ID: 11348

Jane Thornton Mastrucci, Esq.
Thornton, Mastrucci & Sinclair
4699 Ponce de Leon Boulevard
Coral Gables, FL 33146-2188

Dear Ms. Mastrucci:

This responds to your request for an interpretation as to which passenger vehicles and which multipurpose passenger vehicles (MPVs) meet the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSSs). You ask this since Florida law allows transportation of pupils in MPVs that meet "all federal motor vehicle safety standards for passenger cars." As explained below, in recent years many of the FMVSSs have been amended to have the same requirements for passenger cars and MPVs. However where differences exist, the only way your client, Dade County School Board, will be able to determine that a specific MPV meets the FMVSSs applicable to passenger cars would be to contact the vehicle's manufacturer.

NHTSA is authorized under 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301 Motor Vehicle Safety to issue FMVSSs for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. The FMVSSs are codified at Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Part 571. There are presently 53 FMVSSs. Each FMVSS's applicability section specifies the motor vehicles and/or equipment to which it applies.

Under 49 U.S.C. section 30112, a person may not manufacture or sell any motor vehicle unless the vehicle meets all applicable FMVSSs and is so certified. Section 30115 establishes a self-certification system whereby the vehicle manufacturer is responsible for certifying that the vehicle meets the safety requirements in the standards applicable to the vehicle. In the certification, the manufacturer must specify the vehicle type (e.g., passenger car, MPV, truck, bus) of the vehicle. Each vehicle type's definition is found at 49 CFR Part 571.3 Definitions. Thus, a new passenger car sold in the U.S. must be certified by the manufacturer as meeting the FMVSSs applicable to passenger cars, and a new MPV must be certified as meeting the standards applicable to MPVs.

In recent years, many FMVSSs have been amended to specify the same requirements for passenger cars and MPVs. For example, for model year 1998 vehicles, Standard No. 208, Occupant crash protection will specify identical requirements for passenger cars and MPVs. For Standard No. 214, Side impact protection, in July 1995, NHTSA issued a final rule in which MPVs manufactured after September 1, 1998 would be required to meet the same dynamic testing requirements as passenger cars.

However, some safety standards that apply to both passenger cars and MPVs do not specify identical requirements for each vehicle type. For example, Standard No. 103 Windshield defrosting and defogging systems applies to passenger cars and MPVs, but specifies different requirements for each vehicle type.

There is no easy way to determine whether a particular MPV meets the passenger car safety standards. Because of differences in FMVSS requirements for passenger cars and MPVs, for information whether a particular MPV meets the passenger car standards, you should contact the MPV's manufacturer. Please note that for some safety standards such as Standard No. 208, a manufacturer may have phased-in the compliance of its MPVs with the safety standard over several years. Therefore, some MPVs manufactured in a particular year may meet the newer standard but other MPVs may not. For information about whether a specific MPV meets the passenger car standards, the manufacturer should be provided with the MPV's seventeen digit vehicle identification number (VIN), which can be found on the vehicle's certification label on the hinge pillar, the door-latch post, or the door edge that meets the door-latch post, next to the driver's seating position.

I hope this information is helpful. If you need any further information, please contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Samuel J. Dubbin Chief Counsel

ref:vsa#571 d:12/26/95

ID: nht95-5.12

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: December 26, 1995

FROM: Samuel J. Dubbin -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA; Signature by John Womack

TO: Jane Thornton Mastrucci, Esq. -- Thornton, Mastrucci & Sinclair

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: 11/08/95 letter from Jane Thornton Mastrucci to John Womack

TEXT: This responds to your request for an interpretation as to which passenger vehicles and which multipurpose passenger vehicles (MPVs) meet the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSSs). You ask this since Florida law allows transportation of pupils in MPVs that meet "all federal motor vehicle safety standards for passenger cars." As explained below, in recent years many of the FMVSSs have been amended to have the same requirements for passenger cars and MPVs. However where differences exist, the o nly way your client, Dade County School Board, will be able to determine that a specific MPV meets the FMVSSs applicable to passenger cars would be to contact the vehicle's manufacturer.

NHTSA is authorized under 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301 Motor Vehicle Safety to issue FMVSSs for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. The FMVSSs are codified at Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Part 571. There are pres ently 53 FMVSSs. Each FMVSS's applicability section specifies the motor vehicles and/or equipment to which it applies.

