ID: 10785

Mr. Terry M. Habshey
Oxytire Incorporated
7000 Highway 25
Montevallo, AL 35115

Dear Mr. Habshey:

This responds to your March 6, 1995 letter to Philip Recht, our former Chief Counsel, and your telephone conversations with Walter Myers of my staff in which you requested a "new D.O.T. number." As discussed below, we are unable to provide you a tire manufacturer's identification mark since the operations you perform on tires are not sufficient to make you the manufacturer of the tires.

You explained that your company is a global exporter of tires, particularly to third world countries, but that you intend to distribute tires domestically in the future. You stated that you obtain new tires from different manufacturers consisting of original equipment overruns, blems, etc., and that by a new process you intend to remove "most" of the information from the tire sidewalls. The new process includes removing a thin layer of rubber from the tire sidewall, then vulcanizing a layer of new rubber onto the sidewall. The new layer will contain a new "registered" trade name, logo, and "identifying marks along with the size, safety information, mounting instructions, maximum and minimum inflating instructions, etc." You emphasized that all tires will be new and meet "all minimum standards established by the Department of Transportation."

Before addressing your request, let me first provide some background information. Chapter 301 of Title 49, U.S. Code (hereinafter Safety Act), authorizes the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment sold in or imported into the United States. Tires are considered motor vehicle equipment. The Safety Act establishes a self-certification system in which manufacturers certify that their products comply with all applicable FMVSSs effective on the date of manufacture. In the case of tires, manufacturers reflect that certification by molding the letters "DOT" into or onto the sidewalls of all their tires manufactured for sale in the United States.

The FMVSSs are not applicable to tires intended solely for export, labeled for export on the tires and on the outside of the container, and exported. See 49 U.S.C. '30112(b)(3); 49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 571.7(d)). Accordingly, you are free to export any tires you want, whether or not they comply with the FMVSSs and after whatever modifications you make to them.

That is not the case, however, with tires distributed for sale in the United States. FMVSS No. 109, New pneumatic tires and FMVSS No. 110, Tire selection and rims, specify performance standards and labeling requirements for new passenger car tires and rims. FMVSS No. 119, New pneumatic tires for vehicles other than passenger cars and FMVSS No. 120, Tire selection and rims for motor vehicles other than passenger cars, specify performance standards and labeling requirements applicable to tires and rims for vehicles other than passenger cars. 49 CFR Part 574, Tire identification and recordkeeping, requires new tire manufacturers to permanently mold into or onto one tire sidewall a tire identification number (TIN) and specifies methods by which new tire manufacturers and new tire brand name owners shall maintain records of tire purchasers. 49 CFR Part 575.104, Uniform tire quality grading standards (UTQGS), requires new motor vehicle and new tire manufacturers and brand name owners to provide information to consumers concerning the relative performance of passenger car tires in the areas of treadwear, traction, and temperature resistance. The UTQGS grades are also required to be molded into or onto the tire sidewall.

The labeling requirements specified in the regulations referred to above apply to the actual tire manufacturers and/or brand name owners, and the required information, including the DOT symbol and the TIN, must appear on all new tires before they can be sold to their first retail purchasers. A tire distributor or dealer cannot legally remove any of the required information from new tire sidewalls. The required information on new tires is intended for safety purposes, purchaser information, and to enable this agency to identify the manufacturer in the event of a noncompliance or defect in a tire line or lot.

A "manufacturer" is defined in 49 U.S.C. '30102(a)(5) as one who manufactures or assembles motor vehicles or equipment or one who imports motor vehicles or equipment for resale. The operations you describe would not be sufficient to make you the manufacturer of the tires in question. According to your letter, you would, for marketing reasons, remove a thin layer of the surface area of the sidewalls of the tires so that most of the existing information is removed. You would then apply a new thin layer of rubber containing new information. Your operations would thus not be changing the basic tire as such but simply changing the labeling. A change in labeling would not change who manufactured the tire. Thus, since you would not be a manufacturer of tires, you may not obtain a manufacturer's identification mark in accordance with 49 CFR '574.6. Only tire manufacturers or retreaders may obtain that mark.

49 U.S.C. '30122(b) prohibits manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and/or motor vehicle repair businesses from knowingly making inoperative any part of a device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of equipment in compliance with applicable FMVSSs unless that individual reasonably believes that the vehicle or equipment will not be used when the device or element is inoperative. Thus, removal of the labeling information required to be marked on tire sidewalls in accordance with the standards and regulations discussed above could be a violation of '30122(b), which could subject the violator to civil penalties of up to $1000 per violation, or up to $800,000 for a series of related violations.

