ID: aiam3076

Dear Mr. Cain: This responds to your May 7, 1979, letter asking whether any Federa law (statutes, standards, regulations or guidelines) prohibits a school district in the State of Mississippi from converting the gasoline fuel system in school buses which it owns to a butane or propane powered system. You specified that you would like this question answered both with respect to new school bus chassis equipped with the mandatory fuel integrity system and older school bus chassis not equipped with such a system. As explained below, none of the laws we administer would prohibit converting any school bus, regardless of when it was manufactured.; Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, as amended i 1974 ('the Act'), 15 U.S.C. *et seq.*, the agency has issued Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 301-75, *Fuel System Integrity* (49 CFR 571.301-75). This standard specifies performance requirements for the fuel system of certain new motor vehicles. It applies to vehicles which use fuel with a boiling point above 32 degrees F. and which are (1) passenger cars, or (2) multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, or buses with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of 10,000 pounds or less, or (3) schoolbuses with a (GVWR) greater than 10,000 pounds.; New vehicles (i.e., vehicles that have not yet been sold and delivere to a purchaser for purposes other than resale) manufactured in accordance with FMVSS 301-75 may be converted to propane or butane systems. Upon the conversion of the vehicles to types of fuel systems not covered by the standard, the vehicles would cease to be subject to the standard.; Similarly, used vehicles manufactured in accordance with the standar as well as used vehicles manufactured before the effective date of the standard may be converted. Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, as amended in 1974 (the Act, 15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)) limits tampering with the fuel systems of vehicles manufactured in accordance with FMVSS 301-75. It does not apply at all to vehicles manufactured before that standard's effective date. The section, in essence, prohibits the entities and persons listed below from knowingly removing, disconnecting or reducing performance of equipment of elements of design installed on a vehicle in accordance with applicable motor vehicle safety standards. There is no prohibition against vehicle owners modifying their own vehicles. Specifically, section 108(a)(2)(A) provides:; >>>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 ...<<<; There is no liability under section 108(a)(2)(A) in connection wit FMVSS 301-75 if one of the listed persons or entities converts a used gasoline powered vehicle into a propane powered vehicle. Modifying safety systems of a vehicle being converted from one vehicle type to another does not violate section 108(a)(2)(A) so long as the modified systems comply with the FMVSS's that would have been applicable to the vehicle had it been originally manufactured as the vehicle type to which it is being converted. For example, in converting a gasoline-powered school bus to a propane or butane-powered school bus (a vehicle type not covered by the standard), the converter could not violate section 108(a)(2)(A) with respect to FMVSS 301-75 since that standard does not apply to propane or butane-powered school buses. FMVSS 301-75 applies only to vehicles that use fuel with a boiling point above 32 degrees F, and propane and butane reach their boiling points at a lower temperature.; This means that a school district in your state would not be prohibite from converting its gasoline-powered buses, regardless of their date of manufacture, to propane or butane-powered school buses. It also means that if the school district sought to have the conversion done by a motor vehicle repair business or some other person or entity listed in Section 108(a)(2)(A), that person or entity would not be prohibited from performing the work.; Please note, however, that if a propane or butane fuel system i installed in a new vehicle, the installer would be responsible for any safety defects in the manner in which the system is installed. Sections 151 *et seq.* of the Act provide that if vehicles are found to contain a safety defect, notification of the defect must be given and the defect must be remedied. Defects in the systems themselves would be the responsibility of the manufacturer of the systems, regardless of whether they are installed in new or used vehicles.; I hope that you will find this response helpful and you have not bee inconvenienced by our delay in sending it to you.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam0917