Under 49 U.S.C. section 30112, a person may not manufacture or sell any motor vehicle unless the vehicle meets all applicable FMVSSs and is so certified. Section 30115 establishes a self-certification system whereby the vehicle manufacturer is responsibl e for certifying that the vehicle meets the safety requirements in the standards applicable to the vehicle. In the certification, the manufacturer must specify the vehicle type (e.g., passenger car, MPV, truck, bus) of the vehicle. Each vehicle type's definition is found at 49 CFR Part 571.3 Definitions. Thus, a new passenger car sold in the U.S. must be certified by the manufacturer as meeting the FMVSSs applicable to passenger cars, and a new MPV must be certified as meeting the standards applicable to MPVs.

In recent years, many FMVSSs have been amended to specify the same requirements for passenger cars and MPVs. For example, for model year 1998 vehicles, Standard No. 208, Occupant crash protection will specify identical requirements for passenger cars an d MPVs. For Standard No. 214, Side impact protection, in July 1995, NHTSA issued a final rule in which MPVs manufactured after September 1, 1998 would be required to meet the same dynamic testing requirements as passenger cars.

However, some safety standards that apply to both passenger cars and MPVs do not specify identical requirements for each vehicle type. For example, Standard No. 103 Windshield defrosting and defogging systems applies to passenger cars and MPVs, but spec ifies different requirements for each vehicle type.

There is no easy way to determine whether a particular MPV meets the passenger car safety standards. Because of differences in FMVSS requirements for passenger cars and MPVs, for information whether a particular MPV meets the passenger car standards, yo u should contact the MPV's manufacturer. Please note that for some safety standards such as Standard No. 208, a manufacturer may have phased-in the compliance of its MPVs with the safety standard over several years. Therefore, some MPVs manufactured in a particular year may meet the newer standard but other MPVs may not. For information about whether a specific MPV meets the passenger car standards, the manufacturer should be provided with the MPV's seventeen digit vehicle identification number (VIN) , which can be found on the vehicle's certification label on the hinge pillar, the door-latch post, or the door edge that meets the door-latch post, next to the driver's seating position.

I hope this information is helpful. If you need any further information, please contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht95-7.67

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: December 26, 1995

FROM: Samuel J. Dubbin -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA; Signature by John Womack

TO: Jane Thornton Mastrucci, Esq. -- Thornton, Mastrucci & Sinclair

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: 11/08/95 letter from Jane Thornton Mastrucci to John Womack

TEXT: This responds to your request for an interpretation as to which passenger vehicles and which multipurpose passenger vehicles (MPVs) meet the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSSs). You ask this since Florida law allows transportation of pupils in MPVs that meet "all federal motor vehicle safety standards for passenger cars." As explained below, in recent years many of the FMVSSs have been amended to have the same requirements for passenger cars and MPVs. However where differences exist, the only way your client, Dade County School Board, will be able to determine that a specific MPV meets the FMVSSs applicable to passenger cars would be to contact the vehicle's manufacturer.

NHTSA is authorized under 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301 Motor Vehicle Safety to issue FMVSSs for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. The FMVSSs are codified at Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Part 571. There are presently 53 FMVSSs. Each FMVSS's applicability section specifies the motor vehicles and/or equipment to which it applies.

Under 49 U.S.C. section 30112, a person may not manufacture or sell any motor vehicle unless the vehicle meets all applicable FMVSSs and is so certified. Section 30115 establishes a self-certification system whereby the vehicle manufacturer is responsible for certifying that the vehicle meets the safety requirements in the standards applicable to the vehicle. In the certification, the manufacturer must specify the vehicle type (e.g., passenger car, MPV, truck, bus) of the vehicle. Each vehicle type's definition is found at 49 CFR Part 571.3 Definitions. Thus, a new passenger car sold in the U.S. must be certified by the manufacturer as meeting the FMVSSs applicable to passenger cars, and a new MPV must be certified as meeting the standards applicable to MPVs.

In recent years, many FMVSSs have been amended to specify the same requirements for passenger cars and MPVs. For example, for model year 1998 vehicles, Standard No. 208, Occupant crash protection will specify identical requirements for passenger cars and MPVs. For Standard No. 214, Side impact protection, in July 1995, NHTSA issued a final rule in which MPVs manufactured after September 1, 1998 would be required to meet the same dynamic testing requirements as passenger cars.

However, some safety standards that apply to both passenger cars and MPVs do not specify identical requirements for each vehicle type. For example, Standard No. 103 Windshield defrosting and defogging systems applies to passenger cars and MPVs, but specifies different requirements for each vehicle type.

There is no easy way to determine whether a particular MPV meets the passenger car safety standards. Because of differences in FMVSS requirements for passenger cars and MPVs, for information whether a particular MPV meets the passenger car standards, you should contact the MPV's manufacturer. Please note that for some safety standards such as Standard No. 208, a manufacturer may have phased-in the compliance of its MPVs with the safety standard over several years. Therefore, some MPVs manufactured in a particular year may meet the newer standard but other MPVs may not. For information about whether a specific MPV meets the passenger car standards, the manufacturer should be provided with the MPV's seventeen digit vehicle identification number (VIN), which can be found on the vehicle's certification label on the hinge pillar, the door-latch post, or the door edge that meets the door-latch post, next to the driver's seating position.

I hope this information is helpful. If you need any further information, please contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

ID: aiam2917

Dear Mr. Pare: This responds to your December 4, 1978, letter concerning th applicability of Safety Standard No. 205, *Glazing Materials*, to applied windshield tint bands.; I am enclosing copies of two previous letters of interpretation by th agency regarding polyester films that appear to be similar to the product you describe. I think these letters will answer all of your questions. If not, please contact Hugh Oates of my office at 202-426-2992.; Sincerely, Joseph J. Levin, Jr., Chief Counsel

ID: aiam1157

Dear Mr. McGuigan: This is to confirm your phone conversation of June 20, 1973, with Mik Peskoe of this office as to whether Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 110 requires passenger cars manufactured on or after July 1, 1973, to be equipped with tires that conform to Standard No. 109 as of July 1, 1973. the answer to this question is no. We will consider passenger cars to conform to Standard No. 110 if they are equipped with tires that conform to Standard No. 109 as of the date the tires are manufactured.; Sincerely, Lawrence R. Schneider, Chief Counsel

ID: 77-2.24

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/29/77

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: SEMA

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your March 24, 1977, letter asking about the applicability of Standard No. 120, Tire Selection and Rims for Motor Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars, to aftermarket rims.

Your first assumption that vans and light truck models are classified as vehicles other than passenger cars is correct. Accordingly, rims manufactured for use on these vehicles must comply with the requirements of the standard. Where the rims may be used in the aftermarket either on passenger cars or vehicles other than passenger cars, they must comply with the requirements of Standard No. 120.

On a related matter concerning the aftermarket, you question whether Standard No. 120 has applicability to rims sold for use on used vehicles. Section S3 of the standard states that the requirements apply to motor vehicles other than passenger cars and to rims for use on those vehicles. This indicates that the standard is both a motor vehicle and an equipment standard. Since it is an equipment standard, the requirements apply to all rims manufactured for use on the specified vehicles regardless of whether the rim will be original equipment or sold in the aftermarket.

SINCERELY,

March 24, 1977

Roger Tilton Office of Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Since I have not heard from you in the past few days, I will assume that the enclosed report from the "Consumer Product Safety Guide" is completely fallacious. As I mentioned during our phone conversation, our association is attempting to provide the aftermarket wheel manufacturers in our membership with timely information concerning the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 120, rim marking requirements, and I do have several questions that pertain to the standard.

We have made the assumption that the van and light truck models in the domestic fleet fall under the category of vehicles other than passenger cars, and would like to know if our assumption is correct. Also, in the February 7, 1977 Federal Register, Page 7142, the discussion of rim marking requirements states that "these marking requirements have no bearing on the use of the rim on passenger cars, except as future labeling requirements in Standard No. 110 might prohibit one or more of the items required by S5.2. This eventuality is considered to be extremely unlikely." We find that the most common bolt circle patterns for wheels are common to both passenger cars and light trucks and vans, and the aftermarket generally does not market separate wheels for trucks and passenger cars. We would like to know if the statement quoted above means that a wheel that has a common application for light trucks and passenger cars can, or must, have the rim markings required by FMVSS 120 by August 1, 1977.

We have also noted that the standard is promulgated to fulfill Section 202 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, which pertains to equipment requirements for new vehicles or vehicles before the first purchase thereof. We, therefore, request a legal opinion on whether the FMVSS 120 can be construed to apply to a true aftermarket wheel which is purchased by the vehicle owner, usually some time after the first purchase.

This may be a moot point, for in fact, the aftermarket manufacturers market the same wheel models for light truck applications, passenger car applications, new vehicle applications (dealership changeover), and aftermarket. But a legal opinion on the questions that I have raised would be most helpful at this time.

Your assistance would be very much appreciated, and I trust that if you have any questions on this matter, you won't hesitate to call on me.

Paul J. Ryan Staff Engineer

Consumer Product Safety Guide

Rim Requirement Repeated, Mobile Homes De-regulated by NHTSA

A requirement that wheel rims of motor vehicles other than passenger cars be labeled as to their normal dimensions manufacturer, and date of manufacture has been withdrawn by the National Highway Safety Administration. The requirement had been previously issued with a delayed effective date. The NHTSA stated that the (Illegible Word) of the requirement had not interfered with certification and defect actions, and because enforcement might lead to economic waste, the agency has decided it is unnecessary. In responding

ID: aiam0490

Dear Mr. Maylone: You wrote some time ago to request information concerning th application of various motor vehicle safety standards to passenger cars with curb weights of less than 1,000 pounds. Contrary to the information you obtained from *Motor Trend*, this category of passenger cars is still exempt from the standards. There is a possibility that at some future date the exemption granted by 571.7(a) will be changed or revoked, but any such action can be taken only after opportunity for public comment.; Please advise us if you feel it necessary to have your remainin questions answered.; Sincerely, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel

ID: aiam5420

"Dear Mr. Lakhani: This responds to your letter requesting ou 'unequivocal opinion on the issue of whether the attachment of a bumper guard to the front bumper of a vehicle will interfere with' an air bag. Your company is a manufacturer of bumper guards. Recently your customers have indicated that auto manufacturers have stated that installation of a bumper guard in front of a bumper will interfere with the air bag and could void the warranty. This letter will address the effect under Federal laws of the installation of a bumper guard, however, our agency cannot comment on the effect on a manufacturer's warranty. By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized under 49 U.S.C. 30101 et seq. to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards that apply to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. Federal law prohibits any person from manufacturing, introducing into commerce, selling, or importing any new motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment unless the vehicle or equipment item is in conformity with all applicable safety standards. NHTSA does not approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, nor do we endorse any commercial products. Instead, each manufacturer is responsible for 'self-certifying' that its products meet all applicable safety standards. NHTSA has exercised its authority to establish Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection (49 CFR 571.208). Among other things, Standard No. 208 requires that cars be equipped with automatic crash protection. 'Automatic crash protection' means that a vehicle is equipped with occupant restraints that require no action by vehicle occupants. The performance of automatic crash protection is dynamically tested, that is, the automatic systems are required to comply with certain injury reduction criteria as measured by test dummies in a barrier crash test at speeds up to 30 mph. The two types of automatic crash protection currently offered on new passenger cars are automatic safety belts (which help to assure belt use) and air bags (which supplement safety belts and offer some protection even when safety belts are not used). A new Federal statutory requirement will make air bags mandatory in all cars and light trucks by the late 1990's. Standard No. 208 applies to new vehicles, therefore, if a bumper guard is installed before the vehicle's first purchase for purposes other than resale, the vehicle manufacturer would have to certify that the vehicle complied with all applicable standards, including Standard No. 208, with the bumper guard installed. After the first purchase of a vehicle for purposes other than resale, the only provision in Federal law that affects the vehicle's continuing compliance with an applicable safety standard is set forth in 49 U.S.C. 30122. That section provides that: A manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business may not knowingly make inoperative any part of a device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable motor vehicle safety standard. Any violation of this provision would subject the violator to a potential civil penalty of up to $1,000 for each violation. This provision would prohibit a commercial business from installing a bumper guard on a vehicle equipped with an air bag in a manner that would negatively affect the vehicle's compliance with Standard No. 208 or any other safety standard. Please note that this provision would apply to a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair business installing your product, and not to your company as the manufacturer of the product. Also note that this provision does not apply to modifications vehicle owners make to their own vehicles. Thus, Federal law would not apply in situations where individual vehicle owners install a bumper guard on their own vehicles, even if the installation were to result in the vehicle no longer complying with the safety standards. However, States have the authority to regulate modifications that individual vehicle owners may make to their own vehicles. You should also note that a bumper guard would be considered 'motor vehicle equipment' under Federal law. Therefore, if it contained a defect (either in manufacture, design, or performance) that relates to motor vehicle safety, you would be required to conduct a recall campaign to notify owners and to remedy the defect free of charge. It is not possible for NHTSA to provide an 'unequivocal opinion on the issue of whether the attachment of a bumper guard to the front bumper of a vehicle will interfere with' an air bag. This is because the answer to the question would depend on the designs of the bumper guard, the air bag, and the vehicle as a whole. The discussion which follows illustrates possible problems, identified by our technical staff, which bumper guards could cause with respect to air bags. First, a bumper guard attached to the bumper could possibly induce unwarranted air bag deployments if the guard extended vertically below the car bumper. Such a bumper guard could snag on travel surface irregularities, sharp inclines, or sharp incline departure angles which might otherwise not engage the vehicle structure. The potential impulsive nature of bumper guard snag might cause air bag deployment to occur at conditions differing from the crash severity for which the original manufacturer designed the air bag. Second, if a bumper guard were attached to the vehicle structure, rather than the bumper, it too could possibly produce deployments that are not intended. Such a system might impose direct loading into the vehicle frame without the energy absorption of the bumper moderating the impulse experienced by the crash sensor system which is calibrated to measure crash severity. Third, if a bumper guard were added to the front bumper of a vehicle in such a manner as to change the load path through the bumper to the car structure behind the bumper, it is possible that the crash impulse arriving at the crash sensor location might be altered from that of the original bumper, causing air bag deployment to occur either above or below the original manufacturer's deployment threshold. We cannot provide an opinion of whether, or under what circumstances, your bumper guard might cause these or other problems. We suggest that you consult with vehicle manufacturers and air bag manufacturers concerning how, and whether, your bumper guard can be installed on air bag-equipped vehicles in a manner that does not create problems. 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, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel";

ID: aiam5450

"Dear Mr. Je: This responds to your letter identifying your company a a 'trading company' and asking for permission from the U.S. Department of Transportation to sell air bags in the United States. As I explain below, no such permission is necessary, but there are some requirements you should be aware of before you begin importing air bags. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our laws and regulations to you. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized under Title 49, Chapter 301 of the U.S. Code to issue Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA, however, does not approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, nor do we endorse any commercial products or conduct pre-sale testing of any commercial products. Instead, Chapter 301 establishes a 'self-certification' process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards. I note that the term 'manufacturer' is defined in 49 U.S.C. 30102(5)(B) as 'a person . . . manufacturing or assembling motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment or importing motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment for resale.' (Emphasis added.) NHTSA has exercised its authority under Chapter 301 to establish Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection (49 CFR 571.208). Standard No. 208 requires, among other things, that passenger cars provide automatic crash protection. Also, a phase-in of automatic crash protection requirements for light trucks is in progress. Vehicles equipped with automatic crash protection protect their occupants by means that require no action by vehicle occupants. Compliance with the automatic crash protection requirements of Standard No. 208 is determined in a dynamic crash test. That is, a vehicle must comply with specified injury criteria, as measured on a test dummy, when tested by this agency in a 30 mph barrier crash test. At this time, manufacturers are not required to use a specific method of automatic crash protection to meet the requirements of Standard No. 208. Instead, each automobile manufacturer is allowed to select the particular method for the automatic crash protection installed in its vehicles. The two types of automatic crash protection currently offered on new passenger cars are automatic safety belts (which help to assure belt use) and air bags (which supplement safety belts and offer some protection even when safety belts are not used). However, a recent amendment of Standard No. 208 makes air bags mandatory in all passenger cars and light trucks by the late 1990's. Please note that the automatic crash protection requirement applies to the performance of the vehicle as a whole, instead of setting requirements for the air bag as an individual item of equipment. This approach permits vehicle manufacturers to 'tune' the performance of the air bag to the crash pulse and other specific attributes of each of their vehicle models. However, this approach also means that the Federal standards do not specify specific performance attributes for air bags such as inflated dimensions, actuation time, and the like. It is unclear from your letter if the air bags you wish to import will be sold to manufacturers for installation in new vehicles or if the air bags will be sold as replacement air bags or retrofit air bags for vehicles which do not have air bags as original equipment. If the air bags are sold to manufacturers for installation in new vehicles, the vehicle manufacturer is required to certify that the vehicle complies with all applicable safety standards, including Standard No. 208. If the air bag is added to a previously certified new motor vehicle prior to its first sale, the person who modifies the vehicle would be an alterer of a previously certified motor vehicle and would be required to certify that, as altered, the vehicle continues to comply with all of the safety standards affected by the installation of the air bag. (See 49 CFR Part 567.7.) While most of Standard No. 208's requirements are expressed in terms of the performance of the vehicle as a whole and apply only to new vehicles and not to aftermarket equipment, there is one exception to this. Pressure vessels and explosive devices for use in air bag systems must comply with section S9 of Standard No. 208 whether they are part of a new motor vehicle or are aftermarket equipment. Therefore, the manufacturer of these items must certify that they comply with the requirements of S9 of Standard No. 208. Another Federal requirement that would affect the device if it were installed in a used vehicle, either as a replacement or retrofit air bag, is the 'make inoperative' prohibition in U.S. Code Section 30122(b), which provides that: A manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business may not knowingly make inoperative any part of a device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle ... in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard . . . The 'make inoperative' provision would prohibit a commercial business from installing an aftermarket air bag in a manner that would negatively affect the vehicle's compliance with Standard No. 208. You should also note that a replacement or retrofit air bag would be considered 'motor vehicle equipment' within the meaning of the U.S. Code. Therefore, if the air bag contained a defect (either in manufacture, design, or performance) that relates to motor vehicle safety, the manufacturer would be required to conduct a recall campaign to notify owners and to remedy the defect free of charge. You should be aware that recently the manufacturer of an aftermarket air bag that did not provide crash protection benefits to vehicle occupants ceased offering its air bags following a NHTSA investigation. In addition, NHTSA provided information to the Federal Trade Commission concerning the claims made by the manufacturer in its advertising. We suggest you carefully review the manufacturer's test data on the devices you are considering importing to assure yourself that the air bag would afford adequate protection to vehicle occupants in crashes and that the claims made in the company's advertising are true. I have enclosed an information sheet that identifies relevant Federal statutes and NHTSA standards and regulations affecting motor vehicle and motor vehicle equipment manufacturers, and explains how to obtain copies of these materials. Please note the regulations concerning manufacturer identification and designation of agent. 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, Philip R. Recht Chief Counsel Enclosure";

ID: aiam0007

Dear Mr. Wilson: This is in reply to your letter of February 20, 1991 with respect to the acceptability under Federal law of your product, the 'Instant Traffic Light. I regret that we do not appear to have a record of your earlier letters to the agency on this subject. The 'Instant Traffic Light' is a four-section unit intended to perform three functions, each indicated by a different color. A green light appears when the accelerator is applied, an amber light when the accelerator is released, and a red light when the brakes are applied. The lamp's shipping carton shows the unit mounted on the rear parcel shelf behind the rear window. The text on the carton says that the lamp is easy to assemble. You have asked whether the product meets Standard No. 108, whether it would be 'legal' in the U.S. 'and her territories', and whether the product could replace, or be an option to, the requirements of Standard No. 108 for the center high-mounted stop lamp. Finally, of the l6 States that have responded to your inquiry, an equal number (six) have indicated that the lamp is and is not acceptable to them, while the remaining four 'said they will follow the Federal requirement.' Standard No. 108 does not permit the center high-mounted stop lamp to be combined with any other lamp. This means that your product could not be used as original equipment on a passenger car, whether as standard equipment or as an option, or marketed and sold as replacement equipment for a center lamp on a passenger car that was originally equipped with it. However, Standard No. 108 does not apply to the 'Instant Traffic Light' if it is marketed or sold exclusively for use on passenger cars that were not originally required to be manufactured with the center stop lamp, i.e., those cars that were manufactured before September 1, l985. Under this circumstance, the question of the legality of use of the device is to be determined by the laws of the individual States. The 'territories' are 'States' for purposes of this discussion. Since there is no legal prohibition under Federal law for installation of your lamp only on older passenger cars, we presume that the four States that reserved their decision would permit it on pre - l985 vehicles registered and/or operating within their borders. We are aware that, nevertheless, there may be some owner interest in replacing original equipment center stop lamps with your product. We would like to advise that such replacement would be a violation of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, if performed by a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business. There is no such restriction upon a vehicle owner who performs the replacement of the lamp himself. I hope that this responds to your questions. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel;