing a copy of SAE J590b as you requested.

You have asked us to identify the U.S. regulations pertaining to turn signal and hazard warning signal lights including tell-tales. The applicable regulation is Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment. Standard No. 108 incorporates by reference many SAE materials, including those regarding flashers. In addition to SAE J590b (turn signal flasher, with the exceptions noted in S5.1.1.19 and S5.1.1.20 of Standard No. 108) Standard No. 108 incorporates SAE J589 (turn signal operating unit, with the exception noted in S5.1.1.13), SAE J588 (turn signal lamps for vehicles less than 2032 mm in overall width and J1395 for wider vehicles), J910 (vehicular hazard warning signal operating unit) and J945 (vehicular hazard warning signal flasher). The turn signal pilot indicator specifications are at paragraph 5.4.3 in SAE J588 and J1395. NHTSA is not contemplating rulemaking concerning any of these requirements.

We understand from Mr. Van Iderstine that you are contemplating manufacturing a device that senses the sudden release of the accelerator pedal and activates the hazard warning lamp system. Under Standard No. 108, this device is permissible as original vehicle equipment (i.e. installed at the factory, or by the dealer before sale) if it does not impair the effectiveness of any of the lighting equipment that is required by Standard No. 108. We assume that the device would be automatically deactivated when the brake pedal is applied and that manual deactivation is not required. We further assume that the device is not activated under normal stopping conditions.

Finally, we assume that manual activation of the turn signals will override the device should it be operating at the time the turn signal control is activated. Under these assumptions, we do not believe that the device would impair the effectiveness of the stop, tail, and turn signal lamps required by Standard No. 108. However, the judgment of impairment is one made by the person installing the device who must certify (or ensure that the certification remains valid) that the vehicle incorporating the device complies with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. Unless that judgment is clearly erroneous, NHTSA will not question it.

Mr. Van Iderstine advises that no further details are currently available on ECE agenda item "Regulation No. 48."

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosure

ref:108 d:9/7/93