ID: 2510y

Mr. Raymond D. Strakosch
President
Safety Premiums
87 Broadway
P. O. Box 1031
Newburgh, NY 12550

Dear Mr. Strakosch:

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 different 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 approximately 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 to 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 this 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 presence of a stopped vehicle, except for devices designed to be permanently affixed to the vehicle." (Emphasis added.)

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 applies 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 these 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, container, 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 commerce, 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 approve, 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 applicable Federal safety standards. To comply with any applicable legal obligations, especially in connection with the manufacture of the larger size warning triangle, I suggest that you carefully examine the requirements of Standard 125 and consider the design, marketing, and intended use of the new larger warning triangle. 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 and 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 questions or need additional information on this subject, please feel free to contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosures ref:125 d:6/5/90

ID: nht88-2.7

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/26/88

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Parnell Webb -- General Manager, River Road Dodge (TN)

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Mr. Parnell Webb General Manager River Road Dodge Rt.3 Ripley, TN 38063

This responds to your letter asking whether the original equipment bed on a half-ton pick-up truck can be taken off and replaced by a local government with a utility body and/or bed. I apologize for the delay in responding. The answer to your question if different, depending on the specific facts of the situation.

By way of background, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 15 U.S.C. 1381 et seg.) prohibits the sale or introduction into interstate commerce of any new vehicle or stem of motor vehicle equipment that does not conform to all applica ble Federal motor vehicle safety standards. The Safety ct authorizes NHTSA to issue these safety standards (found in 49 CFR Chapter V), and each manufacturer is required to certify that its product(s) meet all applicable safety standards. Its not clear f rom your letter whether your dealership is proposing to make the modifi- cations for the local government agency or whether the local government agency will itself perform the modifications.

The local government agency can perform whatever modifications it desires to its own vehicles without violating any Federal laws or regulations. This is because neither the Safety Act nor any of our standards and regulations apply to modifications indivi dual vehicle owners make to their own vehicles.

However, if your dealership were to make these modifications, you would be responsible for complying with various providing of the Safety Act and applicable regulations. The provisions with which you would have to comply would depend on whether you modif y the vehicle before it is sold for the first time to the consumer (a new vehicle), or if you make the modifica- tions after it has been sold for the first time to a consumer (a used vehicle). I will address each of these situations separately.

If your dealership intends to perform the described modifications to new vehicles, you would be subject to the following requirements. Section 108(a)(1)(A) of the Safety Act prohibits the sale of any new vehicle that does not comply with all applicable s afety standards. This means that any vehicle that is modified before being sold for the first time to a consumer must continue to comply with all applicable safety standards after its modifications. In addition to these statutory considerations for modi fiers, this agency's certification regulations, set forth in 49 CFR Part 567, apply to any person who changes previously certified vehicles by means other than the addition, substitution, or removal of readily attachable components or minor finishing ope rations or in such a manner that the weight ratings designed to the vehicle are no longer valid. Such a person is considered an 'alterer' for the purposes of Part 567 (copy enclosed). We consider the removal of a pickup bed and replacement with a utilit y body and/or bed to be something more than the substitution of readily attachable components or minor finishing operations. Therefore, a person making such a substitution on a new vehicle would be an alterer under Part 567.

In this case, S567.7 requires that:

(1) The alterer supplement the existing manufacturer certification label by affixing an additional label stating that the vehicle as altered conforms to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards as well as stating the firm or individual name of the alterer and the month and the year in which the alterations Here completed (see S567.7(a));

(2) The modified values for the vehicle be provided as specified in S567.4(g)(3) and (5), if the gross vehicle weight ratings or any of the gross axle weight ratings of the vehicle as altered are different from those shown on the original certification l abel (see S567.7(b)); and

(3) The type classification be provided, if the vehicle as altered has a different type of classification from that shown on the original certi- fication.

In addition to these certification requirements, an alterer is considered a 'manufacturer' for the purposes of notification and remedy of defects or noncompliances under the Safety not and if subject to the requirements of 49 CFR Part 573, Defect and Non compliance Reports.

On the other hand, if your dealership proposes to modify used vehicles (already purchased by the consumer), different requirements would apply. Specifically, section 108(a)(2)(n) of the Safety Act prohibits any manufacturer, distributor, dealer or motor vehicle repair business from "knowingly rendering inoperative' any equipment or element of design installed on a vehicle in compliance with our safety standards. In other words, no manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or repair business can modify used ve hicles by removing or defeating any of the systems or devices that were installed on the vehicle to comply with an applicable safety standard. The modifier in the first instance must determine if the modifications constitute a prohibited 'rendering inope rative' violation. However, the agency can reexamine the modifier's determination

in the context of an enforcement proceeding. Part 567 does not require modifiers of used vehicles to provide a separate certification label for the modified vehicle.

To help you determine which standards may apply to the modified vehicles and whether the proposed modifications would result in a prohibited 'rendering inoperative' violation, I am enclosing a publication entitled 'Federal Vehicle Safety Standards and Pr ocedures.' This pamphlet indicates which standards apply to which vehicle types. I am also enclosing a general information sheet for new manufacturers that gives a general description of the applicable regulations, and explains how to get copies of those regulations. I hope this information proves helpful. Please contact this agency again if we can be of further assistance.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Enclosures

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counselor NHSTA 400 7th St. S. West Room 5219 Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Erika Jones,

Can the original equipment bed on a 1/2 ton pick-up truck be taken off and replaced by a local government agency with a utility body and/or bed? Please send this information to:

River Road Dodge Rt. 3 Ripley, TN 38063

Thank you,

Parnell Webb General Manager

&assistance.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

ID: nht87-2.56

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/22/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Allan Fogel

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Allan Fogel New York City Office of the Comptroller Bureau of Management Audit 161 William Street New York, NY 10038

Dear Mr. Fogel:

This responds to your March 6, 1987 letter to my office asking whether we consider a "Mobile Instructional Unit" (MIU) to be a "school bus." You wish to know whether Federal school bus safety standards apply to such a vehicle. You have asked, in addition , whether the Federal motor vehicle safety standard on hydraulic brakes applies to an MIU. It is my opinion that the MIU is not a school bus under the applicable Federal law and regulations and is thus not required to meet the school bus standards. If th e MIU is equipped with air brakes, it is not subject to the hydraulic brake standard.

The background information you provide explains that the MIU is a self-propelled unit built on a new or used school bus chassis. MIU's are "completely self-contained with all furnishings, (including desks for 10 pupils)." When an MIU is built with a used chassis, the Board of Education's contractor guts the interior of the bus and constructs a classroom facility within the shell. According to your letter, the MIU's are never used to transport pupils: "The empty vehicle is driven to the site by the contr actor where it is parked and then pupils and teacher enter the vehicle. At the end of the day after instruction, the pupils and teacher disembark and the empty vehicle is driven back to the garage by the contractor."

Our agency has the authority under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (15 U.S.C. 1381-1431) to issue safety standards for new motor vehicles. We ave issued several standards which apply to School buses, a class of vehicle defined b y the Act as "likely to be significantly used for the purpose of transporting primary, preprimary or secondary school students to or from schools or events related to such schools." (l5 U.S.C. 1391(14)) The bus from which an MIU is built would have had t o comply with the school bus standards at the time of its original manufacture. As long as a bus continues to be used as a school bus, the law does not allow a contractor to modify it in a way that takes it out of compliance with the school bus standards . (l5 U.S.C.

1397(a)(2)(A) However, if the bus is modified so that it will no longer be used to transport students, it ceases to be a school bus and does not have to continue to meet the standards applicable exclusively to school buses. In the case of the MIU, it see ms clear that the vehicle would no longer be suitable for transporting students to or from school. The MIU would thus not have to meet the school bus standards.

Although the school bus standards would not apply, the MIU would;d continue to be a motor vehicle and would continue to be subject to other standards under the Act. You have asked about the applicability of Standard No. 105, hydraulic Brakes. Since the b uses from which the MIU's are built were originally equipped with air brakes, the hydraulic brake standard would not apply to them. However, there is a separate standard for air braked vehicles, Standard No. 121, a copy of which I have enclosed. If the c ontractor built am MIU in a way that impaired the air brake system, he or she might be in violation of the Act. The contractor would also have to ensure that several other regulated safety systems -- the windshield wipers, the Driver's safety belt, etc. -- remained operative.

MIU's built with new chassis also fall outside the ambit of the Safety Act's school bus definition. Since they are not school buses under Federal law, the MIU's Are not subject to our school bus safety standards. However, the MIU's would be subject to ot her standards, including Standard No. 121 for air braked vehicles. The contractor should be able to inform you of the compliance of the vehicles with applicable Federal safety standards.

Since you may be interested in reviewing the standards which apply to vehicles such as the MIU, I have enclosed an information sheet that describes how you can obtain copies of our safety standards and other regulations.

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

Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel Enclosures

SEE HARD COPY FOR GRAPHIC INFORMATION)

April 24 1987 Mr. Stephen Oesch Chief Counsels Office National Highway Safety and Transportation Administration 400 - 7th Street, SW - Room 5219 Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Mr. Oesch: Pursuant to my letter of March 6, 1987 and our recent telephone conversation, I am enclosing a brochure depicting what a mobil classroom vehicle looks like.

Although the vehicle shown here was not adopted by the New York City Board of Education, the one actually in service has the same function and a similar interior layout. The only difference being that the vehicle in the brochure was remanufactured from a used school bus, while the vehicles presently employed by the Board of Education have a body which was built from scratch and placed on a 1986 school bus chassis.

Whether or not this type of vehicle can actually be considered a school bus is an essential aspect of my study and therefore I would appreciate such a determination from your office as soon as possible. Many thanks for your cooperation.

Sincerely, Allan Fogel Enclosure

Erika Jones Chief Counsel's Office National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 7th Street SW Washington, DC 20590

Dear Ms. Jones:

On June 3, 1986, the New York City Board of Education announced a plan to provide services to Chapter 1 sectarian school students in September, 1986. The plan provides that the sectarian school children in the Program will receive services of a nearby pu blic school. where there is no space in the public school, MIU's (Mobile instructional Units) will be leased to serve the sectarian school children. This plan was developed as a result of the July 1985 United States Supreme Court decision in Aquiler vs. Felton.

In order to carry out this plan, the New York City Board of Education prepared and advertised specifications for the leasing of MIU's, including drivers. The MlU specifications call for a self-propelled mobile instructional unit completely self-contained with all furnishings, (including desks for 10 pupils), installed generator, air-conditioning, heating and ventilating system. The specifications also call for a chassis which shall be 1977 or newer. The finished vehicle although it has a school chassis, has a custom built non-school bus body. These vehicles have been built and are now serving the New York City Board of Education.

The Comptroller's Office of the City or New York is conducting an audit of this contract as to the quality of construction and the safety regulations that apply to the vehicle. We are at an impasse however, because we are not sure if this vehicle can act ually be called a school bus and if the Federal Regulations of 1977 do in-fact apply.

The term Mobile Instructional Unit is actually a misnomer since pupils are not transported at all. The Empty vehicle is driven to the site by the contractor where it is parked and then pupils and teacher enter the vehicle. At the end of the day after Ins truction, the pupils and teacher disembark and the empty vehicle is driven back to the garage by the contractor. We were informed by thy New York State Department of Transportation that these vehicles are not certified and inspected every 6 months as are school buses that transport children.

In consideration of the above, the New Pork City Comptroller's Office would like your office to provide a ruling as to whether or not this type of vehicle can actually be considered a school bus, and whether or not any of the 1977 Federal safety standard s (DOT HS 805 674 revised April 1985) apply. We are specifically interested in Standard No. 105 which deals with hydraulic brakes and requires a split system. The vehicles in question have air brakes, so we would also like to know if the revised safety r egulations apply to any way to air brakes as well.

Thank you very much for your assistance.

Very truly yours, Allan Fogel field Supervisor (212) 566-6075

ID: 1982-2.35

DATE: 08/10/82

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: MMC Services Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Masakatsu Kano Executive Vice-President MMC Services, Inc. 3000 Town Center Suite 1960 Southfield, MI 48075

Dear Mr. Kano:

This responds to your letter of July 15, 1982, concerning the application of Standard No. 201, Occupant Protection in Interior Impact, to a passenger "assist grip" provided in your vehicles. You asked whether the instrument panel impact test of the standard must be conducted both with and without the passenger grip mounted on the instrument panel.

The head impact test should be conducted with the passenger "assist grip" mounted in place. It should not be necessary to test the panel with the grip removed. Section 5.3.1 of the Standard provides that if an area of the instrument panel is within the head impact zone, it must meet the performance requirements of the standard. In using the term "instrument panel", the agency intended to include the basic engineering drawing shows that the grip is solidly mounted on top of the panel as an integral part. You stated that the grip is a standard design feature on all the vehicles you intend to manufacture. Because the grip is a standard design feature which is securely affixed to the instrument panel, the agency considers it an integral part of the panel. Thus, the performance requirements of the standard would be applicable with the grip mounted in place.

If you have any further questions, please let me know.

Sincerely,

Original Signed By Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

Mr. Frank A. Berndt, Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration U.S. Department of Transportation 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Room 5219 Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Mr. Berndt:

MMC Services, Inc. on behalf of Mitsubishi Motor Corporation, we would like to have your confirmation of an interpretation we believe to be appropriate regarding the test procedure used in MVSS 201, Occupant Protection in Interior Impact.

Standard 201 requires that areas of the vehicle instrument panel which are within a specifically defined head impact area, be impacted by a 6.5 inch diameter head form. The test impact conditions are specified, as are the performance criteria which must be met. There is, however, no absolute definition of instrument panel--this is the area in which we feel an interpretation would be helpful.

On one of our multipurpose passenger vehicles, we provide a passenger assist grip, mounted on top of, and as part of, the instrument panel. We enclosed a picture showing this passenger assist grip. The grip is solidly mounted to the instrument panel, as shown by Section M-M on the enclosed engineering assembly drawing; and does fall within the MVSS 201 head impact area. The passenger assist grip is standard equipment on all models of this vehicle type.

Since all models will be manufactured with this passenger assist grip, we feel it is appropriate to conduct MVSS 201 certification test with the grip installed, and that it is not necessary to duplicate such tests on the instrument panel with the assist grip removed. We would very much appreciate your confirmation that this is an appropriate interpretation.

Because of the fact that we are working very hard to bring this vehicle model to the U.S. market as soon as possible, we would appreciate it very much if you could expedite your handling of this request to whatever extent possible. Thank you very much for your kind assistance in this regard.

Very truly yours,

Masakatsu Kano Executive Vice-President MMC Services, Inc.

ID: nht76-3.7

DATE: 05/18/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank A. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Arent, Fox, Kintner, Plotkin & Kahn

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your March 26, 1976, letter concerning the application of @ 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, as amended (the Act), to aftermarket installations of trailer hitches.

Section 108(a)(2)(A) specifies that:

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

You have requested clarification of the following sentence appearing in our March 1, 1976, letter to General Motors Corporation:

Therefore, aftermarket trailer hitches must also be installed in such a way that compliance with Standard No. 301-75 is preserved.

A more precise characterization of the law on this subject is that aftermarket trailer hitches must be installed in such a way that compliance with the standard is not knowingly compromised.

You are correct in your understanding that trailer hitch manufacturers are not required to certify that their products comply with Standard No. 301-75, Fuel System Integrity. Despite the effect of @ 108(a)(2)(A), this standard applies only to vehicles. There is no Federal motor vehicle safety standard that applies to trailer hitches. Further, there is no duty on the part of hitch manufacturers, distributors, dealers, or installers to certify that the installation of a trailer hitch on a used vehicle does not compromise the vehicle's compliance with Standard No. 301-75. Please note that the installation of a trailer hitch on a certified vehicle before the vehicle's first purchase in good faith for purposes other than resale is governed by @ 108(a)(1)(A) of the Act and the alterer provisions in 49 CFR Part 567, Certification.

SINCERELY,

ARENT, FOX, KINTNER, PLOTKIN & KAHN

March 26, 1976

Robert L. Carter Associate Administrator for Motor Vehicle Programs National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Re: Request For Formal Interpretation On behalf of the Trailer Hitch Manufacturers Association (THMA), which we serve as legal counsel, we respectfully request the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's interpretation as to certain legal obligations imposed upon the marketing of trailer hitches by the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, as amended.

Specifically, THMA requests (a) confirmation that the following language accurately states the law applicable to the aftermarket manufacture, distribution, and installation of trailer hitches and (b) incorporation of the substance of this legal interpretation in the NHTSA's official Federal Register responses to the General Motors and Chrysler petitions to amend FMVSS 301-75 with respect to trailer hitches:

Trailer hitches must not be installed in such a way that compliance with Standard No. 301-75 is knowingly compromised. Aftermarket hitches are not, however, subject to certification to Standard 301-75, nor are hitch manufacturers, distributors, dealers, or installers required to certify, or undertake testing to assure, that the installed hitch does not interfere with Standard 301-75 compliance.

We deeply appreciate the Safety Administration's assistance in clarifying present industry confusion in this area.

ARENT, FOX, KINTNER, PLOTKIN & KAHN

Lawrence F. Henneberger

Robert W. Green

CC: THOMAS W. HERLIHY; MARK I. SCHWIMMER

ID: nht81-3.24

DATE: 10/09/81

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: A. Lakins & Sons, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your recent letter requesting confirmation of an informal opinion you were given in a telephone conversation with Mr. Steve Kratzke of this office. You were concerned about the requirements of Safety Standard No. 117 (49 CFR @ 571.117) and 49 CFR Part 574 (copies enclosed) regarding the information which must appear on the sidewall of retreaded passenger car tires. Your company would like to use a bead-to-bead retreading process which will remove all of the safety information and the DOT certification and identification number molded on the sidewall of the tire by the original manufacturer.

A retreader of passenger car tires is permitted to remove these markings, provided the retreader molds into or onto the sidewall of the retreaded tires the information and certification markings required by Standard 117 and Part 574. Section 6.3 of Standard 117 specifies the safety information which must appear on the sidewall of retreaded passenger car tires. This section explicitly gives the retreader a choice of retaining the information molded on the sidewalls by the original manufacturer or of molding the information into or onto the sidewalls during the retreading process. Since the retreading process you intend to use will remove the original labeling, you will have no choice but to mold the required information on the sidewalls during your retreading process.

With respect to the DOT certification label and the original manufacturer's identification mark, section 5.2.3 of Standard 117 provides that any passenger car tire casing that is to be retreaded must bear the DOT symbol of the original manufacturer as a certification that, at the time of manufacture, the tire met all the requirements of Standard 109. Ordinarily, in cases other than retreading, the removal of this DOT symbol from the passenger car tire by a manufacturer, dealer, distributor or motor vehicle repair business is prohibited by section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, as amended (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)). That section reads in part: "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 . . . an item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard . . . ." Since the DOT symbol is an element of design on a tire installed in compliance with Standard 109, any knowing removal by the parties listed in this section would be a violation of the section.

The prohibition in Section 108(a)(2)(A) which acts to prevent removal of the new tire certification symbol ceases to have effect when the tire is converted into a retreaded tire. This result is consistent with previous agency interpretations indicating that when a motor vehicle is converted from one type to another, section 108(a)(2)(A) ceases to require the vehicle's continued compliance with standards applicable to the vehicle as originally manufactured but not as converted.

Although both Standard 109 and Standard 117 require that tires be marked with a DOT symbol to certify compliance, the symbol affixed by the manufacturer of the new tire cannot serve also as the symbol to be affixed by the retreader. The retreader is required by section 6.1 of Standard 117 to affix its own DOT symbol to certify that the tire, as retreaded, fully complies with all the requirements of Standard 117. Chapter 49 Code of Federal Regulations Part 574.5 specifies the location for the DOT symbol on the sidewall, as well as a manufacturer's code and other information which must be molded onto or into the sidewall immediately following the DOT symbol. The retreader's certification and identification mark serve the same purpose for the retreaded tire that the new tire manufacturer's certification and identification mark serve for the new tire. Thus, the retreader may remove the original DOT symbol and identification from passenger car tire casings during the retreading process.

If you have any further questions on this matter, please contact Mr. Steve Kratzke of my staff (202-426-2992).

ENCLS.

A. LAKIN & SONS, INC.

July 7, 1981

Steve Kratzke Office of Chief Counsel NHTSA

Dear Steve:

This is a confirmation of our phone call of July 7, regarding sidewall information requirements for bead to bead retreaded tires we are planning to manufacture.

Please send us a letter setting forth these requirements with particular reference to the DOT identifications.

Thank you in advance for your help.

Frank J. Goossens

cc: LEWIS LAKIN; RONALD LAKIN

ID: nht88-1.58

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: FEBRUARY 26, 1988

FROM: GARY EVANS -- PRESIDENT, WESTEX

TO: NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: MEMO DATED 7-18-88, TO GARY EVANS, FROM ERIKA Z. JONES-NHTSA

TEXT: I have had 3 conversations with individuals in different departments within the NHTSA. These conversations have resulted in a recommendation to contact the NHTSA Legal Department for advice.

Westex is an Importer and Distributor of automotive parts for German made vehicles. Among the many manufacturers we do business with are several companies which produce original equipment taillights, side reflectors and headlight assemblies. These firm s are very familiar with DOT, SAE, etc.

One of these firms produces Warning Triangles as described in FMVSS-125. As you may know, Warning Triangles are required in all vehicles (including cars) in Germany. This company has a new innovative patented technique which allows a Warning Triangle t o be attached to the side window of a car. This side-mounted Triangle is about 20% smaller than the specification shown in FMVSS-125.

This idea has evolved for use by the elderly, handicapped or individuals who are afraid or unable to leave their car. It does not give advanced warning as the Triangles placed along the road do. However, it does give motorists a warning (day or night) that the vehicle is stopped and advises the Police someone needs help.

I would like to import and sell this item here in the U.S. Before I do so, I would like to have some degree of comfort that the Triangle complies with any standards which may affect it.

FMVSS-125 states it does not deal with devices attached to the vehicle. Logically, I guess I am looking for the standard(s) which deals with warning devices that are attached to the vehicle without self-contained energy sources, if indeed such standards exist.

I would appreciate your earliest reply so I may proceed with the sales of this item.

ID: nht92-6.47

DATE: May 19, 1992

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: B.J. Forney

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter from B.J. Forney to Diane K. Steed (OCC 7235)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter, asking whether a vehicle equipped with a product you have invented could be operated legally on the public roads. Although your letter did not provide details of this invention, it appears it would supply wind energy to the engine in an effort to reduce the amount of gasoline burned to power the engine. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our regulations to you.

By way of background, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Safety Act) authorizes this agency to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. While NHTSA has not issued any standards that apply directly to devices like your product, our safety standards do establish minimum performance requirements for a number of vehicle systems, including the braking system, the accelerator control system, and fuel system integrity. Accordingly, while you would not have to certify that your product complies with any safety standards, any person installing your product on a new vehicle prior to the first retail sale of the vehicle would be required to certify that the vehicle continues to comply with all applicable safety standards with your product installed. NHTSA is not authorized to certify or approve motor vehicles for compliance with the Federal safety standards. Instead, under the Safety Act, each manufacturer of a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment is responsible for certifying that its products meet all of our applicable safety standards.

After the first retail sale of a vehicle, a person installing your product on the vehicle would no longer be required to certify that the vehicle continued to comply with all applicable safety standards. Instead, a different provision of Federal law would be relevant. This provision is 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A), which specifies that, "no manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or in part, any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard." This statutory provision would be violated by a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair business if its installation of your product on a vehicle caused the vehicle to no longer comply with one of our safety standards.

Finally, NHTSA has authority to investigate allegations that items of motor vehicle equipment, such as your product, contain defects related to motor vehicle safety. If either you, as the manufacturer of the product or this agency were to determine that your product contained a defect related to motor vehicle safety, you would be required to notify owners of your product and to remedy any such defect without charge to the owner, as provided in sections 151-160 of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1411-1420).

As you see, the laws and regulations of this agency do not directly relate to the use of any product. The individual States have authority to regulate the operation and use of vehicles and motor vehicle equipment within their borders. For further information on the laws of the States, you may wish to contact: American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA 22203.

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

ID: nht89-3.25

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 11/01/89

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

TO: FRANK E. TIMMONS -- DEPUTY DIRECTOR, TIRE DIVISION RUBBER MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 09/28/89 FROM FRANK E. TIMMONS -- RUBBER MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION TO STEPHEN P. WOOD -- NHTSA, OCC 3994; LETTER DATED 08/30/89 FROM STEPHEN P. WOOD -- NHTSA TO E. H. GALLOWAY -- UNIFORM TIRE QUALITY GRADING TEST FACILITY, RE INFLA TION PRESSURES FOR TRACTION GRADING PROCEDURES IN UTQGS

TEXT: Dear Mr. Timmons:

This responds to your September 28, 1989 letter requesting that NHTSA reconsider its August 30, 1989 interpretation (copy enclosed) of the traction grading procedures of the Uniform Tire Quality Grading Standards ("UTQGS," 49 CFR @ 575.104). In that ear lier interpretation, the agency was asked by E. H. Galloway about the correct interpretation of the UTQGS provisions requiring one to "inflate the tire to 24 psi, or, in the case of a tire with inflation pressure measured in kilopascals, to 180 kPa." See @@ 575.104(f)(2)(i)(B) and (D). Specifically, Mr. Galloway asked whether tires with inflation pressures expressed in both English units (psi) and metric units (kPa) should be inflated to 24 psi or 180 kPa during the testing to determine the tires' trac tion grades under the UTQGS.

In its August 30 interpretation, the agency concluded that tires whose inflation pressure is expressed in both English and metric units should be inflated to 24 psi for the UTQGS traction testing. That interpretation explained its conclusion as follows:

The language of the regulation sets forth a general requirement for an inflation pressure of 24 psi, and a subordinate requirement that "tires with inflation pressure measured in kilopascals" use an inflation pressure of 180 kPa. An examination of the b ackground of this language shows that the alternative inflation pressure of 180 kPa is to be used only for tire sizes that have inflation pressures specified only in kilopascals.

Your letter asked that the agency reconsider this interpretation. You stated that P-metric tires generally are labeled with a maximum inflation pressure of 240 kPa. However, section S4.3.4(a) of Standard No. 109, New Pneumatic Tires - Passenger Cars se ts forth an additional labeling requirement for tires whose maximum inflation pressure in expressed in kPa, as follows: "If the maximum inflation pressure of a tire is 240, 280, 300, or 340 kPa, then each marking of that inflation pressure . . . shall b e followed by the equivalent inflation pressure in psi, rounded to the next higher whole number." This requirement in Standard No. 109, therefore, prohibits any passenger car tire from being sold or offered for sale in this country with the inflation pre ssure specified only in kPa.

By specifying conditions for use of the alternative inflation pressure of 180 kPa that are impossible for any tire to satisfy, because of the requirements of Standard No. 109, the effect of the August 30, 1989 interpretation is to remove the alternative inflation pressure from the UTQGS traction testing procedures. A correct interpretation of a regulation gives effect and meaning to all of the language in a regulation. For this reason, I believe the August 30, 1989 interpretation of the UTQGS traction testing procedures was incorrect.

I conclude that any tire with its inflation pressure expressed first in metric units, with the equivalent pressure in English units shown in parentheses, is a "tire with inflation pressure measured in kilopascals," as that phrase is used in 49 CFR @ 575. 104(f)(2)(i)(B) and (D). Accordingly, any such tire would be inflated to 180 kPa for UTQGS traction testing.

I apologize for any confusion or inconvenience that might have been caused by the August 30 interpretation.

Sincerely,

ID: nht91-1.13

DATE: January 4, 1991

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Richard Cahalan -- Director of Core Services, Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Executive Office of Human Services, Department of Mental Retardation

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to 49 CFR Chapter V (10-1-89 Edition) Part 567 (text omitted); Also attached to letter dated 8-2-90 from O.W. Harrell, Jr. to Office of the Chief Counsel (OCC 5073); Also attached to letter dated 7-25-90 from G.C. Shifflett to O.W. Harell (Harrell) Jr.; Also attached to letter dated 9-4-86 from Erika Z. Jones to Vincent Foster; Also attached to letter dated 11-26-79 from Frank Berndt to W.G. Milby

TEXT:

This responds to Mr. Oscar Harrell's letter requesting information about Federal regulations concerning the modification of vehicles to accommodate mentally retarded individuals. According to that letter, in response to conversations about this issue with Mr. George Shifflett of this agency's Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, Mr. Harrell received copies of interpretation letters from my office to Mr. Vincent Foster dated September 4, 1986 and to Mr. W.G. Milby dated November 26, 1979. These letters express NHTSA's policy concerning modifications of vehicles to accommodate the special needs of handicapped individuals and the requirement in S 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act prohibiting commercial businesses from knowingly rendering inoperative any elements of design installed on a vehicle in compliance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard. Given the public interest against restricting the mobility of the handicapped, it is the agency's policy, depending on the particular situation, to consider certain violations of that section as technical ones justified by public need.

In a telephone conversation with Marvin Shaw of my staff, you explained that a van conversion company modified new Dodge Maxi-vans for your agency before they were purchased. Among the steps taken by the converter to accommodate handicapped individuals are the removal of the "top," the addition of a new "bottom," and the installation of a wheelchair lift. According to Mr. Harrell's letter, the converter, when contacted last year, stated that the vehicles, after being converted, comply with State and Federal regulations. You indicated, however, that the converter failed to certify that the vans, as altered, comply with Federal motor vehicle safety standards.

I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our laws and regulations to you. I apologize for the delay in our response.

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act authorizes the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and new motor vehicle equipment. Each manufacturer is required to certify that its products meet all applicable safety standards.

Based on your letter and the telephone conversation with my staff, it appears that the van converter would be considered an "alterer" for purposes of of Part 567, Certification (copy enclosed). Section 567.7 defines "alterer" as

A person who alters a vehicle that has previously been certified in accordance with S567.4 or S567.5, other than by the addition, substitution, or removal of readily attachable components such as mirrors or tire and rim assemblies, or minor finishing operations such as painting, or who alters the vehicle in such a manner that its stated weight ratings are no longer valid, before the first purchase of the vehicle in good faith for purposes other than resale...

As an alterer, section 567.7 requires the vehicle converter to do the following:

(1) Supplement the certification label affixed by the original manufacturer by affixing an additional label stating that the vehicle as altered conforms to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. This supplemental label must state the name of the alterer and the month and the year in which the alterations were completed (see S567.7(a));

(2) Provide the modified values for the gross vehicle weight ratings or any of the gross axle weight ratings of the vehicle as altered if they are different from those shown on the original certification label (see S567.7(b)); and

(3) Provide the type classification, if the vehicle as altered has a different type classification from that shown on the original certification (see S567.7(c).

If the converter did not comply with these requirements, then it did not fulfill its certification responsibilities under Part 567. From what you have written to us, we assume that is the case. However, this does not in itself mean that the vehicles, as altered, do not comply with applicable safety standards or are otherwise unsafe. If you believe that the conversion of these vehicles poses a safety problem, you should contact this agency's Office of Enforcement and explain the specific safety problem.

If you have any further questions or need additional information on this subject, please feel free to contact Marvin Shaw of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.