ID: aiam3957

Dear Mr. Westlake: This is in reply to your letter of February 25, 1985, to Mr. Stephe Wood of this office asking the following three questions about rebuilding and remanufacturing heavy duty trucks.; >>>'1) When rebuilding a used truck with a glider kit, it is ou understanding that the process is considered 'rebuilding' when the three major components (engine, transmission and rear axle) are reused in the rebuilding process. If one or more of these major components is new, does the production of the truck chassis change its legal character from 'rebuilding' to 'first stage manufacturer'?'<<<; Neither the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act ('the Act' nor the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard ('safety standards') contain the terms 'rebuilding' and 'first stage manufacturer'. Your question, however, is clear: when new and used components are used in rebuilding a heavy truck, at what point does the truck become a 'new' vehicle which must comply with all safety standards that apply to trucks.; The agency's regulation on *Combining new and used components*, 49 CF 571.7(e), provides:; >>>'When a new cab is used in the assembly of a truck, the truck wil be considered newly manufactured for purposes of compliance with the safety standards and other provisions of the Act unless the engine, transmission, and drive axle(s) (as a minimum) of the assembled vehicle are not new, and at least two of these components were taken from the same vehicle'.<<<; Thus, in terms of your question, if the three major components ar reused in the rebuilding process and at least two of the three came from the same vehicle, the Federal motor vehicle safety standards do not apply even if a new cab is used. But if one of the three components is new, or if all are used and came from three different motor vehicles, then the standards apply and the truck must meet them, and be certified as meeting them, upon final assembly.; Your reference to 'first stage manufacturer' implies that there may b rebuilding fact situations in which the process is completed by a person other than the manufacturer who initiated it. If the rebuilt truck is 'new', then its assemblers are subject to 49 CFR Part 568 *Vehicle (sic) Manufactured in Two or More Stages*. If the truck meets the definition of 'incomplete vehicle', then the 'incomplete vehicle manufacturer' is required to furnish the specified compliance information necessary for certification to the 'intermediate stage manufacturer' or the 'final stage manufacturer' as the case may be (sec. 568.3).; >>>'2) When a truck chassis is built by a dealer and legally classifie as 'new manufacturing' what federal regulations must be complied with that do not apply when the vehicle is considered rebuilt?'<<<; As indicated above, the truck must be completed to comply with al safety standards that apply to trucks and be certified by its assembler as so conforming in accordance with Part 567 *Certification*. If more than one party is involved in the remanufacturing process, each party is subject to Part 568. In addition, any party remanufacturing a truck that must be certified as conforming is required to file a statement in the form prescribed by Part 566 *Manufacturer Identification*.; >>>'3) What penalties exist for failing to comply with these Federa regulations?'<<<; As provided by section 109(a) of the act, any person violating an provision of the Act or a regulation issued thereunder is subject to a civil penalty of up to $1000 for each violation, up to $800,000 for any related series of violations. In addition, under Section 110(a) of the Act, the agency may seek to restrain the manufacture, sale, offer for sale, introduction, or delivery for introduction into interstate commerce of any rebuilt truck that should have met Federal motor vehicle safety standards but in fact did not do so. Also, section 154 of the Act requires manufacturers to conduct recall campaigns and remedy any non-compliances with applicable safety standards.; I hope this information is helpful. Sincerely, Jeffrey R. Miller, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam3958