In summary, the Safety Act does not apply to tires intended solely for export. Thus, those tires are not required to comply with any FMVSSs. However, all new or retreaded tires sold or imported into the United States for sale must comply with all applicable FMVSSs and regulations as discussed above. Distributors and dealers may not remove any of the labeling information required to be marked on new tires by the actual manufacturers and/or brand name owners of those tires. Removal of that information could make inoperative an element of design on those tires, which could constitute a violation of 49 U.S.C. '30122(b).

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

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

Ref:109#110#119#120#574#575 d:5/24/95

ID: nht78-1.13

DATE: 03/23/78

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; E. T. Driver; NHTSA

TO: Nissan Motor Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: We refer to your letters of November 10 and December 2, 1977, to Mr. Joseph J. Levin, requesting an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 106-74 Brake Hoses. You inquired as to its applicability to the two anti-skid system hoses "A" and "B" in the diagram you enclosed.

The anti-skid actuator apparently modulates the pressure to the rear brakes upon command from the computer module. You stated that the failure of the actuator would not prevent the brake system from meeting the requirements of FMVSS No. 105-75.

You also stated that the subject hoses carry mineral oil, and that such hoses might deteriorate if subjected to brake fluid. You further stated that standard hydraulic brake hoses would deteriorate if used with the mineral oil which is used in the power steering system.

In the preamble to Notice 11, Docket 1-5, published June 24, 1974, (39 FR 24012) all power steering type hoses that connected power steering pumps with accumulators were exempted from coverage by the standard. Hoses connecting accumulators with brake power boosters were also exempted if redundant boosters were provided. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has reviewed this latter interpretation and determined that all power steering type hoses should be exempted from FMVSS No. 106-74, until appropriate requirements for such hoses are established.

After consideration of the information and the drawings in your letters, we have concluded that hose assemblies A and B connected to your anti-skid actuator are, in fact, power steering hose assemblies. Consequently those assemblies are exempt from the subject standard until suitable requirements for such assemblies are included therein.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

November 10, 1977

Joseph J. Levin -- Office of the Chief Counsel, NHTSA

Dear Mr. Levin:

This letter is to ask your interpretation concerning FMVSS 106 - "brake hoses".

Attached is the schematic drawing of the brake system with the hydraulic anti-skid unit. Do hoses A and B in this drawing fall under the category of "brake hose" which is defined in S.4 of FMVSS 106? In other words, should those hoses meet FMVSS 106?

I look forward to hearing your reply to the above.

Very truly yours

NISSAN MOTOR CO., LTD.;

Tokio Iinuma -- Staff, Safety

Enclosure

December 2, 1977

Joseph J. Levin -- Office of the Chief Counsel; NHTSA

Dear Mr. Levin:

I asked for your interpretation with regard to FMVSS 106 - "brake hoses" in my letter of November 10, 1977.

I am afraid that my explanation concerning hoses used in the anti-skid unit was insufficient.

The following is the additional information necessary to make my explanation complete:

1. Even if the failure (ex: mineral oil leakage from hoses, inoperative of actuator or vane pump) occurs in the anti-skid unit, the vehicle is capable of meeting FMVSS 105 - "hydraulic brake systems".

2. Difference of material between hoses used in anti-skid unit (hose A, B and C in attachment) and hoses in ordinary brake system which is in compliance with FMVSS 106.

HOSES IN HOSES IN ORDINARY ANTI-SKID UNIT BRAKE SYSTEM outer rubber CR CR (or CR+NR) middle rubber NR NR inner rubber NBR SBR

(Graphics omitted)

3. Compatibility with mineral oil or brake fluid (DOT 3).

HOSES IN HOSES IN ORDINARY ANTI-SKID UNIT BRAKE SYSTEM mineral possibility of deterior- oil no problem ation of property and swelling at inner rubber brake possibility of fluid deterioration no problem (DOT 3) of property at inner rubber

Thank you for your attention to the above matter. I look forward to hearing your reply to my letter of November 10, 1977.

