ID: 77-3.44

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: August 3, 1977

FROM: Joseph J. Levin, Jr. -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: John L. O'Connell -- Pupil Transportation Administrator, State of Connecticut, Department of Motor Vehicles

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 7-12-77 from J.J. Levin, Jr. to J. Thomason (VSA 102(14)); Also attached to letter dated 9-10-90 from P.J. Rice to E. Kultgen (A36; VSA 108(b)(1); VSA 102(14); Part 571.3); Also attached to letter dated 5-29-90 from E. Kultgen to S.P. Wood (OCC 4843); Also attached to letter dated 5-10-82 from F. Berndt (signature by S.P. Wood) to M.V. Chauvin; Also attached to letter dated 3-27-78 from J.J. Levin, Jr. to B. Nanninga (VSA 102(14))

TEXT: This responds to your June 7, 1977, letter asking whether a school bus manufacturer can sell a bus to a private school or to a contractor for use in the transportation of the handicapped that is not built in compliance with the new school bus safety standards.

The new school bus definition to which you refer in your letter was issued by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) at the direction of Congress. The definition requires that all buses carrying more than 10 persons to or from school or related events (other than common carriers in urban transportation) must be constructed in accordance with the school bus safety standards.

The buses to which you refer transport children to and from private schools and also transport the handicapped. There is no distinction between private school and public school for purposes of the application of the school bus safety requirements. Accordingly, a bus designed to carry more than 10 persons to and from a private school must be constructed in accordance with the requirements and must be equipped with the lights, paint, and signs of a school bus. The same situation exists for buses designed for the transportation of the handicapped if they carry more than 10 persons to and from school or related events.

In conclusion, a manufacturer is not permitted to sell a bus designed to transport school children to and from school and related events, unless that bus is constructed in accordance with the requirements. Schools may purchase, however, small vehicles (fewer than 10 passenger) that are not built according to the requirements. These vehicles are not considered school buses for purposes of the application of the requirements.

ID: 09-001270as

ID: 12632.wkm

Mr. Tom Burkhardt
Dynastar International
25133 Anza Drive, Suite A
Santa Clarita, CA 91355

Dear Mr. Burkhardt:

This responds to your telefax dated October 21, 1996, addressed to Walter Myers of my staff and your telephone conversations with Mr. Myers on October 18 and 23, 1996. You stated that your company received a shipment of passenger car tires that were not marked with the Uniform Tire Quality Grading Standards (UTQGS) ratings and asked that this agency waive "the stamping of UTGQ (sic)." Please be advised that this agency, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, has no authority to waive the UTQGS requirements.

You stated that on October 2, 1996 your company received about 5,000 Michelin MXF tires of two different sizes that you think were produced in Thailand, and that "this is the first time that this tire has been imported." In response to your October 18 telephone conversation, Mr. Myers telefaxed to you copies of four previous interpretation letters issued by this office explaining the various UTQGS labeling requirements and their exceptions. In your October 23 conversation, you told Mr. Myers that you had read the letters and asked if we had any advice for you.

The UTQGS, found at 49 Code of Federal Regulations, 575.104 (copy enclosed), require that all new tires sold in the United States be graded for treadwear, traction, and temperature resistance, and that those grades or ratings be marked on the sidewall of each tire (575.104(d)(1)(i)(A)).

In addition, the ratings for each individual tire must be shown and explained on labels attached to the tread of each tire so as not to be easily removable ((d)(1)(i)(B)(2)). There are, however, two exceptions to the above requirements:

1. Tires of a new tire line need not have the UTQGS ratings marked on the sidewalls if the tires were manufactured within the first six months of production of the tire line ((d)(1)(i)(A)). The tread label required by (d)(1)(i)(B)(2) is still required, however.
2. Limited production tires are excluded from all UTQGS requirements. In order to qualify as limited production tires, a tire must meet all the following criteria (575.104(c)(2)):
   1. Total annual domestic production or importation into the United States of tires of the same design and size by either the manufacturer or brand name owner may not exceed 15,000 tires;
   2. The tire's size must not have been listed as a vehicle manufacturer's recommended tire size designation for new motor vehicles domestically produced or imported in quantities greater than 10,000 during the year prior to the tire's manufacture; and
   3. The total annual domestic production or importation by the tire's manufacturer or brand name owner may not exceed 35,000 tires.

Since Michelin is a major domestic producer and importer of tires, it is unlikely that the tires in question could qualify as limited production tires (exception b). If they qualify as tires of a new tire line, however, you are free to prepare and attach tread labels to the tires in accordance with (d)(1)(i)(B)(2) and market them as described in exception a. If they do not meet either exception a or b, you may not market the tires in the United States until they comply with the UTQGS. Finally, if you are unable to bring these tires into compliance with the UTQGS, you are free to export them if the tires and the outside of their container are labeled for export (49 U.S. Code 30112(b)(3)) (copy enclosed).

One further matter. The tires must meet the strength, performance, and labeling requirements of Federal motor vehicle safety standard No. 109, New pneumatic tires (copy enclosed), and the letters "DOT" must be marked on the tire sidewalls to indicate such compliance. Like the UTQGS, those requirements are also prerequisite to the sale of any passenger car tires in the United States.

I hope this information is helpful to you. Should you have any further questions or require additional information, feel free to contact Mr. Myers at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
Enclosures
ref:575
d:11/6/96

ID: 17892-2.ztv

Mr. William A.G. Sanford
Chairman
Metro Motors Corporation
12202 Timber Run Court
Monrovia, MD 21770

Dear Mr. Sanford:

This is in reply to your letters of April 28, 1998, July 3, 1998, and July 27, 1998, seeking an opinion that certain vehicles Metro Motors Corporation ("Metro" hereafter) wishes to import are not "motor vehicles" subject to regulation by this agency. Based on the information provided in your letter, it appears that the vehicles are not motor vehicles under the statutes we administer.

The vehicles in question have the appearance of small passenger-carrying vans and trucks and are manufactured by Asia Motors in Korea. Your letter of April 28, 1998 informed us that the vehicles "will be marketed to industrial equipment distributors (forklift dealers) and professional turf dealers (golf course equipment firms) and specialty houses (industrial sweeper & scrubber dealers)." Your letter of July 27, 1998 indicated that the passenger vans would primarily be used on "closed" college/university campuses. Product literature contains the warning "These vehicles are intended for off-road use only." The Certificate of Origin states that the vehicles do "not conform to all safety and emissions standards applicable to on road vehicles in the United States." Metro intends to affix to the vehicles a yellow placard (4 inches by 14 inches) with the same advisories and warnings as the literature, placard, and Certificate of Origin. Finally, the engine and transmissions of the vehicles will be modified to restrict the top speed to not more than 25 miles per hour.

Your letter of July 3, 1998, advises that the vehicles are equipped with headlamps, parking lamps, backup lamps, turn signal /hazard warning signal lamps, combination stop/taillamps, all of which comply with "federal DOT regulations for ON ROAD vehicles." Shoulder and lap belts "are standard on all models." Dual side mirrors and an interior mirror are also standard. The vehicles are equipped with four-wheel hydraulic brakes, radial tires, and "safety" glass. You also list a number of comfort and convenience items with which the vehicles are equipped. You have attached a certificate from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency which approves Metro's importation of "motorized units." Finally, you have enclosed a Vehicle Emissions Inspection Certificate issued to one of the vehicles.

A "motor vehicle" for purposes of compliance with the Federal motor vehicle safety program is, in pertinent part, a vehicle that is "manufactured primarily for use on the public streets, roads, and highways." 49 U.S.C. 30102(a)(6). The issue raised by your letter is whether the vehicle you would be importing would be considered a motor vehicle under the statutes we administer.

I note that the factual situation you raise is similar to one we addressed in an October 31, 1988 letter to MMC Services concerning the Mitsubishi Motors Corporation SH27 lightweight industrial truck. As was the case in that situation, your vehicles are not easily classified. On the one hand, the vehicles have a body configuration nearly identical to standard trucks and vans and can reach a speed of 25 miles per hour. These factors suggest that the vehicles should be classified as motor vehicles. On the other hand, you stated that the vehicles are intended to be used only for off-road applications and that the vehicle will be advertised and promoted for off-road purposes only and will contain two placards stating "Warning: this vehicle is for off-use only. The use of this vehicle is not intended for on-road use, and it does not meet USDOT regulations for on-road usage. IT IS ILLEGAL FOR USE AS A LICENSABLE VEHICLE!" These factors suggest that the vehicle should not be classified as a motor vehicle.

In instances where the agency is asked whether a vehicle is a motor vehicle when it has both off-road and on-road operating capabilities, and about which there is little or no evidence about the extent of the vehicle's on-road use, the agency has applied five factors in offering its advice. These factors are:

1. Whether the vehicle will be advertised for use on-road as well as off-road, or whether it will be advertised exclusively for off-road use.

You stated that your product literature contains an advisory that the vehicles are for off-road use only. This factor suggests that the vehicles should not be considered motor vehicles.

2. Whether the vehicle's manufacturer or dealers will assist vehicle purchasers in obtaining certificates of origin or title documents to register the vehicle for on-road use.

The sample certificate of origin you enclosed in your letter states "THIS VEHICLE DOES NOT CONFORM TO ALL SAFETY AND EMISSIONS STANDARDS APPLICABLE TO ON-ROAD VEHICLES IN THE UNITED STATES." Therefore, this factor would indicate that the vehicles should not be considered motor vehicles.

3. Whether the vehicle is or will be sold by dealers also selling vehicles that are classified as motor vehicles.

As noted previously, you have informed us that the vehicles "will be marketed to industrial equipment distributors (forklift dealers) and professional turf dealers (golf course equipment firms) and specialty houses (industrial sweeper & scrubber dealers)." The vehicles sold by these dealers are not motor vehicles. This factor suggests that the vehicles should not be considered motor vehicles.

4. Whether the vehicle has or will have affixed to it a warning label stating that the vehicle is not intended for use on the public roads.

As noted above, two warning placards will be affixed to the exterior of the vehicle body. This factor would indicate that the vehicles are not motor vehicles.

5. Whether states or foreign countries have permitted or are likely to permit the vehicle to be registered for on-road use.

Since the vehicles closely resemble small trucks and vans used on the public roads, it is possible that states would permit them to be registered for highway use. In fact, the State of Maryland has issued an emissions approval certificate for one of the vehicles. Therefore, this factor suggests that the vehicles should be considered motor vehicles.

Based on the representations in your letter and considering all of the five factors discussed above, on balance, we believe that your vehicles are not "motor vehicles." However, we will reexamine this conclusion if we learn that, for example, the vehicles are in fact used on the public roads by a substantial number of owners.

If you have any questions, you may contact Taylor Vinson of this Office (202-366-5263).

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
ref:571#591
d.1/25/99

ID: 5673cmc

Mr. Rob Cohen
Auto Advisory Services
14771 Plaza Drive, Suite A
Tustin, CA 92780

Dear Mr. Cohen:

This responds to your July 22, 2003, letter in which you ask about the liability of a car dealer in selling a used vehicle that had an air bag removed by the previous owner. As explained below, there is no Federal requirement for the dealer to replace the air bag.

In your letter you presented a scenario in which, "a licensed vehicle dealer takes a used vehicle in on trade and places it into inventory. The dealer notices that a custom steering wheel had been installed on the vehicle by a prior owner."The original steering wheel was equipped with an air bag, but the replacement does not have one. You ask about the dealers liability in selling the vehicle and if that liability would be affected by the dealers knowledge of the original equipment.

Under Federal law, a person may not sell or offer for sale any motor vehicle that does not comply with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. 49 U.S.C. 30112(a).However, this requirement does not apply to the "sale [or] offer for sale of a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment after the first purchase of the vehicle or equipment in good faith other than for resale (after first retail sale)." 49 U.S.C. 30112(b).

While the Federal motor vehicle safety standards apply only to new motor vehicles and new motor vehicle equipment, Federal law does limit the modifications that can be made by certain businesses to used vehicles. Manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and repair businesses are prohibited from "knowingly making inoperative" any device or element of a design installed on or in a motor vehicle in compliance with an applicable safety standard. 49 U.S.C. 30122.

The "make inoperative" provision would prohibit a dealer from knowingly disabling safety equipment, such as an air bag, that was installed in compliance with an applicable safety standard. However, the provision does not impose an affirmative duty on dealers or other persons to repair equipment on a used vehicle that was disabled by a previous owner. While Federal law does not require dealers to repair or replace safety equipment made inoperative before they obtained the vehicle, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration strongly urges such repair, so that the vehicle continues to provide maximum safety protection.

Despite the absence of any requirement in Federal law, State law may require replacement of the absent air bag. You may wish to contact the State in which the dealer is located to learn if there are any applicable laws or regulations. Additionally, you may wish to consult a private attorney with respect to potential liability of the dealer for not replacing the air bag.

I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any further questions please contact Mr. Chris Calamita of my staff, at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:208
d.9/26/03

ID: nht71-3.37

DATE: 07/16/71

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

TO: Minnesota Automotive, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of June 29 asking whether the installation of MICO brake locks, as a supplemental parking brake system, is acceptable to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.

We understand that the MICO brake lock is used only in hydraulic brake systems of trucks. There is no Federal motor vehicle safety standard currently in effect covering truck hydraulic brake systems, and installation of MICO brake locks by a dealer, prior to first sale of a vehicle, is permissible as long as the lock does not impair conformance of brake hoses and brake hose assemblies with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 106. That the installation might impair conformance is inferred in the Chevrolet Dealer letter, DD-1412, May 19, 1971, which you enclosed.

A proposal has been issued (Docket No. 70-27) that would require trucks equipped with hydraulic brake systems to meet certain performance requirements, effective with trucks manufactured on or after October 1, 1972. If this proposal is adopted as a Federal standard, installation of the MICO supplemental brake system on a truck, by a dealer, prior to first sale of a vehicle would be allowable as long as the installation does not affect conformance of the required mechanical parking brake system with Federal requirements, or with Standard No. 106.

ID: nht87-3.55

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/31/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Stanley Electric Co.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

AIR MAIL Mr. M. Arisaka Manager, Automotive Lighting Engineering Sect. Stanley Electric Co., Ltd. 2-9-13, Nakameguro, Meguro-ku Tokyo 153, Japan

Dear Mr. Arisaka:

This is in reply to your letter of October 8, 1987, with reference to a newly developed lamp bulb "for automotive light-signaling devices." You state that the lamp has a bulb defined in SAE J387 and that its specifications for bulb and base meet those of SAE J573. The candlepower of the new lamp bulb is said to be 40% higher than that of a conventional bulb. You have asked whether you can "use the device with this new lamp bulb" in the United States.

For lamps other than replaceable bulb headlamps Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 establishes requirements for photometric performance, and not for bulbs. Therefore, SAE J387 and J573 are not incorporated into Standard No. 108. Any motor vehicle turn signal or hazard warning signal device using Stanley's new high-candlepower bulb photometric specifications of Standard No. 108, and does not exceed any maximum of these specifications.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Erika Z. Jones Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590 U.S.A.

Dear Ms. Jones,

We, Stanley Electric Co., Ltd. are one of the leading manufacturers of Automotive Lamp Bulb in Japan, and would like to use the newly developed lamp bulb for Automotive Light-Signaling devices.

This new lamp is one of the lamp bulb which defined in SAE J387 and the specifications of bulb and base comply with the requirements of SAE J573.

Moreover, the most important characteristic of the new lamp bulb is candlepower. In comparison with the conventional lamp bulb under the same specification, candlepower of the new lamp bulb is approximately 408 higher.

The new lamp bulb is not popular yet in your country, and we are planning to stock them at every relative automobile dealer shop for customers convenience in advance.

We would like to have your advice whether we can use the device with this new lamp bulb in your country, or not.

Sincerely yours,

Stanley Electric Co., Ltd.

M. Arisaka Manager, Automotive Lighting Engineering Sect.

ID: 2107y

Mr. Karl-Heinz Faber, Vice President
Product Compliance
Service and Parts
Mercedes-Benz of North America, Inc.
P.O. Box 350
Montvale, NJ 07645-0350

Dear Mr. Faber:

This is in reply to your letter of August 9, l989, with respect to the interpretation of the word "headlamp" as it appears in paragraph S7.2 of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. l08.

In pertinent part, this paragraph specifies that certain markings shall be placed on the lens of each headlamp, with "each headlamp" to be marked with the voltage and part or trade number. Noting that "headlamp" is not a defined term but "replaceable bulb headlamp" is, you have asked for confirmation that marking the lens, the reflector, or the light source with the voltage would be in compliance with paragraph S7.2.

The agency intends that the voltage be indicated on the exterior of the headlamp. If the manufacturer does not wish to put it on the lens, Standard No. l08 will permit, as of December 1, l989, voltage marking to be on an exterior part of the headlamp body, but not on the light source.

I hope that this answers your question.

Sincerely

Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel / ref:l08 d:ll/l/89

ID: 77-1.8

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 01/18/77

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank A. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Kurt Orban Company Inc.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of December 14, 1976, asking how you may import motor vehicle tires "in sample lots of less than one hundred tires per design model" that "may not fully comply with the sidewall markings and/or treadwear indicator requirements."

Pursuant to Title 19 Code of Federal Regulations, Section 12.80(b)(2)(vii), nonconforming tires may be imported into the United States for purposes of test or experiment if they will not be used upon the public roads. This section, however, does allow use of nonconforming vehicles, imported for purposes of test or experiment, upon the public roads for a specified time "where such use is an integral part of tests or experiments for which such vehicle is being imported," provided that the importer attaches to a form supplied at the port of entry (Form HS-7) "a description of the tests or experiments for which the vehicle is being imported, the period of time during which it is estimated that it will be necessary to test the vehicle on the public roads, and the disposition to be made of the vehicle after completion of the tests or experiments." Although this does not expressly cover equipment items, we see no reason why the provision cannot be interpreted as including tires, since nonconforming vehicles using the public roads for test or experiment may well be travelling on nonconforming tires.

We therefore conclude that you may import nonconforming tires for purposes of test or experiment upon the public roads, provided the statement described in 19 CFR 12.80(b)(2)(vii) is supplied.

SINCERELY

KURT ORBAN COMPANY, INC.

December 14, 1976

Frank Berndt Acting Chief Counsel, Room 5219 National Highway and Traffic Safety Administration

I am writing to you at the request of Mr. Mark Schwimmer of your office.

We are fully aware of the requirements set forth in DOT 109 and DOT 119, particularly with respect to sidewall markings and treadwear indicators. However, from time to time we are offered tire samples of new European production which the manufacturers claim are in compliance with the strength and endurance requirements of DOT 109 or DOT 119, but which may not fully comply with the sidewall markings and/or treadwear indicator requirements.

Is there any way we can legally import these samples for road testing purposes without requiring the manufacturers to modify their molds, a time consuming and expensive process for them, particularly since their export business to the USA may never materialize to the extent that they'll be able to amortize their engraving costs?

Specifically, we desire to road test these tires in sample lots of less than one hundred tires per design model, after having first submitted samples of each design model to a recognized testing laboratory here to ensure (for our own protection) that the tires comply fully with the strength and endurance requirements of the applica DOT standard.

Your cooperation and advice on this matter will be greatly appreciated.

Martin P. Ronsen

ID: 2640y

Mr. Ron Boucher
Energy Savings Systems
P.O. Box 294
Centralia, WA 98531

Dear Mr. Boucher:

Thank you for your letter asking whether the products you plan to market would comply with the laws and regulations administered by this agency. As explained below, the laws and regulations administered by this agency would not be applicable to these products.

Enclosed with your letter were two brochures describing the "Signal Flash" personal identification lights. The brochure included pictures and descriptions of several different types of battery-powered lights that are small enough to be carried on one's person, and include straps that make them suitable to be carried on one's arm, around one's wrist, or inserted into a life preserver. The brochures describe these "Signal Flash" lights as suitable for use in "diving, mountaineering, jogging, sailing, windsurfing, cycling, fishing, car breakdown, life jacket, etc."

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Safety Act) authorizes this agency to regulate "motor vehicles" and items of "motor vehicle equipment." Section 102(4) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1391(4)) defines "motor vehicle equipment", in part, as:

any system, part, or component of a motor vehicle as originally manufactured or any similar part or component manufactured or sold for replacement or improvement of such system, part, or component or as any accessory, or addition to the motor vehicle...

Your "Signal Flash" lights are plainly not a "system, part, or component of a motor vehicle as originally manufactured," nor are they a "similar part or component manufactured or sold for replacement or improvement" of an original equipment part of a motor vehicle. The issue is whether these lights would be considered an "accessory" within the meaning of the Safety Act. In determining whether an item of equipment is considered an "accessory," the agency applies the relevant statutory language and the two following criteria: first, whether a substantial portion of the expected uses of the item are related to the operation or maintenance of motor vehicles, and second, whether the item is intended to be used principally by ordinary users of motor vehicles.

In evaluating the first criterion, the product literature enclosed with your letter emphasizes the versatility of these personal identification lights. While these lights occasionally may be used in connection with a motor vehicle breakdown or repair, most of the suggested uses involve sports activities that have nothing to do with a motor vehicle. Thus, a substantial portion of the expected uses of the light would not appear related to the operation or maintenance of a vehicle, so these "Signal Flash" lights would not be considered items of "motor vehicle equipment." This conclusion means that the "Signal Flash" lights are not subject to any of the laws and regulations administered by this agency.

You may wish to consult the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission to learn if they have any requirements applicable to these lights. That agency protects the public against unreasonable risks of injury from consumer products. You may write to the Consumer Product Safety Commission at 5401 Westbard Avenue, Bethesda, MD 20207, or contact them by telephone at (301) 492-6580.

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

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

/ ref:VSA d:7/27/90