ID: 9611

Mr. C.N. Littler
Motor Coach Industries
Administrator Regulatory Affairs
1558 Wilson Place
Winnipeg, Manitoba R3T 0Y4
CANADA

Dear Mr. Littler:

This responds to your letter concerning whether a New York State law addressing the in-use stopping ability of privately owned motor coaches is preempted by Federal law. I apologize for the delay in our response. The New York law states that a vehicle must be capable of stopping "at a rate of deceleration equivalent to a stop within 22.2 feet from a speed of 20 miles per hour." You believe that '103(d) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act ("Safety Act") preempts the New York law, since the state law is not identical to Federal motor vehicle safety standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems. Please note that the Safety Act has been codified at 49 U.S.C. 30101 et seq. and that the citation for 103(d) is now 49 U.S.C. '30103.

As explained below, Standard No. 121 currently does not have stopping distance requirements in effect; therefore, the New York law is not currently preempted by a Federal safety standard. Nevertheless, the agency has issued a proposal to reinstate stopping distance requirements in Standard No. 121. (58 FR 11003, February 23, 1993). If the agency issues a final rule to reinstate stopping distances, then any more stringent requirements in the New York law (addressing the same aspects of performance as Standard No. 121) would be preempted.

Title 49 U.S.C. '30103 states:

Whenever a Federal motor vehicle safety standard ... is in effect, no State or political subdivision of a State shall have any authority either to establish, or to continue in effect, with respect to any motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment any safety standard applicable to the same aspect of performance of such vehicle or item of equipment which is not identical to the Federal standard.

That provision preempts New York's law if there is a Federal safety standard in effect, the state law covers the same aspect of performance as that Federal standard, and the State law is not identical to the Federal safety standard. While you are correct that Standard No. 121 refers to stopping performance in S5.3.1, you apparently were not aware of a provision in S3 that states

Notwithstanding any language to the contrary, sections S5.3.1, S5.3.1.1, S5.3.2, S5.3.2.1, S5.3.2.2, S5.7.1, S5.7.3(a) and S5.7.3(b) of this standard are not applicable to trucks and trailers, and section S5.3.1 of this standard is not applicable to buses.

The agency amended the standard to include this provision as the result of a ruling in PACCAR v. NHTSA, 573 F.2d 632, (9th Cir. 1978), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 862 (1978), in which a Federal Court of Appeals invalidated Standard No. 121's stopping distance requirements until the agency obtains "more probative and convincing data evidencing the reliability and safety of vehicles that are equipped with antilock." While the provision did not originally cover buses other than school buses, NHTSA extended the provision to non-school buses in 1987. See 52 FR 20602. Because there are no Federal stopping distance requirements in effect, the New York law is not preempted.

As noted above, NHTSA has issued a notice proposing to reinstate stopping distance requirements for air braked vehicles. The agency is currently reviewing comments to that proposal, and may issue a final rule reinstating stopping distance requirements. If the agency decides to amend Standard No. 121 to include such requirements, then any more stringent requirements in the New York law (addressing the same aspects of performance as Standard No. 121) would be preempted.

I note that the New York law applies to vehicles in use, while Standard No. 121 applies to new vehicles. In general, State laws governing the operation of vehicles are not preempted by inconsistent Federal motor vehicle safety standards unless the State law is more stringent than the Federal standard (with respect to the same aspect of performance). A more stringent law would be preempted, since it would preclude the sale of vehicles that comply with Federal standards.

I also note that the in-use braking performance of many motor coaches is regulated by the Federal Highway Administration. We have referred your letter to that agency's Office of Motor Carrier Standards concerning the issue of whether its regulations preempt the New York law.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any questions about NHTSA's safety standards, please feel free to contact Marvin Shaw at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992. If you wish to contact someone in the Federal Highway Administration's Office of Chief Counsel concerning the motor carrier standards, please call Charles Medalen at (202) 366- 1354.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosure

ref:121#103(d) d:9/7/94

ID: 16054.ztv

Mr. Bill Cox
Monte Carlo Minis
Box 369
Earl, NC 28038

Dear Mr. Cox:

This is in reply to your faxes of September 22, 1997, and October 1, 1997, to Taylor Vinson of this Office.

With your fax of September 22, you attached an article distributed by the Knight-Ridder newspapers on the arrival of the first Chinese truck or sport utility vehicle at a Michigan dealership. This article contains the statement that "since it's considered a low-volume vehicle, it needn't comply with U.S. safety standards. It doesn't have air bags and it doesn't meet U.S. crash standards." You have asked how they are allowed to do this.

The article is incorrect. All low-volume motor vehicles must comply with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards in order to be imported and sold in the United States, unless it has filed for and received an exemption from the standards. As Mr. Vinson informed you in his call to you on October 1, no exemption has been granted this Chinese vehicle.

In your fax of October 1, you state that new Volkswagen Beetles are being imported under an exemption from NHTSA "allowing small volume importers to import 10 cars or less not to comply." You ask why you weren't told about this exemption. As with the Chinese Jeep, the Volkswagen Beetle does not have a small volume importer exemption. However, this vehicle could be imported as one that has been refurbished from an original vehicle that is more than 25 years old. If this is the case, then the vehicle is not required to comply upon admission to the United States.

We are providing copies of your correspondence to our compliance office. Thank you for informing us of these matters.

Sincerely,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
ref:591
d.10/9/97

ID: nht87-3.21

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 11/05/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Patterson Incorporated

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Mr. Barry Patterson President Patterson Incorporated 1920 Springfield Road Kelowna, B.C. VlY 7R8

Dear Mr. Patterson:

This is in reply to your letter of September 21, 1987, asking for our "acceptance and recommendation" of a safety device "endorsed" by the government of the province of Saskatchewan. This device automatically activates parking lamps, and the lower beams of headlamps "with the touch of the Brake Pedal".

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has no authority to accept, recommend, or endorse any item of motor vehicle equipment. We can, however, discuss the relationship of your device to U.S. Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 109, Lamp Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment, and the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act ("the Act") under which the standard was issued. This standard applies to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles. A device such as yours is permi ssible as original vehicle equipment as long as it does not impair the effectiveness of lighting equipment required by Standard No. 108. There is no indication in your descriptive literature that the effectiveness of packing lamps, headlamps, or the stop lamps would be impaired by the installation and operation of your device. With respect to sale in the aftermarket for vehicles in use, your device is not prohibited under the Act if its installation by a person other than the vehicle owner does not rend er inoperative in whole or in part any lamps installed to comply with Standard No. 108. We see no indication that this would occur. However, such an installer should be aware of the wiring requirement in Standard No. 108 that taillamps, parking lamps, si de marker lamps, and the license plate lamp shall be activated when the headlamps are on. The rules for operation of vehicles in use are established by the individual States, and several of these may have restrictions on the use of headlamps during daylight hours. For further information on this subject you should write the American Associati on of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 1201 Connecticut Ave., N.W., Washington, D.C. 20036.

This agency has proposed that motor vehicles be equipped with daytime running lights, in a manner similar, though not identical, to the new requirement of the Canadian Ministry of Transport. If this proposal is adopted, the Act would prohibit any State f rom having a different standard than the Federal one. As of the effective date of such an amendment to Standard No. 108 daytime operation of frontal lighting should be permissible in all States. If you have any further questions we will be pleased to answer them.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

ID: nht93-6.31

DATE: September 3, 1993

FROM: Charles E. Schumer -- Chairman, Subcommittee on Crime and Criminal Justice, House of Representatives Committee on the Judiciary

TO: Barry Felrice -- Associate Administrator for Rulemaking, NHTSA

COPYEE: Barbara Gray -- Office of Market Incentives, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 9/21/93 from Howard M. Smolkin to Charles E. Schumer (A41; CSA S601)

TEXT:

Because my role in sponsoring the Anti Car Theft Act of 1992 (ACTA), interested parties often contact my office with questions about Department of Transportation rules implementing and interpreting ACTA. My practice is to refer such questions to you and your staff.

I want to draw your attention to one particular question that I have been asked and that I believe needs a clear answer. As you know, ACTA modified a statute which directs DOT to promulgate regulations requiring motor vehicle manufacturers to mark the major parts of the vehicles they produce with vehicle identification numbers (15 U.S.C. S 2021 et seq.). The statute constrains DOT's discretion by declaring that the DOT regulations may not impose on manufacturers costs of more than $15 per vehicle (with certain exceptions) (see 15 U.S.C. S 2024). The statute further provides that manufacturers may gain a partial exemption from the parts-marking requirement by installing anti-theft devices in some vehicle lines (see 15 U.S.C. S 2025). These anti-theft devices must be approved by DOT.

The question I want to bring to your attention is: Does the $15 per vehicle limitation in S 2024 also limit the cost of anti-theft devices approvable under S 2025? In other words, can a manufacturer gain an exemption from parts-making by installing an anti-theft device that costs more than $15 per vehicle? Providers of anti-theft devices have approached my office with this question.

I think it is clear from the statute that the S 2024 does not in any way limit anti-theft devices. Manufacturers are free if they wish to install anti-theft devices costing in excess of $15 per vehicle, and, if the device meets DOT standards, to gain thereby an exemption from parts-marking. Indeed, it is my understanding that the anti-theft devices currently being used by manufacturers to gain exemptions in fact cost considerably in excess of $15 per vehicle.

Although I believe this is the clear meaning of the statute, it is NHTSA's responsibility to interpret the statute for purposes of implementing it and I do not wish to opine about your views. Accordingly, I would like to know whether your understanding of this issue differs from mine.

Thank you very much for your attention to this matter.

ID: 09-008772 Godsey

ID: 09-008772 VSA

ID: nht94-2.48

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: April 19, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Judith Jurin Semo, Esq. -- Squire, Sanders & Dempsey (Washington, D.C.)

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 11/5/93 from Judith Jurin Semo to John Womack (OCC 9287)

TEXT:

This responds to your request for NHTSA's determination that certain former East German military trucks, ZIL model 131, are not motor vehicles, and exempt from the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS). We are unable to make such a determinatio n. As explained below, a ZIL model 131 truck imported into the United States is considered a "motor vehicle" for purposes of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Safety Act) (15 U.S.C. 1391 et seq.), and is subject to the FMVSS.

Your letter explained that a client plans to import over 500 ZIL model 131 trucks into the U.S. Apparently, your client plans to modify the trucks in the U.S. to use for nonmilitary purposes. Your client intends to send most of the modified trucks to b uyers in other countries, but plans to sell some of the trucks in the U.S. Your letter states: "... (S)ome ZIL vehicles may be modified to meet DOT/NHTSA and EPA standards in order to satisfy those buyers who require vehicles conforming to those standar ds."

Under the Safety Act, any "motor vehicle," whether new or used, that is imported into the United States for sale in this country must be brought into conformity with all FMVSS that applied at the time of its manufacture. The question that must be answer ed is whether the ZIL 131 trucks, at the time of importation, would be considered "motor vehicles."

"Motor vehicle" is defined at section 102(3) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1391(3)) as:

(A)ny 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.

NHTSA has interpreted this language as follows. Vehicles that are equipped with tracks or are otherwise incapable of highway travel are not motor vehicles. Further, vehicles designed and sold only for off-road use (such as airport runway vehicles and u nderground mining devices) are not considered motor vehicles, even though they may be operationally capable of highway travel. Vehicles that have an abnormal body configuration that readily distinguishes them from other highway vehicles and a maximum sp eed of 20 miles per hour (mph) are not considered motor vehicles, because their use of the public roads is intermittent and incidental to their primary intended off-road use.

On the other hand, vehicles that use the public highways on a necessary and recurring basis are motor vehicles. For instance, a utility vehicle like the Jeep is plainly a motor vehicle, even though it is equipped with special features to permit off-road operation. If a vehicle's greatest use will be

off-road, but it will spend a substantial amount of time on-road, NHTSA has interpreted the vehicle to be a "motor vehicle." Further, the agency has determined that a vehicle such as a dune buggy is a motor vehicle if it is readily usable on the public roads and is in fact used on the public roads by a substantial number of owners, regardless of the manufacturer's stated intent regarding the terrain on which the vehicle is to be operated.

Applying the above criteria, and based on the information in your letter, the ZIL model 131 trucks are motor vehicles. You state that potential U.S. buyers would require vehicles that meet the FMVSS. This suggests that U.S. vehicle owners intend to use the ZIL model 131 trucks as they would other motor vehicles, on the public roads. Judging from your photographs, the trucks do not have abnormal body configurations that distinguish them from other vehicles on the road. You stated that the trucks have a top speed of almost 50 miles per hour, a speed suitable for public roads. These facts suggest that the ZIL model 131 truck is designed and intended to be routinely used on the public roads, and should be classified as a motor vehicle.

Assuming your client is still interested in importing the ZIL 131 trucks for resale in the U.S., the Imported Vehicle Safety Compliance Act requires that the agency determine that the vehicles are capable of conversion to meet the FMVSS, and that the tru cks be imported by a "registered importer." The agency makes determinations upon the basis of a petition by the manufacturer or registered importer (or upon its own volition). A "registered importer" is one whom NHTSA has recognized as capable of conve rting vehicles to meet the FMVSS. If you would like further details on eligibility determinations and import procedures, please let us know and we shall be pleased to provide them.

The Safety Act also addresses trucks your client wishes to import into the U.S. for modification for export. Under section 108(b)(3) of the Safety Act, the FMVSSs do not apply to vehicles intended solely for export. Thus, trucks brought into the U.S. f or modification for export are not subject to the FMVSSs. Under 49 CFR S591.5, the importer would file a declaration under S591.5(c), that the vehicle does not comply with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety, bumper, and theft prevention standar ds, but is intended solely for export.

I hope that this information is helpful. If you have any questions, please contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht94-6.22

DATE: April 19, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Judith Jurin Semo, Esq. -- Squire, Sanders & Dempsey (Washington, D.C.)

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 11/5/93 from Judith Jurin Semo to John Womack (OCC 9287)

TEXT:

This responds to your request for NHTSA's determination that certain former East German military trucks, ZIL model 131, are not motor vehicles, and exempt from the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS). We are unable to make such a determination. As explained below, a ZIL model 131 truck imported into the United States is considered a "motor vehicle" for purposes of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Safety Act) (15 U.S.C. 1391 et seq.), and is subject to the FMVSS.

Your letter explained that a client plans to import over 500 ZIL model 131 trucks into the U.S. Apparently, your client plans to modify the trucks in the U.S. to use for nonmilitary purposes. Your client intends to send most of the modified trucks to buyers in other countries, but plans to sell some of the trucks in the U.S. Your letter states: "... (S)ome ZIL vehicles may be modified to meet DOT/NHTSA and EPA standards in order to satisfy those buyers who require vehicles conforming to those standards."

Under the Safety Act, any "motor vehicle," whether new or used, that is imported into the United States for sale in this country must be brought into conformity with all FMVSS that applied at the time of its manufacture. The question that must be answered is whether the ZIL 131 trucks, at the time of importation, would be considered "motor vehicles."

"Motor vehicle" is defined at section 102(3) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1391(3)) as:

(A)ny 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.

NHTSA has interpreted this language as follows. Vehicles that are equipped with tracks or are otherwise incapable of highway travel are not motor vehicles. Further, vehicles designed and sold only for off-road use (such as airport runway vehicles and underground mining devices) are not considered motor vehicles, even though they may be operationally capable of highway travel. Vehicles that have an abnormal body configuration that readily distinguishes them from other highway vehicles and a maximum speed of 20 miles per hour (mph) are not considered motor vehicles, because their use of the public roads is intermittent and incidental to their primary intended off-road use.

On the other hand, vehicles that use the public highways on a necessary and recurring basis are motor vehicles. For instance, a utility vehicle like the Jeep is plainly a motor vehicle, even though it is equipped with special features to permit off-road operation. If a vehicle's greatest use will be

off-road, but it will spend a substantial amount of time on-road, NHTSA has interpreted the vehicle to be a "motor vehicle." Further, the agency has determined that a vehicle such as a dune buggy is a motor vehicle if it is readily usable on the public roads and is in fact used on the public roads by a substantial number of owners, regardless of the manufacturer's stated intent regarding the terrain on which the vehicle is to be operated.

Applying the above criteria, and based on the information in your letter, the ZIL model 131 trucks are motor vehicles. You state that potential U.S. buyers would require vehicles that meet the FMVSS. This suggests that U.S. vehicle owners intend to use the ZIL model 131 trucks as they would other motor vehicles, on the public roads. Judging from your photographs, the trucks do not have abnormal body configurations that distinguish them from other vehicles on the road. You stated that the trucks have a top speed of almost 50 miles per hour, a speed suitable for public roads. These facts suggest that the ZIL model 131 truck is designed and intended to be routinely used on the public roads, and should be classified as a motor vehicle.

Assuming your client is still interested in importing the ZIL 131 trucks for resale in the U.S., the Imported Vehicle Safety Compliance Act requires that the agency determine that the vehicles are capable of conversion to meet the FMVSS, and that the trucks be imported by a "registered importer." The agency makes determinations upon the basis of a petition by the manufacturer or registered importer (or upon its own volition). A "registered importer" is one whom NHTSA has recognized as capable of converting vehicles to meet the FMVSS. If you would like further details on eligibility determinations and import procedures, please let us know and we shall be pleased to provide them.

The Safety Act also addresses trucks your client wishes to import into the U.S. for modification for export. Under section 108(b)(3) of the Safety Act, the FMVSSs do not apply to vehicles intended solely for export. Thus, trucks brought into the U.S. for modification for export are not subject to the FMVSSs. Under 49 CFR S591.5, the importer would file a declaration under S591.5(c), that the vehicle does not comply with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety, bumper, and theft prevention standards, but is intended solely for export.

I hope that this information is helpful. If you have any questions, please contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

ID: 9287

Judith Jurin Semo, Esq.
Squire, Sanders & Dempsey
1201 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20044-0407

Dear Ms. Semo:

This responds to your request for NHTSA's determination that certain former East German military trucks, ZIL model 131, are not motor vehicles, and exempt from the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS). We are unable to make such a determination. As explained below, a ZIL model 131 truck imported into the United States is considered a "motor vehicle" for purposes of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Safety Act)(15 U.S.C. 1391 et seq.), and is subject to the FMVSS.

Your letter explained that a client plans to import over 500 ZIL model 131 trucks into the U.S. Apparently, your client plans to modify the trucks in the U.S. to use for nonmilitary purposes. Your client intends to send most of the modified trucks to buyers in other countries, but plans to sell some of the trucks in the U.S. Your letter states: "... [S]ome ZIL vehicles may be modified to meet DOT/NHTSA and EPA standards in order to satisfy those buyers who require vehicles conforming to those standards."

Under the Safety Act, any "motor vehicle," whether new or used, that is imported into the United States for sale in this country must be brought into conformity with all FMVSS that applied at the time of its manufacture. The question that must be answered is whether the ZIL 131 trucks, at the time of importation, would be considered "motor vehicles."

"Motor vehicle" is defined at section 102(3) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1391(3)) as:

[A]ny 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.

NHTSA has interpreted this language as follows. Vehicles that are equipped with tracks or are otherwise incapable of highway travel are not motor vehicles. Further, vehicles designed and sold only for off-road use (such as airport runway vehicles and underground mining devices) are not considered motor vehicles, even though they may be operationally capable of highway travel. Vehicles that have an abnormal body configuration that readily distinguishes them from other highway vehicles and a maximum speed of 20 miles per hour (mph) are not considered motor vehicles, because their use of the public roads is intermittent and incidental to their primary intended off-road use.

On the other hand, vehicles that use the public highways on a necessary and recurring basis are motor vehicles. For instance, a utility vehicle like the Jeep is plainly a motor vehicle, even though it is equipped with special features to permit off-road operation. If a vehicle's greatest use will be off-road, but it will spend a substantial amount of time on-road, NHTSA has interpreted the vehicle to be a "motor vehicle." Further, the agency has determined that a vehicle such as a dune buggy is a motor vehicle if it is readily usable on the public roads and is in fact used on the public roads by a substantial number of owners, regardless of the manufacturer's stated intent regarding the terrain on which the vehicle is to be operated.

Applying the above criteria, and based on the information in your letter, the ZIL model 131 trucks are motor vehicles. You state that potential U.S. buyers would require vehicles that meet the FMVSS. This suggests that U.S. vehicle owners intend to use the ZIL model 131 trucks as they would other motor vehicles, on the public roads. Judging from your photographs, the trucks do not have abnormal body configurations that distinguish them from other vehicles on the road. You stated that the trucks have a top speed of almost 50 miles per hour, a speed suitable for public roads. These facts suggest that the ZIL model 131 truck is designed and intended to be routinely used on the public roads, and should be classified as a motor vehicle.

Assuming your client is still interested in importing the ZIL 131 trucks for resale in the U.S., the Imported Vehicle Safety Compliance Act requires that the agency determine that the vehicles are capable of conversion to meet the FMVSS, and that the trucks be imported by a "registered importer." The agency makes determinations upon the basis of a petition by the manufacturer or registered importer (or upon its own volition). A "registered importer" is one whom NHTSA has recognized as capable of converting vehicles to meet the FMVSS. If you would like further details on eligibility determinations and import procedures, please let us know and we shall be pleased to provide them.

The Safety Act also addresses trucks your client wishes to import into the U.S. for modification for export. Under section 108(b)(3) of the Safety Act, the FMVSSs do not apply to vehicles intended solely for export. Thus, trucks brought into the U.S. for modification for export are not subject to the FMVSSs. Under 49 CFR 591.5, the importer would file a declaration under 591.5(c), that the vehicle does not comply with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety, bumper, and theft prevention standards, but is intended solely for export.

I hope that this information is helpful. If you have any questions, please contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

ref:VSA102(3)#591 d:4/19/94

ID: nht68-1.22

DATE: APRIL 26, 1968

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; William H. Risteen; NHTSA

TO: Halfpenny, Hann and Ryan

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Your letter of February 6, 1968, to Mr. Lowell K. Bridwell, has been referred to me for reply.

In regard to your question, "Can a car dealer install equipment for which no standards have been established (such as air conditioning units) on a motor vehicle without violating the National Traffic Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966?", we are pleased to provide the following clarification.

The fact that there is not a standard directly applicable to air-conditioners or other items of equipment does not mean the dealer has no responsibility under the Act if he installs these equipment items. Any modification to the vehicle before the first purchase for purposes other than resale, must not alter the existing compliance of the motor vehicle with applicable standards.

In the case of an air-conditioner, if it is installed in the instrument panel or any other part of the interior of a passenger car covered by Standard No. 201, it would have to comply with the requirements of the Standard.

I hope this response clarifies the matter with you.