ID: nht91-4.20

DATE: June 12, 1991

FROM: Quang Van Nguyen -- Inventor, Houston Express Reprographics, Inc.

TO: Samuel K. Skinner -- Secretary of Transportation, U.S. Department of Transportation

COPYEE: Phil Gramm

TITLE: Re: New Invention for Auto Safety

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 8-7-91 from Paul Jackson Rice to Quang Van Nguyen (A38; Std. 108)

TEXT:

According to the World News Report, in 1988 alone, there were 25,614 automobile passengers killed in an automobile accidents in the U.S.. Among these, the majority of the accidents did not occur because of the somewhat negligence of the drivers, but rather, and more importantly, they occurred because of the miscommunication between the drivers themselves.

A while ago, I, myself, was a witness of a accident of this nature on the highway. What occurred was that a car from behind hit a car in the front in the back and killed one woman and two children. This incident occurred because the car in front was in the center lane and had an engine failure. The driver naturally put on the emergency light and tried to move to the right lane quickly to avoid being hit; but unfortunately, as the car was changing lanes, another car, coming from the back of the right lane, hit the right rear end of the car with the engine problem. The impact was so bad that three of the passengers died instantly. However, the real reason that this accident occurred is that WHEN THE EMERGENCY LIGHTS ARE BLINKING, THE TURN SIGNAL LIGHTS DO NOT WORK AT ALL!! I understand that we cannot avoid an engine failure, a dead battery, or running out of gas on the road or highway; this will happen to all of us at least on time during our lives; but, how can the car behind know that the car in front has an emergency and wants or needs to change lanes??

Therefore, I would like to present to you my new invention, the EMERGENCY AND SAFETY LIGHTS (see copies attached). With my new invention, accidents like this can be avoided and thousands of lives can be saved. This is because my patent pending emergency lights is a very simple device which ALLOWS THE DRIVER OF AN AUTOMOBILE TO SET THE EMERGENCY LIGHTS ON WHEN NEEDED FOR AN EMERGENCY; BUT, RATHER THAN NOT BEING ABLE TO USE THE SIGNAL LIGHTS, THAT DRIVER WILL BE ABLE TO USE THEM AT THE SAME TIME WITH THE EMERGENCY LIGHTS, acknowledging to other drivers that he intends to turn or make a lane change.

I truly wish that your department will support my invention and approve it to be used for all types of automobiles in the U.S.A. because it costs less than $25.00 and it will help avoid unnecessary accidents and save our society thousands of lives.

I thank you very much in advance for you time and I am looking forward to hearing from you.

Figure 1 -- Drawing of Upper Installation (graphics omitted)

Figure 2 -- Drawing of Lower Installation (graphics omitted)

Figure 3 -- Wiring Diagram for Blinking Portion of the E.L.S.

(graphics omitted)

Figure 4 -- Wiring Diagram for Braking Portion of the E.L.S.

(graphics omitted)

ID: nht92-1.5

DATE: 12/29/92

FROM: PAUL JACKSON RICE -- CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TO: STAN KAPLAN -- SHIMAZAKI CORP.

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 1-25-90 FROM STEPHEN P. WOOD TO LARRY E. SNOWHITE (STD. 108); ALSO ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 12-10-92 FROM STAN KAPLAN TO NHTSA CHIEF COUNSEL (OCC 8107)

TEXT: This responds to your letter of December 10, 1992, with respect to the relationship of Federal motor vehicle regulations to the Red Alert device that you wish to import and sell in the United States.

The device is located on the accelerator rod. When there is a sudden release of the accelerator, the stop lamps are activated before the driver's foot has touched the service brake pedal. You state also that installation of the device is quick and simple, requiring 10 to 15 minutes and no special tools. You have asked if Red Alert "meets the standard set by your administration and the (sic) how we can get a waiver on this product or does it require one at all."

The descriptive literature that you enclosed notes (under "Authorization Requirements for Installation") that "there are many countries in which it is mandated by regulations that only the brake pedal activate the rear brake lights," and that "Red Alert, situated as it is on the accelerator rod, is illegal in these countries." The United States is one of these countries. Under Fedral Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment, the stop lamps may only be activated by the brake pedal. This means that a vehicle that is equipped with Red Alert no longer complies with Standard No. 108.

Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, this means that the manufacturer of the vehicle, and any distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business who installs Red Alert is liable for a civil penalty for creating the noncompliance. In addition, if the noncompliance is created by the manufacturer of the vehicle, the manufacturer is obliged to notify owners of the noncompliance, and then to remedy it. However, the Act does not restrict the owner of the vehicle from such modifications as (s) he may perform, even if the modifications result in a noncompliance, unless State laws so forbid. Thus, Federal law does not prohibit a vehicle owner from installing Red Alert but (s) he may not enlist the services of a distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business to perform the installation. In no circumstance is importation and sale of the device itself a violation of Federal law.

These matters and the agency's views on the device are set forth more fully in the enclosed agency letter of January 25, 1990, concerning the Advanced Brake Light Device (ABLD). Nothing that both the ABLD and Red Alert originate in Israel, we surmise that Red Alert is a variant of the ABLD. Although the interpretation in this letter does allow installation of the Red Alert at the hands of the vehicle owner, our conclusion is based upon Federal law and should not be construed as an endorsement of the device. The same safety concerns that we expressed in January 1990 remain valid today.

ID: 86-2.39

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/24/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Alan B. Wambold, Ph.D. -- Research Associate, Division of Legislative Services (Virginia)

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Alan B. Wambold, Ph.D. Research Associate Division of Legislative Services Box 3-AG Richmond, Va. 23208

This is in reply to your letter of December 16, 1985 to Jere Medlin of this agency with respect to whether the Commonwealth of Virginia is preempted under Federal law from prohibiting flashing headlamps on motor vehicles.

Section 1392(d) of Title 15 of the United States Code in essence prohibits a State from maintaining or enacting standards covering the same aspect of performance as a Federal motor vehicle safety standard unless it is identical to the Federal standard. Paragraph S4.5.11(c) of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment (formerly Paragraph S4.6(b)) states that "Headlamps...may be wired to flash for signaling purposes." S4.5.11(c) was not intended as a regulation of this aspect of vehicle performance, in the sense that it would preempt all State regulation of the sale or use of headlamp flashers. It is basically an exception to the requirement of paragraph S4.5.11(e) that all lamps (other than those specifically referenced in other subparagraphs of S4.5.11) be steady-burning when in use. The section, in other words, was included to make it clear that automatic headlamp flashers are not prohibited by the Federal standard. We have concluded therefore that State regulation of headlamp flashers is not preempted by the Federal standard.

I hope that this answers your question.

Sincerely,

Original Signed By

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

December 16, 1985 Mr. Jere Medlin Safety Standards Engineer US Department of Transportation 400 7th. St.,SW Room 5307 Washington, DC 20590

Dear Mr. Medlin:

I spoke with you on the telephone in early October of this year regarding Virginia law's prohibition on flashing headlamp; on motor vehicles -- particularly ambulances and rescue squad vehicles. At that time I believe you told me that the language of S S4.6 in 49 CFR S571.108 preempted the Commonwealth in the matter or flashing headlamps for emergency vehicles.

Since that time I have looked at that section, and have been able to find language in it that, to my satisfaction, makes this preemption clear. It is possible that I either understood you, or that I have made a mistake the citation.

One of the members of the Virginia General Assembly is considering the introduction of legislation during the upcoming session of the legislature to conform Virginia law to the federal regulation, and, you are more familiar with the Code of Regulations than I am, I was wondering whether you be so kind as to send me a copy of the relevant sections or sections. I am certain that many people would be glad to see the discrepancy between the federal regulations and the Virginia law eliminated.

Sincerely yours,

Alan B. Wambold, Ph.D Research Associate

ID: GF007705

[ ]

Dear Mr. [ ]:

This responds to your letter of October 7, 2003, regarding certain trailer lighting requirements. You intend to install a set of two lamps at the top rear corners of the trailer. The outer-most lamp would have a dual function of a clearance lamp, and an "auxiliary" turn signal lamp. The horizontally adjacent (inboard) lamp would function as an "auxiliary" stop lamp and, possibly, as a second clearance lamp. [1] You ask whether such a lamp configuration is permissible under Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 108. Further, you are aware that FMVSS No. 108 limits the number of rear identification lamps to three. You ask at what horizontal distance from these identification lamps would supplemental lamps be deemed "auxiliary" and not a part of this identification lamp cluster.

Before I address your questions, I note that you requested confidential treatment for the identity of your company and for yourself. I agree to keep your name and the name of your company confidential. All information in bold brackets [      ] will be kept confidential from the public. Your incoming interpretation request will be redacted before being made publicly available.

By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301, manufacturers are required to certify that their vehicles and equipment meet applicable requirements.

With respect to your first question, the dual function "auxiliary" lamps described in you letter are permissible under FMVSS No. 108 with certain limitations. First, Table II of FMVSS No. 108 requires that the rear clearance lamps be red. Accordingly, the outer-most clearance lamp (that will also function as a turn signal lamp) must be red. Second, the stop lamp that is adjacent to the clearance/turn signal lamp, cannot also function as an additional clearance lamp, because Table II of FMVSS No. 108 requires that clearance lamps indicate the overall width of the vehicle. Accordingly, only the outer-most turn signal lamp can function as a clearance lamp, because it is the outermost lamp that indicates the overall width of the vehicle. We note, however, that it would be permissible for the adjacent inboard lamp to have a dual function of an auxiliary stop lamp and an auxiliary tail lamp.

In response to your second question, Table II of FMVSS No. 108 provides precise guidance for the location of the five lamps that are required at the top rear of the trailer. Specifically, Table II requires that the three identification lamps be located as close as practicable to the top and center of the trailer, spaced between 6 and 12 inches apart. Similarly, Table II requires that the two clearance lamps be located as close as practicable to the top of the trailer and as close to the edges as would be necessary to indicate the overall width of the trailer.

While the location of auxiliary lighting on the top rear of the trailer is not regulated by FMVSS No. 108, S5.1.3 of the standard does prohibit installation of lamps that would impair the effectiveness of required lighting. Therefore, your auxiliary lamps must be located far enough away from the three identification lamps, that they do not impair their effectiveness. In a recent interpretation letter, the agency stated that the function of this three-lamp identification cluster is to indicate the presence of a large vehicle in the roadway. The agency has long maintained that highway traffic safety is enhanced by the familiarity of drivers with established lighting schemes, which facilitates their ability to instantly recognize the meaning the lamps convey and respond accordingly. Therefore, any auxiliary lighting on the top rear of the trailer must be located such that it would not interfere or be confused with the three-lamp identification cluster.

After studying your diagrams, it appears that your auxiliary lamps would not impair the effectiveness of the required three-lamp identification cluster. The three-lamp identification cluster is located at the top center of the trailer. By contrast, your two auxiliary lights are located toward the edges of the trailer, adjacent to the clearance lamps. Thus, your rear lighting configuration would be permissible under FMVSS No. 108. [2]

I hope you find this information helpful. If you need further assistance, please contact George Feygin of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

Enclosures
ref:108
d.1/21/04





---

[1] You have enclosed drawings and a description of two versions of a rear lighting configuration. In one of the two versions, the lamps adjacent to the outer-most turn signal supplemental lamp also functions as a second clearance lamp.

[2] You may also want to review our Interpretive Rule on the proper location of identification lamps and clearance lamps, which NHTSA published on April 5, 1999 (64 FR 16358). A copy is attached.

ID: GF008639

Mr. Tom Lykken
President CEO
SnoBear Industries
3681 Fairway Road
Fargo, ND 58102

Dear Mr. Lykken:

This responds to an inquiry forwarded to us by Senator Byron L. Dorgan, and your subsequent e-mail communications with George Feygin of my staff. You ask whether a SnoBear ice fishing vehicle (SnoBear) that will be manufactured by your company would be classified as a "motor vehicle." As explained below, based on the information you provided us, we would not consider the SnoBear a "motor vehicle" for the purposes of our regulations.