Dear Mr. Westlake: This is in reply to your letter of February 25, 1985, to Mr. Stephe Wood of this office asking the following three questions about rebuilding and remanufacturing heavy duty trucks.; >>>'1) When rebuilding a used truck with a glider kit, it is ou understanding that the process is considered 'rebuilding' when the three major components (engine, transmission and rear axle) are reused in the rebuilding process. If one or more of these major components is new, does the production of the truck chassis change its legal character from 'rebuilding' to 'first stage manufacturer'?'<<<; Neither the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act ('the Act' nor the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard ('safety standards') contain the terms 'rebuilding' and 'first stage manufacturer'. Your question, however, is clear: when new and used components are used in rebuilding a heavy truck, at what point does the truck become a 'new' vehicle which must comply with all safety standards that apply to trucks.; The agency's regulation on *Combining new and used components*, 49 CF 571.7(e), provides:; >>>'When a new cab is used in the assembly of a truck, the truck wil be considered newly manufactured for purposes of compliance with the safety standards and other provisions of the Act unless the engine, transmission, and drive axle(s) (as a minimum) of the assembled vehicle are not new, and at least two of these components were taken from the same vehicle'.<<<; Thus, in terms of your question, if the three major components ar reused in the rebuilding process and at least two of the three came from the same vehicle, the Federal motor vehicle safety standards do not apply even if a new cab is used. But if one of the three components is new, or if all are used and came from three different motor vehicles, then the standards apply and the truck must meet them, and be certified as meeting them, upon final assembly.; Your reference to 'first stage manufacturer' implies that there may b rebuilding fact situations in which the process is completed by a person other than the manufacturer who initiated it. If the rebuilt truck is 'new', then its assemblers are subject to 49 CFR Part 568 *Vehicle (sic) Manufactured in Two or More Stages*. If the truck meets the definition of 'incomplete vehicle', then the 'incomplete vehicle manufacturer' is required to furnish the specified compliance information necessary for certification to the 'intermediate stage manufacturer' or the 'final stage manufacturer' as the case may be (sec. 568.3).; >>>'2) When a truck chassis is built by a dealer and legally classifie as 'new manufacturing' what federal regulations must be complied with that do not apply when the vehicle is considered rebuilt?'<<<; As indicated above, the truck must be completed to comply with al safety standards that apply to trucks and be certified by its assembler as so conforming in accordance with Part 567 *Certification*. If more than one party is involved in the remanufacturing process, each party is subject to Part 568. In addition, any party remanufacturing a truck that must be certified as conforming is required to file a statement in the form prescribed by Part 566 *Manufacturer Identification*.; >>>'3) What penalties exist for failing to comply with these Federa regulations?'<<<; As provided by section 109(a) of the act, any person violating an provision of the Act or a regulation issued thereunder is subject to a civil penalty of up to $1000 for each violation, up to $800,000 for any related series of violations. In addition, under Section 110(a) of the Act, the agency may seek to restrain the manufacture, sale, offer for sale, introduction, or delivery for introduction into interstate commerce of any rebuilt truck that should have met Federal motor vehicle safety standards but in fact did not do so. Also, section 154 of the Act requires manufacturers to conduct recall campaigns and remedy any non-compliances with applicable safety standards.; I hope this information is helpful. Sincerely, Jeffrey R. Miller, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam4329

Dear Mr. Krall: This responds to your letter asking about Federal Motor Vehicle Safet Standard No. 113, *Hood Latch Systems.* You asked whether a design for a front-opening hood you are considering for production would comply with section S4.2 of the standard. According to your letter, the front-opening hood would be a service access feature integrated into the overall design of a rear opening hood system. The latch system would consist of two separate latches, on each side at the front corner of the access hood. As discussed below, a front-opening hood with two separate latch systems would meet the requirements of section S4.2.; By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safet Administration (NHTSA) does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, it is the responsibility of the manufacturer to ensure that its vehicles or equipment comply with applicable standards. The following represents our opinion based on the facts provided in your letter.; Section S4.2 states: >>>A front opening hood which, in any open position, partially o completely obstructs a driver's forward view through the windshield must be provided with a second latch position on the hood latch system or with a second hood latch system.<<<; You cited an interpretation letter issued in 1972, which stated tha while the agency favors a system in which two completed operations are necessary, a system which employs two latches having a single operation will meet the requirements of the standard. You stated that since your design incorporates two separate latches and requires two complete operations to latch the hood, you believe the system meets both the intent and the legal requirements of the standard.; As discussed in the preamble to the final rule, section S4.2 permit the following types of installations: a single latch system with two positions, two separate primary latch systems, or separate primary and secondary latches. 33 FR 6470-71, April 27, 1968 (copy enclosed). Thus, designs for front-opening hoods with two separate latch systems were specifically contemplated by the agency in establishing section S4.2 and would comply with that requirement.; Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam4991

"Dear Mr. Kozy: This responds to your March 24, 1992 letter concernin 'adaptive aids (hand controls) in cars equipped with air bags.' I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our regulations to you. Your two questions and the response to each follows. 1. Is it illegal to install a hand control unit that is drilled into the steering column that, according to the bulletin issued by Chrysler Corporation referring to the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 208, voids the warranty on the air bag as it may render the system inoperative. To the extent you are seeking information about warranty claims, NHTSA has no authority to regulate those issues. Therefore, I cannot comment on the effect installation of hand controls might have on a warranty. The only Federal agency that has authority to regulate questions relating to warranties in general is the Federal Trade Commission. If you wish to contact that agency for further information regarding warranty questions, you may write to: Mr. Barry J. Cutler, Director, Bureau of Consumer Protection, Federal Trade Commission, Pennsylvania Avenue at Sixth Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20580. I will, however, discuss the implications of the laws and regulations administered by this agency on the installation of hand controls in motor vehicles. Section 103 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Safety Act, 15 U.S.C. 1392) authorizes NHTSA to issue Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. Manufacturers are required to certify that their products meet all applicable safety standards. NHTSA periodically tests certified products to ensure that they do, in fact, comply with applicable standards, and investigates allegations that products contain defects related to motor vehicle safety. If a new vehicle were altered by installation of adaptive controls prior to the vehicle's first sale to a consumer, the person making the installation would be considered an 'alterer' and would be required by 49 CFR Part 567, Certification, to certify that the vehicle continues to comply with all applicable safety standards affected by the alteration. With respect to the installation of adaptive controls at a driver's position equipped with an air bag, the party making such an installation would be obliged to certify that the air bag is capable of functioning at least as well with the adaptive control installed as it functioned before the installation. After the first sale to a consumer, a vehicle is no longer required by Federal law to conform to all safety standards, and persons modifying the vehicle are no longer required to attach certification labels. However, 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act provides as follows: No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or part, any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard... This provision obliges any manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or repair business that installs adaptive controls in vehicles equipped with air bags at the driver's position to ensure that such installation does not 'render inoperative,' or interfere with, the protection afforded the driver by the air bag. Violations of this 'render inoperative' prohibition in the Safety Act are punishable by civil fines of up to $1,000 per violation. I note that 108(a)(2)(A) does not affect modifications made by vehicle owners to their own vehicles. Finally, under the Safety Act, adaptive controls would be considered items of motor vehicle equipment. There are currently no Federal motor vehicle safety standards that apply to adaptive controls as a separate item of motor vehicle equipment. However, although no safety standards apply directly to adaptive controls as a separate item of motor vehicle equipment, manufacturers of adaptive controls are subject to the requirements in 151-159 of the Safety Act concerning the recall and remedy of products with safety defects. In the event that NHTSA or a manufacturer determines that a manufacturer's product contains a safety- related defect, the manufacturer is responsible for notifying purchasers of the defective equipment and remedying the problem free of charge. 2. I need to know if such a unit were installed on an air bag equipped vehicle, and that same vehicle is resold in, say a year or two, is the seller required by law to notify the next buyer that the warranty on the air bag system has been voided, even though the controls may now have been removed. At the outset, I must again note that this agency has no authority over warranty issues or alleged unfair trade practices. Any such questions should be addressed to the Federal Trade Commission at the address given above. My answer is limited to obligations imposed by the Safety Act and the standards and regulations issued by this agency pursuant to that Act. The 'render inoperative' provision of the Safety Act does not impose an affirmative duty on dealers to replace equipment that was previously removed by someone else, or to repair equipment that was damaged in a crash. Thus, the 'render inoperative' provision does not require a dealer to replace an air bag that does not function because of something that happened before the dealer took possession of the vehicle, including the installation of hand controls. Moreover, nothing in the Safety Act imposes a duty on dealers of used vehicles to disclose information to purchasers. Notwithstanding the absence of any such requirements in the Safety Act, a dealer may be required by State law to repair or replace the air bag in these circumstances. For further information on the provisions in various State laws, you may contact: the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Virginia 22203. I hope you find this information helpful. If you have further questions or need some additional information in this area, please contact Mary Versailles of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel";

ID: aiam3079

Dear Mr. Monahan: This is in response to the questions you raised with Ms. Debra Weine of my office in a telephone conversion (sic) of July 9, 1979. Specifically, you asked whether there are any current or proposed regulations applicable to customizers who install plastic auxiliary diesel fuel tanks in Mercedes automobiles. You noted these vehicles would typically be purchased from a dealer and then brought to the customizer for installation of the auxiliary tank.; The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, as amended 1974 (th Act), authorizes the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to issue Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards applicable to motor vehicles and to equipment for installation in vehicles. Safety Standard No. 301-75, *Fuel System Integrity* (49 CFR 571.301-75), specifies performance requirements for vehicles, including passenger cars, which use fuel with a boiling point above 32 degrees F. (This includes both gasoline and diesel fuel). Under the standard's requirements, no part of a vehicle's entire fuel system can have fuel spillage beyond certain specified amounts during barrier crash tests. Specific performance requirements for individual components of the fuel system, such as the fuel tank, are not currently included in the standard. With the advent of high density polyethlene (sic) (plastic) fuel tanks, however, the current 'system' performance requirements might not be sufficient to insure the integrity of vehicle fuel systems. For this reason, the agency recently published an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking concerning the advisability of establishing performance standards for plastic tanks (44 FR 33441, June 11, 1979 copy enclosed).; Under section 108 of the Act, new motor vehicles must comply wit Federal safety standards prior to their first purchase in good faith for purposes other than resale. That purchase is completed when the vehicle is delivered to the ultimate consumer. Thus, the extent to which a customizer must ensure that his installation of an auxiliary tank complies with Safety Standard No. 301-75 depends upon whether the tank is installed before or after this delivery.; A customizer who installs an auxiliary fuel tank prior to the vehicle' first purchase would be a vehicle 'alterer'. Under the provisions of 49 CFR 567.7, he would be required to place an additional label on the vehicle specifying that, as altered, the vehicle continues to be in compliance with all applicable safety standards, including Standard No. 301-75. Additionally the alterer would be responsible for any safety related defects arising from the installation of the auxiliary tank and would be required under section 151 of the Act to provide notice of and remedy for the defective installation.; If a customizer installs an auxiliary tank in a vehicle after it delivery to the first purchaser he could be subject to section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Act. That section provides that:; >>>No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repai business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or part, any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard....<<<; A person or entity found to have violated this section would be liabl for a civil penalty of up to $1,000 for each violation. (Section 109 of the Act).; If a person subject to section 108(a)(2)(A) adds an auxiliary gasolin tank to a vehicle manufactured in accordance with Safety Standard No. 301-75, and in the process knowingly reduces the performance of the fuel system originally installed in the motor vehicle, he or she has violated section 108(a)(2)(A). (H.R. No. 1191, 93d Cong., 2d sess. 34 (1974). (sic) Such a reduction of performance could occur, for example, if gasoline from the original system (a fuel system includes the filler pipe, tank, gasoline lines, fuel pump, carburetor, and engine) could be leaked through a rupture in the the (sic) auxiliary tank and fuel lines, and if the design materials, construction, installation or location of the auxiliary tank and fuel lines made them more susceptible to rupture than the original fuel system.; Please note that a customizer would be considered a 'motor vehicl repair business' since he modifies motor vehicles for compensation.; I hope that you will find this response helpful. Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam3712

Dear Mr. Shapiro: This responds to your letter of May 24, 1983, requesting a interpretation concerning the retraction force requirements of Safety Standard No. 209, *Seat Belt Assemblies*. You are considering a Type 2 seat belt design which includes an emergency locking retractor for continuous loop webbing and an emergency locking retractor for additional webbing at the inboard buckle portion of the system. You state that this inboard webbing is extended only if the belt is used by an extremely large occupant. You ask whether the retraction force requirements of the standard allow testing with the webbing of the *entire system* extended 75%, i.e., even if this means that no webbing is extended from the inboard retractor, so that the retraction force is actually only measured from the retractor for the continuous loop portion of the belt.; Paragraph S4.3(j) of Safety Standard No. 209 specifies that a emergency locking retractor of a Type 1 or Type 2 seat belt assembly, when tested in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph S5.2(j) shall:; >>>***** (4) exert a retractive force of at least 0.6 pound under zer acceleration when attached only to the pelvic restraint,; (5) exert a retractive force of not less than 0.2 pound and not mor than 1.1 pounds under zero acceleration when attached only to an upper torso restraint,; (6) exert a retractive force of not less than 0.2 pound and not mor than 1.5 pounds under zero acceleration when attached to a strap or webbing that restrains both the upper torso and pelvis.<<<; The test procedures of paragraph S5.2(j) specify that these retractio forces are to be measured with the belt webbing extended from the retractor to 75% of its length.; The requirements of S4.3(j) apply to *each* retractor on a Type 1 o Type 2 belt system. There is no exception in the standard for a system which includes two or more retractors which exert force on the same belt webbing. Thus, both retractors on your proposed system would have to comply with the requirements of the standard independently of one another. Under the test procedure you suggest, the retraction force of the inboard retractor would not be measured. This is contrary to the explicit language of the standard.; Both retractors on your proposed system would have to comply with th force requirements of paragraph S4.3(j)(6). This is true because both retractors are attached 'to a strap or webbing that restrains both the upper torso and the pelvis.' Therefore, the retraction force on your inboard retractor must be not less than 0.2 pound and not greater than 1.5 pounds when the webbing on that retractor is extended to 75% of its length. The same is true for the retractor on the continuous loop portion of the system.; I hope this has clarified any misunderstanding you might have ha concerning these requirements.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel

ID: nht95-1.33

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: January 20, 1995

FROM: Gary Shultz -- Vice President, General Counsel and General Manager, Diamond Star Motors

TO: Edward Glancy. Esq. -- NHSTA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 2/10/95 LETTER FROM PHILIP R. RECHT TO GARY SHULTZ (A43; PART 583)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Glancy,

Pursuant to your phone conservation yesterday with Ms. Yolanda Gray, I am sending the included letter addressed to Mr. Recht to your attention for your and his priority attention. This regards our dilemms in how to comply with the Labeling Act under the circumstance of a mid-model year change in our production of one of our carlines from just the U.S. to both the U.S. and Japan. Your attention to this matter is sincerely appreciated.

Attachment

January 20, 1995

Mr. Philip R. Recht Chief Counsel NHTSA 400 7th St. S.W. Washington D.C. 20590

Dear Mr. Recht:

This letter seeks confirmation of compliance with the Automobile Labeling Act. 49 CFR part 583.6 specifies that "each manufacturer, except as specified in 583.5 (f) and (g), shall determine the percentage of U.S./Canadian Parts Content for each carlin e on a model year basis, before the beginning of each model year." Diamond-Star Motors has complied with calculating the percentage of domestic and foreign content of the automobiles we manufacture on a model year basis, and the labels affixed to the car s by our distributor, Mitusbishi Motor Sales of America, Inc., reflect this information.

The problem is the regulations do not mention what to do when there has been a change of plans in the source of production for a [Illegible Words] middle of its model year. One of the carlines currently production will now be manufactured in both the U.S. and Japan which may significantly affect the carline's current calculation for content as well as the final assembly point.

Diamond-Star is therefore requesting confirmation whether the label should be changed to reflect the change in domestic/foreign content in the middle of the model year or whether part 583.6 should be relied on as the authority for determining a carlin e's content only on a one-time model year basis. Further, confirmation is needed as to whether the label should be changed to reflect the final assembly point in accordance with part 583.5 (e).

Since production in Japan will commence soon, an urgent response for clarification is requested. Your time and cooperation is greatly appreciated.

ID: aiam3242

Dear Mr. Martin: This responds to your letter of February 20, 1980, in which yo requested information concerning this agency's requirements that motor vehicles be equipped with tamper-resistant odometers and the method used to enforce this requirement. As described below, I have enclosed copies of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's (NHTSA) pertinent regulations and enabling legislation as well as some background material.; Among the enclosures to this letter are a series of Federal Registe notices which trace the development of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 127, *Speedometers and Odometers*. As you will see, (43 FR 10919, March 16, 1978, Notice 4) the initial requirement that odometers 'be moveable in the forward direction only' has been modified several times largely in response to comments from the public and from the automobile manufactures (examples enclosed). The rule in effect at present requires either that (1) odometers be irreversible 'whether installed in or removed from a vehicle' unless one or more of five specified operations is necessary to achieve reversal or (2) that odometers be equipped with a marking system which permanently marks the wheel registering ten thousands of miles as the numeral disappears from the driver's view (see 44 FR 17500, March 22, 1979). changes to standard have been proposed (see 44 FR 17532, March 22, 1979) and this agency expects to publish a final rule incorporating some of these changes in the near future. Upon its publication I will be happy to send you a copy. In anticipation. of publication of this rule, the agency has not yet conducted an evaluation in the field of the effectiveness of the odometer provisions of Safety Standard No. 127. However, The agency is now preparing to begin such an evaluation. At this point I am unable to provide you with any details on the form which the evaluation will take.; I have also enclosed an economic impact analysis prepared in 1978 whic discusses, among other things, an early version of Safety Standard 127's odometer tampering provision. Please note that this analysis was not updated as the odometer requirements of Safety Standard No. 127 were modified because this agency concluded that these changes would not significantly alter the standard's economic impact.; You may also be interested to know that SAfety Standard 127 is not thi agency's only tool against odometer tampering. Title IV, Odometer Requirements, of the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act (copy enclosed) which is enforced in part, by this agency states that no person shall (1) disconnect reset or alter or cause to be disconnected reset or altered the odometer of a motor vehicle with intent to change the number of miles indicated thereon, (2) with intent to defraud, operate a motor vehicle on any street or highway knowing that the odometer of such vehicle is disconnected or nonfunctional of (3) advertise for sale, sell, use or install or cause to be installed any device which causes an odometer to register any milage other that the true milage driver.; In addition, the act authorizes this agency to develop regulation requiring any transferor of ownership of a motor vehicle to provide to the transferee written disclosure of the cumulative milage registered on the odometer or, in cases where the transferor knows that the odometer reading is different from the number of miles the vehicle has actually traveled, disclosure of that fact. The agency's regulations concerning these disclosures are enclosed for your information.; In your letter, you also requested information indicative of the exten to which odometer tampering presents a problem in the United States.; Unfortunately, I am unable to provide you with any reliable studie conducted in this area. The legislation and regulations aimed at reducing the incidence of odometer tampering have all rested upon a common but un-quantified consensus that odometer tampering is a significant problem in the United States. Safety engineers in this agency have estimated, simply on the basis of their experience, that between 50% and 75% of the used cars sold in the United States contain odometers whose readings have been reduced.; I hope that you will find this information helpful in preparing you project on tamper-proof odometers.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam3210

Dear Mr. Stumbaugh: Please accept my apologies for our delay in responding to your lette of September 17, 1979. You asked whether your client would be required to submit to this agency's inspection or gain its approval before installing a device which connects the gas cap of an automobile to the horn wires and switches so that the horn blows continuously when the gas cap is removed by a potential thief.; Your client would not be required to obtain an inspection of hi product by this agency or to obtain an approval of his product. However, he would be required to comply with other requirements should he begin to manufacture or install his device.; Part 566 of Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations (copy enclosed requires every person who begins the manufacture of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment to submit certain information about his business to this agency not later than thirty days after he begins to manufacture. The information consists primarily of the name and address of the manufacturer and a description of the types of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment to be produced.; The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, as amended 1974 (the Act) authorizes the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to issue motor vehicle safety standards applicable either to entire vehicles or to equipment for installation in vehicles. Safety Standard No. 301-75, *Fuel System Integrity*, (copy enclosed) is a vehicle standard which applies to certain vehicles, including passenger cars, that use fuel with a boiling point above 32 degrees F. The standard applies to completed vehicles instead of fuel tanks or other fuel system components and thus is inapplicable to the manufacture of your client's device.; Despite the inapplicability of Safety Standard No. 301-75 to it manufacture, your client's device must be designed and manufactured for safety. Since use of your client's product involves attaching electrical wires to the gas cap, we are particularly concerned that it be built in a way which will prevent any electrical spark from coming into contact with gasoline in the fuel tank, filler pipe or in other fuel system components or with gasoline fumes. As a manufacturer of gas cap anti-theft devices, your client would be subject to the defects responsibility provisions of the Act (section 151 et seq., copy enclosed). Upon discovery of a safety-related defect by the NHTSA Administrator or your client himself, your client would be required to notify the vehicle owners, purchasers, and dealers and remedy the defect.; If your client installed one of his devices in a new vehicle, i.e., vehicle which has not yet been purchased in good faith for purposes other than resale, he would be a vehicle alterer under the NHTSA regulations. As an alterer, he would be required by 49 CFR 567.7 to affix an additional label to the vehicle stating that, as altered, the vehicle conforms to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards--including Safety Standard No. 301-75. Should a noncompliance or safety-related defect be discovered in a (sic) such a vehicle, as a result of the modification, your client would be required to notify vehicle owners, purchasers, and dealers and to remedy the defect.; If your client installed one of his devices in a used passenge vehicle, he would not be required to attach an alterer's label. However, section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Act would apply. Section 108(a)(2)(A) provides in relevant part that:; >>>No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repai business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or in part, any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item or motor vehicle equipment in compliance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard. . .<<<; Thus, if your client added one of his devices to a used passenge vehicle manufactured in compliance with Safety Standard No. 301-75 and other standards, and in the process knowingly rendered inoperative the compliance of the fuel system or another system, he would be in violation of section 108(a)(2)(A).; I hope that you will find this information helpful. If you have furthe questions please feel free to contact Ms. Debra Weiner of my staff at 202-426-2992.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam2301

Dear Dr. Olsen: This responds to your March 26, 1976, question whether Federal moto vehicle safety standards would apply to the replacement of seat belt webbing in seat belt assemblies to refurbish deteriorated portions of the webbing.; The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381, e seq.) authorizes the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to regulate the manufacture, but not the repair, of motor vehicle equipment such as seat belt assemblies. The NHTSA has issued a standard that applies to the manufacture and sale of seat belt assemblies (Standard No. 209, *Seat Belt Assemblies* (49 CFR 571.209)). In enforcement of this standard, the agency must, therefore, distinguish between what is repair' and what is manufacture' of a seat belt assembly.; You intend to accept existing seat belt assemblies from vehicle owner and to replace the webbing portions, reusing the hardware that is recovered from the existing assembly. From this description, the agency considers that the operation would constitute the manufacture of a seat belt assembly subject to the requirements of Standard No. 209. The majority of the assembled product would be new material, and the manufacturing operations involved in cutting and sewing constitute significant factors in the construction of the finished product.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel