ID: nht75-3.10

DATE: 06/02/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Robert L. Carter; NHTSA

TO: Tiger Tanks; Division of Faull Enterprises, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Thank you for your letter of April 28, 1975, concerning the manufacture and installation of replacement tanks for Dodge, Ford, and Chevrolet vans.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has promulgated no motor vehicle safety standard relating to replacement fuel tanks. There is, however, a safety standard which imposes performance requirements upon motor vehicles with regard to their fuel systems (Standard No. 301, Fuel System Integrity). Thus, if installation of your replacement tank is accomplished prior to the first purchase of the vehicle for purposes other than resale causing the vehicle's fuel system not to be in compliance with the applicable safety standard, the person installing the tank or offering the vehicle for sale would be in violation of @ 108(a)(1) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Pub. L. 89-563). That would make the installer or seller subject to civil penalties of up to $ 1,000 for each violation.

Recent amendments to the Traffic Safety Act (Pub. L. 93-492) prohibit any manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business from knowingly rendering 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 motor vehicle safety standard (@ 108(a)(2)(A)). Therefore, even if installation of your replacement tank occurred after the first purchase of the vehicle, the vehicle's compliance with the fuel system integrity standard would still be mandatory where one of the above named persons performed the installation. If the replacement tank caused the fuel system to no longer comply with the safety standard, the installer would have rendered inoperative a system installed in compliance with Standard 301.

The Traffic Safety Act authorizes the Secretary of Transportation to make determinations as to whether items of motor vehicle equipment contain defects which relate to motor vehicle safety. If he finds that a safety-related defect exists, he may compel the manufacturer to remedy the defect and notify purchasers of the hazard. Therefore, even though replacement fuel tanks are not the subject of a standard, they still must be designed for safety.

In addition, the Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety regulates interstate carriers, including fuel systems for operational and auxiliary equipment. These regulations might be of interest to you and are enclosed. Your attention is directed to the section concerning fuel systems, pages 51 through 54.

SINCERELY,

April 28, 1975

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Department of Transportation

We wish to be informed as to what information is required of us to obtain your approval on our replacement fuel tank for Dodge, Ford and Chevy vans.

We are currently approved by the State of California Air Resources Board for the manufacturing installation and distribution of our fuel tank. (enclosure)

Our replacement fuel tank does not alter or change any standard fuel system or structual entities of the vehicle.

We are only adding an additional fuel capacity.

We are currently negotiating a contract with a company who is placing quite a large order and they are requesting that we have your approval.

We have checked with Ford Motor Company, Chrysler Corporation and General Motors Corporation and they have informed us that we do not need any approvals from them.

Thanking you in advance.

Alfred H. Faull President

Tiger Tanks Division of Faull Enterprises, Inc.

A Division of Faull Enterprises, Inc.

REPLACEMENT FUEL TANKS FOR DODGE, FORD, CHEVY VANS AND MINI MOTOR HOMES

* Construction of long ternes steel-lead coated inside and out.

* Made of the same metal as the Ford Motor Company. The Chrysler Corporation and General Motors Corporation use on all original fuel tanks.

* Construction of heavy duty 16 guage steel.

* Seam welded.

* New sending unit and mounting hardware included.

* Connects back to original equipment.

* Pressure tested.

* No inside oil coating to dissolve.

* No plastic lining to peel and clog fuel lines and carburetors.

* No rusting to clog carburetors.

* No exterior paint to peel and cause rusting.

* Approved by the California Air Resourse Board. MODEL WHEELBASE YEAR APPROX. CAPACITY - DODGE ALL WHEELBASE 70-75 48 gallons net FORD ALL WHEELBASE 68-75 46 gallons net CHEVY/GMC ALL WHEELBASE 71-75 45 gallons nets

O.E.M. SUGGESTED RETAIL $ 79.00 not installed $ 125.00 not installed $ 105.00 installed $ 150.00 installed

F.O.B. Carson, Calif. Terms are C.O.D.

Prices subject to change without notice.

Orders of 10 or more units - $ 69.95 per unit.

State of California AIR RESOURCES BOARD

EXECUTIVE ORDER F-39 Relating to the Accreditation of Auxiliary Gasoline Fuel Tank Evaporative Loss Control System

TIGER TANKS DIVISION OF FAULL ENTERPRISES INC.

Pursuant to the authority vested in the Air Resources Board by Sections 39106.5 and 39175 of the Health and Safety Code; and

Pursuant to the authority vested in the undersigned by Section 39023 of the Health and Safety Code;

IT IS ORDERED AND RESOLVED: That Tiger Tanks auxiliary gasoline fuel tank evaporative loss control system is accredited for installation on vehicles subject to evaporative emission control requirements and originally equipped with activated carbon canister type control systems.