Dear Mr. Fish: Thank you for your letter of October 27, 1972, inquiring abou information on fuel tanks.; The location of fuel tanks in passenger cars is at the option of th vehicle manufacturer, since there are no Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) concerned with tank location. The FMVSS are essentially performance oriented, and the manufacturer has the freedom for innovation and use of his own expertise in selecting the means for compliance to a specified safety performance requirement. FMVSS No. 301, which has been in effect since January 1, 1968, specifies certain fuel containment requirements as the result of a front-end impact at 30 miles per hour into a fixed barrier. Proposed amendments for FMVSS No. 301 have been issued specifying performance requirements for rear-end impacts, but the final rule has not yet been issued. The effective date for this amendment, when issued, has now been indicated as September 1, 1976. Copies of FMVSS No. 301 and the Notice of Proposed Rule Making are enclosed for your interest. A copy of Public Law 89-563 is also enclosed with a booklet briefly describing the current standards.; A number of research studies have been completed on fuel systems, an some statistical data is provided in these reports which may be of some interest. These reports are available form the National Technical Information Service, U.S. Department of Commerce, 5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield, Virginia 22151, at a price of three dollars per volume. The NTIS code number must be identified when ordering. >>>1. An Assessment of Automotive Fuel System Hazards, Dynamic Science Final Report on Contract No. FH-11-7579, December 1971, NTIS Codes PB-208240 and PB-208241 (2 volumes); 2. Impact Intrusion Characteristics of Fuel Systems, Contract No FH-11- 7309 (Cornell Aeronautical Laboratory, Inc.) April 1970, NTIS Code PB-195347; 3. Fuel Tank Protection: Fairchild-Hiller, Contract No. FH-11-6919 June 1969, NTIS Code PB-191148 (1 volume); 4. Investigation of Motor Vehicle Performance Standards for Fuel Tan Protection: Fairchild-Hiller, Contract No. FH-11- 6608, September 1967, NTIS Code PB-177690 (1 volume).<<<; The correspondence containing comments from manufacturers and othe interested parties, together with other documentation concerning the rule making action to amend FMVSS No. 301, Fuel System Integrity, is contained in the public record. Docket No. 70-20 identifies this rule making action, and this file is available for examination in the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Office of the Chief Counsel, 400 Seventh Street, S.W., Room 5221, Washington, D.C. 20590.; We trust this information will provide some of the data you ar seeking.; Sincerely, Robert L. Carter, Associate Administrator, Motor Vehicl Programs;

ID: 571.111 -- Camera Obstruction -- Keller -- 18-0661

Richard A. Keller, III
27795 Oakachoy Loop
Daphne, AL 36526

Dear Mr. Keller:

This responds to your inquiry on behalf of Bruno Independent Living Aids, Inc., concerning the rear backup camera requirement (S6.2) of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS)   No. 111, “Rear visibility.”  We apologize for the delay in responding.  You ask several questions on whether installation of the “Bruno ASL-700 Chariot” and “ALS-250 Outsider” by vehicle owners would be permitted under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act.  As explained below, our answer is yes.    

In your letter, you state that the two products are “vehicle exterior-located platform lifts which can be temporarily attached to the vehicle.”  You state the products are sold to transport unoccupied personal mobility devices used by vehicle occupants with mobility impairments.  You describe the Bruno ASL-700 Chariot as a “trailer” that conforms to all applicable FMVSS trailer requirements.  You describe the Bruno ASL-250 Outsider as a “cargo carrier” that is supported entirely by a vehicle’s trailer hitch, and that does not touch the ground.  You state that both products are intended to be sold in the aftermarket, and that both would be attached to a vehicle’s trailer hitch by the vehicle’s owner.

You ask the following questions concerning the applicability of NHTSA’s requirements to the ASL-700 Chariot and ALS-250 Outsider.  We have restated your questions below, followed by our answers.  Our answers are based on our understanding of your descriptions of the products.

1.     Since the Bruno ASL-700 Chariot personal mobility device carrier is in compliance with all applicable FMVSS trailer regulations, and is a trailer, it is therefore not subject to the requirements of 49 CFR § 571.111, section S6.2 Rear visibility. As such, it is not required to provide a rear view [sic] camera.  Is that interpretation correct?

The answer is yes.  As set forth in S6.2, the rear visibility requirements apply only to a “multipurpose passenger vehicle, low-speed vehicle, truck, bus, and school bus with a GVWR of 4,536 kg or less.”  If, as you say, the Bruno ASL-700 Chariot is a trailer, it is not subject to FMVSS No. 111.

2.     Since the Bruno ASL-700 Chariot and Bruno ASL-250 Outsider are temporary equipment installed or removed, when needed, by the vehicle owner, the Agency Response to this issue in the Final Rule is that the rule (49 CFR § 571.111, section S6.2 Rear visibility) does not apply. Is that interpretation correct?

Our answer is S6.2 does not apply.[1]  As explained in our answer to question 1, if neither the Bruno ASL-700 Chariot nor the Bruno ASL-250 Outsider is a “multipurpose passenger vehicle, low-speed vehicle, truck, bus, [or a] school bus with a GVWR of 4,536 kg or less,” they are not subject to S6.2.  This answer is the same as “the Agency Response…in the Final Rule” to which you refer.  

(Please note that the installation of “temporary” products “by the vehicle owner” is not particularly germane to question 2 (which concerns the applicability of S6.2), but is germane to question 3.  Stated differently, if an FMVSS applies to the Chariot or the ASL-250, the fact that the products are meant to be temporarily installed or removed by the vehicle owner would not change the applicability of that standard to the product.)

3.  Since the Bruno ASL-700 Chariot and Bruno ASL-250 Outsider personal mobility device carriers are temporary equipment attached to the vehicle at the Class l, II, or III receiver hitch by the vehicle owner, and while they may when attached and loaded block the rearview camera, they are not making inoperative the OEM rearview camera under 49 USC § 30122 — Making safety devices and elements inoperative, as discussed in the Public Law 110-189 — 110th Congress and NHTSA-2010-0162-0256 Final Rule, since that prohibition is directed at a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, [rental company] or motor vehicle repair business modifying the vehicle.  Is that interpretation correct?

The Safety Act’s “make inoperative” prohibition (49 U.S.C. 30122) states:

A manufacturer, distributor, dealer, rental company, or motor vehicle repair business may not knowingly make inoperative any part of a device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable [FMVSS] unless the manufacturer, distributor, dealer, rental company, or repair business reasonably believes the vehicle or equipment will not be used (except for testing or a similar purpose during maintenance or repair) when the device or element is inoperative.

Our answer is the vehicle owner installing the Bruno ASL-700 Chariot or Bruno ASL-250 Outsider on his or her own vehicle is not subject to the “make inoperative” prohibition.[2]  We assume that the vehicle owner to whom you refer is not a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, rental company, or motor vehicle repair business.  In addition, because States have the authority to regulate the use of vehicles, you should check with State officials to see if State law would allow motorists to block the view of the camera of the primary vehicle.

In closing, we note that you have petitioned NHTSA to amend 49 CFR Part 595 (“Make inoperative exemptions”), Subpart C (“Vehicle modifications to accommodate people with disabilities”) to include the FMVSS No. 111 backup camera requirements, and that NHTSA informed you that the agency has granted your petition in a letter sent on November 5, 2018.  NHTSA is addressing your petition in the context of a rulemaking proceeding. 

We hope this answers your questions. 

Sincerely,

Jonathan C. Morrison
Chief Counsel

Dated: 5/3/19

Ref: FMVSS No. 111

[1] We would like to clarify that if the Bruno ASL-700 Chariot is a trailer, as you say, it is a “motor vehicle” under our regulations, and not “temporary equipment.” 

[2] Note also footnote 1, supra.  In addition, please be aware that the make inoperative provision also applies to rental companies. 

ID: aiam4598

"Dear Ms. Finkel: This responds to your recent letter to my offic asking whether school buses used by school bus contractors regulated by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) must have push-out windows, even when those buses are used for purposes other than school transportation. The answer to your question depends on the effect of our and FWHA regulations on the vehicles in question. We will only address the effect of NHTSA's requirements in this letter, and will ask FHWA to reply to you directly on FHWA requirements for push-out windows. Under NHTSA's requirements, the answer is no. As you know, the buses you describe would have to comply with our Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS's) for school buses if they are sold as 'school buses,' i.e., for purposes that include carrying students to and from school or related events. (49 CFR /571.3) The determination of the intended use of the vehicle would be made at the time the new vehicle is first sold to the 'school bus contractors.' Any person selling the new buses to the contractors who knows that the vehicles would be used as school buses would be required to sell complying school buses. Since vehicles need only meet the FMVSS's applicable to their vehicle type (e.g., 'school buses'), the school buses need not meet FMVSS's for non-school buses, even though the school buses might also be used for purposes other than school transportation. Conversely, any person selling a bus to a contractor knowing that the bus would not be so used, would not be required to sell a complying school bus. FMVSS No. 217, Bus Window Retention and Release, does not generally require push-out windows for school buses, except a push-out rear window is required if a manufacturer decides to satisfy FMVSS No. 217's school bus emergency exit requirements by selecting the option (S5.2.3.1(b)) that calls for such a window. Further, FMVSS No. 217 does not require push-out windows for non-school buses. The agency proposed to require push-out windows for non-school buses early in the rulemaking history of Standard No. 217 (35 FR 13025, August 15, 1970), but decided against such a requirement because devices other than push-out windows appeared to be effective for emergency egress. 37 FR 9394, May 10, 1972. Thus, new buses sold to bus operators for non-school bus purposes need not have push-out windows under Standard No. 217. For your information, NHTSA has issued an advance notice of proposed rulemaking (53 FR 44623, November 4, 1988) to review Standard No. 217's emergency exit requirements for school buses. Among the issues under consideration by the agency is the desirability of a requirement for push-out windows. NHTSA is presently reviewing the comments received on the notice. A copy of the notice is enclosed. In summary, a new bus sold for purposes that include carrying school children must meet our FMVSS's for school buses. This is so even if the bus is also used for non-school purposes. Our FMVSS's for school and non-school buses do not now generally require push-out windows. We expect the FHWA will provide you with an interpretation of their requirements for push-out windows shortly. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel Enclosure";

ID: aiam5327

"Dear Mr. Matulich: This responds to your letter requesting informatio about Federal requirements applicable to your product. According to promotional literature that accompanied your letter, your 'Clear Vu Mirror' is an attachment to exterior mirrors that clears raindrops, dust, and mist, thus making a mirror 'virtually self-cleaning.' I am pleased to explain the applicability of our regulations to your product. By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized to issue Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSSs) that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA does not, however, approve or certify any vehicles or items of equipment. Instead, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act ('Safety Act') establishes a 'self-certification' process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable FMVSSs. NHTSA currently has no FMVSSs that directly apply to the product you plan to manufacture. NHTSA issued an FMVSS for vehicle rearview mirrors (FMVSS No. 111), but the standard applies to new vehicles, and not to aftermarket mirror products. If your product were manufactured and sold as part of a new vehicle, the vehicle would have to be certified as complying with all applicable standards, including Standard No. 111. The standard sets field of view requirements for new motor vehicles, and your product would have to be mounted on a new vehicle such that it does not block the field of view required by FMVSS No. 111. However, since Standard No. 111 applies only to new vehicles, it does not apply to your product. I note, however, that there are other Federal requirements that indirectly affect you and your product. Under the Safety Act, your product is considered to be an item of motor vehicle equipment. As a manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment, you are subject to the requirements in 151-159 of the Safety Act concerning the recall and remedy of products with safety related defects. I have enclosed an information sheet that briefly describes those responsibilities. In the event that you or NHTSA determines that your product contains a safety-related defect, you would be responsible for notifying purchasers of the defective equipment and remedying the problem free of charge. In addition, manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and motor vehicle repair businesses are subject to 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act, which states: 'No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative ... 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 ....' It is conceivable that your product, when placed on a vehicle's exterior mirror, could 'render inoperative' the vehicle's ability to comply with FMVSS No. 111. Persons in the aforementioned categories cannot install your product if it blocks the field-of-view required by FMVSS No. 111, or otherwise caused the vehicle to no longer comply with Standard No. 111. The 'render inoperative' prohibition of 108(a)(2)(A) does not apply to the actions of vehicle owners in adding to or otherwise modifying their vehicles or items of motor vehicle equipment. Thus, if your product were placed on an exterior mirror by the vehicle owner, the render inoperative provision would not apply. Nevertheless, NHTSA urges vehicle owners not to degrade the safety of any system or device on their vehicles, including the safety of their rearview mirrors. I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Marvin Shaw of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel Enclosure";

ID: aiam4281

Dear Mr. Mathieson: This is in reply to your letters to Francis Armstrong, Robert Williams and Taylor Vinson, all of this agency. I regret the delay in this reply. In summary, Thomas wishes to mount a body of its construction to a 'General Motors chassis model; G31303, certified by G.M. to have a 10,000 1lbs. maximum GVWR .' Tw prototypes have been operating. In testing for compliance with the frontal impact requirements of Standard No. 301, the rate of fuel leakage from a pinched or broken fuel line greatly exceeded the amount permitted by the standard. The test conducted by Thomas used sandbags to simulate occupant loading, and the impact velocity was reported to be 30.4 m.p.h. You have asked the following four questions:; '1. Does the result of the frontal barrier crash test with th discovered fuel leak constitute a safety defect?'; '2. Does the result of the frontal barrier crash test with th discovered fuel leak constitute an apparent or alleged noncompliance with FMVSS 301 requirement?'; The result of the frontal barrier crash test do not constitute a alleged or apparent noncompliance with Standard No. 301 as the impact velocity exceeded the 30 m.p.h. maximum test requirement. In addition, the vehicle's test weight in your test exceeded the test weight specified in S7.1.6(b) of the standard. Further, those results do not constitute a safety related defect regardless of the use of the vehicle. For NHTSA to find a safety related defect at 30.4 m.p.h. would be the equivalent of imposing a new standard without following Administrative Procedure Act requirements for rulemaking.; However, in our view, Thomas could not in good faith certify complianc of the completed bus with the 30 m.p.h. requirements if there was a failure when a correctly loaded bus was tested at 30.4 m.p.h and no counterbalancing data showing passes in other tests. Had NHTSA conducted a test at 30.4 m.p.h. and found a failure, it would have proceeded to conduct another test in accordance with the specifications of Standard No. 301 and test at a speed slightly less than 30 m.p.h. and with a Part 572 dummy in the driver's seat.; >>>3. 'What is NHTSA's interpretation of the correct vehicle tes weight for FMVSS 301 certification testing of school buses and non school buses for vehicles in the under and up to 10,000 lbs.' class and equipped with seat belts required to comply with FMVSS 208?'<<<; The test weight is set forth in paragraph S7.1.6(b) of Standard No 301. That section provides that a 'bus with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less is loaded to its unloaded vehicle weight, plus the necessary test dummies as specified in S6., plus 300 pounds or its rated cargo load and luggage capacity weight, whichever is less,....'; >>>4. 'If Thomas Built Buses performs a certification test to th requirements of FMVSS 301 with a similar vehicle (equipped with required seat belts which are required to comply with FMVSS 208) at a test weight as noted by GM (approximately 7,500 pounds) and the results show full compliance, what is the legal status or implication of completing and offering for sale this type of vehicle at a GVWR of up to 10,000 lbs. and indicating that it complies with FMVSS 301 on the basis of a successful test at the lower GVWR.'<<<; This question cannot be answered because the facts stated in you question appear to be incorrect. Our review of the documentation you enclosed shows that GM has rated the incomplete vehicle at 10,000 pounds GVWR, rather than at approximately 7,500 pounds GVWR, as stated in your letter. GM has, however, specified the maximum unloaded vehicle weight as 6866 pounds, and stated that the completed vehicle will comply if its unloaded vehicle weight does not exceed this amount. It has also stated that the maximum unloaded vehicle weight plus 634 pounds (which, when added to 6866 pounds equals 7500 pounds) cannot exceed the vehicle's GVWR, which is 10,000 pounds in this case. GM therefore has made no weights outside those values, and the burden of certification falls upon the final state manufacturer who completers the vehicle in a manner outside the limits cited by GM.; I hope that this answers your questions. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam5159

Dear Mr. Kester: We have received your letter of March 18, 1993, wit respect to electric vehicle conversions and the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS). As we understand it, Green Wheels intends to convert 1975-84 Volkswagen Rabbits to electric power. Because the FMVSS directly apply only to the manufacture of new vehicles you understand that you are 'not bound to comply with the FMVSS and have no reason to petition from exemption from any standards in the FMVSS.' You have concluded that section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (l5 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)) applies in this instance, but are worried by the fact that the conversion operations will render inoperative ''devices or elements of design' on a permanent basis,' as ' t he vehicle will obviously be used during the time such devices or elements of design no longer exist.' You believe that any devices or elements of design rendered inoperative by conversion operations should be disregarded if it will not compromise safety when the vehicle is in operation. For example, because a flammable fuel system no longer exists after conversion to electric power, you should not be regarded as having rendered the system inoperable. On this basis, you have asked for a confirmation of the 'viability' of your interpretation, which you may provide to prospective customers. You have also asked for recommendations for any further action with reference to compliance with section 108(a)(2)(A), information on petitioning for exemption under section 108(a)(2)(B), and information concerning the establishment of standards for used motor vehicles under section 108(b)(1). We are pleased to provide you with our views on this matter. We do not interpret section 108(a)(2)(A) as prohibiting the removal of fuel system components installed in accordance with Standard No. 301 during the conversion to electric propulsion, as long as the converter ensures that its modifications do not 'knowingly render inoperative, in whole or in part, any device or element of design' required for compliance with any other Federal motor vehicle safety standard. By way of background, it is important to understand the scheme established by the Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.) with respect to new and used vehicles. With respect to the issues you have raised, certain statutory provisions are relevant. These are discussed below and quoted in pertinent part: Section 108(a)(1)(A) (l5 U.S.C. 1397(a)(1)(A)): 'No person shall manufacture for sale, sell, offer for sale, or introduce in interstate commerce, or import into the United States, any motor vehicle . . . on or after the date any applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard takes effect . . . unless it is in conformity with such standard and is covered by a certification . . . .' Section 108(b)(1): 'Paragraph (1)(A) of subsection (a) shall not apply to the sale, offer for sale, or the introduction or delivery for introduction in interstate commerce of any motor vehicle . . . after the first purchase of it in good faith for purposes other than resale.' Under section 108(b)(1), a 'new' vehicle becomes a 'used' one after its first purchase for purposes other than resale, and certain actions may occur without violation of the Vehicle Safety Act. Please compare section 108(b)(1) with section 108(a)(1)(A). When a vehicle is used, Section 108(b)(1) clearly allows, without penalty, its sale, offer for sale, introduction and delivery for introduction into interstate commerce even if it does not conform to the FMVSS. However, section 108(b)(1) does not include 'manufacture for sale' and 'import' in its used vehicle exclusions. With respect to the latter, the agency does require used imported vehicles to be brought into conformance with the FMVSS. We assume that Congress deemed it impossible to 'manufacture for sale' a vehicle 'after its first purchase for purposes other than resale', and that is the reason why 'manufacture for sale' is not included in the used vehicle exclusions of section 108(b)(1). Section 108(b)(1) (con'd): 'It is the policy of Congress to encourage and strengthen the enforcement of State inspection of used motor vehicles. Therefore to that end the Secretary shall conduct a thorough study and investigation to determine the adequacy of motor vehicle safety standards and motor vehicle inspection requirements and procedures applicable to used motor vehicles . . . . * * * . . . the Secretary . . . shall establish uniform Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to used motor vehicles.' You have asked whether the Secretary has exercised his authority to establish standards for used motor vehicles. The answer is yes, but the standards do not apply to the remanufacture, repair, or conversion of used vehicles, they only establish criteria to be followed by States in their motor vehicle inspection programs. See 49 CFR Part 570 Vehicle in Use Inspection Standards. No standards have been established governing repair or conversion of used vehicles, or 'vehicles in use', the term the agency prefers. Although Congress has not granted the agency authority to establish manufacturing standards for a motor vehicle after its first purchase for purposes other than resale, it did take a limited step intended to ensure that a vehicle remained in compliance with its original FMVSS throughout its life. This step is reflected in section 108(a)(2)(A): Section 108(a)(2)(A): 'No manufacturer, distributor, dealer or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or in part, any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle . . . in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard, unless such manufacturer . . . or motor vehicle repair business reasonably believes that such vehicle . . . will not be used (other than for testing or similar purposes in the course of maintenance or repair) during the time such device or element of design is rendered inoperative.' The principal purpose of this prohibition is to inhibit the removal of safety equipment such as seat belts and head rests that might be initially unpopular with vehicle operators. However, this agency has interpreted the prohibition to apply to any modification of a used motor vehicle that is performed by manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and motor vehicle repair businesses that has the possible effect of creating a noncompliance. However, we have not interpreted Section 108(a)(2)(A) as forbidding modifications that result in the inapplicability of one or more of the FMVSS with which a vehicle originally complied. For instance, under section 108(a)(2)(A) we have allowed the conversions of closed sedans to convertibles, as long as FMVSS requirements applicable to convertibles are met at the end of the conversion process. Similarly, to use your hypothetical, we would not interpret section 108(a)(2)(A) as prohibiting the removal of fuel system equipment installed in accordance with Standard No. 301 in the process of conversion to electric propulsion because this standard would not apply to the propulsion source of a new electric vehicle. However, the converter does remain under the obligation to ensure that its modifications do not create a noncompliance. For example, the additional weight of batteries could render inoperative the ability of the converted vehicle to meet the standards with crash test demonstration procedures. Section 108(a)(2)(B): 'The Secretary may by regulation exempt any person from this paragraph if he determines that such exemption is consistent with motor vehicle safety and the purposes of this Act. The Secretary may prescribe regulations defining the term 'render inoperative.'' Although under section 108(a)(2)(B) the agency may 'by regulation' provide exemptions from section 108(a)(2)(A), we have never developed a procedure by which exemptions may be granted, nor have we adopted a regulation defining 'render inoperative.' No such regulations are under consideration. I hope that this letter is responsive to your request. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel;

ID: aiam5553

"Dear Mr. Sacks: This responds to your letter to Mr. Philip Recht, ou former Chief Counsel, in which you stated that you are considering importing tires from the Hangzhou General Rubber Factory, which has been assigned NHTSA manufacturer identification number 7D. You stated that the tires do not display the 'molded D.O.T. code numbers,' and that Federal motor vehicle safety standard (FMVSS) No. 119, New pneumatic tires for motor vehicles other than passenger cars (49 CFR 571.119), 'clearly does not require DOT code numbers for non-passenger tires.' Your reading of FMVSS No. 119 is not correct. I assume from your letter that you are considering importing only non-passenger car tires. This letter, then, will address only the labeling requirements for non-passenger car tires under FMVSS No. 119 and 49 CFR 574. I further assume that by 'DOT code numbers' you mean the tire identification number (TIN) required by 49 CFR 574.5. 49 U.S. Code 30112 provides that no person may sell in or import into the United States any new motor vehicle or new item of motor vehicle equipment that does not comply with all applicable FMVSSs. With respect to non-passenger car tires, which are items of motor vehicle equipment, section S6.5 of FMVSS No. 119 requires specific items of information to be marked on the tire sidewalls. Those markings must be no less than 0.078 inch high and must be 'raised above or sunk below the tire surface' a specified distance. Among other things, the markings must include the TIN (S6.5(b)). Paragraph S6.5(b) of FMVSS No. 119 requires the TIN to comply with part 574. Part 574.5 requires that the TIN be permanently molded into or onto tire sidewalls as specified in Figure 1 of Part 574, and specifies what information the TIN must contain. The TIN can be branded into or onto the sidewalls of retreaded tires after the fact, but not new tires. On new tires, the TIN must be molded into or onto the tire sidewalls by the original manufacturer. I hope this information is helpful to you. Should you have any further questions or need additional information, please feel free to contact Walter Myers of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel";

ID: aiam5552

"Dear Mr. Sacks: This responds to your letter to Mr. Philip Recht, ou former Chief Counsel, in which you stated that you are considering importing tires from the Hangzhou General Rubber Factory, which has been assigned NHTSA manufacturer identification number 7D. You stated that the tires do not display the 'molded D.O.T. code numbers,' and that Federal motor vehicle safety standard (FMVSS) No. 119, New pneumatic tires for motor vehicles other than passenger cars (49 CFR 571.119), 'clearly does not require DOT code numbers for non-passenger tires.' Your reading of FMVSS No. 119 is not correct. I assume from your letter that you are considering importing only non-passenger car tires. This letter, then, will address only the labeling requirements for non-passenger car tires under FMVSS No. 119 and 49 CFR 574. I further assume that by 'DOT code numbers' you mean the tire identification number (TIN) required by 49 CFR 574.5. 49 U.S. Code 30112 provides that no person may sell in or import into the United States any new motor vehicle or new item of motor vehicle equipment that does not comply with all applicable FMVSSs. With respect to non-passenger car tires, which are items of motor vehicle equipment, section S6.5 of FMVSS No. 119 requires specific items of information to be marked on the tire sidewalls. Those markings must be no less than 0.078 inch high and must be 'raised above or sunk below the tire surface' a specified distance. Among other things, the markings must include the TIN (S6.5(b)). Paragraph S6.5(b) of FMVSS No. 119 requires the TIN to comply with part 574. Part 574.5 requires that the TIN be permanently molded into or onto tire sidewalls as specified in Figure 1 of Part 574, and specifies what information the TIN must contain. The TIN can be branded into or onto the sidewalls of retreaded tires after the fact, but not new tires. On new tires, the TIN must be molded into or onto the tire sidewalls by the original manufacturer. I hope this information is helpful to you. Should you have any further questions or need additional information, please feel free to contact Walter Myers of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel";

ID: 19-000881- 30122 -- Hestrin interp request_v3

Mark Hestrin

P.O. Box 261070

Encino, CA 91426

Dear Mr. Hestrin,

This responds to your March 5, 2019 letter to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) regarding an aerodynamic device to improve the aerodynamic efficiency of heavy vehicles.  We have interpreted your letter as asking whether such a product would be in compliance with NHTSA regulations.

Applicable Requirements

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Safety Act; 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301) authorizes NHTSA to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. 

NHTSA does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment and does not make determinations as to whether a product conforms to the FMVSSs outside of agency compliance tests.  Instead, the Safety Act requires manufacturers to self-certify that their products conform to all applicable FMVSSs that are in effect on the date of manufacture.  See

49 U.S.C. 30112(a)(1).  Manufacturers of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment are also responsible for ensuring that their products are free of safety-related defects.  Regardless of whether a product is subject to specific FMVSSs, if the entity that created the product or this agency finds the product to contain a safety-related defect after the product is marketed, the creating entity is responsible for conducting a notice and recall campaign as required under 49 U.S.C. §§ 30118-30120.

Additionally, entities producing and installing motor vehicle equipment are subject to the “make inoperative” provision set forth at 49 U.S.C. § 30122.  That section provides, in relevant part: “A manufacturer, distributor, dealer, rental company, or motor vehicle repair business may not knowingly make inoperative any part of a device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable motor vehicle safety standard.”  Entities subject to the “make inoperative” provision, including those that produce so-called “aftermarket” equipment, would be prohibited from installing a product on a vehicle if doing so would take the vehicle out of compliance with any FMVSS.

Discussion

Your letter broadly inquires whether an aerodynamic device to improve the aerodynamic efficiency of heavy vehicles would be in compliance with NHTSA regulations.  As stated above, NHTSA does not make determinations as to whether a product conforms to the FMVSSs outside of agency compliance tests.  We can, however, provide some general information about our requirements. 

NHTSA has interpreted the information provided in your letter to mean that such a device would be motor vehicle equipment as defined in 49 U.S.C. 30102(a)(8)(B), “any similar part or component manufactured or sold for replacement or improvement of a system, part, or component, or as an accessory or addition to a motor vehicle.”  There is no single FMVSS that applies directly to such a device, but if it is installed as original equipment on a new vehicle, the vehicle manufacturer would be required to certify that, with the device installed, the vehicle satisfies the requirements of all applicable FMVSSs.  To determine how installation of such a product could affect compliance with applicable FMVSSs, you should carefully review each FMVSS, available online at: https://www.nhtsa.gov/laws-regulations/fmvss.

If such a product would be installed as aftermarket equipment, not as original equipment, and if such a product would not replace original equipment, the primary potential restriction on such a product is the Safety Act’s “make inoperative” provision.  If an entity subject to the “make inoperative” provision wishes to install aftermarket equipment, that entity is responsible for determining whether installation of that aftermarket equipment makes inoperative any part of a device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable motor vehicle safety standard. 

Examples of a way that aftermarket equipment might “make inoperative” any part of a device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment include the following: for example, if an entity were to install a trailer hitch in a new or used vehicle, it would need to ensure that its installation does not make inoperative the vehicle’s compliance with the lamps, reflective devices, and associated equipment requirements of FMVSS No. 108.[1]  Or, an entity manufacturing a holographic car navigation system could not knowingly place a film on windshields that reduces the light transmittance or abrasion resistance of the glazing material or reduces the ability of the glazing to meet any other applicable requirement of FMVSS   No. 205.[2]

Without further information about the device mentioned in your inquiry, NHTSA cannot provide further information about the FMVSSs of which you should be particularly aware.  But note again, as mentioned above, manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment are responsible for ensuring that their products are free of safety-related defects.  If a safety-related defect is found after the product is marketed, the notice and recall provisions at 49 U.S.C. §§ 30118-30120 apply.

Other Considerations

You should be aware that even if such a product does not take the vehicle out of compliance with any applicable FMVSSs, it is possible that State and local laws or restrictions may apply.  You may wish to consult the State and local transportation authorities in the areas the product is, or is intended, to be marketed to make sure it is permissible under these laws.  Additionally, if such a product is applied to commercial vehicles, e.g., heavy trucks and buses, the U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) requirements may apply.  For further information about FMCSA, please contact FMCSA at 1-800-832-5660 or visit https://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/.        

I hope this information is helpful.  If you have further questions, please contact Ms. Hannah Fish of my staff at (202) 366-1099.

Sincerely,

Jonathan C. Morrison

Chief Counsel

Dated: 8/27/19

Ref: VSA Section 30122

[1] See Letter to Mr. Robert Listou (May 4, 2016), available at https://isearch.nhtsa.gov/files/ES16-001603%20Listou%20Trailer%20Response.htm.

[2] See Letter to Mr. Philippe D. Monnier (January 19, 2017), available at https://isearch.nhtsa.gov/files/15-004254%20WayRay%20Glazing_sb_3.htm.