ID: 2661o

Mr. Richard L. Hutchison
Hutchison, Anders & Associates, P.C.
16860 S. Oak Park Av.
Tinley Park, IL 60477

Dear Mr. Hutchison:

This responds to your October 14, 1987, letter asking about the applicability of Safety Standard No. 301, Fuel System Integrity, to "replacement gas caps" that your client intends to market. I apologize for the delay in responding.

You said that several of your client's customers have requested this agency's approval of your client's product. You asked for confirmation of your understanding that the gas caps do not have to be approved by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) in order to be sold. Your understanding is correct. 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 National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (copy enclosed), each manufacturer of a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards.

There is currently no Federal motor vehicle safety standard that is directly applicable to replacement gas caps. Safety Standard No. 301 applies only to completed new motor vehicles and specifies performance requirements that must be met by the fuel system as a whole following a barrier crash test. The standard does not apply to individual components of a fuel system or to aftermarket equipment for use on fuel systems.

Although Standard No. 301 would not directly apply to your client's replacement gas caps, there are responsibilities under Federal law of which your client should be aware. Manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment, which includes aftermarket gas caps, are subject to the requirements in sections 151-159 of the Vehicle 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 addition, there are prohibitions against certain modifications of new and used vehicles. Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act specifies that no manufacturer, distributor, dealer or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative any device or element of design installed on or in a new or used motor vehicle in compliance with any applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard. Therefore, no person in any of the aforementioned categories may place your client's gas cap on a motor vehicle if by so doing the vehicle's compliance with Standard No. 301 were negatively affected.

Whether or not your client's replacement gas cap could be installed by a person in one of those categories on a vehicle without destroying the vehicle's compliance with Standard No. 30l or any other Federal safety standard is a determination that must be made by any commercial business in the aforementioned categories of /l08(a)(2)(A) making the installation. NHTSA does not pass advance approval on motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment prior to the actual events that underlie a modification and we are unable to offer any opinion on whether your client's gas cap would negatively affect a vehicle's fuel system performance.

The prohibition of /108(a)(2)(A) does not apply to individual vehicle owners who alter their own vehicles. Thus, under Federal law, they may install or remove any items of motor vehicle equipment regardless of its effect on compliance with Federal motor vehicle safety standards. However, the agency encourages vehicle owners not to remove or otherwise tamper with vehicle safety equipment if the modification would degrade the safety of the vehicle.

We suggest that you contact the Environmental Protection Agency to see whether the EPA has any type of emissions standard that might affect your client's manufacture of his gas caps. The general telephone number for the EPA is (202) 382-2090.

I hope this information has been helpful.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Enclosures

ref:301#VSA d:2/19/88

ID: 08-000151 to Trinity-Noble

ID: nht76-4.9

DATE: 09/02/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Paul Atkinson

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your June 18, 1976, letter concerning the application of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 117, Retreaded Pneumatic Tires, to passenger car tires that are retreaded from bead to bead.

I understand that in this process, the labeling information molded on the sidewalls of the tire to be retreaded is buffed off prior to the application of new rubber. You have requested our assurance that "it is permissible to do bead to bead retreading, removing the present labeling and remolding all the pertinent information on the tire."

The requirements for casings to be used in retreading are set out in S5.2.3 of Standard No. 117:

Each retreaded tire shall be manufactured with a casing that bears, permanently molded at the time of its original manufacture into or onto the tire sidewall, each of the following:

(a) The symbol DOT;

(b) The size of the tire; and

(c) The actual number of plies or ply rating.

This section requires the above information to be present on the casin at the beginning of the retreading process, to ensure both that the carcass was originally manufactured to comply with Standard No. 109, New Pneumatic Tires -- Passenger Cars, and that the retreader has reliable information on which to base the labeling of the completed tire. The section does not, however, require that this originally molded information be retained on the completed tire.

Certification and labeling requirements for completed retreaded tires are set out in S6 of the standard. The DOT symbol required by S6.1, however, is not a "remolding" of the original DOT symbol (certifying compliance with Standard No. 109) that may have been buffed off. It is a new certification by the retreading party that his product complies with Standard No. 117. Further, this new DOT symbol must be followed by the letter "R", as indicated in 49 CFR @ 574.5, Tire Identification and Recordkeeping. "Remolding" of the original DOT symbol is neither required nor permitted. Finally, the information required by S6.3 to appear on the completed tire is permitted, but not required, to so appear through retention of the original labeling.

In conclusion, bead-to-bead retreading is not prohibited by Standard No. 117, provided that the casings satisfy S5.2.3 at the beginning of the retreading process, and all other requirements of the standard are met.

YOURS TRULY,

PAUL ATKINSON TIRE RETREADING CONSULTANT

June 18, 1976

Frank Berndt, acting chief council National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

I visited with Mr. Arturo Casanova and Mr. David Snyder on Tuesday, June 15. I brought some questions to them that they felt should be directed to you for a decision, and if necessary, a ruling.

I have a firm that I represent in Pennsylvania, that is planning to enter the passenger tire retreading field. They will be different in their operation in that they plan to retread tires from bead to bead. Both sidewalls will be buffed, and a thin venier of rubber applied. The sidewall mold plates will be engraved to contain all of the information required by your department.

I raised the question to Mssrs. Casanova and Snyder about any objections that your department might have to these plans. It was their feeling that their was no objection, other than the possible objection to the removal of the DOT certification, proving that the casing used was in fact a DOT casing.

As this process involves a very advanced cost in federal excise taxes, and advanced cost in processing, materials, and equipment, it will not be competitive with customary retreading. It will have to be sold at a very premium price.

Also, it has been eight years since the incorporation of the DOT symbol. Tires without this symbol have been for all practical purposes, have been used up, and are no longer on the casing market. I do not feel that any reputable dealer would accept a casing of this age, regardless of DOT rulings.

I am requesting a ruling from you that it is permissible to do bead to bead retreading, removing the present labeling and remolding all the pertiment information on the tire. This is with the understanding that all tires used for passenger use will be DOT casings. The DOT would be returned by molded labeling.

I would add for your consideration that this system is widely used throughout Europe. There is also a dealer in Minnesota who is advertising this type work in magazines. I am also informed that it is being done by at least one company in California.

I would appreciate your favorable ruling on this matter at your earliest convenience.

Paul Atkinson

ID: nht71-4.4

DATE: 08/16/71

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; L. R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: Truck Equipment & Body Distributor Association

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of July 28 requesting a clarification of paragraph S4.3.1.1 of Standard No. 108. This paragraph requires the installation of auxiliary lighting equipment, if the required lighting equipment is prevented from conforming to photometric output and visibility values by motor vehicle equipment such as snow plows, street sweepers, etc. You ask, in essence, whether auxiliary lamps must be provided in two situations: when the motor vehicle equipment is sold with but not attached to the vehicle, and when no equipment is sold with the vehicle but the vehicle is equipped with a hoist upon which equipment may be mounted.

With respect to the first situation, compliance should be determined with the equipment attached which(Illegible Word) the vehicle at the time it is sold. As for the second situation, compliance of a vehicle which is equipped at time of sale with hoists or mounting brackes only, and for which equipment will be provided at a time subsequent to sale, should be determined with the vehicle in its as-sold condition.

ID: 11495ZTV

Mr. Anil Anand
Director (Engg.)
Fiem Industries Ltd.
C-171, Mayapuri Industrial Area, Phase II
New Delhi 110 064
India

Dear Mr. Anand:

We have received your letter of December 14, 1995, with respect to obtaining "SAE/DOT approval" for certain items of motorcycle lighting equipment, specifically headlamps, taillamps, and "blinker lamp assy front/rear." By this, we believe you refer to "turn signal lamps." This is the term for them in the U.S. lighting standard, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment.

Your letter indicates that Fiem Industries will supply lighting equipment to a manufacturer of motorcycles who will install the equipment and export the completed motorcycle to the United States. Under our laws, before a motorcycle is admitted to the U. S., the manufacturer must place on it a label certifying that the motorcycle complies with all applicable U.S. Federal motor vehicle safety standards (including the lighting standard). Our laws do not require the motorcycle manufacturer to obtain SAE/DOT approval before this label is affixed. Indeed, we are not authorized to test a manufacturer's products and provide approvals.

This self-certification process means that the motorcycle manufacturer must find its own ways of assuring itself that its vehicle complies with the U.S. standards before placing the label on it. It has asked Fiem to obtain SAE/DOT approval. This method is not possible. What is possible is for Fiem to have the lamps tested in India or the U.S. according to the test procedures specified in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 or the SAE Standards which are incorporated into it. If the lamps pass the tests, Fiem can show the test documentation to the motorcycle manufacturer as an assurance that the lamps have been designed to conform to U.S. requirements. However, because of production tolerances and the chance of human error, Fiem should retest production

lamps from time to time to ensure that the lamps which it provides the motorcycle manufacturer continue to conform to U.S. requirements. Indeed, the motorcycle manufacturer should insist that Fiem do so (or conduct its own occasional verification testing).

We are authorized to enforce the safety standards through our own tests, and if we find that Fiem's lighting equipment on the motorcycle does not conform, the motorcycle manufacturer will be required to recall the machines and repair them. It will also have to pay a civil penalty unless it can assure us that it exercised reasonable care. Thus its relationship with Fiem bears upon the question of whether it has exercised reasonable care.

You also asked for "the procedure and test specifications." The requirements for taillamps are those of SAE J585e, September 1977. The requirements for turn signal lamps are those of SAE J588 NOV84, except that Standard No. 108 (a) allows motorcycle turn signal lamps to meet only one-half the minimum photometric values specified in Table 1 and Table 3 of SAE J588, and (b) requires the turn signal lamp to have an effective projected luminous area of not less than 3 1/2 square inches; for turn signal operating unit, SAE J589, April 1964; for turn signal flasher, SAE J590b, October 1965. The requirements for headlamps are those of SAE J584, April 1964. I am enclosing a copy of each of these, as well as the test procedures incorporated by reference in the SAE materials. However, under Standard No. 108, a motorcycle sold in the U.S. may also be equipped with one half of certain types of passenger car headlighting systems. We are not enclosing copies of passenger car headlighting standards. If the motorcycle manufacturer is intending to equip its vehicles with a headlighting system using a passenger car headlamp, please inform us of the type and we will be pleased to provide you with the appropriate standards.

Although you did not ask about them, Standard No. 108 also requires motorcycles to be equipped with stop lamps, license plate lamps, and red and amber reflex reflectors. If you intend to supply these and have any questions about them or other motorcycle lighting requirements, you may FAX them to us at 202-366-3820, Attention: Taylor Vinson.

Sincerely,

Samuel J. Dubbin Chief Counsel

Enclosures ref:108 d:3/4/96

ID: 1984-1.20

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/09/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Proto-Systems Inc. -- Barry M. Davis, Vice President

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Barry M. Davis Vice President Proto-Systems, Inc. P.O. Box 871 Pembroke, Massachusetts 02359

This is in reply to your letter of December 29, 1983, with respect to the "Headlight Kit" which you manufacture as "an aftermarket add on headlamp concealment device for the Camaro." You have stated that it will be sold in retail outlets and be offered by Chevrolet dealers as a new car option. You have asked whether the product requires certification under Safety Standard No. 112 and, if so, how may it be included in your packaging and promotional material. If you are not required to certify, you would like to know if you may use the DOT symbol and the phrase "meets Federal safety standards" on your packaging.

We have two types of safety standards: those that vehicles must meet, and those that individual equipment items must meet. Safety Standard No. 112, Headlamp Concealment Devices, is an example of the former; when equipped with a headlamp concealment device, a vehicle must meet certain performance requirements. The vehicle must meet these requirements at the time of sale to the first purchaser for purposes other than resale, and be certified as meeting the requirements. Certification of compliance with the vehicle safety standards is provided by the vehicle manufacturer; however, if the vehicle is altered before its sale, in more than a minor way, the alterer must provide an additional certification identifying himself as a modifier and that the vehicle as modified continues to meet the standards. Assuming that Chevrolet dealers perform the modification, it is they, not you, who must apply the alterer's label. The alterer's certification requirements are contained in 49 CFR Section 567.7.

Once a vehicle has been sold, no alterer's certification is required, but the party performing the alterations is required to insure that he is not "rendering inoperative in whole or in part" the headlighting system. We would interpret this to mean that if the concealment system's performance were not the equivalent of that obtainable under Standard No. 112 a violation might exist. This prohibition is established by Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. However, the prohibition does not preclude the vehicle owner from himself making any modification he chooses (subject, of course, to local law).

This means that regardless of whether your system is sold to new car dealers or to retail stores in the aftermarket your company has no certification responsibility. Thus, the use of a DOT symbol would be improper and could even be viewed as technically false and misleading under Section 108(a)(1)(C) of the Act, for which a civil penalty might be imposed. The phrase "meets Federal safety standards" is also inaccurate. However, if your tests and other data clearly indicate that a Camaro would meet Standard No. 112 with the system in place, we would not object to your including a qualifying phrase such as "Vehicle can meet Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 112 if system is installed in accordance with instructions." That would afford a basis upon which the new car dealer could rely in affixing his alterer's label, and would reassure an after-sale modifier that he was not violating the Act.

I hope that this has been helpful to you. For your information, I enclose copies of Standard No. 112, 49 CFR Part 567, Certification, and the Act.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

Dear Mr. Berndt:

I am a manufacturer of aftermarket automotive accessories. We are in the process of developing a product which may or may not involve coverage under a safety standard in CFR title 49. I have received conflicting opinions about wheater the product is covered and finallly was referred to you by Steve Oesch of your office.

The product we are going to produce called the "Headlight Kit" will be sold as an after maket add-on headlamp concealment device for the Carmo. It will be sold in retail outlets and be offered by car dealers as a new car option.

Briefly, the device operates by means of a motorized, opaque panel which covers the existing stationary headlamps. When the normal healight switch is operated the panels covering both sets of headlamps drops down leaving the beams unconstructed.

It was brought to my attention by Mr. Van Iderstien and Mr. Medlin, safety standard engineers in the office of vehicle safety standards, division of crash avoidance, that our product was covered under Code of Federal Regulations title 49 part 566 section 571.112 concerning headlamp concealment devices, and SAE standard J579c concerning beam pattern requirements for sealed beam headlamp.

Our Headling Kit has been designed to comply fully with all provisions of the standards.

This is of particular importance to us because our competitors' products do not comply. It is our intention to represent this product as being in full compliance with Federal safety standards. We are currently printing promotional and packaging material and recently need your response to the following:

1. Does this prouct require certification under 571.112?

2. If certification is required, what is the procedure for allowing us to include this certification on our packaging and promotional materials?

3. If certification is not required, may we still include on our package:

a. The symbol - "DOT" b. The phrase - "Meets federal safety standards"

Please call me with any question. Our production schedules have already been made. Your prompt attention would be greatly appreciated.

Sincerely,

Barry M. Davis Vice President, Proto-Systems, Inc. BMD/dmj

ID: 77-3.37

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/29/77

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

TO: Utility Trailer Manufacturing Co.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your May 20, 1977, letter asking whether your proposed certification labels comply with the requirements of Part 567, Certification.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not issue advance approval of compliance with Federal safety standards or regulations. We will, however, issue an opinion of whether your labels appear to comply with the regulations. The labels you submitted appear to comply with all but one of the requirements of Part 567 and Standard No. 120, Tire Selection and Rims for Motor Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars. On your certification labels, you list the symbol "W/" before the rim information. This symbol should be dropped from the label. Further the rim size designation should use the symbol "x" between the diameter and width. Information supplied on a certification label must be provided in the form detailed in Part 567.

SINCERELY,

UTILITY TRAILER MANUFACTURING CO.

May 20, 1977

N.H.T.S.A. Attn: George Shifflett

Re: Code NMV-22

Please give me an interpretation as to whether our proposed certification labels per attached drawings AB-2381A and AB-2383A meet the requirement of 49CFR571.120-5.3 and 49CFR567.

The peculiar aspects of these labels and reasons for them are as follows:

1. Since the GAWR, tire size, rim size, and tire cold inflation pressure are the same for all axles on a trailer, this information is listed once. Note that a trailer typically will have 1, 2, or 3 axles.

2. The actual tire sized delivered on a trailer and its inflation pressure will be stated to avoid misinforming the customer as to the proper inflation pressure required and the possible associated product liability. For example if our label called out GAWR = 20,000. With 11-24.5 (F) tires with 24.5 x 3.25 rims, at 75 PSI cold dual, but the trailer was delivered with Michelin 11 R 24.5 x (G) tires, and our customer followed the 75 PSI inflation pressure per our label instead of the inflation pressure stated on the tire sidewall, the tire capacity per axle would only be 1d, 185. Note that the 11-24.5 (F) is a popular tire used to achieve the 20,000 maximum per axle load bridge law and that its 75 PSI inflation pressure is a maximum.

3. The label per AB-2387A lists (8) different popular sizes. Since tires sizes are change frequently on stock trailers at the (Illegible Word) level this should reduce the required frequency of exchanging certification labels and thus reduce the number of circarded or called labels that get into the hands of thieves for use on stolen trailers to misrepresent the actual V.I.N. California State Highway Petrol has stated, that handling of replacement certification labels is a real problem today.

Please answer within two (2) weeks, as we must order new labels by mid June, in order to be ready for September 1, 1977 effective date. Call me at (213) 965-1541 if I can be of any help in answering questions.

Paul F. Bennett Chief Engineer

NOTES:

TABLE FOR STAMPING INFORMATION TO BE BRIGHT BRASS. NO PRINTED MATTER LESS THAN 3/32 HIGH. ALL PRINTED MATT TO BE CAPITALS. BACKGROUND GLOSSY BLACK MATL. NOT LESS THAN .032 BRASS.

(Graphics omitted)

MASTER DWG. RETURN TO FILE. IN DRAWER #17 INDEX PG. #1

REVISION DATE REFERENCE DRW NO. THIS DRAWING IS A CONFIDENTIAL DISCLOSURE THE SUBJECT MATTER OF WHICH IS THE PROPERTY OF THE UTILITY TRAILER MFG. CO. AND IS NOT TO BE REPRODUCED OR MANUFACTURED FOR ANY PURPOSE WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION OF UTILITY TRAILER MFG CO. UTILITY TRAILER MFG CO. CITY OF INDUSTRY, CALIFORNIA D.O.T. CERTIFICATION LABEL SPECIAL VEHICLES DRN PAT.C SERIAL AND SHOP ORDER CHD. SALES OFFICE PT. NO. 03-5600-0-027 DATE: (Illegible Words)

OWG NO.: AB-2383-A

NOTES: (Illegible Data)

C. ALL DIM. FOR INDIVIDUAL BLOCK LETTERING PER DWG AB-2383A EXCEPT AS NOTED.

(Graphics omitted)

REVISION DATE: REFERENCE DWG NO. THIS DRAWING IS A CONFIDENTIAL DISCLOSURE THE SUBJECT MATTER OF WHICH IS THE PROPERTY OF THE UTILITY TRAILER MFG. CO. AND IS NOT TO BE REPRODUCED OR MANUFACTURED FOR ANY PURPOSE WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION OF UTILITY TRAILER MFG. CO. UTILITY TRAILER MFG. CO. CITY OF INDUSTRY, CALIFORNIA D.O.T. CERTIFICATION LABEL STD DUAL AXLE VEHICLES DRN.: (Illegible Word) SERIAL AND SHOP ORDER CHD. SALES OFFICE DATE: MAY 30, 1977 DWG NO.: AB2383A

ID: ltrtoMyles2

Russell Myles, Esquire
McDowell, Knight, Roedder & Sledge, L.L.C.
63 South Royal, Suite 900
Riverview Plaza
Mobile, AL 36602

Dear Mr. Myles:

This is in response to your letter of April 17, 2002, requesting clarification of certain requirements in our regulations in 49 CFR Part 592 that specify the duties of registered importers of motor vehicles that were not originally manufactured to comply with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards.

You note that under section 592.5(a)(8) of those regulations, an applicant for registered importer (RI) status must supply a copy of a contract to acquire "a prepaid mandatory service insurance policy underwritten by an independent insurance company" to ensure that the applicant will be financially able to remedy any noncompliance or safety-related defect determined to exist in a vehicle that is covered by a certificate of conformity the applicant furnishes to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). Section 592.6(i) specifies that one of the duties of an RI is to maintain such a policy in effect to guarantee its ability to carry out the defect and noncompliance notification and remedy responsibilities that are set forth in section 592.6(g).

You note that under section 592.6(g)(2)(i), the requirement to provide a remedy without charge does not apply "if the noncompliance or safety-related defect exists in a motor vehicle whose first sale after importation occurred more than 10 calendar years before notification of the failure to comply is furnished" to the owner of the affected vehicle pursuant to 49 CFR Part 577. This has prompted you to ask how long prepaid mandatory service insurance would be required (1) for a vehicle that was first sold after importation 30 days before owner notification under Part 577 is provided and (2) for a vehicle that was first sold after importation nine years before such notification. You state that you are asking these questions so that you can better understand "when coverage for each imported vehicle must begin and when that obligation expires, and how that coverage commitment is affected by the language of 592.6(g)(2)(i)."

Because the mandatory service insurance policies required under sections 592.5(a)(8) and 592.6(g) are for the purpose of guaranteeing the RI's ability to fulfill its responsibility to provide notification and remedy for defects and noncompliances under section 592.6(g), those policies must take effect no later than the date on which the vehicle is first purchased after importation, and must remain in effect until ten years have elapsed from that date. Therefore, a full ten-year policy would be required for the vehicle in each of the examples that you cite, effective upon the date of the vehicle's first sale after importation. In the case of the first vehicle, 9 years and 335 days of outstanding coverage would remain on the policy, and in the case of the second vehicle, one year of outstanding coverage would remain.

You next request confirmation that if a prepaid mandatory service insurance policy becomes ineffective because the insurance underwriter has gone out of business, the RI would be required to secure a new policy that provides coverage for the periods that remain outstanding on all previously imported vehicles, as well as for the full ten-year term on all vehicles the RI may subsequently import. As far as we are aware, no company that underwrites mandatory service insurance policies has gone out of business to date. We therefore have never had the need to address this issue. An RI would have to obtain mandatory service insurance policies for its future imports from a new company in the event that the company that previously provided this coverage is no longer able to satisfy applicable requirements, including those of state regulatory authorities.

The RI would not be required to obtain new mandatory service insurance coverage for periods that remain outstanding on vehicles that it has previously imported. We note that the owners of those vehicles would be protected to the extent that the company is required by state regulatory authorities to maintain sufficient reserves or take other measures to cover its outstanding liability on previously issued policies in the event that it should go out of business. Beyond that, our regulations do not obligate an RI to obtain new mandatory service insurance policies for previously imported vehicles if the original underwriter should go out of business. It naturally follows that there is no "information concerning the new policy" that the RI would be required to furnish to the owners of those vehicles. In asking us whether an RI would have such an obligation, your referred us to 49 CFR 592.5(f), which requires an RI to notify NHTSA of any changes in the information submitted with its application for RI status, which, as previously noted, includes a copy of a contract to acquire a prepaid mandatory service insurance policy, or a copy of the policy itself. We note that this section requires notification to NHTSA if there is a change in the mandatory service insurance policy furnished with the RI's application for RI status. There is no comparable requirement for the RI to furnish notification of such a change to the owners of the affected vehicles as well.

Lastly, you have asked whether the actual insurer should be identified in the policy information that an RI places with a vehicle to be sold, and if so, you have asked how much information concerning the actual insurer should be provided to the vehicle owner. You have referenced, in this regard, Registered Importer Newsletter No. 16 dated May 2000, which states that the service insurance policy that an RI is required to obtain for each vehicle it imports or brings into conformity with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards should be placed in the glove box of the vehicle or given to the owner with other important vehicle documents if the vehicle does not have a glove box. The guidance further states that "[t]hese policies must be written by an insurance company or by a company that is backed by an insurance company," and that "[t]he insurance company must be registered with a state as authorized to issue insurance policies and be totally independent of any RI to which it is providing policies." Although there is no express requirement in either the Part 592 regulations or this guidance for the insurance company underwriting the policy to be identified on the face of the policy, NHTSA expects this information to be provided to the vehicle owner. Without that information, the owner would encounter practical difficulties in making a claim in the event that the RI defaults on its obligation to provide notification and remedy for safety-related defects and noncompliances.

If you have any further questions regarding the mandatory service insurance requirements or other requirements that NHTSA has placed on RIs, please contact Coleman Sachs of this office at 202-366-5238.

Sincerely,
Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel
Ref:592
d.5/24/02

ID: nht93-6.17

DATE: August 18, 1993

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Calin Moldovean -- Vehicle Technology Engineer, TUV America, Inc.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 7/20/93 from Calin Moldovean to John Womack (OCC 8899)

TEXT:

This responds to your inquiry asking about how this agency's regulations would apply to the introduction into the United States of a new "aftermarket" gas cap. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our regulations to you. I am also enclosing a copy of a fact sheet entitled "Information for New Manufacturers of Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Equipment."

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized 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 the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. Instead, under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, each manufacturer of a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards.

There is currently no Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard that is directly applicable to a replacement gas cap. Nevertheless, you should be aware of Safety Standard No. 301, Fuel System Integrity, which may be relevant to the product in question. Standard No. 301 applies only to new motor vehicles and specifies performance requirements that must be met by the fuel system as a whole following crash tests. The standard does not apply to individual components of a fuel system or to aftermarket equipment for use on fuel systems.

Although Standard No. 301 would not directly apply to a replacement gas cap, there are responsibilities under Federal law of which you should be aware. Manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment, which includes gas caps, 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.

In addition, there are prohibitions against certain modifications of new and used vehicles. Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act specifies that no manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative any device or element of design installed on or in a new or used motor vehicle in compliance with any applicable Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard. Therefore, no person in any of the aforementioned categories may place the gas cap on a motor vehicle if by so doing the vehicle's compliance with Standard No. 301 were negatively affected. Whether your gas cap could be installed on a vehicle by a person in one of those categories without taking the vehicle out of compliance with Standard No. 301 or any other applicable Federal safety standard is a determination that must be made by the entity making the installation.

Please note that the prohibition of S 108(a)(2)(A) does not apply to individual vehicle owners who alter their own vehicles. Thus, under Federal law, a vehicle owner may install or remove any item of motor vehicle equipment regardless of its effect on compliance with the Federal safety standards. However, the agency encourages vehicle owners not to remove or otherwise tamper with vehicle safety equipment if the modification would degrade the vehicle's safety.

We suggest that you also contact the Environmental Protection Agency to see whether EPA has any type of emissions standard that might affect you as the manufacturer of a gas cap. The general telephone number for EPA is (202) 382-2090.

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: 8899

Mr. Calin Moldovean
Vehicle Technology Engineer
TUV America, Inc.
5 Cherry Hill Drive
Danvers, MA 01923

Dear Mr. Moldovean:

This responds to your inquiry asking about how this agency's regulations would apply to the introduction into the United States of a new "aftermarket" gas cap. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our regulations to you. I am also enclosing a copy of a fact sheet entitled "Information for New Manufacturers of Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Equipment."

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized 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 the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. Instead, under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, each manufacturer of a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards.

There is currently no Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard that is directly applicable to a replacement gas cap. Nevertheless, you should be aware of Safety Standard No. 301, Fuel System Integrity, which may be relevant to the product in question. Standard No. 301 applies only to new motor vehicles and specifies performance requirements that must be met by the fuel system as a whole following crash tests. The standard does not apply to individual components of a fuel system or to aftermarket equipment for use on fuel systems.

Although Standard No. 301 would not directly apply to a replacement gas cap, there are responsibilities under Federal law of which you should be aware. Manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment, which includes gas caps, 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.

In addition, there are prohibitions against certain modifications of new and used vehicles. Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act specifies that no manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative any device or element of design installed on or in a new or used motor vehicle in compliance with any applicable Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard. Therefore, no person in any of the aforementioned categories may place the gas cap on a motor vehicle if by so doing the vehicle's compliance with Standard No. 301 were negatively affected. Whether your gas cap could be installed on a vehicle by a person in one of those categories without taking the vehicle out of compliance with Standard No. 301 or any other applicable Federal safety standard is a determination that must be made by the entity making the installation.

Please note that the prohibition of 108(a)(2)(A) does not apply to individual vehicle owners who alter their own vehicles. Thus, under Federal law, a vehicle owner may install or remove any item of motor vehicle equipment regardless of its effect on compliance with the Federal safety standards. However, the agency encourages vehicle owners not to remove or otherwise tamper with vehicle safety equipment if the modification would degrade the vehicle's safety.

We suggest that you also contact the Environmental Protection Agency to see whether EPA has any type of emissions standard that might affect you as the manufacturer of a gas cap. The general telephone number for EPA is (202) 382-2090.

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. Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosure ref:301 d:8/18/93