This accreditation is for systems serving up to 100 gallons of total fuel storage. For each 50 gallons of fuel storage capacity the vapors shall be vented to a 500 to 625 gram capacity activated carbon vapor storage canister.

This Executive Order shall, without further action by the Executive Officer, cease to be of effect if fuel evaporative loss emission standards more stringent than those in effect on the date of this Order are established and made applicable to any vehicle for which the manufacturer's system is hereby accredited, unless prior thereto the manufacturer applies for and obtains from the Executive Officer, based upon a showing that its system complies with such more stringent standards, an appropriate amendment to this Order or a new Executive Order.

The manufacturer must obtain prior approval from the Air Resources Board before any production changes are made on the gasoline fuel evaporative loss control system that would affect evaporative emissions, or before the system is sold, offered for sale, or advertised under a different name, whether by the manufacturer or any other person.

The Department of Motor Vehicles, the California Highway Patrol, and the Bureau of Automotive Repair will be notified by copy of this order and attachment.

Executed at Sacramento, California, this 10th day of December, 1974.

GEORGE J. TAYLOR

WILLIAM SIMMONS FOR Executive Officer

NET GALLONS 48

(Graphics omitted)

NET GALLONS 46

LONG WHEEL BASE ONLY

NET GALLONS 45

ID: nht90-2.74

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/05/90

FROM: STEPHEN P. WOOD -- ACTING CHIEF COUNSEL NHTSA

TO: RAYMOND D. STRAKOSCH PRESIDENT SAFETY PREMIUMS

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 04/25/90 WITH COMPANY BROCHURE ON AUTOMOBILE TRIANGLE DEVICE, FROM RAYMOND D. STRAKOSCH -- SAFETY PREMIUMS TO JOHN MESSERA -- NHTSA

TEXT: Thank you for your letter to John Messera, of our Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, seeking an interpretation of Standard No. 125, Warning Devices (49 CFR @ 571.125). You indicated that you have for many years produced and sold a "Signal Glo Car Door Mirror Clip On," which you described as a "dangling safety tag which attaches to the car mirror to alert passersby of emergency needs." These warning devices are made of a reflective plastic material designed with a clip attachment, and come in eight di fferent shapes, including a triangular configuration. These products are slightly more than four inches high.

You also stated that, pursuant to a request from a customer, your company has developed a larger size warning triangle for mounting on a car mirror. You have provided a prototype of this new larger size "Lite at Nite" Reflective Auto Triangle, that is a pproximately 6" at the base and 5 1/2" in height. You stated that, as your warning triangle gets larger, you "wish to make sure it is not confused with the roadside truck version described in Standard No. 125." Additionally, you stated that you wanted t o be certain that the instructions for this larger size warning triangle "in no way conflict with the standard." I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our law and regulations to you.

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.; the Safety Act) gives this agency the authority to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. This agency has exercised thi s authority to establish Standard No. 125. Section 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 pre sence of a stopped vehicle, except for devices designed to be permanently affixed to the vehicle." (Emphasis added.)

2

This language in S3 of Standard No. 125 makes clear that the standard's requirements are not limited to devices used by large trucks; that is, Standard No. 125 does not apply only to a "roadside truck version" of a warning device. Instead, the standard a pplies to all devices designed to be carried in any motor vehicle, from the smallest motorcycle to the largest truck, if the device satisfies the other conditions set forth in S3 of the standard.

One of the conditions set forth in S3 is that the device must be designed to be used to "warn approaching traffic of a stopped vehicle." Devices that are not intended to warn approaching traffic of a stopped vehicle, but only to alert passing traffic of the stopped vehicle's need for assistance, are not subject to Standard No. 125. Examples of such devices include a rag tied on a radio antenna and a "HELP" message printed on a folding cardboard sunshade. By the time approaching traffic sees one of the se non-warning devices, the traffic would already be aware that the vehicle displaying such a device was stopped.

Your "Signal Glo Car Door Mirror Clip On" product appears to be designed and to function in the same way other non-warning devices do; i.e., it does not appear to be intended to warn approaching traffic of a stopped vehicle, but to alert passing traffic that the stopped vehicle needs assistance. If this is the case, the "Signal Glo Car Door Mirror Clip On" would not be subject to Standard No. 125.

However, the larger "Lite at Nite" Reflective Auto Triangle may be designed to be used to "warn approaching traffic of a stopped vehicle." It appears from the promotional material enclosed in your letter that this larger triangle is intended to serve the same purpose as what you call "truck warning triangles." We assume that you are describing warning devices that are certified as complying with Standard No. 125. If your larger triangle is to serve this function, it would be subject to Standard No. 125 and would have to conform to all the requirements of the standard. From the enclosed copy of Standard No. 125, you will see that some of the specific requirements with which the larger triangle must conform include minimum size, durability, material, c ontainer, labeling, configuration, color, reflectivity, luminance, and stability.

