ID: nht91-3.11

DATE: April 8, 1991

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: H. Hurley Haywood -- Vice President, Brumos Motor Cars, Inc.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 3-20-91 from H. Hurley Haywood to Chief Consul U.S. Department of Transportation, NHTSA (OCC 5855)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of March 20, 1991 with respect to "the sale of a very limited number of specially built cars in the U.S." Components would be manufactured by Porsche. The chassis would be "a carbon fiber 962 racing tub" with a hand built body. The car could be imported either as an assembled vehicle or as a kit and assembled here. You have asked for information regarding "low volume manufacturers exemptions from certain DOT regulations, emissions, passive restraints, bumper height, and all other pertinent information regarding manufacturing and sale of vehicles in the U.S.

You have not enclosed a photo of the car but your remark that the chassis is a "racing tub" raises the possibility that the vehicle may be intended for racing purposes. Single-seat vehicles imported for competition on closed circuit courses and not used on the public roads are generally not "motor vehicles" under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, and no regulations apply to them. If you wish to pursue this possibility further, please send us more information on the vehicle.

Assuming that the car is subject to the Safety Act, its manufacturer is eligible to apply for a temporary exemption from one or more of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards on several grounds. Exemptions of up to three years may be provided a manufacturer whose total motor vehicle production was 10,000 units or less in the year preceding the filing of its petition. Alternatively, exemptions of up to two years may be provided covering up to 2,500 vehicles per year if the manufacturer-petitioner can demonstrate that the exemption would facilitate the field evaluation of innovative safety features or low-emission vehicles, or if, in the absence of an exemption, the manufacturer would be prevented from selling a motor vehicle whose overall level of safety is at least equivalent to that of a vehicle complying with all the safety standards. However, the exemption authority extends only to the safety standards. The bumper height standard was issued under the authority of the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act which contains no exemption provisions. The emission standards are issued by the Environmental Protection Agency, which is not part of the Department of Transportation, and you will have to contact them as to their requirements.

If the intent is to import a fully assembled motor vehicle into the United States, at the time of entry it will have to bear the certification of its manufacturer that it complies with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety, bumper, and theft prevention standards (the certification label must also list the standards from which exemptions may have been provided).

If the intent is to ship the vehicle in a disassembled state for assembly by the purchaser or manufacturer's agent in the United States, and if the kit contains 100% of the parts necessary for assembly, we regard the foreign supplier as the "manufacturer", responsible for ensuring compliance with all Federal requirements, including provision of certification.

I enclose an information sheet with respect to the regulations that we administer, and will be pleased to answer any further questions you may have. If you prefer to telephone, Taylor Vinson of this Office will be able to help you (202-366-5263).