Very truly yours, NISSAN MOTOR CO., LTD.,

Tokoi Iinuma -- Staff, Safety

Enclosure

cc: Welfred M. Redler (NHTSA Office of crash avoidance)

Brake System with Anti-Skid Unit

(Graphics omitted)

NOTE: Hoses A, B and C does not make contact with brake fluid (DOT 3) because the flows of mineral oil for the power steering unit and brake fluid for brake systems are completely separate.

ID: nht94-7.48

DATE: March 9, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Lawrence F. Henneberger -- Arent Fox Kintner Plotkin & Kahn

TITLE: None

TEXT:

This responds to your request, in a February 3, 1994, meeting, that we provide a letter clarifying certain Federal legal requirements related to a hydraulic brake lock that is sold as aftermarket equipment. You made this request on behalf of your client, MICO, Inc.

You indicated that the device is ordinarily added to used vehicles, but sometimes might be installed by a body builder prior to a vehicle's first sale to a consumer. The hydraulic brake lock at issue supplements the mechanical parking of a motor vehicle by providing supplemental holding capacity for the vehicle. The brake lock is installed in the hydraulic brake lines between the master brake cylinder and the foundation brakes. You particularly asked us to confirm your understanding that such a device is not precluded by Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 105, Hydraulic Brake Systems.

As you know, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Safety Act) to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards that apply to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. Section 108(a)(1)(A) of the Safety Act prohibits any person from manufacturing, introducing into commerce, selling, or importing any new motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment unless the vehicle or equipment item is in conformity with all applicable safety standards. NHTSA does not approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, nor do we endorse any commercial products. Instead, the Safety Act establishes a "self-certification" process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards. The following represents our opinion based on the facts set forth in this letter.

Nothing in Standard No. 105 precludes the inclusion of a hydraulic brake lock that provides supplemental holding capacity for a vehicle, nor does NHTSA have any other regulations specifically covering hydraulic brake locks. Therefore, MICO, as manufacturer of the device, would not have any certification responsibilities. However, the requirements of Standard No. 105 are relevant to hydraulic brake locks. This standard applies to new motor vehicles and specifies a number of brake performance requirements. Since the installation of a hydraulic brake lock requires cutting into the vehicle's brake system, it is possible that such a device could be installed in a manner that affects a vehicle's compliance with Standard No. 105.

You indicated that the hydraulic brake lock at issue is ordinarily added to used motor vehicles. After the first purchase of a vehicle, the only provision in Federal law that affects a vehicle's continuing compliance with an applicable safety standard is set forth in section 108(a)(2)(A) of

the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)). That section provides:

No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or in part, any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle ... in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard.

Thus, the named commercial entities would be prohibited from installing a hydraulic brake lock only if such installation would take the vehicle out of compliance with an applicable safety standard, such as Standard No. 105. The "render inoperative" provision does not apply to modifications made to vehicles by their owners.

You indicated that the hydraulic brake lock at issue may sometimes be installed by a body builder prior to the first sale of the vehicle to a consumer. Such a body builder would presumably be installing the hydraulic brake lock on either a completed vehicle that had previously been certified as complying with all Federal motor vehicle safety standards, or as part of the final stage manufacture of a vehicle for which the incomplete vehicle manufacturer had installed a brake system that complied with Standard No. 105. In both cases, the body builder would have certification responsibilities with respect to the vehicle's compliance with Standard No. 105, either as an alterer or as a final stage manufacturer. See 49 CFR Parts 567 and 568.

I hope this information has been helpful.

ID: 1982-3.20

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 11/17/82

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Stephen P. Wood; NHTSA

TO: Middlekauff Inc.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letters of September 27 and October 7, 1982, concerning your wish for a temporary exemption from Standard No. 301.

In our letter of August 12, 1982, we informed you that the statement which 49 CFR Part 568 requires an incomplete vehicle manufacturer to furnish with the vehicle affords a basis for certification without the necessity of testing. We asked you which of the statements had been provided you. Your subsequent correspondence with us does not answer this question. You refer to a print furnished you by AM General Corporation after August 12 which, with your engineering studies, leads you to believe that you may comply, but the print is extraneous to the Part 568 statement.

Therefore, we would still like to know whether AM General has provided you with a statement of specific conditions of final manufacture under which the completed vehicle will conform with Standard No. 301, or, alternatively, with a statement that the vehicle will conform if no alterations are made in certain specified components of the incomplete vehicle. Perhaps you could send us a copy of that portion of the Part 568 statement pertaining to Standard No. 301.

We shall consider your petition further when we have this information.

Sincerely,

October 7, 1982

Frank Berndt -- Chief Counsel, U.S. Dept. of Transporation, National Highway Traffic Safety Adm.

DEAR MR. BERNDT:

This is in reference to our letter to you of September 27, 1982 regarding our petition for a temporary exemption from Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard #301.

In paragraph two of our letter, we stated that "it was the feeling of AM General that they would prefer to certify the completed vehicles themselves rather than have us certify the vehicles as the final manufacturer". This was an error. We have since been advised that they would still require us to certify the vehicles as final manufacturer in compliance with Public Law 89-563. It is their belief, however, that the possession of the temporary exemption to Standard #301, referred to in our letters, would still be benefical in addition to our certification of compliance with all remaining Standards.

In view of the above, once again, we respectfully request that you issue the temporary exemption to Standard #301 for all the reasons outlined in our previous letters.

Thanking you for your consideration,

Very respectfully yours, MIDDLEKAUFF, INC.; F. E. Bettridge -- Board Chairman

ID: 07-003933as

ID: nht94-3.73

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: July 18, 1994

FROM: Federico Trombi -- Chief Homologation Engineer, Bugatti Automobiles

TO: Taylor Vinson, Esq. -- Office of the Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: Additional Request for Interpretation of FMVSS 108

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 7/28/94 from John Womack to Lance Tunick (Std. 108)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Vinson:

This letter requests an additional opinion from NHTSA as to whether a second anticipated version of the Bugatti EB 110 headlamp would be in compliance with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) 108.

This letter is in addition to the Bugatti interpretation request of July 8, 1994, and it is not in lieu thereof. We therefore request that NHTSA respond to both requests. However, we ask that NHTSA not delay the response to either this or the July 8 request because a response to the other may not be ready. Thus, when a response to one is ready, kindly provide it to us, without waiting for the other to be completed. Thereafter, when the other response is prepared, please provide it in a separate l etter. Thank you.

The second version of the proposed Bugatti headlighting system, that is the subject of this letter, would consist of two headlamps. In each headlamp:

The low beam would be provided by a gas discharge unit; and

The high beam would be provided by one "irreplaceable bulb" unit, or such unit together with the gas discharge unit. (In the alternative, instead of an "irreplaceable bulb unit, Bugatti may use a second gas discharge unit.)

The headlamp "box" would be an indivisible entity that would be treated as an exchange unit, and all internal screws would be sealed to prevent removal. The gas discharge unit's bulb, receptacle, reflector, ballast, etc. would be an indivisible unit. The "irreplaceable bulb" unit would be a replaceable bulb unit with an H-1 bulb of approximately 100 watts and the unit would be modified so that the bulb is NOT replaceable. All problems with

2

the headlamp box would therefore be remedied by the replacement of the entire box, which can then be remanufactured at the factory.

As described above, the headlamp would be an integral beam headlighting system provided for in FMVSS 108, S7.4. More specifically, the Bugatti integral beam headlighting system would be comprised of two headlamps that comply with S7.4 (a)(2) and the photometric requirements of either (a)(2)(i) or (a)(2)(ii).

The Bugatti headlamp would have the low beam gas discharge unit mounted towards the center of the box (as in the diagram provided to NHTSA) and the "irreplaceable bulb unit" would be mounted inboard of the gas discharge unit.

Outboard of the low beam gas discharge unit, Bugatti may install either a replaceable bulb fog lamp or driving lamp that is not regulated under FMVSS 108.

Bugatti believes that the above headlighting arrangement is permissible under FMVSS 108. Table IV requires that the low beams be mounted "as far apart as practicable". The reason that the gas discharge unit cannot be mounted any farther outboard tha n as proposed is that, because of the design of the Bugatti EB110 body, there simply is not sufficient room (Bugatti's previously submitted attachment shows that if the gas discharge unit were mounted further outboard, it would conflict with the wheel ar ch).

Moreover, the headlamp would be in conformity with S7.4(b) as the lamp would have 2 light sources and the lower beam would be provided by the most outboard light source (as far as FMVSS 108 is concerned -- the fog or driving lamp would be disregarded) , and the upper beam would be provided by either the most inboard light source or both the gas discharge and irreplaceable bulb light sources.

Is the above-described headlighting system permissible?

We urgently need as swift a response as possible in order to proceed with production. Kindly contact the following with any questions and the response:

Mr. Lance Tunick

1919 Mt. Zion Drive

Golden CO 80401

tel. 303 279 0203

fax 303 279 9339

Thank you.

ID: nht95-2.36

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: April 13, 1995

FROM: Philip R. Recht -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Mayo D. Tubbs -- Visionary Lighting Systems

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: NONE AVAILABLE

TEXT: Dear Mr. Tubbs:

We have received your letter of March 23, 1995, asking for a waiver of 49 U.S.C. 30112(a) which will enable the introduction of a new lighting system that you have developed for large trailers. You envision that this system will eventually be installed on emergency vehicles and school buses. We understand that you wish to market this system as original equipment.

You have asked that we "provide adequate safeguards to prevent unauthorized dissemination of this information." As Taylor Vinson of this Office explained to you before you wrote, all the agency's letters of interpretation must be made available to the ge neral public, and these letters must include enough information to make the interpretation comprehensible. Mr. Vinson telephoned you on March 30, 1995, and informed you that we proposed, in this instance, to limit the description of the system to the nu mber, location, and quantity of lamps, to withhold the incoming letter with the exception of Attachment A, and to exclude your name and address from the copy made publicly available. You concurred with this treatment of your letter, except that you pref erred not to have your name and address withheld in the event a reader might be interested in getting in touch with you.

You believe that the current lighting and conspicuity requirements for large trailers are inadequate for safety when compared with your system. This system consists of 18 "strip lights on the side and rear" of large trailers which are "Aviation Green" i n color. The side and rear lighting schemes are depicted on Attachment A to your letter. As we interpret Attachment A, two of the strip lights are mounted in the upper right and left rear corners, while eight lights are on each side of the trailer (fou r right-angle lights in each upper and lower corner, and four lights deployed at one-third body-length intervals at the top and bottom).

Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment is the Federal regulation that governs original lighting equipment on trailers. These requirements must be met upon the manufacture and sale of trailers. With res pect to the rear of a van trailer, your Attachment A depicts only strip lights in the upper right and left corners. This is not permissible under Standard No. 108. The Federal regulation requires the conspicuity treatment specified by S5.7 to be applie d in this area, as well as clearance lamps. With respect to the side of a van trailer, Standard No. 108 requires horizontal conspicuity treatment to be applied near the lower edge of the trailer as close to the front and rear as practicable, though it n eed not be continuous as long as it covers at least half the trailer length. Because of the gaps between the strip lights on the trailer side as depicted in Attachment A, it is possible that conspicuity treatment could be applied between the strips that would total half or more of the trailer length.

However, supplementary lighting equipment such as your system is not permissible under Standard No. 108 (paragraph S5.1.3) if it impairs the effectiveness of the lighting equipment required by the standard. Standard No. 108 restricts the color of exteri or lights to red, amber, and white, the former two of which are associated with caution. Green is not used as an exterior lighting color because it is the recognized signal to proceed rather than to warn. We believe that use of the color green has the potential to create a measure of confusion rather than caution, thereby affecting the effectiveness of the mandatory side lighting equipment, i.e., amber front side markers, red rear side markers, and red and white conspicuity striping or red reflectors.

A vehicle manufacturer may petition for a temporary exemption from a Federal motor vehicle safety standard under the conditions specified in 49 CFR part 555, a copy of which is enclosed. Therefore, a trailer manufacturer interested in using your system could apply for a 2-year exemption on the basis that the exemption would make easier the development or field evaluation of a new motor vehicle safety feature providing a safety level at least equal to the safety level of the standard. The effect of an exemption is to allow the manufacture and sale of a nonconforming vehicle without violating 49 U.S.C. 30112(a). I am sorry to inform you that the exemption is not available to equipment manufacturers.

If you have data that sustains your belief that your system enhances safety, our Office of Research and Development would be interested in corresponding with you. The Associate Administrator of that Office is George Parker.

If there are other questions you have, Taylor Vinson will be happy to answer them for you.

Sincerely,

DRAWINGS OMITTED

ID: 17933.ztv

Mr. Jim Young
Supervisor
Electrical Engineering
Wheeled Coach
2737 North Forsyth Road
Winter Park, FL 32792

Dear Mr. Young:

This is in reply to your FAX of May 7, 1998, asking for interpretations of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment. Wheeled Coach is an ambulance manufacturer whose customer specifications may or may not be permitted by Standard No. 108.

Your "Case #1" concerns a customer request for "optically combining high intensity strobe warning lights with the front turn signals." These lamps are not synchronized with the turn signals, nor are they canceled when the turn signals operate. You also relate that the strobe lights are of greater intensity than that of the turn signals.

In your opinion, "it could be argued that the strobes could impair the effectiveness of the turn signals, thereby violating S5.1.3." We agree with your opinion. If the strobe lights are optically combined with the front turn signal lamps, are of higher intensity than those lamps, and are not canceled when the turn signals operate, impairment of the effectiveness of the front turn signals seems likely to occur. However, were the system designed so that the strobe lamps are canceled when the turn signals operate, then there would be no impairment or violation of S5.1.3.

You also mention that the turn signal employs a reflector and a lens to meet photometric requirements and that the reflector would have to have a hole drilled in it to accommodate the strobe tube. There is the possibility that the modification could affect compliance of the front turn signal lamp with applicable requirements. In addition to testing the headlamp with the modified reflector for continued compliance with headlamp photometric requirements, Wheeled Coach should also ensure that the modified headlamp continues to conform with other requirements demonstrating the integrity of the lens/reflector/bulb unit of replaceable bulb headlamps, most importantly the sealing, corrosion, dust, and humidity test requirements.

As the manufacturer of the ambulance, Wheeled Coach has the responsibility of certifying compliance of the vehicle to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards.

Your "Case #2" concerns a customer request for "optically combining high intensity strobe warning lights with the headlights." The headlamps are replaceable bulb types and the reflector in this option also would require modification to accommodate the strobe tube.

You do not mention the operating characteristics of this system. In our opinion, in order not to impair the effectiveness of the headlamp system, the strobe lamps must be canceled at any time the headlamps are activated. If the headlamps on the original vehicle are wired to act as daytime running lamps (DRLs), it is permissible to disconnect them because DRLs are not a required item of lighting equipment. As indicated in the discussion under Case #1, it would be prudent for Wheeled Coach to test the modified headlamps for compliance for photometric and other requirements.

If you have other questions, you may call Taylor Vinson of this Office (202-366-5263).

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
ref:108
d.6/23/98

ID: 2913yy

DS America, Inc.
5110 Tollview Drive
Rolling Meadows, IL 60008
Attn: Messrs. Riani and Mitchell

Gentlemen:

This responds to your letter of March 6, "l990" with respect to your interest in importing for resale Volkswagen Beetles manufactured in Mexico. You've asked for information on "all relevant requirements for cars being imported to the United States."

A motor vehicle must conform with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) in order to be imported permanently into the United States. The authority for this requirement is The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of l966, as amended by the Imported Vehicle Safety Compliance Act of l988, which became effective January 31, l990. I enclose a copy of the l966 Act for your information; the amendments effectuated by the l988 Act are found at section l08 [1397], subsections (c) through (j).

In brief, a nonconforming motor vehicle may not be imported into the United States unless the Admininstrator of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has determined that the vehicle complies or is capable of conformance to the FMVSS. Determinations are made pursuant to petitions received from manufacturers or registered importers. A "registered importer" is one that NHTSA has officially recognized as capable of performing the conformance work. After an affirmative determination, the vehicle may be imported by the registered importer, or by any other person who has a contract with the registered importer to perform the conversion work. Certain performance bonds and fees payable to the government have been established. I enclose a copy of the most current list of registered importers. For the text of the FMVSS and other agency regulations, you may contact the outlet of the Government Printing Office closest to you, and obtain "Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations Parts 400-999 Effective October 1, l990". NHTSA regulations are parts 501-594 inclusive. You will be particularly interested in Parts 571 (the FMVSS), 591 (import regulation), 592 (registered importer requirements), 593 (vehicle eligibility determinations), and 594 (fees). The Administrator has made no determination with respect to the conformance capability of Mexican Beetles with the FMVSS. If you wish to petition for such a determination, you must either become a registered importer or contract with one to act in your behalf. NHTSA would be especially concerned about the capability of Beetles manufactured on and after September 1, l989, to be conformed to meet the automatic restraint requirements of FMVSS No. 208 (49 CFR 571.208), Occupant Restraint Systems.

You have asked for any information the Department may have about conformance problems. During the mid-l980s, Mexican Beetles were imported for resale by commercial enterprises in Texas and California. The Texas enterprise was able to satisfy the importation requirements that were effective before the stringent amendments of the l988 Act. The California enterprise was unable to meet our requirements. We do not view the Texas experience in conversion of vehicles as particularly relevant today in light of the extensive changes made by the l988 Act.

Finally, you have asked whether "documentation by Volkswagon of Mexico certifying these crash requirements can replace a crash tested vehicle or vehicles." Under our regulations, the registered importer must certify that the converted vehicle conforms to all applicable FMVSS, and, with the initial vehicle, provide NHTSA with documents in substantation. Certainly, if Volkswagen de Mexico had conducted successful barrier impact tests exactly in the manner set forth in the FMVSS, the test results would appear to afford a basis upon which the registered importer could certify compliance. But because conformance modifications could alter vehicle structure or weight, and hence potentially affect the test results previously obtained, your question cannot be answered simply yes or no. However, a registered importer is not legally obliged to conduct a crash test to demonstrate conformance, but could verify that the converted Mexican Beetles continue to conform with the Mexican test results through the use of computer simulations, engineering studies, or mathematical calculations.

If you have further questions, we shall be pleased to consider them.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

Enclosures

/Ref. 59l d:4/l/9l

ID: nht88-2.56

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/24/88 EST

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TO: CHARLEY ERICKSON -- CHARLEY'S OFF ROAD CENTER, INC.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: MEMO DATED 12-23-87, FROM CHARLEY ERICKSON, TO ERIKA JONES, OCC-1416

TEXT: This responds to your letter asking whether Safety Standard No. 302, Flammability of Interior Materials, applies to the "bikini sun shade," an accessory you wish to sell for both new and used open-body type passenger vehicles. I regret the delay in resp onding to your letter.

Generally speaking, items of motor vehicle equipment are not covered by Standard No. 302 and the bikini shade may be sold to vehicle owners for their installation in their own vehicles without regard to the product's conformance with the standard. Howev er, as explained below, Federal law places limits on the installation of the bikini shade by some commercial businesses.

Standard No. 302 establishes flammability requirements that must be met by new motor vehicles. The requirements apply to particular components within these vehicles, including shades. However, the requirements of the standard apply to a vehicle only un til its first purchase in good faith for purposes other than resale. They do not apply to shades manufactured for aftermarket sale and installation in a a vehicle after its first purchase. It would not violate Standard No. 302 for you to sell aftermark et bikini sun shades that do not comply with the standard.

However, the installation of the shades by certain parties other than vehicle owners could violate the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. Section 108(a) (2) (A) of the Act (copy enclosed) specifies: "No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative ... any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard . . ." The f lammability resistance of the original vehicle is an element of design installed in a motor vehicle in compliance with Standard No. 302. That element of design would be rendered inoperative in violation of section 108(a) (2) (A) if a manufacturer, distr ibutor, dealer or motor vehicle repair business installed a bikini sun shade in a new vehicle and thereby caused that vehicle to fail to comply with Standard No. 302

There would also be a rendering inoperative when one of these parties installed the shade in a used vehicle if the shade would have caused the vehicle, when new, to fail to comply with the standard. Section 109 of the Act specifies a civil penalty of up to $ 1,000 for each violation of @108.

You should be aware also of an additional aspect of the Act. All manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment are subject to the provisions set forth in sections 151-159 of the Act concerning the recall and remedy of equipment with defects relating to motor vehicle safety. If it were determined that the bikini shade had a defect relating to motor vehicle safety, you as the shade manufacturer would have to notify all purchasers of the defect and either repair the shade so that the defect is removed, or rep lace the shade with an identical or reasonably equivalent product that does not contain a defect.

To summarize, there is a difference in the application of Standard No. 302 to vehicle equipment such as the bikini sun shade, depending on the identity of the person installing the shade in new and used motor vehicles. If the shade does not afford at le ast as good a level of flammability resistance as that specified by Standard No. 302, the shade cannot be installed in vehicles by any commercial business listed in @108(a) (2) (A) of the Safety Act. Shades that do not meet the standard's flammability r esistance requirements may legally be installed in vehicles by the owners of those vehicles. However, NHTSA discourages owners from installing any item of equipment that would degrade the safety performance of their vehicles. To repeat, you as the shad e manufacturer would still be obligated to recall and remedy shades that are determined to contain a defect relating to motor vehicle safety, even if those shades were installed by vehicle owners themselves.

I hope this information is helpful. Please contact us if you have further questions. ENCLOSURE