When the agency has issued an applicable safety standard, section 108(a)(1)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(1)(A)) provides that no person shall "manufacture for sale, sell, offer for sale, or introduce or deliver for introduction in interstate c ommerce, or import into the United States" any new motor vehicle or new item of motor vehicle equipment unless the vehicles or equipment are in conformity with the applicable standard. Further, the Safety Act provides that NHTSA has no authority to appr ove, certify, or otherwise endorse any commercial product. Instead, section 114 of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1403) establishes a self-certification process under which every manufacturer is required to certify that each of its products meet all applicab le Federal safety standards. To comply with any applicable legal obligations, especially in connection with the manufacturer of the larger size warning triangle, I suggest that you carefully examine the requirements of Standard 125 and consider the desi gn, marketing, and intended use of the new larger warning triangle.

3

You should also be aware that the Safety Act establishes a civil penalty of $ 1,000 for each violation of a safety standard and a maximum penalty of $ 800,000 for a series of violations. In addition, the Act requires manufacturers to notify purchasers a nd remedy any items of motor vehicle equipment, such as warning devices, that do not conform with any applicable safety standards.

I have also enclosed an information sheet for new manufacturers of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment, that briefly summarizes our laws and regulations and explains how to get copies of those laws and regulations. If you have any further questio ns 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.

ENCLOSURES

ID: nht88-2.38

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 05/31/88

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA

TO: TERRY E. QUINN -- CORPORATE DIRECTOR OF QUALITY HEHR INTERNATIONAL, INC.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 10/16/86 FROM ERIKA Z JONES TO EDWARD T FENNELL JR; LETTER DATED 09/18/87 FROM TERRY B QUINN TO NHTSA; OCC 1128

TEXT: 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 us ed 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 a sked 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 qu estion 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 ma nufactured 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 man ufacturers 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" a nd 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 glaz ing 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 t o 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 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 lett er 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 purc hasing 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.

ENCLOSURE

ID: 17168.wkm

Mr. Roy Hinz
Marketing Resources
Tire Pressure Control International, Ltd.
15803-121 A Avenue
Edmonton, Alberta, Canada T5V 1B1

Dear Mr. Hinz:

Please pardon the delay in responding to your letter addressed to Walter Myers of my staff in which you asked for "U.S. federal approval" of your REDLINE-ELTEK Tire Pressure Control (TPC) System. Please be advised that this agency cannot give Federal approval of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment, as explained below.

You stated that TPC International, a Canada-based company, manufactures and distributes the TPC system in Canada, New Zealand, and Australia. You now want to enter the U.S. market. You stated that your TPC system integrates with the vehicle's existing compressed air supply system. It has five component assemblies: a computer in the cab that lets the driver change pressures and warns of any problems; air priority valves that protect the air brake system; control air valves; air lines to and from the control valves; and axle-end rotary hardware that transmits air into and out of the tires even while the tires are rotating. If the driver wants to open the inflate control valve, air is provided from the wet tank into the TPC system. Air can be exhausted from the tires through the deflate valves. Priority switches ensure that air is available for tire inflation only when air brake pressure in the system is above a safe level, typically 90 psi. A computer continuously monitors tire pressure, thus inflating, deflating, or maintaining a pre-selected tire pressure. The system monitors vehicle speed and if the vehicle is going too fast and risking tire damage, the system warns the driver to slow down or choose another mode. If the driver ignores the warnings, the system is programmed to automatically select a mode more suitable for higher speeds. You indicated an intent to make your system available both as original equipment on new vehicles and as aftermarket add-ons, and asked how individual states within the U.S. would view our Federal recommendations.

By way of background information, Chapter 301 of Title 49, U.S. Code (hereinafter "Safety Act") authorizes this agency to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. The Safety Act establishes a self-certification system in which vehicle and equipment manufacturers certify that their products comply with all applicable FMVSSs. This agency enforces the FMVSSs after the fact by purchasing vehicles and equipment at retail and testing them for compliance with the standards. If the vehicles or equipment pass, no further action is taken. If they do not pass, or if the manufacturer or the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) determines that a noncompliance or defect exists, the manufacturer must notify purchasers of its product and remedy the problem at no expense to the customer. This responsibility would be borne by the vehicle manufacturer in cases in which your TPC system is installed as original equipment on a new vehicle. If the TPC system is marketed in the U.S. as an aftermarket item, the notification and remedy responsibilities would be borne by the TPC system manufacturer, which is defined to include the importer of equipment produced outside the United States. Any manufacturer that fails to provide notification of or remedy for a noncompliance or defect may be subject to substantial civil penalties.