ID: aiam5058

"Dear Mr. Adams: This responds to your FAX of September 24, 1992 requesting a ruling regarding the legality of lap belts at the passenger seats on school buses. As explained below, Federal law has long required lap or lap/shoulder belts to be installed at every passenger seating position on small school buses. Federal law has also long permitted, but not required, lap or lap/shoulder belts to be installed at passenger seating positions on large school buses, provided that those belts do not adversely affect the large school bus's compliance with the applicable safety standards. This is still the agency's position. As you know, in 1977, NHTSA issued Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 222, School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection, which established minimum levels of crash protection that must be provided for occupants of all school buses. For large school buses (those with a gross vehicle weight rating GVWR of more than 10,000 pounds), the standard requires occupant protection through a concept called 'compartmentalization' -- strong, well-padded, well- anchored, high-backed, evenly spaced seats. Small school buses (those with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less) must provide 'compartmentalization' and be equipped with lap or lap/shoulder belts at all passenger seating positions. The agency believes that safety belts are necessary in addition to 'compartmentalization' in small school buses because of their smaller size and weight, which are closer to that of passenger cars and light trucks. Ever since 1977, NHTSA has indicated that Federal law permits lap or lap/shoulder belts to be installed at the passenger seating positions on large school buses as long as the vehicle would still comply with all applicable safety standards, including Standard No. 222. NHTSA has no information to indicate that installation of seat belts at the passenger seating positions on a large school bus would affect the bus's compliance with any safety standard.The allegations in your FAX that using seat belts in large school buses will result in crash forces producing concentrated loading on the head, instead of being spread evenly over the upper torso as is the case without a seat belt, are nearly identical with the explanations included in a 1985 Transport Canada report on school bus safety. NHTSA carefully evaluated and considered the Canadian report and these explanations in connection with its rulemaking action considering whether to specify requirements for voluntarily installed seat belts on large school buses. 54 FR 11765, March 22, 1989. After fully considering the Canadian report, the agency stated at 54 FR 11770: NHTSA shares commenters' concerns about any implications that safety belts negatively affect the protection provided to passengers on large school buses. However, the agency is not aware of accident data showing an injury caused or made more serious by the presence of safety belts on a school bus. Furthermore, NHTSA cannot conclude from the Canadian report's findings that belts actually degrade the benefits of compartmentalization to the extent that the supplemental restraint system renders inoperative the safety of large school buses, but the possibility exists that the occupant kinematics shown in the Canadian tests could occur. The agency then identified some possible safety benefits that could result from seat belts in large school buses, benefits that were not considered in the Canadian tests. The agency concluded that, 'Although these benefits are not significant enough to justify a Federal requirement for the installation of safety belts on all large school buses, they are enough to provide a basis upon which the agency will decline to prohibit the installation of belts on large school buses.' 54 FR 11765, at 11770, March 22, 1989. I have enclosed a copy of this notice for your information. As you can see, NHTSA has carefully considered the subject raised in your FAX and reviewed all available information in this area. After that review, the agency concluded that there was no justification for changing its longstanding position that persons that wish to do so should be permitted to install seat belts at passenger seating positions in large school buses. Your letter did not provide any data that NHTSA had not already considered. Hence, there is no basis for the agency to change its longstanding position in this area. I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Mary Versailles of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel Enclosure";

ID: aiam3080

Dear Mr. Lynch: This responds to the questions you raised with Ms. Debra Weiner of m office when you telephoned on June 19 with regard to your intention to establish a business for the manufacture of 53.6 gallon replacement gasoline tanks and for the installation of these tanks in used Cadillac limousines. You specifically asked what Federal law is applicable to your proposed activities and whether any Federal law establishes a maximum allowable capacity for gasoline tanks.; The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, as amende (the Act) authorized the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to issue Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS's) applicable either to entire vehicles or to equipment for installation in vehicles. FMVSS 301-75, *Fuel System Integrity*, (see enclosed copy) is a vehicle standard applicable to passenger cars and other vehicles which requires that fuel spillage occurring during and after any crash of the vehicle into a fixed or moving barrier not exceed established limits. As explained below, this standard indirectly affects both the installation and manufacture of replacement gasoline tanks.; Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Act prohibits certain entities and person from knowingly removing, disconnecting, or reducing the performance of equipment or elements of design installed on a vehicle in accordance with applicable FMVSS's. Specifically, the section provides:; >>>No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repai 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 . . .<<<; A person or entity found to have violated this section would be liabl for a civil penalty of up to $1,000 for each violation. (Section 109 of the Act).; If a person or entity listed in section 108(a)(2)(A) removes th original gasoline tank from a used vehicle and installs a replacement tank, the section is violated unless the performance (as defined by FMVSS 301-75) of the replacement tank equals or exceeds the performance of the original tank. To determine the relative performance of the replacement tank, a number of issues would have to be examined, including the quality of the replacement tank, the connection of the tank with the filler pipe and fuel lines to the fuel pump, and the location of the tank with respect to surrounding vehicles structure. For example, if unlike the original tank, the replacement tank were sufficiently near surrounding vehicle structures so that those structures might be more readily pushed against or into the replacement tank and cause a rupture in a collision, the performance of the fuel system would have been impermissibly reduced.; Consequently, as a manufacturer of replacement gasoline tanks, yo could be liable for a penalty under section 108(a)(2)(A) if you replace the gasoline tank in a used Cadillac limousine with one or your tanks, knowing that the performance of the replacement tank as installed would be inferior to that of the original tank.; Please note that should you decide to install your tanks in ne vehicles prior the their first sale for purposes other than resale, you would also be required to certify that the vehicle as altered still complied with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. Should these provisions become relevant to your business, I would be happy to provide further information.; Sections 151-155 of the Act, which are enclosed, would also apply t your activities as a manufacturer of gasoline tanks. These sections provide that if the agency or you find that your tanks contain a safety-related defect, you would be required to notify purchasers of the hazard and to remedy the defect. Under sections 108(a)(1)(D) and 109(a) of the Act, any person who fails to provide notification of or remedy for a safety defect is liable for a civil penalty of up to $1,000 per violation.; I would like to point out that, in addition to the Federal la discussed above, there may be state products liability law applicable to your proposed activities. As a manufacturer of gasoline tanks you could be liable for their design, materials, manufacture or performance. As an installer of gasoline tanks you could be liable for the manner and location in which the tanks are installed. Therefore, you may wish to consult a local lawyer before starting your new business.; Finally, with respect to your inquiry about maximum allowable capacit for gasoline tanks, neither the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration nor the Department of Transportation as a whole has established such a limit.; I hope that you will find this response helpful. Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam3242

Dear Mr. Martin: This responds to your letter of February 20, 1980, in which yo requested information concerning this agency's requirements that motor vehicles be equipped with tamper-resistant odometers and the method used to enforce this requirement. As described below, I have enclosed copies of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's (NHTSA) pertinent regulations and enabling legislation as well as some background material.; Among the enclosures to this letter are a series of Federal Registe notices which trace the development of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 127, *Speedometers and Odometers*. As you will see, (43 FR 10919, March 16, 1978, Notice 4) the initial requirement that odometers 'be moveable in the forward direction only' has been modified several times largely in response to comments from the public and from the automobile manufactures (examples enclosed). The rule in effect at present requires either that (1) odometers be irreversible 'whether installed in or removed from a vehicle' unless one or more of five specified operations is necessary to achieve reversal or (2) that odometers be equipped with a marking system which permanently marks the wheel registering ten thousands of miles as the numeral disappears from the driver's view (see 44 FR 17500, March 22, 1979). changes to standard have been proposed (see 44 FR 17532, March 22, 1979) and this agency expects to publish a final rule incorporating some of these changes in the near future. Upon its publication I will be happy to send you a copy. In anticipation. of publication of this rule, the agency has not yet conducted an evaluation in the field of the effectiveness of the odometer provisions of Safety Standard No. 127. However, The agency is now preparing to begin such an evaluation. At this point I am unable to provide you with any details on the form which the evaluation will take.; I have also enclosed an economic impact analysis prepared in 1978 whic discusses, among other things, an early version of Safety Standard 127's odometer tampering provision. Please note that this analysis was not updated as the odometer requirements of Safety Standard No. 127 were modified because this agency concluded that these changes would not significantly alter the standard's economic impact.; You may also be interested to know that SAfety Standard 127 is not thi agency's only tool against odometer tampering. Title IV, Odometer Requirements, of the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act (copy enclosed) which is enforced in part, by this agency states that no person shall (1) disconnect reset or alter or cause to be disconnected reset or altered the odometer of a motor vehicle with intent to change the number of miles indicated thereon, (2) with intent to defraud, operate a motor vehicle on any street or highway knowing that the odometer of such vehicle is disconnected or nonfunctional of (3) advertise for sale, sell, use or install or cause to be installed any device which causes an odometer to register any milage other that the true milage driver.; In addition, the act authorizes this agency to develop regulation requiring any transferor of ownership of a motor vehicle to provide to the transferee written disclosure of the cumulative milage registered on the odometer or, in cases where the transferor knows that the odometer reading is different from the number of miles the vehicle has actually traveled, disclosure of that fact. The agency's regulations concerning these disclosures are enclosed for your information.; In your letter, you also requested information indicative of the exten to which odometer tampering presents a problem in the United States.; Unfortunately, I am unable to provide you with any reliable studie conducted in this area. The legislation and regulations aimed at reducing the incidence of odometer tampering have all rested upon a common but un-quantified consensus that odometer tampering is a significant problem in the United States. Safety engineers in this agency have estimated, simply on the basis of their experience, that between 50% and 75% of the used cars sold in the United States contain odometers whose readings have been reduced.; I hope that you will find this information helpful in preparing you project on tamper-proof odometers.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam3727

Dear Mr. Burwell: This responds to your recent letter to Mr. Kratzke of my staff, askin questions about a group of trucks tires you wish to sell. Specifically, your company received a large shipment of truck tires from Tong Shinn Chemical Company in Korea. Some of those tires did not have the D.O.T. symbol and other information labelled on the sidewall, as required for all new truck tires by Safety Standard No. 119, *New pneumatic tires for motor vehicles other than passenger cars (49 CFR S571.119). Your company tried to return the tires to the Korean manufacturer, because tires which do not meet the requirements of Standard No. 119 may not be legally sold in this country. However, the Korean manufacturer has gone out of business, leaving your company with $15,000 worth of tires which may not be sold legally in this country unless appropriate information is labelled on the sidewalls.; You indicated in your letter that you would be willing to label th appropriate information onto the sidewalls of the tires. Tong Shinn has indicated that those tires are of the same quality as the tires it shipped to you with the DOT markings. Further, you indicated that your company would be willing to store the names and addresses of the purchasers of these tires, in the event a safety-related recall is necessary. After considering these facts and representations, I believe you may label the tires with the necessary information and sell them, provided that you get some more information from the Korean manufacturer.; This agency has previously allowed the marking of truck tires by party other than the manufacturer in only one instance. That case, which also involved imported truck tires, included four factors which led the agency to make an exception to the policy that only a tire manufacturer can label the necessary information on the sidewall of the tires. Those factors were:; >>>(1) The manufacturer certified that the unmarked tires met th requirements of Standard No. 119, except for the labelling requirement,; (2) The manufacturer provided the appropriate information to b labelled on the tires,; (3) The manufacturer agreed to be responsible for the tires in th event of a safety-related recall, and; (4) The manufacturer agreed that the marking method to be used by th importer would not weaken the tires and destroy their compliance with Standard No. 119.<<<; In this case, Tong Shinn has already provided the first item liste above. It will be necessary for you to contact Tong Shinn to learn what information should be labelled on the tires for purposes of section S6.5 of Standard No. 119 (copy enclosed) and also the appropriate codes and information for the tire identification number, which must be labelled on the sidewalls of the tires per 49 CFR 574, *Tire Identification and Recordkeeping* (copy enclosed). Please furnish Mr. Kratzke with a copy of the information you receive from Tong Shinn on this subject.; As to the third item above, you indicate that your company would b willing to be responsible for the tires in the event of a safety- related recall. To do so, it will be necessary for your company to record the names and addresses of the purchasers of these tires, and store that information for a three year period. For further information on the responsibilities you will have to undertake, see section 574.7 for tire registration requirements for tire manufacturers.; It will also be necessary for you to contact Tong Shinn and explain ho you propose to mark the information of the sidewalls of these tires, and get them to agree that this method of marking the tires will not affect their compliance with Standard No. 119. Again, please furnish a copy of that agreement to Mr. Kratzke of this office.; After you have received this additional information, this agency has n objection to your company marking the tires and selling them. Please understand that this is permitted only because of the unique circumstances of this particular situation, and that if the Korean manufacturer had not gone out of business, you would not be allowed to mark these tires. However, in these circumstances, some flexibility in the requirements is necessary to help you avert a financial loss, while maintaining the necessary safety assurances for purchasers of these tires. If you have any further questions or need additional information, please contact Mr. Steve Kratzke of my staff at (202) 426- 2992.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam4559

"Dear Mr. Tunick: This responds to your October 20, 1988 letter, i which you asked for an interpretation of Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection (49 CFR 571.208). More specifically, you noted that section S4.1.3 requires a specified percentage of a manufacturer's annual production to be equipped with automatic occupant protection. You stated that some vehicles imported into the United States may subsequently be exported to Canada. Since section 108(b)(5) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(b)(5), the Safety Act) specifies that none of the safety standards apply to vehicles intended solely for export, your company assumes that it should not include vehicles subsequently exported to Canada in its annual production totals when determining compliance with S4.1.3 of Standard No. 208. This assumption is incorrect, as explained below. In a September 4, 1985 letter to Messrs. Stephen Waimey and Dean Hansell (copy enclosed), we answered the question of how manufacturers that produce cars outside the United States should calculate their annual production to determine compliance with the phase-in requirements of Standard No. 208. That letter explains that foreign-based manufacturers should count the number of vehicles that were produced and certified for sale in the United States, in accordance with 49 CFR Part 567, Certification, during the relevant time period to determine their annual production for the purposes of Standard No. 208. Your letter referred to section 108(b)(5) of the Safety Act, and suggested that this statutory provision means that any vehicles that are imported into the United States and subsequently exported to a different country should not be counted as part of the manufacturer's annual production. I am happy to explain our view of what is permitted under that statutory provision. Section 108(b)(5) provides that the requirements in the safety standards 'shall not apply in the case of a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment intended solely for export, and so labeled or tagged on the vehicle or item itself and on the outside of the container, if any, which is exported.' This statutory language establishes three separate conditions that would have to be satisfied to exclude a vehicle from the requirements of the safety standards, including the calculation of a manufacturer's annual production for purposes of Standard No. 208. These three conditions are: 1. The vehicle must be intended solely for export, 2. The vehicle must have a label or tag on it at the time it is imported which shows that the vehicle is intended solely for export, and 3. The vehicle must actually be exported. We agree with your contention that a vehicle satisfying all three of these conditions would not be subject to the requirements of any of the safety standards, and could properly be excluded from the calculation of a manufacturer's annual production for the purposes of Standard No. 208. For a similar interpretation regarding imported tires that are intended solely for export and so labeled, see the enclosed November 10, 1975 letter to Mr. John B. White. Of course, it would not be sufficient if only one of these conditions, such as the third one regarding actual exportation, were satisfied. We are uncertain regarding the facts surrounding the vehicles that have already been imported into the United States and then exported to Canada and thus are unable to give an opinion concerning their satisfaction of the section 108(b)(5) conditions. It should be relatively simple for you to determine whether these vehicles satisfied the first two conditions. Did those vehicles truly just pass through the US on their way to Canada? To what country's standards were those vehicles certified and when? When the vehicles were imported into the United States, your company was required to complete a Form HS-7. That form allows the importer to declare that a vehicle is intended solely for export and that the vehicle bears a label or tag to that effect. What type of declaration was made with respect to the vehicles in question? As to vehicles which Maserati Automobiles, Inc., wishes in the future to import into this country and pass directly through to Canada for sale there, satisfaction of each of the three section 108(b)(5) conditions will assure that the vehicles are not included in the Standard No. 208 calculations. If you have any further questions or need additional information on this subject, please feel free to contact Steve Kratzke of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel Enclosures";

ID: aiam4410

Dear Mr. Maloney: This responds to your letter seeking an interpretation of Standard No 211, *Wheel Nuts, Wheel Discs, and Hub Caps* (49 CFR S571.211). Section S3 of this standard states, 'Wheel nuts, hub caps, and wheel discs for use on passenger cars and multipurpose passenger vehicles shall not incorporate winged projections.' You asked whether these components are permitted to incorporate winged projections if the winged projections do not extend beyond the wheel rim when mounted. As we have stated several times in the past, winged projects are prohibited on wheel nuts, hub caps, and wheel discs, *regardless* of whether the winged projections are recessed below the level of the wheel rim.; This issue was first raised in response to the notice of propose rulemaking for the initial Federal motor vehicle safety standards, published on December 3, 1966 (31 FR 15212). That notice proposed language for Standard No. 211 that was identical with that which was adopted. In response to this proposal, a manufacture commented that it did not consider its winged wheel nuts a hazard to pedestrians or cyclists, because the winged wheel nuts did not extend beyond the outermost projection of the wheel rim. The final rule published on February 3, 1967 (32 FR 2408) did not make any change to the proposed language in response to this comment.; In a report issued on March 17, 1967 on the development of the initia Federal motor vehicle safety standards, the agency summarized the comments on the proposed standards and its response to those comments. I have enclosed a copy of the summary of Standard No. 211 for your information. As you will see, this summary recited the manufacturer's comments on winged projections that were located inside the outermost projection of the wheel rim and tire. The summary goes on to say, 'The Agency did not agree, and retained the prohibition of even such recess winged structures lest the clothes of child pedestrians and others be caught.' Hence, arguments about the unobjectionability of *recessed* winged projections were considered and rejected by the agency more than twenty years ago.; We have repeated this position in our subsequent interpretations o Standard No. 211. I have enclosed copies of an August 26, 1970 letter to Mr. James S. Campbell ('...any winged projection is prohibited, even if recessed.'), a November 25, 1975 letter to Mr. James J. Schardt ('Our interpretation of Standard No. 211 is that S3 prohibits winged projections that do not extend beyond the outer edge of the tire or rim, as well as those that do.'), and a January 31, 1980 letter to Mr. Doug Smith ('...the standard prohibits the use of all winged projections regardless of the extent to which they extend from a rim.').; After examining the history of this requirement, we have concluded tha the language of the standard itself draws no distinction between winged projections that do not extend beyond the outer edge of the rim and those that do. Instead, section S3 provides that the identified components 'shall *not* incorporate winged projections.' We reaffirm our previous interpretations, which concluded that this language prohibits *all* winged projections on the identified components, not just those that extend beyond the outer edge of the rim.; You concluded by asking me to state that recessed winged projection may by imported, offered for sale, and sold in the United States. I cannot make such a statement. Since those winged projections are prohibited by Standard No. 211, section 108(a)(1)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, as amended (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(1)(A)) makes it illegal to 'manufacture for sale, sell, offer for sale, or introduce or deliver for introduction in interstate commerce, or import into the United States' any wheel discs, wheel nuts, or hub caps that incorporate winged projections. Section 109 of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1398) specifies a civil penalty of up to $1000 for each violation of section 108(a), and we would consider each sale of wheel discs, wheel nuts, or hub caps with winged projections to be a separate violation of section 108(a).; If you have any further questions on this matter, please feel free t contact Mr. Kratzke at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.; Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam4628

"Dear Mr. Kahle: This responds to your letters to Mr. Jettner of ou Office of Vehicle Safety Standards asking about the application of Federal safety standards to your manufacture of an 'aftermarket' head restraint for light trucks. Your letters have been referred to my office for reply. I regret the delay in responding. You ask whether you need this agency's approval of your product. The answer is no. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized by the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (copy enclosed) to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA is not authorized to certify or approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment for compliance with our Federal motor vehicle safety standards. Instead, under the Safety Act, each manufacturer of a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment is required to certify that its products meet all applicable safety standards. There is currently no Federal motor vehicle safety standard that is directly applicable to the product you wish to manufacture and sell. Our standard for head restraints (Standard No. 202) applies only to completed new passenger cars and not to a head restraints sold as an item of 'aftermarket' equipment for pickup trucks. However, there are other Federal laws that indirectly affect your manufacture and sale of the head restraint device. Under the Safety Act, your product is considered to be an item of motor vehicle equipment. As a manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment, you are subject to the requirements in sections 151-159 of the Safety Act concerning the recall and remedy of products with defects relating to motor vehicle safety. I have enclosed an information sheet that briefly describes those responsibilities. In the event that you or NHTSA determines that your head restraints contain a safety related defect, you would be responsible for notifying purchasers of the defective equipment and remedying the problem free of charge. A commercial business that installs your head restraint would be subject to provisions of the Safety Act that affect whether the business may install your product on a vehicle. Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Act states: '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 ...' This section requires manufacturers, distributors, dealers or motor vehicle repair businesses (i.e., any person holding him or herself out to the public as in the business of repairing motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment for compensation) installing your head restraint device on new or used vehicles to ensure that the addition of the apparatus would not negatively affect the compliance of any component or design on a vehicle with applicable Federal safety standards. For example, the commercial entity must ensure that the addition of the device does not degrade from the safety provided by flammable-resistant materials in the vehicle's interior compartment which have been installed in accordance with Standard No. 302, Flammability of Interior Materials (copy enclosed). Installation of rapidly burning materials could vitiate the compliance of the materials which were present in the vehicle at the time of its sale to the first consumer and were certified as meeting FMVSS No. 302. Section 109 of the Act specifies a civil penalty of up to $1,000 for each violation of /108. However, the prohibitions of /108(a)(2)(A) do not apply to the actions of a vehicle owner in adding to or otherwise modifying his or her vehicle. Thus, a vehicle owner would not violate the Safety Act by installing the head restraint, even if doing so would negatively affect some safety feature in his or her vehicle. You ask for a copy of an 'order' requiring head restraints on new pick-up trucks in 1991. Please note that NHTSA has thus far only proposed to require head restraints in new light trucks and vans (10,000 pounds or less gross vehicle weight rating), and has proposed a September 1, 1991 effective date for the requirement, if the proposed rule is adopted. I have enclosed a copy of the proposal for your information. We expect to announce the agency's next step in the rulemaking proceeding shortly. I hope this information is helpful. Please feel free to contact us if you have further questions. Sincerely, Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel Enclosures";

