ID: 86-4.41

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/13/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: W. K. Sherman

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. W. K. Sherman Manager Inventors Research Foundation P.O. Box 02588 Portland, OR 97202

Dear Mr. Sherman:

This is in reply to your letter of June 30, 1986, with reference to the possible interest of this agency in an illuminated license plate holder which is lit when the ignition is turned on.

The agency does not "approve" or promote proprietary items of lighting equipment. It does require illumination of the rear license plate in the manner set forth in SAE J587 October 81 (incorporated by reference in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 Laps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment) but there is no requirement for illumination of the font plate; however, consideration is being given to proposing the installation of a daytime running light on the front of vehicles, as Canada has recently done. Should the agency issue a formal proposal your client may wish to submit comments to the docket with reference to its device. Your client may also wish to examine current Federal rear lighting requirements to determine whether a vehicle equipped with its device would meet Standard No. 108 If so, it may wish to market the device as original or aftermarket equipment.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

June 30, 1986

Chairman National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 7th and D S.W. Washington, D.C.20007

Gentlemen:

Neil Goldschmidt of Oregon has suggested we refer our client's auto license plate concept to you for possible interest.

This device is an illuminated auto license plate holder which is a metal box with translucent plastic front, permanently attached to an auto. Two lights are turned on with the ignition, thus contributing considerably to the visibility and safety of motor vehicles.

If you would like to know more details we shall be glad to oblige.

The device has been registered with th Patent office under the Disclosure Document Act.

We anticipate your interest.

Sincerely,

INVENTORS RESEARCH FOUNDATION (IRF) W. K. Sherman, manager

WKS/bd cc:Client

ID: nht87-2.47

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/13/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; SIGNATURE UNAVAILABLE; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Yueh-An Chen

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Yueh-An Chen Division Head Planning Division Yue Loong Motor Engineering Center P.O. Box 510 Taoyuan, Taiwan Republic of China

Dear Mr. Chen:

This is in reply to your letter of June 5, 1987, asking whether certain rear lighting arrangements are acceptable under Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

You have submitted a diagram showing four lamps on either side of the vertical centerline of the rear of the car. The most inboard lamps, denoted "R", are the backup lamp system. Yue Loong contemplates four different functions for the remaining three sys tems of lamps, "A", "B", "C", and "D", "E", "F" (inboard to outboard) and asks about acceptability.

1. In the first system, ABC or DEF will serve the respective turn signal functions. All lamps would serve as hazard warning signal lamps and stop lamps. Standard No. 108 generally does not prohibit lamp clusters from performing multiple functions. This s ystem is permissible as long as ABC and DEF meet all Standard No. 108's requirements for turn, hazard warning, and stop signals when tested in those modes. Your diagram, however, does not indicate which, if any, of these lamps provide the taillamp functi on that Standard No. 108 also requires for the rear of motor vehicles. Therefore, lamps ABC and DEF would have to meet the taillamp requirements as well.

2. The second system differs from the first in that the hazard warning system would not operate through all six lamps of the turn signal system, but only through the two most outboard lamps. This system is permissible, as Standard No. 108 does nor mandat e use of all turn signal lamps for the hazard warning signal mode, requiring only "at least one" on each side of the vehicle, front and rear.

3. The third system differs from the second in that the two most outboard lamps would no longer be part of the stop lamp system. We view this arrangement as permissible. Standard No. 108 requires that stop lamps, turn signal lamps, and taillamps be locat ed "as far apart as practicable". In a literal sense this would appear to require stacking the lamps vertically at the outboard edges of the vehicle, but NHTSA has not adopted a design-restrictive interpretation of this requirement. The determination of practicability is initially that of the manufacturer, but it is subject to review and comment by this agency in instances where such a determination appears clearly erroneous. Where the turn signal system (or part of it) is located at the outboard edges of the vehicle, and the stop lamps and taillamps are adjacent to it, or to each other, we view the "practicability" requirement as met.

4. The fourth system differs from the third in that the stop lamp system would be either that of the systems discussed in items 2 and 3 above, and operating according to Section 3 of your letter. Either system would be acceptable, subject to the operatio nal restriction with turn signal lamps that I shall discuss in my response to Section 3.

Next, you have presented four kinds of flashing arrangements for the turn signal lamps. You ask (a) which could meet Standard No. 108, and (b) which could meet Standard No. 108 assuming a flash cycle of 1-4 seconds. With respect to (a), all four would ap pear to be acceptable. The standard allows multiple turn signal lamps either to flash simultaneously, or sequentially in the direction of the turn. With respect to (b), Standard No. 108 specifies that a turn signal flasher provide not less than 60 and no t more than 120 cycles per minute. This translates to not less than 1 and not more than 2 cycles per second. This requirement would have to be met by all lamps in arrangement i.e. where all lamps operate simultaneously. When operating sequentially, each lamp individually would be subject to the restrictions with the result that the inclusive cycle for a three lamp system would be not less than 3 seconds and not more than 6 seconds. Therefore, arrangements (a), (b), and (c) would meet this requirement as suming a flash cycle of 4 seconds, but arrangement (d) would not, being restricted to a cycle of 2 seconds maximum.

In your third question, or Section 3 as you term it, you have combined the conditions of your first two questions and attached a table of "detailed operating states" of the rear lamps, which incorporates three attached figures, with the question whether it would comply with Standard No. 108. Two of the Operating States illustrated denote the stop lamp "on" and, individually, the right or left turn signal as "on". Standard No. 108 does not allow simultaneous activation of the stop lamp and turn signal la mp when the stop signal is optically combined with the turn signal, In that event, the circuit must be such that the stop signal cannot be turned on in the turn signal which is flashing (paragraph 4.2, SAE Standard J586c Stop Lamps, August 1970, incorpor ated by reference in Standard No. 108). Our other comment concerns "Fig. a", "Fig. b", and "Fig. c" depicting flash cycles of the turn signal lamp;. As we noted earlier, the individual lamps are subject to the cycle minima and maxima of 1 to 2 cycles per second, and none of the rates depicted in the three Figures appears to meet the minimum requirement of 1 second. Otherwise, the "Operating State" table appears acceptable.

I hope that this answers your questions.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

June 5, 1987

Ms. Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel U.S. Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh St., S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Mr. Jones,

On Jan. 23, 1986 we consulted NHTSA about the problems of headlamps systems, and received your reply letter of May. 8, 1986. The information was very useful to us, thank you again for your kind assistance.

Now, we still have some questions about the turn signal lamps and other rear lamps, will you please kindly give us your suggestions as soon as possible?

The feature of rear lamps of the vehicle is shown as fig. 1. In the following conditions, which could meet the requirements of the FMVSS No. 108 and other related U.S.A. regulations?

1. As shown in Fig. 1, "R", is the backup lamp, and the lighting function of the other lamps "A", "B", "C", "D", "E", "F" are shown as Table 1. In the four cases, which could meet the requirements of U.S.A. regulations?

2. As shown in Fig. 2, there are four kinds of flashing arrangements for the turn signal lamps "ABC" (LH) & "DEF" (RH). a. Which could meet the requirements of U.S.A. regulations? b. If the period of flashing (t) 1 cycle = 1 - 4 sec. which could meet the requirements of U.S.A. regulations?

3. Combining the conditions of section 1, 2, we set a detailed operating state of the rear lamps as shown in Table 2. Could it meet the requirements of U.S.A. regulations?

Your kind assistance and earlier reply will be highly appreciated.

Sincerely yours,

Yueh-An Chen Division Head Planning Division SEE HARD COPY FOR GRAPHIC INFORMATION

ID: nht79-4.32

DATE: 07/31/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Yamaha Motor Corporation U.S.A.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of July 2, 1979, to our former Chief Counsel, Joseph Levin asking for an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

You have quoted Column 3 of Table IV with respect to motor cycle headlamps and the specification that the one headlamp the standard requires be located "on the vertical centerline, except that if two are used they shall be symmetrically disposed about the vertical centerline". Yamaha would like to equip certain motor cycles with two headlamps, one to be mounted above the other on the vertical centerline with the hope that "this may increase conspicuity and facilitate safety". You have asked whether this mounting arrangement conforms with Standard No. 108.