Because of the self-certification system established by the Safety Act, this agency cannot approve, disapprove, endorse, or give assurances of compliance of your TPC system prior to its introduction into the U.S. retail market. If your TPC system is installed as original equipment on a new vehicle, the vehicle manufacturer is responsible for certifying that the vehicle complies with all applicable FMVSSs with the device installed. If the TPC system is installed on a used vehicle by a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business, that person or business is prohibited from making inoperative any device or element of design that was originally installed on or in the vehicle pursuant to any FMVSS.

We do not have an FMVSS applicable to a system such as the TPC system. However, FMVSS No. 121, Air brake systems (49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 571.121) (copy enclosed) specifies performance and equipment requirements for braking systems on motor vehicles that are equipped with air brake systems. That standard does not prohibit the use of air pressure from the brake air supply to operate other items of equipment, but doing so could affect the vehicle's compliance with the brake standard.

The hoses connected to the TPC system could be subject to FMVSS No. 106, Brake hoses (49 CFR 571.106) (copy enclosed). Such hoses would be subject to the standard if they transmit or contain the air pressure used to apply force to a vehicle's brakes, or stated another way, if a failure of the hose would result in a loss of air pressure in the brake system. If this were the case, the hoses are "brake hoses" and must comply with FMVSS No. 106. If a check valve or other device is used so that the braking system is not affected by a leakage failure in your TPC system, then the hose would not be considered to contain or transmit brake air pressure and would not be required to comply with FMVSS No. 106.

With respect to your question about how the various states would view Federal recommendations, the Safety Act provides that states and political subdivisions thereof may specify a motor vehicle safety standard only if that standard is identical to the Federal standard. In other words, the FMVSSs preempt any state motor vehicle safety requirements that address the same aspects of motor vehicle performance, except that the U.S. and state governments may require a higher standard of performance on vehicles or equipment procured for their own use, such as school buses.

In addition to the requirements discussed above, should you market your TPC system in the U.S., you would be required by 49 CFR Part 566 (copy enclosed) to submit to NHTSA your name, address, and a brief description of the item or items of equipment that you manufacture. This requirement applies to the information from foreign manufacturers of covered equipment (any vehicle or item of equipment, except tires, to which an FMVSS applies) supplying its products to a domestic or foreign vehicle manufacturer selling its vehicles in the U.S. (See enclosed copy of NHTSA letter to Mr. Virve Airola, dated May 31, 1990).

Finally, if you market your TPC system in the U.S., you would be required by 49 CFR Part 551, Subpart D (copy enclosed) to designate a permanent resident of the U.S. as your resident agent for the service of legal process. Such agent can be a person, a firm, or a domestic corporation. Subsection 551.45(b) specifies the form and contents of the designation. However, you would not be required to designate a resident agent if you only supplied your TPC system to a foreign vehicle manufacturer, even if that foreign manufacturer installed your TPC system in vehicles manufactured for sale in the U.S.

Finally, for your additional information, I am enclosing two fact sheets entitled Information for New Manufacturers of Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Equipment, and Where to Obtain NHTSA's Safety Standards and Regulations.

We are forwarding your letter with its enclosed product overview to the U. S. Federal Highway Administration for its review. That agency issues the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations which establish safety standards applicable to vehicles-in-use in interstate commerce.

I hope this information is helpful to you. Should you have any further questions or need additional information, feel free to contact Mr. Myers at this address at (202) 366-2992, or by fax at (202) 366-3820.

Sincerely,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
Enclosures
Ref:106#121
d.4/29/98

ID: 77-3.42

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/03/77

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Joseph J. Levin Jr.; NHTSA

TO: Cantey; Hanger; Gooch; Munn; & Collins

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your March 1, 1977, letter asking whether your client, a company that manufactures, distributes, and sometimes installs air conditioners and cruise control units on automobiles prior to first purchase for purposes other than resale, must comply with the certification and other requirements of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA).

Section 114 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (the Act) (15 U.S.C. 1381, 1403) requires that motor vehicle and motor vehicle equipment manufacturers certify that each vehicle or item of equipment conforms to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. There are no standards applicable to air conditioners or cruise controls. Thus, your client would not be required to certify the equipment he manufactures.

Your client may, however, have certification responsibilities as prescribed in the regulation issued under Section 114 (49 CFR Part 567, Certification) in his capacity as installer of air conditioners or cruise controls if such installation places him within the status of "alterer," as that term is defined in Part 567.7. This would occur if the installation of the equipment, prior to the vehicle's first purchase for purposes other than resale, either altered the vehicle's gross vehicle weight rating or gross axle weight rating or was the installation of a nonreadily attachable component.

It is unlikely that the installation of an air conditioning unit would alter the gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR). GVWR is defined in 49 CFR Part 571.3 as "the value specified by the vehicle manufacturer as the loaded weight of a single vehicle." The installation of air conditioners or cruise controls may, however, constitute an installation of equipment which is not readily attachable or may exceed the gross axle weight rating. If this is the case, your client would have to comply with the requirements of Part 567.7. To ascertain whether the installation involves readily attachable components such factors as the intricacy of installation, and the need for special expertise or tools must be taken into consideration.

You ask whether your client would be required to comply with 49 CFR Part 566, Manufacturer Identification. This part applies to manufacturers of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment to which a safety standard applies. Since no safety standards apply to the equipment manufactured by your client, he would not be required to comply with this regulation in his capacity as an equipment manufacturer. Further, the NHTSA has determined by interpretation that vehicle alterers need not comply with Part 566. Similarly, 49 CFR Part 568, Vehicles Manufactured in Two or More Stages, may not apply to your client, since the installation of an air conditioner or a cruise control would not make your client an incomplete vehicle manufacturer, an intermediate manufacturer, or a final stage manufacturer of vehicles as those terms are defined in the regulation (568.3). Your client might have responsibilities under Part 568.8 as a vehicle alterer, however.

You should note that if your client is considered an alterer, as defined in Part 567 or Part 568 he would be considered a manufacturer for purposes of notification and recall for defects or noncompliances resulting from his installations (the Act, Section 151 et seq.).

If we can be of further assistance do not hesitate to contact us.

SINCERELY,

CANTEY, HANGER, GOOCH, MUNN & COLLINS

March 1, 1977

David Fay Engineering Systems Staff National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Our firm represents a company which manufactures and distributes auto air-conditioning units and which sometimes installs such units along with cruise control devices on automobiles before they are sold for the first time at retail. This company is most desirous of complying with all applicable Federal Rules and Regulations governing their area of activity.

Our attention has been drawn to 15 USCS Section 1403, entitled "Certification of vehicle or equipment as to conformity with safety standards." This statute seems to require every manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment to certify that each item of such equipment conforms to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards, and that such certification may be in the form of a label or tag on such item or on the outside of the container in which such item is delivered. The Regulations do not appear to address manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment unless such equipment is the subject of one of the safety standards set forth in the Regulations. The statute is not so narrowly drawn and our question is whether we must comply with it in the event that there are no safety standards which apply to air conditioners.

Our next question concerns Part 566 of Title 49, Transportation Regulations. Part 566 requires manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment, to which a motor vehicle safety standard applies, to submit identifying information and a description of the items they produce to the Administrator, The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. After reading the safety standards set forth in the Title 49 Regulations, I was unable to find any which would apply to air conditioners, and I would like for you to confirm this for me.

Of perhaps greater importance than the problems listed above, is the one which arises out of Part 567 and 568 of said Title 49, Transportation Regulations. The language therein, taken literally, is very broad; nevertheless, it is not without ambiguity. 567.2 states that this part applies to manufacturers and distributors of motor vehicles, to which one or more standards are applicable. This statement creates two issues:

1. Is a company which installs automobile air conditioners and cruise control units a manufacturer of motor vehicles?

2. Are there any standards which would apply to them?

Another question we have is whether or not the installation of these devices would subject the installer to the requirements imposed upon manufacturers of vehicles manufactured in two or more stages. I was under the impression that the special rules governing manufacturers of vehicles manufactured in two or more stages were designed to cover cement trucks, campers and the like; however, the literal reading of the definition might cover the installation of the accessories in question, and we would like to get your opinion on this subject.

Finally, we are concerned with 567.7, entitled "Requirements for persons who alter certified vehicles." We would like your opinion as to whether or not the installation of either an automobile air conditioner or a cruise control device, or both, would constitute an alteration sufficient to require the type of label specified in this Regulation.

If such a label is required, to what extent must the gross vehicle weight be altered before the modified values provided in the forms specified in Sections 567.4(g) (3) and (5) apply? In that regard, we would like to know if the gross vehicle weight "rating" means something different than the gross vehicle weight. It occurs to me that the weight "rating" may refer to certain categories of variously weighted vehicles. For example, vehicles over 5,000 pounds and under 10,000 pounds, or over 10,000 pounds or under 15,000 pounds, for each of which classes of vehicles a different safety standard might perhaps apply.

We believe that the statutes and Regulations above referred to constitute all of those to which we might possibly be subject. If there are any others, of which you are aware, we would appreciate your calling same to our attention.

We are awaiting your response before undertaking the task of having special labels printed up, installed, etc., and would appreciate it if you would respond as soon as you are able.

Noel C. Ice

cc: JOE BURKETT -- AMC AIR CONDITIONING CO.

ID: nht91-6.35

DATE: October 23, 1991

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Phil Lanam -- City of Ukiah Fire Department

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 8-19-91 from Phil Lanam to Taylor Vinson (OCC 6412); Also attached to letter dated 3-4-80 from Frank Berndt to Joe Cain

TEXT:

This responds to your letter about the installation of new standard "S" cam air brakes on a 1978 Ford truck. You explained that because you were having problems with the vehicle's anti-skid system, you were planning to replace it with a new braking system. As discussed below, Federal law does not prohibit you or a commercial business from replacing the anti-skid system with a standard current brake system.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under the National Highway Traffic and Motor Vehicle-Safety Act (Safety Act), it is the responsibility of the manufacturer to ensure that its motor vehicles or items of equipment comply with all applicable standards. The following represents our opinion based on the facts provided in your letter.

The agency has issued Federal motor vehicle safety standard (FMVSS) No. 121, Air Brake Systems. That standard applies to almost all new trucks, buses, and trailers equipped with air brake systems.

As originally manufactured, Ford, as the manufacturer was required to certify that the truck satisfied the requirements of all applicable safety standards. Among other things, the vehicle's brakes would have been required to comply with FMVSS No. 121.

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act specifies that vehicles must conform with all applicable safety standards up until the first purchase for purposes other than resale. After the first purchase, the vehicle is no longer required by Federal law to conform with all safety standards. However, the Safety Act includes a provision that prohibits any manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business from "rendering inoperative" any device or element of design installed in or on a vehicle in compliance with an applicable safety standard. The render inoperative provision does not apply to modifications made by the owner of a vehicle.

The issue of whether a late 1970's antilock system for heavy vehicles can be disconnected by a commercial business is a special case under the render inoperative provision, since those antilock systems were used by some manufacturers to comply with certain requirements of FMVSS No. 121 that were later invalidated by a court decision. I have enclosed a copy

of a March 4, 1980 letter which addresses that issue. Based on this letter, a commercial business could replace the anti-skid system with a standard current brake system without violating the render inoperative provision.

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

ID: nht92-9.14

DATE: February 11, 1992

FROM: Lance Watt -- Director of Engineering, The Flxible Corporation

TO: Paul Jackson Rice -- Office of Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 4/10/92 from Paul J. Rice to Lance Watt (A39; Std. 108)

TEXT:

The Flxible Corporation is a major domestic manufacturer of city transit buses and requests an interpretation concerning FMVSS 108, "Lamps Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment," while also referencing FMVSS 121 "Air Brake Systems."

An air brake system is used on our vehicles. As the driver starts to apply the service brake pedal to slow or stop the vehicle, a service brake stop lamp switch is activated. The stop lamp switch is installed to comply with Section S5.1.7 of FMVSS 121, "Air Brake Systems." The stop lamps are in turn activated by the stop lamp switch.

The Flxible Corporation offers optional transmissions which have internal hydraulic retarders for supplemental braking as a means to increase brake lining life. This retardation deceleration would be over and above that obtained by the normal service brake system. In our current design, the transmission retarder is electrically operated during the initial travel of the service brake pedal. As the service brake pedal is further depressed, the service brakes are activated, and this in turn triggers the stop lamp switch which in turn illuminates the stop lamps.

The Flxible Corporation has received requests from customers to activate the transmission retarder when the ACCELERATOR pedal is released. In this scenario, the service BRAKE pedal would not be used to activate the transmission retarder. However, if required, the driver could also depress the brake pedal to in turn activate the service brakes in order to achieve an even higher rate of vehicle deceleration over and above that obtained by the transmission retarder itself.

If the brake pedal were not depressed however, and with the vehicle deceleration caused solely by transmission retardation, the stop lamps would not be illuminated and therefore, following vehicles may be unaware of this sudden reduction in vehicle speed.

Some of our customers have also requested to have the transmission retarder activate the stop lamps to provide following vehicles with a warning that a sudden reduction in vehicle speed was in progress, even though it was caused by the transmission retarder as opposed to a service brake application. Again, this application of the stop lamps would be achieved by release of the accelerator and without depressing the brake pedal, and potentially without any intent to apply the service brakes on the part of the driver.

Section S5.5.4 states: "The stop lamps on each vehicle shall be activated upon application of the service brakes." This is interpreted by Flxible to mean the brake pedal would activate the service brakes which would activate the stop

lamp switch which in turn would activate the stop lights. By virtue of our customer's requests, the stop lamps would already be activated when the driver released the accelerator pedal and without any application of the brake pedal.

Flxible has in the past requested a NHTSA ruling on a further scenario outside of that, but somewhat related to that which is described here-in. Please find attached a copy of that request along with a copy of your response for reference.

Additionally, some of our customers, especially those in locations likely to experience icy or slippery road conditions, request a retarder cut off switch in order to disable the retarder and reduce the possibility of uncontrolled drive axle wheel lock-up. In cases such as this, without a dual system that would then allow stop light switch and stop light activation to be caused by application of the brake pedal as in our standard system today, a stop light activation would occur at the time of accelerator release with minimal if any change in vehicle forward speed, and again, potentially with no intent on the part of the driver to use the service brakes.

Flxible to date has resisted the customer requests as noted, however, these customers, without a specific NHTSA ruling on the request as stated above, threaten to declare Flxible a non responsive bidder on transit bus procurements. The basis of their complaints or requests in this regard stem from the fact that they require operating standardization across their various manufacturer fleets to prevent operator error or confusion.

A ruling is requested on whether a non-compliance with Section S5.5.4 of FMVSS 108 would result, if the stop lamps were activated without depressing the brake pedal as requested by our customers.

Flxible appreciates the opportunity to petition for a ruling in this complex matter so that we may use your response accordingly in responding, to our customer's requests.

Should you desire any further clarification or information on this subject, please feel free to contact the writer at (614) 362-2730.

ID: 1982-2.7

DATE: 04/21/82

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Motor Wheel Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your recent letter to Mr. Kratzke of my staff, requesting an interpretation concerning Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 120 (49 CFR @ 571.120). Specifically, you noted that your company, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Goodyear, wants to import rims from Lemmerz, a West German manufacturer, and mark those rims with the Goodyear name and trademark. This would be similar to the tires sold, for example, with Sears or Montgomery Ward labels and trademarks on the sidewalls. Your question concerns the requirement in section S5.2(d) of Standard No. 120, which specifies that each rim be marked with "a designation that identifies the manufacturer of the rim by name, trademark, or symbol." You correctly recognized that Lemmerz would have to be identified as the actual manufacturer, and asked if the block letter "L" would be a sufficient identification. Imprinting an "L" on the rims manufactured for Goodyear by Lemmerz would satisfy the requirement of Standard No. 120.

In the notice initially establishing Standard No. 120 (41 FR 3478, January 23, 1976), this agency stated, "The rim manufacturer is free to use his name, trademark, or a symbol of his choice." The only limitation on this freedom is that the information cannot be presented in a deceptive or confusing manner. In the circumstances you have described, a consumer with a complaint or problem with the rims would know to contact Goodyear about the rims, and Goodyear would know that the block letter "L" indicated that the rim had been manufactured for them by Lemmerz. This would not be confusing or deceptive. Hence, the purpose of the labeling requirement is fulfilled, so Goodyear is free to use the letter "L" as the indicator that the rim was actually manufactured by Lemmerz.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

MOTOR WHEEL CORPORATION

February 23, 1982

STEPHEN R. KRATCKE -- Office of Chief Counsel, National Highway Traffic and Safety Administration

Dear Mr. Kratcke:

At your suggestion I am formally requesting the Chief Counsel to issue an opinion on compliance with 49 CFR 571.120 S5.2(d).

As indicated during my telephone call, Motor Wheel Corporation is a wholly-owned subsidiary of The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company and as such is responsible for Goodyear Metal Products, a producer of rims and wheels for on and off-highway commercial application. In conjunction with the parent company we are presently contemplating introduction of a super-single tire and wheel assembly to replace duals on truck trailers. Without knowing market potential Motor Wheel is hesitant to make the wheels and has elected to temporarily purchase the necessary wheels from a European source. Until such time as a final make or buy decision is made we propose to buy wheels from Lemmerz of West Germany.

Our inquiry is directed toward what NHTSA will accept as a trademark or symbol in lieu of the manufacturer's name on the rim as called for in 49 CFR 571.120 S5.2(d). Lemmerz identification on their rims is their name. We propose that the block letter 'L' be used in lieu of the full name so that we can imprint Goodyear's name and trademark for customer identification.

Is such a symbol acceptable to NHTSA? It is our understanding that Lemmerz is the only wheel producer worldwide whose name begins with 'L'. We would appreciate an early response to our inquiry as there is an eight to ten week lead time plus transit on orders placed with Lemmerz.

Please advise.

Sincerely,

Dale R. Martin

ID: 21550pressureindicatorneb

Mr. Michael M. Anthony
President
Anthony Engineering & Technologies, Inc.
10189 W. Sample Road
Coral Springs, FL 33065

Dear Mr. Anthony:

This responds to your letter regarding regulations which may impact a tire pressure indicator.

You stated in your letter that your company is putting together a specification for an aftermarket tire pressure indicator ("indicator") that will indicate correct or low tire pressure on tires. A consumer would attach the tire pressure indicator to the tire valve in the same way a regular tire cap is attached. The material of the indicator will be a high strength high impact resistant "PET, similar to engineering plastics used for the beverage bottle industry for high pressure applications", which does not deteriorate with sunlight, smog, or humidity and will not break readily in a direct 50 mile per hour crash. You ask "whether there are any regulations that may impact the design of the indicator and what further considerations you may have deliberated in similar projects."

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has the statutory authority to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) 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 neither tests, approves, disapproves, endorses, nor grants letters of approval 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.

Turning now to the tire indicator, we would classify it as an item of motor vehicle equipment, defined in 49 U.S. Code (U.S.C.) 30102(a)(7)(B) as any "part or component manufactured or sold for replacement or improvement of a system, part, or component, or as an accessory or addition to a motor vehicle." Specifically, the indicator is an accessory if it meets the following criteria:

1. A substantial portion of its expected uses are related to the operation or maintenance of motor vehicles; and
2. It is purchased or otherwise acquired, and principally used by ordinary users of motor vehicles.

After reviewing your letter, we conclude that the tire indicator is an accessory. It was designed with the expectation that a substantial portion of its expected use will be with motor vehicles. Further, your description of the tire pressure indicator makes it clear that the indicator is intended to be purchased and principally used by ordinary users of motor vehicles to monitor tire pressure.

While the indicator is a motor vehicle accessory, NHTSA has not issued any FMVSSs establishing performance standards applicable to this product. However, the manufacturer, whether you or a licensee, is subject to the requirements of 49 U.S.C. 30118-30121 (copies enclosed) which set forth the notification and remedy (recall) procedures for products with defects related to motor vehicle safety. Thus, if NHTSA or the manufacturer determines that the product contains a safety-related defect, the manufacturer is responsible for notifying purchasers of the defective equipment and for remedying the problem free of charge.

Additionally, 49 U.S.C. 30122 (copy enclosed) provides that a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or vehicle repair business may not knowingly "make inoperative" any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle in accordance with any FMVSS. Therefore, the tire pressure indicator could not be installed by any one of those entities if such use would adversely affect the compliance of a vehicle with any FMVSS. This provision does not apply, however, to equipment attached to or installed on or in a vehicle by the vehicle owner.

I note that the Department's Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration has jurisdiction over interstate motor carriers operating in the U.S. You should contact that office at (202) 366-1790, for information about any requirements that may apply to your product. In addition, states have the authority to regulate the use and licensing of vehicles operating within their jurisdictions. You should therefore check with the Department of Motor Vehicles in any state in which the equipment will be sold or used.

For your 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,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
Enclosures
ref:109#110#117#119#120
d.5/10/00

ID: 18912.ztv

Mr. Bill Cox
President
Monte Carlo Minis Limited, Inc.
2011 Pleasant Hill Church Road
Shelby, NC 28152

Dear Mr. Cox:

After you received our letter of September 29, 1998, you faxed Taylor Vinson of this Office several additional questions on October 6, 7, and 9.

You previously informed us that you were building Minis for export to Japan. On October 6 you asked "Do you want copies of the export shipping documents for proof that the new Minis are not being sold in the USA?" We appreciate your offer, but the export shipping documents would prove only that those particular Minis were not being sold in the United States. The documents would not cover any Minis that were not being exported.

You also asked "We assume that for compliance in the USA the rebuilt Minis have to be a rolling chassis, is this correct." In a second fax on the 6^th you explained that "A rolling chassis is one that rolls by itself and stops with brakes. It also has steering rack, brakes, engine and transmission and can be driven." We are not sure what your question is. As I explained on September 29:

"the agency's opinions over the years have been premised upon the fact situation of a vehicle in use being modified to incorporate a new body on its original chassis and one which retained its original title. We have said that the resulting vehicle would not be considered a new motor vehicle subject to the FMVSS."

You seem to be asking "We assume that, to excuse compliance in the USA, the rebuilt Minis have to use an original chassis with steering rack, brakes, engine and transmission." That is essentially correct. The vehicle must also retain its original title, i.e., must continue to be registered with its original model year designation.

You also asked "Why can the tires not be replaced [if they have] DOT markings?" We think you mean to ask whether a rolling chassis whose tires have DOT markings needs to have new tires when a new body is placed on the chassis. If the vehicle that results when a new body is placed on a rolling chassis is not considered a new vehicle that must comply with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards that apply to new vehicles, then it need not have new tires but may retain its old ones.

Your October 7 fax is the first indication we have had that you intend to rebuild Minis for the American market. You ask:

"If we retain the rear brakes, drums, can we upgrade to 8.4 discs in the front, which will greatly help stopping distance, but this would require upgrade to 12 inch wheels and tires for the 8.4 inch discs will not fit over the 10 inch rims."

If your "rebuilt" Mini is a "new" vehicle, it must conform with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 105, "Hydraulic Brake Systems," no matter how it is designed, as well as with all other applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards.

Finally, on October 9 you faxed us asking whether a statement had changed that was made to you in a letter of March 24, 1997, from this Office. That statement was "Because vehicles more than 25 years old are exempt from compliance with Federal motor vehicle safety standards, you are free to make modifications without violating our regulations." This remark was made with reference to pre-1973 Minis that you import. This remains true: a motor vehicle that is at least 25 years old at the time of importation, and which was not originally manufactured for the U.S. market, is not required to be brought into conformance with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
ref:571
d.12/29/98