I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our laws and regulations. Title 49 U. S. Code (U.S.C) Chapter 301 authorizes the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to prescribe Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. Section 30102(a)(6) defines "motor vehicle" as:

"[A] vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power and manufactured primarily for use on the public streets, roads, and highways, but does not include a vehicle operated only on a rail line."

In your e-mail you stated that the SnoBear is not intended for highway use. Instead, SnoBear is intended for use on lakes, primarily for the ice fishing industry, and other limited off road use. Pictures obtained from your website ^[1] and CAD drawings youve provided indicate that the SnoBear is equipped with skies and tracks instead of tires, and therefore cannot travel on surfaces other than snow and ice.

Based on the information you provided, it is our opinion that the SnoBear is not a motor vehicle within the statutory definition. We have previously interpreted Section 30102(a)(6) to mean that vehicles that are equipped with tracks or are otherwise incapable of highway travel are not motor vehicles.^[2] In this instance the SnoBear is incapable of highway travel and therefore is not a motor vehicle. Because the SnoBear is not a motor vehicle, it is not subject to any of our regulations, including the Federal motor vehicle safety standards.

We note that your product may fall under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Consumer Products Safety Commission. Contact information for that agency is at http://www.cpsc.gov/businfo/businfo.html. In addition, the Environmental Protection Agency may have emissions regulations applicable to your product. Contact information for that agency is at http://www.epa.gov/epahome/comments.htm.

I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any other questions please contact Mr. George Feygin at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

cc: Nathan Berseth




---

[1] www.snobearindustries.com

[2] See our 09/25/87 interpretation letter to John R. Niemela of Ranger International Inc.

ID: nht74-4.10

DATE: 07/03/74

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

TO: Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your June 11, 1974, request for approval of Toyota's banding design to meet the requirements of Standard No. 106, Brake hoses, for labeling brake hose assemblies.

The NHTSA interpretes a band as a label which encircles the hose completely and attaches to itself. To constitute labeling at all, of course, the band must be affixed to the hose in such a manner that it cannot easily be removed. You should be able to determine the compliance of your labeling method with the standard. It does appear that the Toyota label does not encircle the assembly and attach to itself. The NHTSA does not approve specific designs in advance, in any case, because the material, installation method, and underlying material can significantly affect the quality of a specific design.

TOYOTA MOTOR SALES, U.S.A., INC.

June 11, 1974

James B. Gregory Administrator National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Re: Interpretation of FMVSS No. 106

We would like to request clarification of S5.2 of Standard No. 106, "Labeling," as published in theFederal Register on November 13, 1973 and amended on February 26, 1974.

S5.2.4 reads as follows:

"Each hydraulic brake hose assembly, . . . , shall be labeled by means of a band around the brake hose assembly. The band may at the manufacturer's option be attached so as to move freely along the length of the assembly, as long as it is retained by the end fittings. The band shall be permanently etched, embossed or stamped, in block capital letters and numerals at least one-eighth of an inch high, with the following information: . . ."

On the basis of our understanding of this section, we constructed a prototype plastic band to be attached to the neck of the end fitting. The band was made of plastic because of the rust problem that occurs in metal bands during corrosion testing. On the band the figures "DOT TG A/B," where A represents the numeral for the month and B the last two digits of the year of production, are permanently etched. While the band can be removed manually if desired, it will definitely not fall off during vehicle usage.

With the original of this letter, we have attached a sample of this band. Please let us know whether or not you think that it will meet the requirement.

As this is a very urgent matter, your expeditious reply will be greatly appreciated.

Thank you.

Y. Veda

for K. Nakajima

Director/General Manager

Factory Representative Office

ID: nht87-1.86

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/03/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Robert R. Shapro -- Vice President, Transportation Specialist, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Robert R. Shapro Vice President Transportation Specialist, Inc. 512 Cave Road Nashville, TN 37210

Dear Mr. Shapro:

This letter responds to your request for "the fact sheet concerning certification as required" by 49 CFR Parts 567 and 568. You describe your company as a "multistage manufacturer," and ask how your company can become certified "to manufacture or alter v ehicles in accordance with the code of Federal regulation." I regret the delay in responding to your request.

First, please be aware that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has authority to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and certain items of motor vehicle equipment. The NHTSA does not approve vehicles or equipment , nor do we endorse any commercial products. Instead, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act establishes a certification process under which each manufacturer must certify that its product meets agency safety standards, or other applicable sta ndards. Periodically, NHTSA tests whether vehicles or equipment comply with these standards, and may investigate alleged safety-related product defects.

As you request, I enclose a copy of 49 CFR Part 567, Certification, and Part 568, Vehicles Manufactured in Two or more Stages. Also, for your information, I enclose an information sheet that may be of interest to you if you are new to motor vehicle and m otor vehicle equipment manufacture.

Please note that there is no requirement that a company be "certified" before it can manufacture or alter vehicles. 49 CFR Part 566 does require that if a company begins to manufacture motor vehicles subject to any of the Federal safety standards, it mus t submit information identifying itself and its products to NHTSA not later than 30 days after it begins manufacture.

I hope you find this information helpful.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Enclosures CHIEF COUNCIL NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION Washington, DC 20590

December 23, 1986

Our company is a multistage manufacturer. We would like the fact sheet concerning certification as required in CFR 49 567-568. "Vendor must be certified by the NHTSA to manufacture or alter vehicles in accordance with code of Federal regulation". How do we become certified?

Please send this information to:

ROBERT R. SHAPRO Vice President Transportation Specialist, Inc. 512 Cave Road Nashville, TN 37210

Thank You

Robert Sharpo

ID: 3193yy

Mr. Kenneth M. Bush
Regulations Manager, Government Relations
American Suzuki Motor Corporation
3251 E. Imperial Hwy.
P.O. Box 1100
Brea, CA 92622-1100

Dear Mr. Bush: This responds to your letter of September 6, 1991, to Mr. Vinson, asking whether a vehicle you are developing would be classified as a multipurpose passenger vehicle for the purposes of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. I am pleased to be able to explain our law and regulations for you.

At the outset, I would like to make clear that the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.) places the responsibility for classifying a particular vehicle in the first instance on the vehicle's manufacturer. For this reason, NHTSA does not approve or endorse any vehicle classification before the manufacturer itself has classified a particular vehicle. NHTSA may reexamine the manufacturer's classification during the course of any enforcement actions. We will, however, tentatively state how we believe we would classify this vehicle for the purposes of our safety standards. It is important that you understand that these tentative statements of classification are based entirely on our understanding of the information presented in your letter to us. These tentative statements about the vehicle's classification may change after NHTSA has had an opportunity to examine the vehicle itself or otherwise acquire additional information about the vehicle.

With those caveats, we believe that the vehicle referenced in your letter could be classified as a multipurpose passenger vehicle for the purposes of our safety standards. The term "multipurpose passenger vehicle" is defined in 49 CFR 571.3 as "a motor vehicle with motive power, except a trailer, designed to carry 10 persons or less which is constructed either on a truck chassis or with special features for occasional off-road operation." In your letter, you state that the vehicle's chassis should be considered a truck chassis because it "was originally designed to provide cargo-carrying capability as well as to permit rough road and off the road vehicle operation." Additionally, you state that the approach and departure angles and the running clearance dimensions for this vehicle are more similar to other vehicles which have been classified by their manufacturers as multipurpose passenger vehicles than vehicles that have been classified as passenger cars. Based upon this description, it appears to us that this vehicle could be classified as a multipurpose passenger vehicle.

I hope you find this information helpful. The version of your letter that has been placed in the public docket has all the information for which you requested confidential treatment deleted from it. If you have further questions, please contact Mary Versailles of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

/ref:571 d:l0/23/9l

ID: nht94-5.16

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: December 22, 1994

FROM: Philip R. Recht -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Michael Love -- Manager, Compliance, Porsche Cars North America, Inc.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 11/29/94 FROM MICHAEL LOVE TO NHTSA CHIEF COUNSEL (OCC 10533)

TEXT: We have received your letter of November 29, 1994, asking for an interpretation of 49 CFR Part 591.

Specifically, Porsche wishes to import vehicles for the Canadian market through the Port of Charleston, where certain processing activities will be performed on the cars before they are exported to Canada. The temporary importation of Canadian-market ca rs would be through 591.5(c) which allows importation "solely for export", provided that the vehicle is so labeled. You have asked for our concurrence in your interpretation of 591.5(c). We agree that Porsche may import and export Canadian-market cars under this section of the importation regulation.

You foresee a situation in which "a Canadian vehicle with a unique combination of options might be sought by a U.S. customer". Porsche would like to be able to convert the vehicle to comply with the U.S. Federal motor vehicle safety standards after impo rtation and before it leaves Porsche's control. Porsche would also like to be able to re-import from Canada into the U.S. vehicles that would be converted to U.S. specifications. You have asked for confirmation that these operations would also be permi ssible under 591.5(c).

Importation of noncomplying motor vehicles into the United States and their subsequent conversion to the U.S. Federal motor vehicle safety standards must be accomplished through the mechanisms established by Congress in the Imported Vehicle Safety Compli ance Act of 1988 (now 49 U.S.C. 30141 et seq.). First, NHTSA must have decided that the vehicle is eligible for importation pursuant to 49 CFR Part 593. Second, a vehicle intended for sale must be imported under bond by one who has been designated a Re gistered Importer under 49 CFR Part 592, who will undertake to bring the vehicle into compliance and to submit appropriate proof of this to NHTSA. Porsche may become a Registered Importer by filing an application under Part 592.

If a vehicle intended for the Canadian market has been temporarily imported under 591.5(c), and Porsche then wishes to convert it to U.S. specifications rather than export it to Canada, you should telephone Clive Can Orden, Office of Vehicle Safety Compl iance (202-366-2830), to apprise him of the situation. We see no problem in this as long as NHTSA has decided that the vehicle is eligible for importation and Porsche provides a compliance package, in accordance with the requirements of Parts 592 and 59 3.

ID: nht91-4.13

DATE: June 4, 1991

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Masaharu Morino -- Manager, Far East Department, Guy B. Barham Company

COPYEE: Area Director of Customs, New York Seaport

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 11-13-87 from Erika Z. Jones to William J. Maloney; Also attached to letter dated 5-13-87 from Erika Z. Jones to The Honorable William E. Dannemeyer (Std. 211); Also attached to letter dated 3-16-88 from Erika Z. Jones to The Honorable Terry L. Bruce (Std. 211); Also attached to letter dated 5-9-91 from M. Morino to U.S. Department of Transportation, NHTSA (OCC 6049)

TEXT:

This responds to your request for an interpretation of Standard No. 211, Wheel Nuts, Wheel Discs, and Hub Caps (49 CFR S 571.211). In your letter, you enclosed two samples of "spinner" hubcaps, a product sheet describing several different designs of spinner hubcaps, and a letter from the New York Area Director of the U.S. Customs Service regarding spinner hubcaps. You asked whether these "spinner" hubcaps may legally be imported into this country from Taiwan. The answer is no. Spinner hubcaps may not legally be manufactured or sold in the United States, nor may they legally be imported into the United States.

I have enclosed copies of this agency's March 16, 1988 letter to Representative Terry L. Bruce, a May 13, 1987 letter to Representative William E. Dannemeyer, and a November 13, 1987, letter to Mr. William J. Maloney. These letters reaffirmed past interpretations stating that spinner hubcaps do not comply with the requirements of Standard No. 211, and have not complied with that Standard since it became effective on January 1, 1968. Section 108(a)(1)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(1)(A)) makes it illegal to "MANUFACTURE FOR SALE, sell, offer for sale, or introduce or deliver for introduction in interstate commerce, OR IMPORT INTO THE UNITED STATES" any hubcaps that do not comply with Standard No. 211 (Emphasis added.). We would consider each sale or offer for sale of spinner hubcaps to be a separate violation of this statutory provision. Section 109 of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1398) specifies a civil penalty of up to $1000 for each violation of Section 108(a), up to a maximum of $800,000.

In your letter, you stated that some spinner hubcaps are currently being manufactured in the U. S. Thank you for alerting us to this situation.

We have referred this information to our enforcement staff for appropriate action. I have also sent a copy of this letter to the Area Director of Customs for the New York Seaport.