ID: 21068.ztv

Mr. Seymour Hanks
Rt. 1 Box 144
Medora, IL 62063

Dear Mr. Hanks:

This is in reply to your letter of December 10, 1999, asking for our views on the issues that you raise.

In the first case that concerns you, Sun International Racing Corp. is reported as importing and certifying for sale in the United States niche cars otherwise unavailable, such as the Renault Sport Spider and Lotus Elise. You have asked whether either car can "be disassembled overseas imported into the U.S. and re-assembled by Sun Int'l as a complete vehicle?"

The Renault and Lotus have never been certified by their original manufacturers as complying with the U.S. Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS). Nevertheless, uncertified vehicles may be imported for resale under certain conditions specified by 49 U.S.C. 30141 and 49 CFR Part 593. These vehicles may be imported if, as is the case here, "there is no substantially similar United States motor vehicle [and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) decides that] the safety features of the vehicle comply with or are capable of being altered to comply with" the FMVSS (49 U.S.C. 30146(a)(1)(B), and "the vehicle is imported by a registered importer" (Section 30146(a)(2)). We make these decisions either on our own initiative, or upon the petition of the manufacturer or a "registered importer" (RI). RIs are entities that we have recognized as being capable of performing conformance work and are the only entities permitted to import nonconforming vehicles for resale after conformance to the FMVSS.

Thus, a RI could import nonconforming vehicles (either assembled or disassembled), provided they are covered by a NHTSA conformance capability decision, and provided that the RI conforms and certifies conformance of the vehicles before sale to a member of the public. However, we have made no such conformance capability decision with respect to either the Renault or the Lotus, and thus a RI could not legally import either the Renault or the Lotus for resale. The vehicles, however, could be imported temporarily, as provided by 49 CFR Part 591, for purposes other than resale, such as for participation in competitive racing events.

In the second case, you refer to an article listing Ameritech as the manufacturer of a U.S. version of the McLaren F1. You have asked if your understanding is correct, that the vehicle must be imported through DOT's RI program and EPA's independent commercial importer (ICI) program.

As I explained in my answer to your first question, a non-conforming vehicle imported for resale must have been the subject of a conformance capability decision, imported by a RI, and then be brought into conformity with our standards by the RI. Ameritech, which was not a RI, entered several McLaren F1s into a "foreign trade zone," modified and certified them to U.S. standards, and entered them as "Ameritech" vehicles. All these actions took place before we were aware of them. Properly, the vehicles should not have been imported in the absence of a conformance capability determination under Part 593, and then only through the RI program. We have directed Ameritech to cease such importations and have advised the U.S. Customs Service that it should not allow them.

You have asked "who is the manufacturer of the vehicles in Case 1 and Case 2."

A "manufacturer" of motor vehicles is defined by 49 U.S.C. 30102(a)(5) both as a person manufacturing or assembling motor vehicles, as well as a person who imports motor vehicles for resale. In both cases, the vehicles were originally manufactured in one stage. Therefore, we consider the entity that assembled these vehicles to be the manufacturer, that is to say, Lotus, Renault, and McLaren. I note also that any person importing these motor vehicles for resale is also a "manufacturer" for Federal safety purposes.

I would like to note here that the vehicle import laws have been amended since the articles that concern you were written. We are now authorized to allow permanent entry of nonconforming vehicles for "show or display." Under regulations we adopted in mid-1999, an importer for "show or display" must demonstrate that the vehicle is of technological or historical interest. If we approve an entry on this basis, the vehicle may not accumulate more than 2,500 miles a year on its odometer until it is 25 years old.

Your final question is whether "a completed motor vehicle [can] be disassembled then shipped into the U.S. as parts, and then re-assembled here in the U.S. as a motor vehicle listing a different manufacturer than the original manufacturer."

A disassembled vehicle that was not certified by its original manufacturer as being in compliance with our standards is subject to the same import restrictions as an assembled one; i.e., it must have been the subject of a conformance capability determination, and be imported, reassembled, and brought into compliance by a RI, which must certify its conformance with our standards. In this event, there are two manufacturers of the vehicle, the original manufacturer whose marque name should appear on the vehicle, and the RI, which, under 49

U.S.C. 30102(a)(5), is a "manufacturer" for purposes of notification and remedy in the event that a safety-related defect or noncompliance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard is determined to exist in the reassembled vehicle.

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

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
ref:571
d.2/22/2000

ID: 1982-1.3

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 01/08/82

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Grancor, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of November 17, 1981, with respect to "a non-substantive disagreement" of your Safety Alert Device "with a strict interpretation of (FMVSS No. 108)". Your system is wired into and operated through a vehicle's back-up lamp system which you have modified by adding "a yellow sleeve over half of the back-up light bulb". You state that the light cast is "essentially the same as the white light". You further say that any deviation from Standard No. 108's requirement that back-up lamps emit white light is "nonsubstantive".

I assume that your letter to me is in response to the one that George Parker, Chief, Crash Avoidance Division, sent you on September 2, 1981. In that letter he explained that S4.1.3 prohibits the addition of equipment "that impairs the effectiveness of lighting equipment" required by Standard No. 108, and stated that any activation of your system while the back-up lamps are in operation would be covered by this prohibition. As for color, you were informed that S4.1.3 imposed an absolute prohibition if the color of the light emitted by the deceleration warning system were green or white.

We cannot concur that the deviation from Standard No. 108 is "non-substantive". Standard No. 108 requires back-up lamps to be installed in motor vehicles and to emit a white light. We view S4.1.3 as precluding any device that would operate lighting equipment required by Standard No. 108 for a purpose other than that for which it is originally installed. Further, even if your system did not operate through the back-up lamp system but through separate and additional lamps, we would view use of color other than red or amber as an impairment of the equipment originally installed to indicate the deceleration through braking of the vehicle (i.e., stop lamps).

ID: 22843

Mr. Matz Larsson
Sales Manager
Broderna Holmbergs Fabriks AB
Box 63
SE-334 21 Anderstorp
Sweden





Dear Mr. Larsson:

This is in response to your letter of March 7, 2001, asking whether the buckle release on your child restraint system meets the area requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 213, "Child Restraint Systems." The answer is yes.

S5.4.3.5(c) of Standard No. 213 requires any buckle in a child restraint system to "[m]eet the requirements of S4.3(d)(2) of FMVSS No. 209," which reads:

A buckle designed for pushbutton application of buckle release force shall have a minimum of 452 mm with a minimum linear dimension of 10 mm for applying the release force, or a buckle designed for lever application of buckle release force shall permit the insertion of a cylinder 10 mm in diameter and 38 mm in length to at least the midpoint of the cylinder along the cylinder's entire length in the actuation portion of the buckle release. A buckle having other design for release shall have adequate access for two or more fingers to actuate release.

Since your buckle requires a sliding action to activate the buckle release, we consider your buckle release to be designed for slide application rather than pushbutton or lever application. Thus, your buckle release falls under the "other design for release" category.

Under the last sentence of S4.3(d)(2), a buckle having other design for release must have adequate access for two or more fingers to actuate release. You claim that your buckle release meets this requirement. We agree. All of our staff working on this response were able to place two fingers into your slide action release button to actuate release. Thus, we have determined that your buckle release meets the requirement of S4.3(d)(2).

If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Mr. Dion Casey of this office at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
ref:213#209
d.4/10/01

ID: GF005903

Mr. Mark Jagow
Pacific Coast Retreaders
333 Hegenberger Road, Suite 705
Oakland, CA 94621-1463




Dear Mr. Jagow:

This is in response to your June 1, 2005, letter in which you ask about certain tire marking requirements in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 119, New pneumatic tires for vehicles other than passenger cars. Specifically, you ask if you are required to mark the maximum single load rating on tires intended to be used exclusively in tandem. Our answer is yes.

S6.5(d) of FMVSS No. 119 requires that the truck tires be marked on each sidewall with, among other things, the maximum load rating and corresponding inflation pressure for the particular tire. This information must be "shown as follows":

(Mark on tires rated for single and dual load): Max load single __kg (__lb) at __kPa (__psi) cold. Max load dual __kg (__lb) at __kPa (__psi) cold.

(Mark on tires rated only for single load): Max load __kg (__lb) at __kPa (__psi) cold.

Different labeling requirements thus apply depending on whether tires are rated for "single and dual load" or "only for single load".We interpret this provision to require all tires to be rated and marked in one of these two manners; i.e., it is not permissible to mark tires as rated only for dual load. Thus, truck tires rated for dual load applications, including those produced solely for tandem use, must also be labeled with the maximum single load rating in addition to the dual load rating. This is because the tires intended for tandem use could nevertheless be purchased and installed in single application. We believe there is a safety benefit in informing vehicle operators who may use your tires in a way that you did not intend; i.e., in a single application, that the load ratings are different when the tires are not installed in tandem.

I hope you find this information helpful. If you have further questions, you may contact Mr. George Feygin of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Wood
Assistant Chief Counsel
for Vehicle Safety Standards and Harmonization

ref:119
d.9/7/05

ID: 21325windshieldrepairneb

Mr. David Harner
Novus Windshield Repair
35 Division Street
Danbury, CT 06810

Dear Mr. Harner:

Your March 15, 2000, letter regarding windshield repair was referred to my office for reply.

You state that you were told by your franchiser that the United States Department of Transportation (DOT) attempted to regulate the windshield repair business about ten years ago and that DOT eventually passed only one regulation with regards to windshield repair that required "'all damage must have a drying process performed on the damaged area prior to repairing the damaged area' (or something to this effect)." You ask for a "confirmation" of the existence, or lack thereof, of such a regulation.

Our statute, 49 U.S.C. 30101 et seq., as amended (the Act), authorizes the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. Glazing repair businesses, sellers of vehicles or automotive glazing, and manufacturers of glazing repair kits all have different responsibilities and liabilities regarding automotive glazing under the Act. These are described in a September 3, 1981, letter to National Glass Dealers Association, a copy of which is enclosed. FMVSS 205, Glazing Materials (copy enclosed), which establishes performance requirements for automotive glazing, has remained unchanged for many years and does not mention any type of "drying process."

Your franchiser may be referring to a law administered by the Department's Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, which has jurisdiction over interstate motor carriers operating in the U.S. You can contact Mr. Larry Minor, Division Chief, Vehicle and Roadside Operations, in that office at (202) 366-4012, for information about any requirements that may apply to your product. In addition, states have the authority to regulate the use and licensing of vehicles operating within their jurisdictions. You should therefore check with your State Department of Motor Vehicles to find out about any activity in this area.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
Enclosures
ref:205
d.6/30/2000

ID: nht79-3.28

DATE: 04/27/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: B. F. Goodrich Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to a January 15, 1979, request from Mr. A. J. Burt to permit adjustment of foundation brakes during the burnish procedures in S6.1.8 and S6.2.6 of Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems, for any reason. At present, such adjustments can only be made to control brake temperature, as stated in our January 24, 1979, letter to Mr. Burt.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration is unaware of a reason other than control of brake temperature which would justify adjustments during burnish. Accordingly, we decline to grant your request. The NHTSA would, of course, be willing to consider any data or other information you have which would indicate that the present interpretation of burnish procedures may be too narrow in this respect.

SINCERELY,

BFGoodrich Engineered Systems Division

January 15, 1979

Department of Transportation 400 7th Street S.W.

Attention: Tad Herlihy

Dear Mr. Herlihy:

This letter is to confirm our telephone conversation of January 10th regarding our November 8, 1978 letter from Mr. D. L. Haines to the Chief Cousel, requesting clarification of certain sections of Paragraphs S5.3, S5.4, S6.1.8, and S6.2.6 of FMVSS-121 as pertain to brake adjustment during brake burnish.

On November 28, 1978, in answer to my telephone request for a quick response, Mr. Haines was sent a copy of FR Doc. 74-26461 filed 11/7/74. That document states that "brake adjustment can be made during the burnish to control brake temperature".

As discussed in our January 10th conversation, BFGoodrich is asking that an additional written response be made to our letter which requests, for the reasons stated in that letter, concurrence with the more general conclusion "that adjustment during burnish prior to road or dynamometer testing is acceptable".

Please address the response to Mr. D. L. Haines.

A. J. Burt Manager Highway Products Support Engineering

CC: D. L. HAINES

ID: nht80-2.32

DATE: 05/06/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Miller Tilt-Top Trailer Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of April 2, 1980, in which you request approval for the vehicle identification numbering (VIN) system Miller Tilt-Top Trailer, Inc., proposes to use to satisfy the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 115 (49 CFR 571.115).

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration does not approve a manufacturer's compliance with the safety standards, as manufacturers serve as self-certifiers under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. However, my office has reviewed your proposed system. Based on our understanding of the information that you have provided, your system apparently complies with Standard No. 115. We would also recommend that when you submit information to the agency pursuant to S6 of the standard, you follow each "series" designation (4th and 5th characters of the VIN) with the phrase "rectangular, flat platform trailer and body."

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

April 2, 1980

Fred Schwartz -- U.S. Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Re: FMVSS-115 VIN Requirement

Dear Mr. Schwartz:

The following is my understanding of the new VIN requirement, as it will be implemented by Miller Tilt-Top Trailer:

- To be supplied by S.A.E.

- Series of trailer (i.e. "OT").

- Length of platform to nearest foot (i.e. "20"). *

- Number of axles (i.e. "4").

- Check digit (calculated per S5.1).

- Model year (i.e. "A" for 1980).

- Plant of manufacture (i.e. "M" for Milwaukee).

- Sequential number assigned by Miller Trailer

* - All trailers that we manufacture have a rectangular, flat platform which should satisfy the "Type of Trailer" and "Body Type" information requirements.

Does all of this information meet with D.O.T. approval?

Sincerely,

MILLER TILT-TOP TRAILER, INC.;

Philip J. Carpenter -- Administrative Engineer

ID: nht75-2.25

DATE: 08/18/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Holiday Rambler Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: I am writing in response to your letter of June 23, 1975, which inquired about the status of proposed Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 120, Tire Selection and Rims for Motor Vehicles Other than Passenger Cars.

The NHTSA expects to issue Standard No. 120 in the near future. It will not become effective September 1, 1975. An effective date which allows adequate lead time for manufacturers to prepare for compliance will be specified in a Federal Register notice when the rule is issued. Your second question, concerning the responsibility for providing GAWR and GVWR information for motor homes manufactured by you with chassis supplied by other manufacturers, will also be answered in that notice.

SINCERELY,

June 23, 1975

Administrator National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

This letter is in reference to proposed F.M.V.S.S. 120. Holiday Rambler Corporation is a large manufacturer of recreational vehicles and Multipurpose Passenger Vehicles. As regards to the proposed Standard 120, we request your answer to the following questions.

1. What is the present status of this proposed standard; Does the effective date remain September 1, 1975?

2. HRC purchases from various manufacturers large numbers of chassis-cab type truck chassis for use in class "C" motor homes and commercial vehicles and will purchase a number of regular truck chassis for use in Class "A" Motor Homes. These manufacturers certify these "incomplete vehicles" at a specified G.V.W.R. and G.A.W.R. which our completed vehicle may not exceed. As regards proposed Standard 120 then, would the incomplete vehicle manufacturer be responsible for furnishing the required information label, or would HRC be responsible using such information as supplied by the incomplete vehicle manufacturer?

Thank you for your time and consideration. If this letter requires further explanation, please feel free to call me at 219 862-4551. Otherwise you may address your reply to the address below. Your prompt reply would be greatly appreciated.

Terrell T. Coleman Codes and Standards Co-Ordinator

CC: S. MOSS; T. COLEMAN

ID: Campbell_petition

Mr. David E. Campbell
David Campbell & Associates, Inc.
PO Box 402
Westfield Center, OH 44251-0402

Dear Mr. Campbell:

This letter responds to your phone conversation with Mr. Chris Calamita of my staff concerning a child restraint system (CRS) labeling issue you raised in a petition for reconsideration. You noted a potential conflict between the language required generally for CRS labels and the language required specifically for booster seats.

On October 1, 2002, the agency amended Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 213, Child restraint systems, changing some of the format, location, and content requirements for labels. (67 FR 61523, effective October 1, 2003.) Under S5.5.2(g)(1)(ii) of FMVSS No. 213, labels will have to state, "Secure this child restraint with the vehicles child restraint anchorage system if available or with a vehicle belt." You note, however, that the reference to the vehicles child restraint anchorage system is not appropriate for belt-positioning booster seats because these seats are not designed to attach to a child restraint anchorage system. You further note that this statement may cause confusion with the labeling statement required specifically for booster seats under S5.5.2(i). [1]

The agency agrees that there was an error in requiring both the S5.5.2(g)(1)(ii) and S5.5.2(i) statements on belt-positioning booster seat labels. Booster seats should have been excluded from the required language in S5.5.2(g)(1)(ii). We intend to publish a correction prior to the October 1, 2003 effective date of the requirement.At that time, will also address the other issues raised in your petition for reconsideration.

If you have any questions please contact Mr. Chris Calamita of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:213
d.9/5/03





---

[1] The language in S5.5.2(i) states that only the vehicles lap and shoulder belt, or lap belt part only, is used to secure the booster seat, as appropriate.

ID: 77-1.15

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/02/77

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Department of California Highway Patrol

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of December 16, 1976, which raises several questions with respect to motor vehicle lighting and Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

First I want to comment upon this statement:

"A NHTSA representative recently indicated that the standard applies to 'original equipment' replacement items such as lenses and lamps designed for specific year model vehicles, but does not apply to 'aftermarket' lighting equipment that is not manufactured for a particular vehicle but is sold for general use on any vehicle."

This is not entirely true. Standard No. 108 applies in pertinent part "to lamps, reflective devices, and associated equipment for replacement of like equipment or vehicles to which this standard applied." The standard applies to motor vehicles manufactured on or after January 1, 1972. Thus, any replacement of an original equipment item specified by Standard No. 108 must meet original equipment requirements. This not only includes lenses and lamps, such as parking lamps and tail lamps designed for specific year model vehicles but also lighting equipment sold for general use, such as headlamps, clearance lamps, and identification lamps, whose dimensions do not vary over the years.

Your first question is:

"1. Some aftermarket-type manufacturers produce lamps and other devices that are shown in their catalogs for universal use with no vehicle model being mentioned. Some of these lamps may also be supplied to producers of motor homes, boat trailers, horse trailers, commercial trucks and trailers, etc., as original equipment on those vehicles. Does the fact that a portion of the production of a particular lamp is sold as replacements for the original equipment mean that the other portion sold for use on any 1976 truck or trailer is also governed by Standard No. 108 with respect to the "aftermarket" sales?"

The answer is yes, as I explained in my preliminary remarks about the applicability of Standard No. 108 to all replacement equipment.

"2. In the past, motor vehicles were equipped with round-type sealed beam units. Now that rectangular units are available, some owners are interested in converting the original round headlamps to the rectangular type. Are these rectangular sealed beam units and conversion kits sold to the user considered replacement of like equipment on vehicles to which this standard applies or are they subject to state regulations?"

We construe the words "like equipment" broadly. If one headlighting system is being replaced with another, the replacement headlighting system must meet the requirements of Standard No. 108, even though its configuration differs from that of the original. Obviously, a State may also regulate sale of this equipment if its requirements are identical with the Federal ones.

"3. Manufacturers of nonsealed, quartz-halogen headlamp units are energetically promoting the sale of the units in many areas of the country. These lamps differ considerably from the sealed beam units originally required on late model vehicles at the time of first sale. Do these lamps fall within federal jurisdiction or are they subject only to state regulation?"

Quartz-halogen headlamps sold in the aftermarket, intended as replacement for headlamps that comply with Standard No. 108, must also meet Federal requirements. If the lamps do not conform, not only would their sale be a violation of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Section 108(a)(1)(A), but the removal of sealed beam headlamps by the seller or a motor vehicle repair shop to facilitate the installation of the nonconforming ones would also be a violation of the Act (Section 108(a)(2)(A).

"4. A number of items such as flashers, school bus warning lamps, and headlamp units are sold for universal use. They might be part of a new vehicle at time of sale or be sold separately as a replacement for vehicles manufactured both before and after 1972 or as an addition to such vehicles. Does this mean that dual regulations are permissible with NHTSA setting standards for the production items used as original equipment replacement and the states setting standards and requiring approval for the identical item for usage not regulated by the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards?"

It is NHTSA's position, as explained earlier, that if an item of lighting equipment "sold for universal use" is capable of replacing equipment on a vehicle manufactured on or after January 1, 1972, then it must meet Standard No. 108, and a State may also regulate it in an identical manner.

You also asked our advice "on the problem of not being able to recognize whether a particular item has been certified or not." As an alternative to the DOT mark permitted by S4.7.2 of Standard No. 108, replacement lighting equipment may be certified in two other ways. Pursuant to Section 114 of the Act certification "may be in the form of a label or tag on such item or on the outside of a container in which such item is delivered." Thus, access by a State enforcement officer to corporate records is not required. If an item subject to Standard No. 108 is not marked "DOT," if it bears no certification label or tag, and if its container is unmarked, then it has not been certified as required.

I hope this answers your questions.

SINCERELY,

DEPARTMENT OF CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL

December 16, 1976

File No.: 61.A218.A3107

Frank Berndt Acting Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

The finding of the U.S. District Court in Pennsylvania against state requirements for presale approval of items of motor vehicle equipment regulated by the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards, if upheld, will eventually result in all states curtailing their approval programs. The question then becomes one of determining specifically which items of equipment are federally regulated.

The answer appears clear-cut with respect to equipment standards that apply to an individual item such as brake hoses, safety glazing, emergency triangular reflectors, seat belts, etc. It is not so clear with respect to the part of Standard No. 108 which applies to "lamps, reflective devices, and associated equipment for replacement of like equipment on vehicles to which this standard applies". A NHTSA representative recently indicated that the standard applies to "original equipment" replacement items such as lenses and lamps designed for specific year model vehicles, but does not apply to "aftermarket" lighting equipment that is not manufactured for a particular vehicle but is sold for general use on any vehicle. It is important to us to know whether or not we may have misinterpreted the discussion.

We are investigating how best to amend our laws, regulations, and approval procedures if the Pennsylvania decision becomes binding upon all states. The following questions have arisen with respect to which items of lighting equipment are regulated by Standard No. 108 and which are not:

1. Some aftermarket-type manufacturers produce lamps and other devices that are shown in their catalogs for universal use with no vehicle model being mentioned. Some of these lamps may also be supplied to producers of motor homes, boat trailers, horse trailers, commercial trucks and trailers, etc., as original equipment on those vehicles. Does the fact that a portion of the production of a particular lamp is sold as replacements for the original equipment mean that the other portion sold for use on any 1976 truck or trailer is also governed by Standard No. 108 with respect to the "aftermarket" sales?

2. In the past, motor vehicles were equipped with round-type sealed beam units. Now that rectangular units are available, some owners are interested in converting the original round headlamps to the rectangular type. Are these rectangular sealed beam units and conversion kits sold to the user considered "replacement of like equipment on vehicles to which this standard applies" or are they subject to state regulations?

3. Manufacturers of nonsealed, quartz-halogen headlamp units are energetically promoting the sale of the units in many areas of the country. These lamps differ considerably from the sealed beam units originally required on late model vehicles at the time of first sale. Do these lamps fall within federal jurisdiction or are they subject only to state regulation?

4. A number of items such as flashers, school bus warning lamps, and headlamp units are sold for universal use. They might be part of a new vehicle at time of sale or be sold separately as a replacement for vehicles manufactured both before and after 1972 or as an addition to such vehicles. Does this mean that dual regulations are permissible with NHTSA setting standards for the production items used as original equipment replacement and the states setting standards and requiring approval for the identical item for usage not regulated by the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards?

Lighting equipment subject to FMVSS No. 108 is not required to be marked in any way with the manufacturer's name or model number nor is a DOT certification symbol required. Without such markeings and symbol, neither a potential customer nor an officer inspecting devices offered for sale at retail outlets has any way of knowing whether a particular device is one that has been certified by the manufacturer as meeting the standard or whether it is a bootleg product that is locally produced or imported without complying with the standard. Neither the customer nor the officer has access to the store's records to determine whether or not the manufacturer included the federally-required certification with the shipment.

If the federal standards totally preempt the state requirements on lighting devices, manufacturers will no longer need to place any markings on their products, since the federal standards make no such requirement. It, therefore, becomes impossible for any local agency to attempt to enforce the federal standard and, in view of the limited enforcement personnel in NHTSA, it means that anyone can sell almost anything he wants with little change of being detected by NHTSA and being prosecuted by the Department of Justice.

We would appreciate your answers to the above questions and your advice on the problem of not being able to recognize whether a particular item has been certified or not.

WARREN M. HEATH Commander Engineering Section

cc: AAMVA; VESC