ID: nht81-2.35

DATE: 06/18/81

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Roy Littlefield, Director, Government Relations, National Tire Dealers & Retreader Association, Inc.

COPYEE: AMERICAN RETREADERS' ASSOC., INC.; HARRISON FEESE -- U.S. CUSTOMS SERV.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

ATTACHMT: 1/7/90 LETTER FROM PERRY FAULKNER TO WILLIAM MCCOLLUM; 3/13/91 LETTER FROM JAMIE MCLAUGHLIN FISH TO BILL MCCOLLUM (STD. 117; A37; STD. 119)

TEXT: This responds to your March 27, 1981, letter to Mr. Kratzke of my staff. In your letter, you requested a clarification of a statement in my March 11, 1981, letter to Mr. Harry Shirai, concerning the importing of used tires into this country. Specifically, I had indicated that one means by which used tires could legally be imported into the United States would be for the tires to be accompanied by a statement from the original manufacturer that the tires, as originally manufactured, met the performance requirements of Standard No. 119 (49 CFR @ 571.119). You have asked for more information on what steps would have to be taken to ensure that the imported tires complied with all of the requirements for this alternative.

Since receiving your letter, this agency has re-examined this subject. We recognize the severe supply problems facing the industry at this time and the possibly grave adverse price effects on consumers if such shortages are not eliminated. Bearing in mind the serious safety concerns which are involved, the agency has concluded that precedents exist for another alternative solution that would achieve the desired result without compromise of safety.

Used tires imported for retreading are unquestionably "pneumatic tires," as that term is defined in Standard 109. They cannot, however, legally be used on the public highways, since the tread on casings is almost always well under 2/32 of an inch. The use of tires with such minimal tread on trucks in interstate commerce is prohibited by the Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety (49 CFR @ 393.75(c)) and would violate this agency's specifications for State vehicle inspection standards (49 CFR @ 570.9(a) and 49 CFR @ 570.62(a)). Hence, the majority of States would not certify a vehicle as passing inspection with these tires and trucks with these tires cannot be used in interstate commerce.

Further, it is important to examine the intent of the importers of these tires. According to the representations made by your organization and some individual members, it is our understanding that these tires would be imported solely for retreading purposes. In other words, these casings are materials needing further manufacturing operations to become completed items of motor vehicle equipment (retreaded truck tires), rather than finished items of motor vehicle equipment (tires which could lawfully be used or sold as they are). Objective proof of this intent can be found in the fact that significant numbers of used foreign truck tires were imported into this country between 1975 and 1980, yet this agency has no information indicating that these tires, which did not meet the requirements of Standard 119, were used or sold without being retreaded.

Based on these considerations, we conclude that truck tire casings which have less than 2/32 inch tread and which are imported, introduced into interstate commerce, offered for sale or sold solely for the purpose of retreading are not "items of motor vehicle equipment" within the meaning of that Act. Precedent for the use of such criteria is found in action by the agency in 1969 when it decided that mini-bikes were not "motor vehicles," within the meaning of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. That decision was made because mini-bikes were prohibited from highway use in the vast majority of States, and because the manufacturers' subjective intent, proven by several objective factors, was not to build vehicles for use on the public roads (34 FR 15416, October 3, 1969).

As you know, there is no safety standard applicable to retreaded truck tires. I urge you to stress to your members the need to assure the soundness of the casings used for retreading, so that no safety problems arise from retreading these tires. Should such a problem arise, this agency would consider rulemaking to establish a safety standard for retreaded truck tires, as well as exercising its authority with regard to items containing a safety-related defect.

Should you have any questions on the actual mechanics of importing these casings, and the duties which would be applicable, I suggest that you contact Mr. Harrison Feese, U.S. Customs Service, Room 4119, 1301 Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20229. He can be reached at (202) 566-8651.

SINCERELY,

NATIONAL TIRE DEALERS & RETREADERS ASSOCIATION, INC.

March 27, 1981

Stephen Kratzke Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration U.S. Department of Transportation

Dear Mr. Kratzke:

NTDRA would like to again thank you for taking the time to work with us and the industry regarding the importation of used truck tires, that do not bear the DOT symbol, into the United States.

We are at this time requesting a clarification of the March 11, 1981 letter from Mr. Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel of your agency, to Mr. Harry Shirai. A copy of that letter is appended. On page two of the letter, in discussing ways that used tire casings can be brought into the United States, the third option states that the tires must "be accompanied by a statement from the original manufacturer that the tires, as originally produced, met the requirements of Standard No. 119." Does that mean that a foreign manufacturer can mail to both the NHTSA and the Customs Department a "blanket" certification stating all tires produced of a certain size and type at a given time had met, at the time of manufacture, the requirements of Standard No. 119 and thus satisfy the legal requirements of NHTSA and Customs for entry into the United States? If so, would it be necessary for each importer to bear a copy of such a letter with each shipment or tires, or would the letter on file at NHTSA and Customs be adequate?

As you know, there exists in this country a severe shortage of used truck tire casings to be used for retreading. NTDRA congratulates NHTSA's efforts to insure that only safe casings be used in the retreading process. Hopefully we can work together to find a solution to bring into this country safe casings that were made for use in foreign countries and subsequently do not bear the DOT symbol.

Thanks again for your efforts.

Roy Littlefield Director, Government Relations

ID: 10-000710 A.Killian,Jr. (Standard No. 205)

ID: 16957.wkm

Mr. Lewis W. Hopkins
President, Auto-Trans
Post Office Box 771118
Memphis, TN 38177

Dear Mr. Hopkins:

This responds to your letter of January 14, 1998, addressed to Walter Myers of this office asking us to review your "Land Ferry" system, also called the Auto-Trans, and asking for "preliminary National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) approval for this alternative mode of interstate highway transportation." Please be advised that this agency does not grant such approvals, as explained below. In addition, your letter was styled "Confidential." However, when Mr. Myers explained to you in a telephone conversation on March 6, 1998 that we cannot give confidential interpretation letters, you withdrew your request for confidential treatment.

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 (see 49 U.S. Code, Chapter 301). The FMVSSs apply to motor vehicles and equipment up to the first retail sale of such vehicles or equipment. Once a vehicle or item of equipment is sold to its first retail customer, NHTSA's authority terminates, with certain exceptions, and the use of that product becomes a matter of state jurisdiction. The law establishes a self-certification system in which manufacturers themselves certify that their products comply with all applicable FMVSSs. NHTSA enforces compliance with the standards by purchasing motor vehicles and equipment and testing them for compliance with applicable standards. NHTSA also investigates safety-related defects in motor vehicles and equipment. In view of the self-certification system, NHTSA neither approves, disapproves, tests, endorses, nor grants clearances for products prior to their introduction into the retail market.

The term "motor vehicle" is defined in 49 U. S. Code 30102(a)(6) as:

[A] vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power and manufactured primarily for use on public streets, roads, and highways, but does not include a vehicle operated only on a rail line.

With respect to the Auto-Trans, based on your description and the drawing you enclosed with your letter, both the tractor (driven by mechanical power) and the trailer (drawn by mechanical power), would be classified as motor vehicles. Thus, both parts of the unit would, when manufactured, be required to be certified by their manufacturer(s) as complying with all applicable FMVSSs. As you already know from your correspondence with the Federal Highway Administration, the operation of your Auto-Trans in interstate commerce would be governed by the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations and the requirements of individual states through which your Auto-Trans operates.

Enclosed for your information are fact sheets prepared by this office entitled Information for New Manufacturers of Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Equipment, Where to Obtain NHTSA's Safety Standards and Regulations, and Federal Requirements for Manufacturers of Trailers.

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 or at (202) 366-2992, or by fax at (202) 366-3820.

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

ID: 77-4.32

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 11/08/77

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Avon Tyres Limited

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Your petition of September 28, 1977, for an inconsequentiality determination has been forwarded to this office for reply.

The "noncompliance" in question is the failure of Avon Tyres to provide correct spacing between the symbol DOT and the alphanumeric code on certain tires. This requirement is imposed by 49 CFR 574.5. In addition S4.3.2 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 109 requires that each tire "shall be labelled with the . . . brand name and number assigned to the manufacturer in the manner specified in Part 574". The requirement in question is primarily one of information rather than one of safety performance, and we therefore choose to regard the incorrect spacing as a noncompliance with Part 574.

A manufacturer's obligation to notify and remedy arises only upon the discovery of a safety-related defect, or noncompliance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard. Therefore Avon's failure to correctly space the information required by Part 574 is neither a safety-related defect nor a noncompliance with a safety standard, and it has no obligation to notify and remedy. Since Avon's petition is moot, it will not be considered.

No corrective action is required for the tires in question. We note Avon's assurances of future conformance and we will close our files without imposing a civil penalty for the company's technical violation of Part 574.

YOURS TRULY,

F. Armstrong, Director, Office Of Standards Enforcement, Motor Vehicle Programs, U.S. Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration,

SEPTEMBER 28, 1977

I enclose herewith a Petition for Exemption for Inconsequential Defect or Non-Compliance in respect of the tires mentioned in your letter to the Universal Tire Company -- Reference NMV-22R Au. PC1 7708-040.1. The date of your letter was September 9th, but we did not receive a copy here until September 23rd. The petition is signed by a Director of the Avon Rubber Co. Ltd.,

I trust the format is satisfactory, but if you require any clarification or amendments please contact me.

B. E. Clapson Technical Director Avon Tyres Limited

Petition for Exemption for Inconsequential Defect or Non-Compliance

Introduction

This Petition is made in accordance with Part 556 of Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations. It concerns tires as referred to in letter NMV-22RAu PC1 7708-040.1, dated September 9th, 1977, from the U.S. Dept. of Transportation to Universal Tire Corporation. More details of these tires are given in the appropriate section below.

Petitioner

The Petitioner is the Avon Rubber Co. Ltd., of Bath Road, Melksham, Wiltshire, England, a Corporation organised and existing under the laws of England.

Items Involved

The items specifically involved are passenger car tires of "Bolide" brand contained in two shipments through Portland, Oregon, as follows:-

Container 4252157 100 units 155SR12 Tubeless

250 units 155SR13 Tubeless

550 units 165SR13 Tubeless

100 units 175SR13 Tubeless

100 units 165SR14 Tubeless

100 units 175HR14 Tubeless

50 units 155SR15 Tubeless

250 units 165SR15 Tubeless

Sub Total 1500 units

Also Container 4295605

400 units 155SR13 Tubeless

300 units 165SR13 Tubeless

100 units 175SR13 Tubeless

100 units 165SR14 Tubeless

100 units 175HR14 Tubeless 100 units 155SR15 Tubeless

400 units 165SR15 Tubeless

Sub Total 1500 units

Grand Total 3000 units

These specific tires were produced in the period January-July 1977. Other Bolide brand tires of earlier periods of manufacture are in service in the United States. These have similar errors in markings and it is requested that this Petition be regarded as including such earlier tires.

Defect or Nonconformity

With reference to Figure 1 of Part 574 Rev 11/29/74, the letters D.O.T. are more than 0.75 inch from the alphanumeric code on the following sizes of tire

175SR13 Tubeless (actual separation 1.5 inches) 165SR13 Tubeless (actual separation 5 inches)

In addition the distances between tire size codes and tire type codes are between 0.75 inch and 1.0 inch on all moulds, instead of the correct separation of between 0.25 and 0.75 inch.

Views and Arguments

Exemption is sought for the above errors in markings on the grounds:

that they are unrelated to any safety or performance characteristics of the tires and that they

do not result in any wrong or misleading information being conveyed to the user.

All the necessary information concerning the tires is contained in the markings as they stand, and they can be readily understood by anyone familiar with such code marks.

However we recognise that the purpose of Part 574 is to standardise markings for the benefit of consumers, and we have taken urgent steps to bring all our markings into conformity. We deeply regret that these errors have arisen and that a mistake early in our DOT engraving programme should have been allowed to proliferate and become the standard for subsequent mould markings. Suitable corrections to the moulds are in hand and tires bearing date codes of 417 and subsequent will conform in all respects with Part 574.

Director

AVON RUBBER COMPANY LIMITED

ID: 2410y

Mr. Jerry W. Mooney
Resident Agent in Charge
United States Customs Service
Department of the Treasury
222 Oglethorpe Ave., Suite 301
Savannah, GA 31401
Re: File SV08PLOSV001

Dear Mr. Mooney:

This is in reply to your letter of March 29, 1990, with respect to your investigation of the importation of l7 M151A2 military jeeps from Canada. The jeeps were imported as "parts" rather than as vehicles, shipped intact inside containers "and covered with parts."

You have asked three questions:

1. "We are of the understanding that a list does not exist naming certain vehicles as being noncomplying. If not, what is the procedure to determine if a vehicle complies to DOT standards?"

Your understanding is correct; no list of nonconforming vehicles exists. No procedure per se exists to determine if a vehicle meets DOT standards. However, under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, each motor vehicle must bear the permanently-affixed certification of its manufacturer that it complies with all Federal motor vehicle safety standards that applied to it on its date of manufacture. The presence of the certification label gives rise to the presumption that the vehicle meets DOT standards, and vehicles offered for importation bearing the certfication label are admitted into the United States as complying vehicles.

2. "We are of the understanding that the M151A2 does not comply to DOT standards. What makes it a noncomplying vehicle?"

The M151A2 jeep was not certified as conforming to Federal standards. The lack of certification raises a presumption of nonconformance with all standards. Whether it did, in fact, meet some or all of those standards is a question to which we do not have the answer.

3. "Does the fact that the M151A2 was manufactured for DOD make it a noncomplying vehicle?"

No. Under the regulations of this agency, no Federal motor vehicle safety standard applies to a vehicle manufactured for, and sold directly to, the Armed Forces of the United States, in compliance with contractual specifications. Although this relieves the manufacturer of the legal obligation of compliance, he may nevertheless choose to manufacture his vehicle in conformance with one or more standards. As I said in response to your second question, we have no knowledge as to the M151A2's state of compliance with any Federal motor vehicle safety standard.

I hope that this is responsive to your questions. Although the importation of these vehicles appears to be a violation of the regulations of this agency (the failure to file a declaration), it is only a technical one, since no Federal motor vehicle safety standard applied to the jeeps at the time of their manufacture. Nevertheless, we are concerned about the safety implications of this importation.

For many years, the Department of Defense, with the encouragement of this agency, has maintained the policy that all M151 vehicles must be scrapped at the end of their useful military life in a manner such that they cannot be reassembled for use on the public roads. Over the years, these vehicles have exhibited a tendency to roll over, even when operated by drivers specifically trained in their correct usage. Consequently, it has been deemed in the interests of safety to ensure that they will not be operated by untrained drivers on the public roads. While exportation of unscrapped M151s to Canada initially removed the threat to safety in the United States, their importation into this country renews that threat. Thus, we support your investigative efforts. We understand that, under Customs procedures, merchandise entered fraudulently may be redelivered for export, or seized by Customs. If the vehicles are seized, we recommend their export or destruction, rather than disposal by sale at auction or by use by Customs personnel in the performance of their duties.

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel ref:Import d:4/25/90

ID: GF000906

Mr. Jeff Maharg
Engineering Manager
Tracker Marine Group
P.O. Box 760
Ozark, MO 65721

Dear Mr. Maharg:

This responds to your February 5, 2004, e-mail and phone conversation with George Feygin of my staff regarding certain trailer lighting requirements. Specifically, you ask whether a small (5ft. x 8ft.) trailer must be equipped with front side marker lamps. In short, our answer is yes.

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

With respect to your question, Table III of the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 108 lists required lighting equipment for trailers with an overall width of less than 80 inches. [1] Table III requires that each such trailer be equipped with two red and two amber side marker lamps. Table IV specifies the location of the required lighting listed in Table III. With respect to side marker lamps on trailers, Table IV mandates that one red side marker be located as far to the rear as practicable, and one amber side marker be located as far to the front as practicable, on each side of the trailer. Accordingly, your trailer must be equipped with two amber side marker lamps located on each side of the trailer as far to the front as practicable.

From the attached pictures of your trailer, it is unclear whether it is equipped with rear red side marker lamps. Further, the front amber side markers do not appear to be located "as far to the front as practicable." Finally, we note that your trailer

must also be equipped with red and amber reflex reflectors that are either incorporated into side marker lamps or located adjacent to the side marker lamps. The amber reflex reflector that appears to be mounted on the wheel cover does not satisfy this requirement. In order to satisfy FMVSS No. 108, you must install all required lighting in the correct location.

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

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:108
d.3/18/04





---

[1] Your e-mail and attached photos indicate that your trailer width is approximately 5 ft (60 inches).

ID: nht94-1.61

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: February 15, 1994

FROM: Thomas D. Turner -- Manager, Engineering Services, Blue Bird Body Company

TO: George Entwistle -- Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, NHTSA

TITLE: NEF-31GEn/NCI 3302

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 4/8/94 from John Womack to Thomas Turner (A42; Std. 131); Also attached to letter dated 1/26/83 from Frank Berndt to Thomas D. Turner

TEXT:

Last Week I received by FAX an advanced copy of NCI 3302 concerning an apparent non-compliance of stop arms with strobe lights to FMVSS 131 Section S6.2.2, "Flash Rate." Blue Bird is forwarding a copy of NCI 3302 to our supplier of stop arms, Specialty Manufacturing Company in Pineville, North Carolina, so that they can determine if a non-compliance exists.

In studying the requirements of S5.3, a question has arisen. S5.3 Conspicuity states "The stop signal arm shall comply with either S5.3.1 or S5.3.2, or both." Some of the stop arms we install are reflectorized and have strobe lights. Based on NCI 3302 , it appears that the strobe lights do not comply with S6.2.2, so these stop arms do not comply with the "S5.3.2" or the "both" option of Section S5.3. However, these stop arms fully comply with the S5.3.1 option of Section S5.3; and the use of the stro be lights could be considered as optional lighting, not required by FMVSS 131 and therefore not required to meet the requirements of S6.2.

NOTE: As a general rule, supplemental lighting is permitted by Standard No. 108 as long as it does not "impair the effectiveness of lighting equipment" required by the standard. (See attached letter from Chief Counsel dated January 2 6, 1983.)

It is our understanding that a stop signal arm that fully complies with the requirements of S5.3.1 has satisfied the requirements of S5.3 Conspicuity, even if it has optional strobe lights installed that do not meet S5.3.2.

WE REQUEST CONFIRMATION THAT THE OVSC CONSIDERS A REFLECTORIZE STOP SIGNAL ARM THAT FULLY COMPLIES WITH S5.3.1 AS COMPLIANT WITH S5.3 WITH OR WITHOUT STROBE LIGHTS INSTALLED.

Your immediate response is needed so that we can proceed with work on our response to NCI 3302.

ID: 14714.ztv

Mr. Reggie Lawrence
Intelligent Safety
P.O. Box 8618
Midland, TX 79708-8618

Dear Mr. Lawrence:

This is in reply to your letter of April 4, 1997, telling us about your "Brake Light Delay System" and "Blinker Delay System", and asking for an opinion "regarding the legality and use of these systems."

The "Brake Light Delay System" is spliced into the wiring of the stop lamp switch and has the effect of delaying deactivation of the stop lamps for approximately 6 seconds after the operator's foot is removed from the brake pedal. You envision installation of the System on a truck tractor-trailer combination so that when the truck tractor begins to accelerate after it has turned, the delayed stop lamp will indicate to a driver following that (s)he must continue to exercise caution

I am sorry to tell you that Federal law does not allow installation of the "Brake Light Delay System", either as original or aftermarket equipment. Under paragraph S5.5.4 of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, stop lamps must be activated upon application of the service brakes. We have interpreted this to mean activation only upon application of the service brakes. Thus, continued activation of the stop lamps after application of the service brakes has ceased would result in a vehicle's failure to comply with paragraph S5.5.4. We appreciate your offer to provide one of these systems for evaluation, but because Federal law does not allow the system, we must decline your offer.

I remarked above that your System cannot be installed in the aftermarket. The regulations of the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) for commercial vehicles operated in interstate commerce prohibits motor carriers from installing your system if it results in a noncompliance with Standard No. 108. The FHWA requires that commercial motor vehicles manufactured on or after March 7, 1989, meet the requirements of Standard No. 108 in effect at the time the vehicle was manufactured. The FHWA also prohibits the use of additional equipment or accessories that are inconsistent with its regulations. Therefore, your system may not be installed on commercial motor vehicles manufactured before March 7, 1989.

Please note that State laws for interstate commercial motor vehicles are consistent with, if not identical to, the FHWA's requirements. Also, the States are required to have intrastate safety regulations that fall within the FHWA's Tolerance Guidelines. Under this circumstance, the legality of the use of your system on commercial motor vehicles operated exclusively in intrastate commerce would be determined by the laws of the States in which the System would be used. We are unable to provide you with an interpretation of relevant State laws and suggest that you consult the Department of Motor Vehicles of the various States.

Your "Blinker Delay System" is intended to prevent the automatic cancellation of the turn signal system for 3 to 4 seconds after the front wheels of a towing vehicle have been straightened, again to indicate that a turn has not been completed. You note that "most tractor trucks have a blinker system that must manually be switched off to deactivate the blinker," and that the "Blinker Delay System" is intended for other trucks. Under paragraph S5.1.1.5, turn signals on all motor vehicles less than 80 inches in overall width must be self-canceling by steering wheel rotation. Thus, installation of this device would also create a noncompliance with Standard No. 108. For the same reasons, and with the same exception, noted above, this device would not be acceptable as either original or replacement equipment on motor vehicles required to comply with paragraph S5.1.1.5.

If you have further questions, you may refer them to Taylor Vinson of this Office (202-366-5263).

Sincerely,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
ref:108
d:5/30/97

ID: 2848o

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

Dear Mr. Webb:

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 is 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 seq.) prohibits the sale or introduction into interstate commerce of any new vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment that does not conform to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. The Safety Act 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. It is not clear from your letter whether your dealership is proposing to make the modifications 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 individual vehicle owners make to their own vehicles.

However, if your dealership were to make these modifications, you would be responsible for complying with various provisions of the Safety Act and applicable regulations. The provisions with which you would have to comply would depend on whether you modify the vehicle before it is sold for the first time to the consumer (a new vehicle), or if you make the modifications 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 safety 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 modifiers, 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 operations or in such a manner that the weight ratings assigned 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 utility 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, 567.7 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 were completed (see 567.7(a)); (2) The modified values for the vehicle be provided as specified in 567.4(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 label (see 567.7(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 certification.

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 Act and is subject to the requirements of 49 CFR Part 573, Defect and Noncompliance 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)(A) 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 vehicles 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 inoperative" 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 Procedures." 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

ref:VSA#567 d:4/15/88

ID: 1984-4.9

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/19/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: American Honda Motor Co., Inc. -- Brian Gill, Manager, Certification Dept.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Brian Gill Manager, Certification Department American Honda Motor Co., Inc. P.O. Box 50 Gardena, California 90247

This is in reply to your letters of October 8 and 26, 1984, with respect to a proposed motorcycle headlighting system. In this design, two bulbs, each with its own reflector, are combined in a single housing. You have informed us that both bulbs are illuminated when the headlamp is on and together provide "the proper photometric output for low and high beams." Further, each reflector is adjustable individually, horizontally and vertically. The lamp has been designed to comply with the requirements of SAE J584.

Your contemplated design is acceptable for motorcycles; SAE J584 refers to a "light source or sources" ( see "At-Focus Tests") . However, a two-bulb design in a single housing would have to be designed to meet J584's requirements for a single headlamp including maximum output of 75,000 cd. Further, Standard No. 108 permits independently aimable reflectors, or aim by moving the entire assembly whichever you prefer. All that is required is that the unit meet SAE J566 Headlamp Mountings, January 1960.

I hope that this answers your questions.

Sincerely, Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

October 26, 1984

Chief Counsel NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D. C. 20590

Dear Sir:

This is in regard to the motorcycle headlight system which I described in my letter of October 8th.

Since that time I have met with Mr. Richard Van Iderstine, Safety Standards Engineer in the Office of Vehicle Safety Standards to discuss this headlight. The following information is provided as a result of that discussion:

1. The device in question is a single motorcycle headlight.

2. The headlight complies with SAE J584, April 1984 as specified in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Stadard (FMVSS) number 108.

We would appreciate your cooperation in reviewing this material and your confirmation that the headlight complies with FMVSS 108 requirements. Please call me at (213) 327-8280, extension 2198 if you have any questions or comments.

Yours truly,

AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO. , INC.

Brian Gill Manager Certification Department BG/jb

October 8, 1984

Office of the General Council NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION Department of Trasportation 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20591

Dear Sir:

Enclosed are drawings of a headlight system designed for use on certain 1985 model year motorcycles. We would like to confirm that this design complies with the requirements of FMVSS 108.

Both bulbs are illuminated ay time that the headlight is switched on and together provide the proper photometric output for low and high beams. Each reflector is adjustable individually both horizontally and vertically.

Mr. Medlin of the Crash Avoidance Division of NHTSA told me on October 5th that you are currently considering a similar device but with some significant differences, and that I should bring our motorcycle headlight system to your attention as soon as possible.

I will try to contact Mr. Vincent by telephone on October 10th to discuss this matter further.

Yours truly,

AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR., INC.

Brian Gill Manager Certification Department BG:lw Enclosure Insert,two charts