The arrangement you have in mind is not permitted by the Federal lighting standard. "Symmetrically disposed about the vertical centerline" means that each headlamp is an equal distance from the vertical centerline at the same horizontal location. We believe that this provides better and more evenly distributed forward illumination than the system Yamaha proposes, while being the equivalent in conspicuity.

SINCERELY,

YAMAHA MOTOR CORPORATION U.S.A.

July 2, 1979

Joseph J. Levin Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Mr. Levin:

Yamaha is exploring the possibility of utilizing two headlamps on some of our motorcycle models. We believe this may increase conspicuity and facilitate safety. Our question deals with the location of the headlamps pursuant to FMVSS 108.

We would like to place the headlamps on the vertical centerline of the vehicle, one above the other. Column 3 of Table IV of FMVSS 108 states: "on the vertical centerline, except that if two are used they shall be symmetrically disposed about the vertical centerline."

This section, we believe, can be interpreted to allow the placement of dual headlamps in two ways. The lamps may be placed on the vertical centerline, one above the other, or they may be located horizontally so long as they are equal distance from the vertical centerline.

We would deeply appreciate your concurrence with this interpretation or an explanation of permissible locations. Thank you for your consideration in this matter.

Michael J. Schmitt Legal Counsel Engineering Division

ID: nht89-3.12

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: OCTOBER 11, 1989

FROM: GARY R. BALANZA

TO: OFFICE OF COMPLIANCE -- NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 4-9-90 TO GARY R. BALANZA FROM STEPHEN P. WOOD; (A35; STD. 108; VSA 108 (a)(2)(A) TEXT:

Aloha! My name is Gary Balanza and I reside in Honolulu, in the state of Hawaii.

I am in the process of submitting an application to the U.S. patent office.

The required lighting on motor vehicles is regulated through FMVSS-108.

Since my invention, PINLIGHTS, is a non-required lighting system, I need the N.H.T.S.A.s legal opinion whether this such lighting system will or will not interfere with the standard equipment.

Thank you.

P.S. Please respond immediately, your reply is urgently needed to proceed with the necessary paperwork, thanks again.)

Attachment

PURPOSE AND DISCUSSION OF SAFETY

Accidents and deaths on public roads and highways pose a very serious human and economical problem with major deleterious effects on public welfare.

There is a vital need for the development and promotion of automotive safety equipment and education.

Therefore, I feel that night driving will be demonstrably and scientifically much safer with additional auxiliary lighting systems.

My reason is this, I am in the process of applying for a patent that incorporates a streamlined lighting system that when illuminated, will light up the entire length of a vehicle.

With PINLIGHTS, it is much more visible to see a line of light than the standard auxiliary lamps currently available on motor vehicles.

Given these reasons, please grant me written permission for research and development purposes. I also request that your administration to set standards or guidelines I am able to follow.

DESCRIPTION OF INVENTION

I. SUBJECT: Pinlights (Tradename in process of being applied for)

II. DESCRIPTION: Pinlights is an auxiliary lamp system custom/ mass produced to fit an automobile's side contours. It involves:

A. Creating a cavity on the sides of a vehicle. B. Connecting and wiring of the lighting. C. Covering the sides with one of the many plastics available.

III. VARIATIONS: Please specify, I leave the answers up to the board or committee. 1. Number of stripes allowed on a car. 2. Colors allowed on a car. 3. Maximum brightness allowable.

ID: Trinkl.1

Ms. S. Trinkl
Quality Management
DEKRA Automobil GmbH
Senftenberger Straβe 30
D-01998 Klettwitz
Germany

Dear Ms. Trinkl:

This responds to your October 10, 2004, letter in which you requested information on how your company may obtain approval as a "DOT-registered test laboratory" in order to conduct testing for vehicles and automotive components, such as glazing materials, destined for the U.S. market. The short answer is the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not approve independent testing facilities, and there is no requirement that testing laboratories meet specific standards. Instead, our regulations require manufacturers to self-certify that their products meet the requirements of all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs). Because testing laboratories, in practice, may play a role in this process, we would take this opportunity to further explain our certification process for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment.

By way of background, NHTSA is authorized to issue FMVSSs that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. For example, one of those standards is FMVSS No. 205, Glazing Materials (49 CFR 571.205), which specifies performance requirements for various types of glazing. Unlike in Europe, however, the United States does not have an approval process for these products. Instead, as noted above, a manufacturer of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment must self-certify that its products comply with all applicable safety standards, prior to offering such products for sale.

Each of our safety standards specifies the test conditions and procedures that NHTSA will use to evaluate the performance of the vehicle or equipment when testing for compliance with that particular standard. NHTSA follows each of the specified test procedures and conditions in effect at the time of product certification when conducting its compliance testing. However, a manufacturer is not required to test its products only in the manner specified in the relevant safety standard, or even to test the products at all. A manufacturer may choose any means of evaluating its products to determine whether the vehicle or item of equipment complies with the requirements of the safety standards (including submission to a testing laboratory), provided that the manufacturer assures that the vehicle or equipment will comply with the safety standards when tested by the agency according to the procedures specified in the standard. The requirements concerning certification may be found at 49 CFR Part 567, Certification.

A manufacturer may be asked to show the basis for its certification that the vehicle or equipment complies with the relevant safety standard(s). If in fact there is a noncompliance, the manufacturer will have to recall the product to bring it into compliance at no charge to the customer.

In addition, the manufacturer will be subject to civil penalties under 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301, unless it can establish that it exercised "reasonable care" in the design and manufacture of the product and in the evaluation (through actual testing, computer simulation, engineering analyses, or other means) to ensure compliance, but nevertheless did not have reason to know that the vehicle or item of equipment did not in fact comply with the safety standards. This agency has long held that it is unable to judge what efforts would constitute "reasonable care" in advance of the actual circumstances in which a noncompliance occurs. What constitutes "reasonable care" in a particular case depends on all relevant facts, including such things as the limitations of current technology, the availability of test equipment, the size of the manufacturer, and, above all, the diligence exercised by the manufacturer. While one element of "reasonable care" would be the use of appropriate testing laboratories, there is no explicit requirement that testing laboratories be used or that they meet specific standards. Again, NHTSA does not approve independent testing facilities, nor will it recommend any particular testing center be utilized.

I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Eric Stas of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:205
d.12/30/04

ID: nht74-4.12

DATE: 07/10/74

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; R. B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Flyer Industries Limited

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your June 5, 1974, question whether electric trackless trolley coaches are motor vehicles under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Act of 1966, and if so, whether Standard No. 121, Air brake systems, or any other special requirements must be met by this type of vehicle. Section 102(3) of the Act defines motor vehicle:

"Motor vehicle" means any vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power manufactured primarily for use on the public streets, roads, and highways, except any vehicle operated exclusively on a rail or rails.

An electric trackless trolley coach is a motor vehicle under this definition, and Standard No. 121, Air brake systems, applies to a coach equipped with an air brake system. No special requirements apply to trackless trolley coaches. Standard No. 121, Air brake systems, requires stopping distance performance which must be met by any bus equipped with air brakes, whether or not it is equipped with supplementary dynamic braking means. In evaluating a vehicle's compliance with the stopping distance performance requirements of S5.3 and S5.7.2.3, auxiliary braking devices may be utilized in making the stops provided such devices are engaged by means of the same service brake pedal or parking brake control that operates the air brakes. It should be noted, however, that these stops must be made with the transmission selector control in neutral or the clutch disengaged (S6.1.3).

FLYER INDUSTRIES LIMITED

June 5, 1974

Department of Transportation

Att: Office of Legal Information

ELECTRIC TRACKLESS TROLLEYS

File: 600 E13, E75/50

Dear Sir,

We are currently in the negotiation stages for an order to manufacture a number of electric trackless trolley coaches for a number of U.S. transit properties.

These vehicles are similar to standard diesel buses in that they are fitted with air brakes, cir suspension, and power steering. Coaches also have electrical braking of the rear wheels.

We would be interested to know if HVSS 121, Air Brake Systems Trucks, Buses and Trailers, is applicable to electrically driven vehicles operating from overhead wires. Are there any other special regulations that must be met by this type of vehicle?

Yours very truly,

A. Deane

Director of Engineering

ID: milazzo1.ztv

Mr. Bryan Milazzo
100 Page Road
Bow, NH 03304

Dear Mr. Milazzo:

This is in reply to your e-mails of January 20 and 27, 2000, to Taylor Vinson of this Office. Your second e-mail withdraws the request for confidentiality that you made in your first communication. Your letter seeks clarification of the status of Ameritech of Ridgefield, CT.

Your first question is based upon an article you read in the December 1997 issue of Road and Track magazine which purportedly listed Ameritech as a manufacturer of certain McLaren F1 vehicles. You ask whether Ameritech is "a manufacturer of this vehicle," as defined under NHTSA regulations.

Under our basic vehicle safety statute, 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301 - Motor Vehicle Safety, "manufacturer" is defined as "a person (A) manufacturing or assembling motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment; or (B) importing motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment for resale." 49 U.S.C. 30102(a)(5). At the time of the December 1997 article, Ameritech had imported several McLaren F-1 vehicles for resale. (We have been advised that these vehicles had been completely assembled in Europe, but not certified for sale in the United States.) Therefore, McLaren was the "manufacturer" of these vehicles within the meaning of section 30102(a)(5)(A) and Ameritech was the "manufacturer" of these vehicles within the meaning of section 30102(a)(5)(B).

You ask whether Ameritech is "a manufacturer of any other automobiles or vehicles listed with NHTSA." We have no information that Ameritech has assembled any other vehicles, but we believe that it has imported other vehicles for resale.

Your next question is whether Ameritech maintains "any facilities for testing their vehicles for NHTSA and DOT FMVSS standards." We have never asked Ameritech, and it has never informed us, whether it maintains "any facilities for testing [its] vehicles for NHTSA and DOT FMVSS standards."

Your fourth question is whether we can supply "any applications of other information specifying that Ameritech meets the definition of manufacturer as referred to under any section of CFR 49."

Enclosed is a copy of a statement that Ameritech filed with us in 1996 pursuant to 49 CFR Part 566, Manufacturer Identification.

You next ask whether "Ameritech McLaren F1 vehicles carry an Ameritech vehicle identification number (VIN) or a McLaren VIN." Enclosed is a VIN "Decipher Information" statement that Ameritech filed, indicating that those vehicles it imported import for resale would carry Ameritech VINs. We do not know whether any of the vehicles also carried McLaren VINs.

You express an opinion that "any company or individual would qualify as a manufacturer for the sake of importing a motor vehicle," and ask "what is preventing me from calling myself a manufacturer and importing any number of cars not meeting FMVSS. Please explain how Ameritech qualifies under NHTSA/DOT and I would not."

You may import "any number of cars not meeting FMVSS" provided you are a registered importer (see 49 CFR Part 592) and we have deemed the cars capable of being modified to comply with the FMVSS (49 CFR Part 593). As a registered importer importing vehicles for resale, you would be a statutory manufacturer of these vehicles, as discussed above. Your principal obligation would be to certify to us that you had modified the vehicles to comply with the FMVSS, and to attach a certification label to the vehicles.

We recognize that Ameritech did not follow this procedure. Although it certified compliance of the McLaren vehicles after modifying them, it was not a registered importer, and the vehicles had not been found to be capable of being modified to comply with the FMVSSs. We did not know in advance that Ameritech was acting in this way. When we did become aware of Ameritech's actions, we informed Ameritech that it was unacceptable, and Ameritech ceased such importations.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
Enclosure
ref:571
d.2/22/00

ID: nht75-3.34

DATE: 09/29/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Arent, Fox, Kintner, Plotkin & Kahn

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your September 23, 1975, request for confirmation that a manufacturer of air-braked buses that conform to Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems, may direct owners of these vehicles to disconnect the antilock system used to meet the standard, for the period necessary to correct a safety-related defect in the system that may make its operation hazardous. Your concern is with S 108(a) (2) (A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. S 1397(a) (2) (A)) that states:

S 1397 * * *

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

Section 108(a) (2) (A) prohibits, with one exception, the knowing disconnection of the antilock system by a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business. This prohibition does not prevent an owner of air-braked buses from disconnection of the antilock system. The NHTSA has determined that a manufacturer of air-braked buses that conform to Standard No. 121 may instruct the owners of its products to disconnect the antilock system used to meet the standard, for the period necessary to correct a safety-related defect in the system that may make its operation hazardous.

A manufacturer that has determined the existence of a safety-related defect in his vehicle must, of course, comply with the Defect Report requirements of 49 CFR Part 573 and the Defect Notification requirements of 49 CFR Part 577.

SINCERELY,

ARENT, FOX, KINTNER, PLOTKIN & KAHN

September 23, 1975

Richard B. Dyson Office of the Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Admininstration

Pursuant to our telephone conversation of today, we are requesting your advice relative to a matter under the National Traffic & Motor Vehicle Safety Act. Our client, Rohr Industries, Flexible Division, manufactures buses on which are installed air brake systems which comply with 49 C.F.R. S 571.121 (Standard No. 121), skid control systems. Recently four Standard No. 121 systems which are manufactured by Rockwell International Corporation, have malperformed during the operation of a bus by a municipal customer of Rohr Industries. As the possible failure of the Standard No. 121 system presents a potential danger to the public, our client would like to take corrective action at the earliest possible time.

Rockwell International has indicated that a corrective device to prevent malfunctions in its Standard No. 121 system may be available for installation in November of 1975. It is our understanding that a manufacturer can, within the requirements of the National Traffic & Motor Vehicle Safety Act, direct its customers to disconnect the defective system until a correction to the system is available. It is requested that you confirm that our client, Rohr Industries, can in this situation, within the provisions of the National Traffic & Motor Vehicle Safety Act, direct its customers to disconnect the Standard No. 121 system until such time as Rockwell International has made available corrective equipment.

In order to implement this action which will remove a potentially unsafe situation, your confirmation is requested as soon as practicable. Your cooperation is greatly appreciated.

Joseph E. Casson

CC: FRANK FERRONE

ID: 11681MLS

Mr. Christian M. Smith, CEO
Ultimate Systems Inc.
131 Russell Street
Malden, MA 02148

Dear Mr. Smith:

This responds to your questions about whether Federal regulations apply to your product, which you describe as a modular cabinet installed in the cab of heavy trucks. According to your letter and discussions with Ms. Patricia Breslin of this agency, this product is kept in place by pressure systems and safety straps rated at 8000 pounds of force. You further stated that your product would not impede any safety devices or emergency exits, provided that it was installed properly. The following represents our opinion based on the facts provided in your letter.

By way of background information, this agency, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), regulates the manufacture of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. Under our governing statute, the manufacturer must certify that its vehicle or equipment complies with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS).

NHTSA does not have any specific Federal motor vehicle safety standard or other regulations directly covering modular compartments in truck tractors. However, if your product were manufactured for a new vehicle, the vehicle would have to be certified as complying with all applicable safety standards, including the rearward visibility requirements in Standard No. 111, Rearview Mirrors and the flammability resistance requirements in Standard No. 302, Flammability of Interior Materials. Please note that these two Standards apply only to new vehicles, and not to items of aftermarket motor vehicle equipment. Thus, they do not apply to your product, if it were sold in the aftermarket.

There are other Federal requirements that indirectly affect the manufacture and sale of your product. 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 concerning the recall and remedy of products with safety related defects. I have enclosed an information sheet that briefly describes those responsibilities. In the event that you or NHTSA determines that your product contains a safety-related defect, you would be responsible for notifying purchasers of the defective equipment and remedying the problem free of charge.

Manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and motor vehicle repair businesses are subject to a statutory provision, which states: "A manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business

may not knowingly make 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 ...." Your modular component could conceivably make inoperative the rearward visibility requirements set forth in Standard No. 111, or the flammability resistance requirements set forth in Standard No. 302. Any person in the aforementioned categories that installed your product would have to make sure they did not compromise the rearward visibility or flammability resistance provided by the motor vehicle.

The "make inoperative" provision does not apply to the actions of vehicle owners in adding to or otherwise modifying their vehicles or items of motor vehicle equipment. Thus, if your products were placed in vehicles by the vehicle owners, they would not need to meet any Federal motor vehicle safety standards. Nevertheless, NHTSA urges vehicle owners not to tamper with or degrade the safety of their vehicles.

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. You may wish to contact the Federal Highway Administration=s Office of Chief Counsel at (202) 366-0834 about whether any Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulation apply to your product.

Sincerely,

Samuel J. Dubbin Chief Counsel

Enclosure ref:111# 302 d:4/26/96

ID: nht94-7.5

DATE: April 5, 1994

FROM: Hamilton K. Pyles -- Cairncross & Associates, Inc.

TO: Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance -- NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 5/12/94 from John Womack to Hamilton K. Pyles (A42; VSA 102(a)(2)(A); Part 591

TEXT:

We are writing to request the assistance of your office, or your personal assistance, in obtaining Department of Transportation approval and color code designation on our, LIFE LITES system. Our firm has secured a patent, foreign trade license and completed testing with the Ohio State University, and is ready to begin producing the device.

C & L Safety Products currently has a plastics firm and lighting manufacturer within your district to begin production, as well as, several organizations who have committed to purchase the final product. We feel normal, or abnormal delays, in securing approval for the device could adversely impact the economic development of your voting area. Rapid approval would permit you to utilize our firm as an example, particularly in an election environment, of the assistance you can provide to those considering southwest Ohio as a site for future business. Additionally, we are prepared to utilize our public relations firm in contacting other organizations with the details of any assistance provided by you in this matter.

Sue Clark, of your Hamilton office, has been working with us, and has all the details of efforts made to date in securing approval, and has been greatly supportive in moving through the Department of Transportation process.

We have taken the liberty of enclosing a local and national press article explaining the purpose of the device, as well as, copies of the patent and foreign trade permit. Should there be any questions, please call us, to reduce the delays associated with mailed correspondence. Best wishes for continued success.

We would like to import into the United States a kit for a custom compact pick-up truck bed. The bed is made of varnished and sealed wooden planks and plywood with metal fastenings and reinforcements. The kit would consist of the following:

1. Plans and instructions in English for the safe and secure assembly of the bed and attachment on the frames of the specified pick-up truck makes, models and years.

2. Wooden and Plywood parts of the bed suitably labelled for identification.

3. Metal parts, fastenings, wiring and lights.

The intention is to offer this kit in advertisements in specialty

magazines and catalogs to the general public and to offer it to manufacturer's who place specialized beds (campershells, utility company boxes, etc.) on pick-up frames that they buy new without factory installed beds. The general public would strip the existing bed off their truck to install ours.

What federal laws and regulations, under your cognizance, govern the importation, sale and installation of wooden pick-up bed kits? What must I do, initially, to import a trial sample bed into the United States?

As we are on a fairly tight time schedule, your prompt reply by FAX and mail will be very much appreciated, partial answers one by one are far preferable to waiting for all the answers before replying. Thank you.