ID: aiam3728

Dear Mr. Burwell: This responds to your recent letter to Mr. Kratzke of my staff, askin questions about a group of trucks tires you wish to sell. Specifically, your company received a large shipment of truck tires from Tong Shinn Chemical Company in Korea. Some of those tires did not have the D.O.T. symbol and other information labelled on the sidewall, as required for all new truck tires by Safety Standard No. 119, *New pneumatic tires for motor vehicles other than passenger cars (49 CFR S571.119). Your company tried to return the tires to the Korean manufacturer, because tires which do not meet the requirements of Standard No. 119 may not be legally sold in this country. However, the Korean manufacturer has gone out of business, leaving your company with $15,000 worth of tires which may not be sold legally in this country unless appropriate information is labelled on the sidewalls.; You indicated in your letter that you would be willing to label th appropriate information onto the sidewalls of the tires. Tong Shinn has indicated that those tires are of the same quality as the tires it shipped to you with the DOT markings. Further, you indicated that your company would be willing to store the names and addresses of the purchasers of these tires, in the event a safety-related recall is necessary. After considering these facts and representations, I believe you may label the tires with the necessary information and sell them, provided that you get some more information from the Korean manufacturer.; This agency has previously allowed the marking of truck tires by party other than the manufacturer in only one instance. That case, which also involved imported truck tires, included four factors which led the agency to make an exception to the policy that only a tire manufacturer can label the necessary information on the sidewall of the tires. Those factors were:; >>>(1) The manufacturer certified that the unmarked tires met th requirements of Standard No. 119, except for the labelling requirement,; (2) The manufacturer provided the appropriate information to b labelled on the tires,; (3) The manufacturer agreed to be responsible for the tires in th event of a safety-related recall, and; (4) The manufacturer agreed that the marking method to be used by th importer would not weaken the tires and destroy their compliance with Standard No. 119.<<<; In this case, Tong Shinn has already provided the first item liste above. It will be necessary for you to contact Tong Shinn to learn what information should be labelled on the tires for purposes of section S6.5 of Standard No. 119 (copy enclosed) and also the appropriate codes and information for the tire identification number, which must be labelled on the sidewalls of the tires per 49 CFR 574, *Tire Identification and Recordkeeping* (copy enclosed). Please furnish Mr. Kratzke with a copy of the information you receive from Tong Shinn on this subject.; As to the third item above, you indicate that your company would b willing to be responsible for the tires in the event of a safety- related recall. To do so, it will be necessary for your company to record the names and addresses of the purchasers of these tires, and store that information for a three year period. For further information on the responsibilities you will have to undertake, see section 574.7 for tire registration requirements for tire manufacturers.; It will also be necessary for you to contact Tong Shinn and explain ho you propose to mark the information of the sidewalls of these tires, and get them to agree that this method of marking the tires will not affect their compliance with Standard No. 119. Again, please furnish a copy of that agreement to Mr. Kratzke of this office.; After you have received this additional information, this agency has n objection to your company marking the tires and selling them. Please understand that this is permitted only because of the unique circumstances of this particular situation, and that if the Korean manufacturer had not gone out of business, you would not be allowed to mark these tires. However, in these circumstances, some flexibility in the requirements is necessary to help you avert a financial loss, while maintaining the necessary safety assurances for purchasers of these tires. If you have any further questions or need additional information, please contact Mr. Steve Kratzke of my staff at (202) 426- 2992.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam4472

Dear Mr. Smith: This is in reply to your recent undated lette regarding the 'Highway Automatic Communications Indicator (HACI)', as supplemented by a telephone conversation between you and Stephen Wood of my staff on December 20, l988. You have asked for approval of your device. The HACI 'will display, via a transparent display screen mounted in the rear window, pre-programmed distress messages, activated only when with the automobile is at a complete standstill.' The diagram of the display alert indicates that the message would appear in the middle of the rear window, rather than at the bottom of the window where the lamp would be. When not activated, the device would be transparent. It would be activated by a special switch, not by the brake pedal. It is our understanding that the HACI would be activated only when the vehicle is stationary, and is not wired into the brake light or hazard light system. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has no authority to approve or disapprove individual inventions or devices. We can, however, advise you as to the relationship of the HACI to the Federal motor vehicle safety standards and the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act under the authority of which the standards are issued. These standards must be met at the time a vehicle is sold to its first purchaser, and persons other than the purchaser may not modify a vehicle after its sale in a manner that, in essence, renders it noncompliant with any standard. There are three standards potentially affected by the HACI. The first is the lighting standard, Standard No. 108. Since the HACI's display screen is mounted in the rear window, a problem could arise if the center high mounted stop lamp required by Standard No. 108 is also mounted in that area. The HACI is permissible as original vehicle equipment as long as it does not impair the effectiveness of the high mounted lamp, or any other lamp required by Standard No. 108. While this determination is the responsibility of the vehicle manufacturer (or dealer, if the HACI is installed after vehicle manufacture but before sale to its first purchaser) in the first instance, it appears to us that the effectiveness of the high mounted lamp would not be impaired. We base this conclusion on our understanding that the message would appear in the middle of the rear window, instead of at the bottom of the window where the lamp would be and that it would apparently be activated only when the vehicle was stationary, such as parked on the side of the road. The second standard potentially affected is Standard No. lll, relating to rearview mirrors. This standard specifies a field of view to be met by the inside rearview mirror, if the mirror does not provide this field of view, an outside mirror on the front seat passenger side must be provided. Since your device is reportedly transparent when not activated, and would be activated only when the vehicle is stationary, it may well be that there is no necessity for the addition of an outside mirror. However, we do not have sufficient information to determine whether the HACI would impede the field of view under all conditions. The third standard potentially affected is Standard No. 205, relating to glazing. This requires, in part, that all glazing in passenger cars have at least 70 percent light transmittance. To the extent that the display screen reduces light transmittance, it could create a noncompliance with this standard. However, because you have indicated that your display screen is transparent, it does not appear likely that any reduction in light transmittance would fall below the specified minimum. With this guidance and your knowledge of the HACI, you should be able to judge whether installation of the HACI either before or after the initial sale of a passenger car might be regarded as creating a noncompliance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard, or otherwise be in violation of the Act. An official judgment regarding noncompliance or violation is made by the agency only in the context of an enforcement proceeding. In addition, you should be aware that the HACI remains subject to the laws of the individual States. We cannot advise you of its legality under these laws. To obtain an opinion on this matter, you may wish to consult the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 4600 Wilson Blvd., Arlington, Va. 22203. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel;