ID: aiam3965

Dear Mr. Cooney: This responds to your letter to Mr. Steve Kratzke of my staff, askin several questions about the removal of the DOT numbers from the sidewall of tires. In a February 5, 1985 telephone conversation with Mr. Kratzke, you stated that the answers to all of your questions except number 7 should address the situation only for tire dealers and distributors. With that limitation, I have set forth below the answers to each of your questions in the order presented in your letter.; 1. *Under what circumstances, if any, may a DOT number be removed fro a passenger car tire?*; There are no circumstances in which a tire dealer or distributor ca legally remove a DOT number from a passenger car tire. It is unclear when you refer to a 'DOT number' whether you are referring to just the tire identification number required to be on every new and retreaded tire by 49 CFR Part 574, or that identification number together with the DOT symbol. The DOT symbol is required to appear on all new tires for highway use and retreaded passenger car tires as a certification by the manufacturer or retreader that the tire fully complies with the applicable Federal safety standard.; In any case, Standard No. 109, *New pneumatic tires - passenger cars (49 CFR S571.109) applies to all new pneumatic tires for use on passenger cars manufactured after 1948. Section S4.3.1 requires that the symbol DOT be on the tire, and section S4.3.1 requires that the tire identification number be on the tire. Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397 (a)(2)(A)) specifies '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 an...item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard...' By removing the DOT identification number, a dealer or distributor would be knowingly rendering inoperative an element of design on the tire which is included on the tire in compliance with Standard No. 109. Section 109 of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1398) specifies a penalty of up to $1000 for each violation of Section 108. This agency would consider each tire from which the DOT number had been removed to be a separate violation.; 2. *If the answer to question 1 is none, is there any situation in which a passenger car tire can b sold for farm or off- road use provided that the DOT number has been removed?*; There is no situation in which a passenger car tire with the DOT numbe removed can be sold for any purpose. Section S6 of Standard No. 109 reads as follows:; S6 *Nonconforming tires*. No tire that is designed for use on passenge cars and manufactured on or after October 1, 1972, but does not conform to all the requirements of this standard, shall be sold, offered for sale, introduced or delivered for introduction into interstate commerce, or imported into the United States, for any purpose.; A passenger car tire without the DOT number does not conform to al requirements of the standard, so its sale for any purpose is expressly prohibited. A violation of this section would subject the seller to a potential penalty of up to $1000 for each nonconforming tire sold.; 3. *Under what circumstances can tires for use on motor vehicles othe than passenger cars have the DOT number removed and the tires sold for off-road or farm use only?*; This is really a two part question. Again, there are *no* circumstance in which a tire dealer or distributor can legally remove the DOT number from these tires. Standard No. 119, *New pneumatic tires for motor vehicles other than passenger cars* (49 CFR 571.119) applies to these tires. Section S6.5(a) requires the DOT symbol to be on those tires, while section S6.5(b) requires the tire identification number to be on the tires. Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act prohibits tire dealers and distributors for removing those symbols from the tire, and the penalty for removing those symbols is up to $1000 for every tire from which the symbols are removed.; Section 108(a)(2)(A) also prohibits manufacturers from removing DO numbers from tires and then selling the tires to distributors as tires for off-road use. It is theoretically possible that a tire dealer or distributor could acquire a small quantity of tires from which the DOT number had been removed by a party other than a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business. Assuming that a tire dealer or distributor did acquire some of these tires from which the DOT number had been removed, the tires could be sold for off-road use only. This is because Standard No. 119 has no comparable provision to section S6 of Standard No. 109. However, these tires may never legally be sold for used on the public roads (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(1)(A)). A tire dealer or distributor who acquires tires from which the DOT number has been removed would be well advised to have some written statement to that effect on the sales slip. The purpose of such statement would be to prove that it was not the tire dealer or distributor who removed those numbers. When selling these tires for off-road use, the dealer or distributor should have some means of proving that he or she sold these tires with the caveat that they could only be used off-road. Either of your suggestions in question 4 (noting off-road use only on the sales slip or having the customer sign a document that the tires will only be used off-road) would be helpful for the dealer or distributor.; 4. *If a tire can be sold as described in Question 3, what must a tir distributer or dealer do to sell a tire?*; As noted above, either of your suggestions would be helpful for th dealer or distributor selling tires exclusively for off-road use. What the dealer must be able to do when selling these tires is show that he or she was not selling tires which do not comply with Standard No. 119 for use on the public roads.; 5. *If a tire in Question 4 is sold with no-highway use intended an the customer uses it on the highway, will the tire dealer or distributor be held in violation of the provision provided he met the requirements for noting that the tire was sold for non-highway use only?*; If a tire dealer or distributor can show that he or she did not remov the DOT numbers from the tires and that he or she sold the tires with the express understanding that the tires could not be used on the public roads, the dealer or distributor would not have violated any Federal requirements.; 6. *Is it possible that if the tire in Question 5 fails on the highwa and causes property or personal injury as a result that the tire dealer or distributor could be held liable for the damages or injuries? Even if he did not mount the tire on a rim for the customer?* This is a question of state law, which I cannot answer. However, I can say that it would be helpful for the dealer or distributor to have some proof that the customer was clearly told that these tires did not comply with the applicable Federal safety standard and could not be used on the public roads.; 7. *Who, if anyone, is allowed to remove DOT numbers?* a) A tire manufacturer may remove DOT numbers from its tires, as a wa of showing those tires do not satisfy the applicable standard Once a manufacturer does this, this tires may not legally be sold.; b) A retreader may remove the DOT numbers on the casing he or she i retreading. The retreader is generally required to mark its own identification number on each tire it retreads.; c) Once a tire has been sold for purposes other than resale, any perso or entity, *other than a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business,* may remove any or all markings from the tire.; 8. *If a retreader is allowed to remove DOT numbers, is he required t replace the removed number with his assigned DOT shop code number?*; Generally speaking, the retreader is required to permanently mark tire identification number on the sidewall of each tire it retreads. 49 CFR 574.5 specifies: 'Each tire retreader...shall conspicuously label one sidewall of each tire he retreads by permanently molding or branding into or onto the sidewall...a tire identification number...' There are two minor exceptions to this provision. A tire retreader who retreads tires for his own use is not required to mark a tire identification number on those tires. Also tires which are retreaded exclusively for mileage contract purchasers are not required to bear the retreader's tire identification number if the tire contains the phrase 'for mileage contract use only' molded into or onto the tire sidewall. In all other instances, a retreader must mark its tire identification number on each tire it retreads.; 9. *Tire definition: since many tire sizes and styles are use interchangeably from passenger cars to light trucks and vans, especially mini-vans, how will the DOT decide whether Standard No. 109 or 119 applies to a case of DOT number removal and subsequent sale for off-road use?*; In the process of certifying their tires, manufacturers indicat whether that tire size is designated primarily for use on passenger cars or primarily for use on light trucks and multipurpose passenger vehicles (vans). This is occasionally done by an individual manufacturer for a particular tire size, but is most often done through the publications of standardization organizations. (A standardization organization is a voluntary association composed of representatives of each of the member tire companies. The purpose of these standardization organization is to establish and promulgate sound engineering standards for tires, rims, and their allied parts.) The agency uses these listings to determine whether a tire is certified for compliance with Standard No. 109 or No. 119. If you have any questions about particular tire sizes, you may wish to contact the American standardization organization, The Tire an Rim Association, at 3200 West Market Street, Akron, Ohio 44313.; 10. *Since DOT requires certain information to appear on the sidewal of the tire, whether passenger car or other type, what, if anything can be removed from the sidewall?*; A tire dealer or distributor can never legally remove any of th required information from the sidewall of tires. In the case of passenger car tires, the following information is required to appear on the sidewall: The size designation, maximum permissible inflation pressure, maximum load rating, the generic name of each cord material used in the plies of the tire, the actual number of plies in the sidewall and in the tread, the words 'tubeless' or 'tube type', the word 'radial' if the tire is a radial tire, the DOT symbol, the name of the manufacturer or the brand name, and the identification number. In the case of tires for use on motor vehicles other than passenger cars, the following information is required to appear on the sidewall: the DOT symbol, the tire identification number, the tire size designation, the maximum load rating and corresponding inflation pressure, the speed restriction of the tire if 55 mph or less, the actual number of plies and the composition of the ply cord material in the sidewall and in the tread, the word 'tubeless' or tube type', the word 'regroovable' if the tire is designed for regrooving, the word 'radial if the tire is a radial tire, and the letter designating the load range of the tire. Removal of any of these required items of information by a tire dealer or distributor would be a violation of section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act, as explained above in my answer to Question 1.; 11. a.*If a dealer is removing DOT numbers from tires then sellin those tires to a distributor who sells them to another dealer for resale to the customer, who is in violation of the Federal requirements?*; The answer to this question depends on whether the tires are for use o passenger cars or other motor vehicles. If the tires are passenger car tires, both dealers and the distributor have violated Federal requirements. The dealer removing the DOT numbers has violated Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act, as explained in the answer to Question 1 above. The distributor and dealer selling tires which do not comply with the requirements of Standard No. 109 have violated section 108(a)(1)(A) of the Safety Act, as explained in the answer to Question 11.b below.; If the tires are for other motor vehicles, the dealer removing the DO numbers has violated section 108(a)(2)(A) of the safety Act. If the tire distributor and the dealer selling the tires to a customer can show that neither one removed the DOT numbers and that the tires were sold with the express understanding that they could not be used on the public roads, neither has violated any Federal requirement.; b. *If a customer buys tires with no DOT number and takes them t another dealer for mounting on his car, is that dealer in violation of Federal requirement because he mounted the tires, even though he did not sell them?*; Since this question deals with passenger car tires, a dealer mountin tires without DOT number would be in violation of Federal law. Section 1089a)(1)(A) of the Safety Act specifies, ' No person shall manufacture for sale, offer for sale, or introduce or deliver for introduction in interstate commerce, or import into the Unite States, any motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment manufactured on or after the date any applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard takes effect under this title unless it is in conformity with such standard...' A tire is an item of motor vehicle equipment, and a passenger car tire without DOT numbers is not in compliance with Standard No. 109. We have stated in previous interpretations that the use of noncomplying tires on pubic roads is an introduction of those tires in interstate commerce, and therefore a violation of this provision of the law. A dealer mounting noncomplying tires on a passenger car would also be considered to be introducing those tires into interstate commerce, and, therefore, also in violation of this provision.; 12. *Please sum up the intent of Standards No. 109 and 119 and indicat if the tire dealer or distributor has an obligation to report to DOT any tire dealer who is removing DOT number and/or other required sidewall information and then selling these tires. Also indicate how this would be done and what steps would follow?*; Standards No. 109 and 119 are intended to provide the tires purchase with necessary information for the safe operation of those tires on the purchaser's vehicle. Tire dealers and distributors cannot remove this information from the sidewall of the tires.; A tire dealer or distributor does not have a legal obligation to repor violations of these requirements, although we would appreciate if they did so. NHTSA prefers reports of violation to be in writing and addressed to: NHTSA, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, 400 Seventh Street, S.W., Washington, DC 20590. If for some reason the report cannot be made in writing, a person who suspects a violation of the requirements should telephone Mr. James Gilkey at (202) 426- 2834. When the agency learns of a violation, normal enforcement procedures are begun. First, the agency investigates to see if the allegations of violations are true. If the investigation concludes that there are violations, proceedings to collect the civil penalties are instituted against the violator. As noted above, a tire dealer or distributor removing DOT number from tires would face penalties of up to a maximum of $800,000 if the dealer or distributor had removed the DOT number for 800 or more tires.; If you have any further questions on this subject please contact Mr Kratzke a the above address or by telephone at (202) 426-2992.; Sincerely, Jeffrey R. Miller, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam4723

"Re: Europa International, Inc. Dear Mr. Martinez: This is in reply t your letter of March 9, l990, to Taylor Vinson of this Office, with respect to 'the $2,000 liability policy' that you discussed with him. You have asked four questions with respect to this subject on behalf of a client who intends to apply for recognition as a registered importer by this agency, and as an independent commercial importer (ICI) under EPA regulations. Initially, let me provide you with some background information. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, specifically Title l5, United States Code, Section 1397(c)(3)(D)(ii), the Department of Transportation is required to prescribe by regulation 'provisions for ensuring that the registered importer (or any successor in interest) will be able technically and financially to carry out the importer's responsibilities under part B of this title (relating to discovery, notification, and remedy of defects).' These responsibilities primarily are to notify vehicle owners in the event that either a safety related defect or a noncompliance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard is determined to exist in the owner's vehicle, and to remedy the situation. In developing a regulation to implement the statutory requirement, the agency examined the regulations of the EPA pertaining to ICIs. In a final rule published on September 25, l987 (52 FR 36136), EPA required ICIs to provide to vehicle or engine owners warranties, and to ensure that the warranties 'are insured by a prepaid mandatory service insurance policy underwritten by an independent insurance company', and 'are transferable to each successive owner . . . .' (40 CFR 85.1510(b)(2)). In commenting on EPA's proposed regulation, the State of California had noted that CARB's own new regulation addressing non-conforming vehicles required modifiers to post a prepaid surety bond in the amount of $1,000 per vehicle to cover its obligation to perform recalls, or alternatively, to purchase insurance which will cover the modifier's recall obligation. The Department of Transportation, wishing to conform as closely as possible to procedures already in practice for grey market importers who were ICIs, proposed and adopted 49 CFR 592.6(h), requiring registered importers to 'maintain in effect a prepaid mandatory service insurance policy underwritten by an independent insurance complany as a guarantor of its performance under paragraph (f) of this section.' (which relates to notification and remedy). With this background in mind, I shall reply to your four questions: '1. Is it required that the term of the policy be for eight years from the date of purchase/sale?' In essence, yes. Under the Vehicle Safety Act, manufacturers are required to provide remedy without charge for a period of 8 years following the first purchase of a vehicle (however, there is no limit on the time for notification). The general requirement for registered importers, established by Section 592.6(f)(2)(i), is that the obligation to provide remedy without charge shall not apply if the noncompliance or safety related defect exists in a motor vehicle whose first sale after importation occurred more than 8 calendar years before notification respecting the failure to comply is furnished by the registered importer to vehicle owners. However, during the 8-year period following sale after importation, the registered importer is not obligated to provide repair without charge if two factors are present. The first is that the condition is a safety related defect that is attributable solely to the original manufacturer of the vehicle, and not to the registered importer. The second is that the date of the original first purchase of the vehicle, if known, or, if not known, the date of manufacture, as determined by the Department of Transportation, is more than 8 years from the date on which notification is furnished by the registered importer to vehicle owners. '2. The limit is $2,000. Would that apply annually or would it be for the entire eight-year period? The reason for this question is that the companies are wondering whether or not this is a cumulative limit, e.g., $2,000 x eight years = $16,000.' The purpose of the policy is to ensure that any noncompliance or safety related defect that is determined to exist in a vehicle may be remedied without charge to the vehicle owner. If the registered importer is financially unable to effect remedy, then the policy is intended to cover the cost of remedy. The most usual form of remedy is repair. Pursuant to comments received during the course of rulemaking that $2,000 appeared to be the uppermost sum necessary to repair a single noncompliance or safety related defect, the agency adopted section 592.5(a)(8) stating that the policy is 'in an amount that equals $2,000 for each motor vehicle . . . .' The answer to your question can be expressed in the following example. If a registered importer becomes insolvent in the second year following sale of the vehicle, for the next 6 years the policy should be available to any owner of the vehicle to cover the costs of repairing any safety related defect or noncompliance determined to exist in the vehicle, with a limit of $2,000 on the cost of correcting any such defect or noncompliance covered by a single campaign. Records of past remedial campaigns are available if insurance companies wish to study the types of noncompliances and safety related defects that have occurred over the years, as well as the model and model years involved. In our judgment, the cost of each repair has been far less than $2,000. If repair is impossible, alternative forms of remedy established by statute are replacement with a vehicle of equivalent value, or repurchase of a vehicle. Obviously this form of remedy cannot occur if the registered importer has gone out of business. '3. You mentioned that the policy was to cover non-compliance or safety defect situations. What are areas to be covered: emissions controls, latent defects, brake problems, warranty situations such as drive train, etc.?' Each system, part, or component of a motor vehicle is covered by the remedial authority. If a component is part of a system necessary for compliance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard, and the vehicle does not comply with that standard because of the design or manufacture of that component, replacement of the component with a satisfactory one would be the object of a remedial campaign. For example, if a vehicle could not meet the stopping distance requirement of Standard No. l05 Hydraulic Brake Systems, and that failure was due to the inadequacy of the brake lining, the object of the campaign would be to recall all affected vehicles and replace the brake lining with one by which the vehicle would comply. The statute defines a defect as one that is inclusive of any defect in performance, construction, components, or materials in motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. But only defects that are determined to be safety related require correction. The question of whether a defect is safety related depends upon the facts of the individual case. Generally, defects in emission controls are not safety related, nor are 'warranty situations such as drive trains'. Determinations of the existence of noncompliances or safety related defects are made by the registered importer, the Department of Transportation, or the original manufacturer of the vehicle. '4. Europa is looking into whether or not MBNA would provide a warranty policy for the G-wagon multipurpose passenger vehicle not sold in the United States as they currently do for their private passenger vehicles. The present warranty covers for a 12/12 plan. If they were to extend this, is it possible that that could be acceptable as an alternative to the $2,000 limit?' We doubt that MBNA would be willing to extend any type of warranty to a vehicle that is not originally manufactured by its parent company to comply with Federal safety standards, that it does not import, and that is not sold through its dealers. Further, such a vehicle could not be imported into the United States unless the Department of Transportation had determined that it was capable conformance to the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. However, assuming that the G-wagon is deemed eligible for entry and that MBNA is willing to extend a warranty to it, there is no legal reason why MBNA could not assume responsibility for remedial work without charge in the event the registered importer were unable to provide it, whether in the form of an express warranty, or other document. I hope that this answers your questions. Sincerely, Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel";

ID: aiam4192

Dear Mr. O'Neill: Thank you for your letter of January 22, 1986, asking how ou regulations affect a product you manufacture. Your letter and the literature you enclosed describe your product as a modified acrylic tinted shield which fits over the front end of a passenger car. According to the pictures you enclosed with your letter, your shield fits over the headlights of some vehicles, in others it apparently only covers the front turn signals. I regret the delay in our response. As discussed below, your product could be affected by two Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards.; The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has th authority to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and certain items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA, however, does not approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, nor do we endorse any commercial products. Instead the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act establishes a 'self-certification' process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet our safety standards. The agency periodically tests vehicles and equipment items for compliance with the standards, and also investigates other alleged safety-related defects.; The agency has issued Standard No. 205, *Glazing Materials*, which set performance and marking requirements for glazing materials used in a vehicle. Auxillary wind deflectors are among the items of glazing materials covered by the standard. The agency has applied the standard to the type of wind deflector that is used at the location necessary for driving visibility. The purpose of the requirement is to ensure that wind deflectors do not obstruct or distort the vision of a driver. Thus, for example, the agency has said in a letter of October 2, 1985, to Mr. Rosario Costanzo that the standard would apply to a wind deflector designed to be mounted in the side window of a vehicle. The literature you enclosed shows that your product, which is a type of plastic shield, is not mounted in a location necessary for driving visibility and thus would not be covered by Standard No. 205.; Installation of your product in a new vehicle prior to its first sal would be affected by Standard No. 108, *Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment*, which sets, among other things, minimum candle power requirements for headlamps and turn signals. In addition, paragraph S4.1.3 of the standard prohibits the installation of motor vehicle equipment that impairs the effectiveness of lighting equipment required by the standard. Furthermore Society of Automotive Engineers Standard J580, *Sealed Beam Headlamp Assembly*, which is incorporated by reference in paragraph S4.1.1.36 and Tables I and II of Standard No. 108, prohibits styling features in front of headlamps when the lamps have been activated. Thus, S4.1.3, S4.1.1.35, and Tables I and II prohibit the use of fixed transparent headlamp covers as original equipment on motor vehicles. Part 567, *Certification*, of our regulations provides that a person that alters a new vehicle prior to its first sale must certify that the vehicle, as altered, still conforms with all applicable safety standards. Thus, an alterer could not install a version of your product which covers the headlamps of a vehicle. If a version of your product covers the turn signal or any other lighting device, the alterer must certify that the vehicle lights will still comply with Standard No. 108 with your product in place. Persons violating the certification requirements are subject to a civil fine of up to $1,000 per violation.; Installation of your product in a used vehicle would be affected b section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Vehicle Safety Act. That section prohibits commercial businesses from knowingly tampering with devices or elements of design installed in a vehicle in compliance with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. Thus, a commercial business could not install a version of your product which covers the headlamps of a vehicle. If the version of your product covers the turn signal or any other required lighting device, the business must assure that the vehicle lamps will still comply with Standard No. 108 with your product in place. Commercial businesses that violate section 108(a)(2)(A) are subject to a civil penalty of $1,000 per violation.; The prohibition of section 108(a)(2)(A) does not apply to individua vehicle owners who may install or remove any items of motor vehicle equipment regardless of its effect on compliance with Federal motor vehicle safety standards. However, the agency encourages vehicle owners not to remove or otherwise tamper with vehicle safety equipment. Also, any modifications made by a vehicle owner would have to comply with applicable state law.; In addition, you as a manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment ar subject to the requirements in sections 151-159 of the Vehicle Safety Act concerning the recall and remedy of products with defects related to motor vehicle safety. I have enclosed an information sheet which outlines those requirements.; If you have any further questions, please let me know. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam4631

"Dear Mr. Anglewicz: This is in reply to your letter regarding th Dragoon Armored Security Vehicle (ASV), as amplified by a telephone call to you by Mr. Vinson of this Office. The ASV that your company produces is presently used 'by the U.S. Armed Forces'. You are now considering the possibility of selling the ASV 'to police departments, U.S. Border Patrol, Drug Enforcement Administration and the U.S. Customs Service to use as a special purpose rescue and utility vehicle', and have asked 'to know the procedure for getting this vehicle classified as a special purpose vehicle.' As Mr. Vinson explained to you, we have no category of 'special purpose vehicle'. If a vehicle is manufactured primarily for use on the public streets, roads, and highways, it is a 'motor vehicle' subject to the jurisdiction of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. This means that it must comply with all Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to its type and be certified as conforming to those standards, and that it is subject to remedial action upon the determination that it does not comply with one of those standards or that it contains a safety related defect. If the vehicle is a motor vehicle that has been manufactured for and sold directly to the armed forces in conformity with contractual specifications, it is not required to conform to the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. If a motor vehicle is one that is designed to carry l0 persons or less which is constructed either on a truck chassis, or with special features for occasional off-road operation, it is classified as a 'multipurpose passenger vehicle'. A motor vehicle designed for carrying more than l0 persons is classified as a 'bus'. This means that the ASVs sold to the armed forces have not been required to conform to the Federal standards. As Mr. Vinson further explained to you, we provided the Border Patrol with a letter of interpretation under which we concluded that its mission was so similar to that of the armed forces that it could be considered a component of it, and that the 'Hummer' vehicle it wished to purchase in fulfilment of that mission need not be manufactured to meet Federal safety standards. I enclose a copy of that letter for your information. The ASV appears similar to the Hummer in configuration. Therefore, on the basis of the facts as presented in your letter, ASV's could be sold to the Border Patrol without the necessity of conformance with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. On the other hand, we have not been contacted by the Drug Enforcement Administration or the U.S. Customs Service, nor by any police department. In the absence of any interpretation issued in response to these entities, ASVs sold to them must be manufactured to conform with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. Technically, the ll and l2 passenger versions of the ASV would be 'buses', but the overall configuration of the ASV, with its high approach and departure angles, its capability of amphibious operation with special equipment, and its suitability for use on rough terrain support its classification as a 'multipurpose passenger vehicle' for all passenger configurations. Obviously, the ASV is not a conventional motor vehicle subject to easy classification or, possibly, conformity with multipurpose passenger vehicle standards (e.g., we understand it uses a military specification brake fluid rather than DOT-3). Because of the facts that your annual production is around 60 units, and that your sales are not to the general public, you might wish to petition for temporary exemption from one or more of the Federal safety standards. If the petition is granted, you would be able to sell the ASV to entities other than the armed forces without conforming it to the Federal standards. Mr. Vinson has provided you with the citations to the Federal standards and to the exemption procedures, and you may consult him if you have any questions with respect to them (202-366-5263). Sincerely, Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel Enclosure";

ID: 571-205-Driver Shield for Buses and Vans_final signed (002)

Ms. Lee Ann Sparks Schetky

Bus & Van Sales

148 N. 90th Rd.

Culver, KS 67484

Dear Ms. Sparks:

This responds to your May 7, 2020 email asking about adding “driver shields” to transit buses and vans. You explain that you are developing a driver’s shield assembly to provide to your customers in the transit industry in an effort to protect drivers from the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19). You describe the shields as being constructed with plexiglass, stainless tubing and fasteners, with a swing out door to give drivers access to the stepwell entry platform and passenger cabin. You ask about the requirements that would apply when adding these shields to vehicles. We appreciate this opportunity to respond.

Background 

By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized by the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (“Safety Act,” 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301) to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA does not approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment and does not determine whether a product conforms to the FMVSS outside of an agency compliance proceeding. Instead, the Safety Act requires manufacturers to self-certify that their products conform to all applicable FMVSS that are in effect on the date of manufacture. NHTSA also investigates safety-related defects.

Discussion

Our answer below is based on our understanding of the specific information provided in your email and attached documentation. Please note that this interpretation letter does not have the force and effect of law and is not meant to bind the public in any way. NHTSA will make determinations of conformance with the FMVSSs only in the context of an agency enforcement proceeding. This letter is intended only to provide clarity to the public regarding existing requirements under the law, and represents the opinion of the agency on the questions addressed in your email at the time of signature.

After reviewing the information you provided, NHTSA has concluded that the transparent material of the “shield assembly,” located immediately to the right of a driver, is an interior partition composed of motor vehicle “glazing” that must comply with FMVSS No. 205, “Glazing materials.” FMVSS No. 205 establishes minimum performance requirements for glazing materials for use in motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment and incorporates by reference an industry standard, the American National Standards Institute American National Standard for Safety Glazing Materials for Glazing Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Equipment Operating on Land Highways-Safety Standard (ANSI/SAE Z26.1-1996). FMVSS No. 205 and ANSI/SAE Z26.1 specify performance requirements for various types of glazing (called “Items”), and specify the locations in vehicles in which each item of glazing may be used. FMVSS No. 205 applies to glazing installed in motor vehicles1 prior to first purchase and to aftermarket glazing for use in motor vehicles.

As motor vehicle glazing, the transparent material of your barrier must meet the requirements of FMVSS No. 205 and be certified as meeting that standard by the prime glazing manufacturer, and, if applicable, the manufacturer or distributer who cuts the glazing into components for use in motor vehicles or items of motor vehicle equipment.2 If you, in assembling the barrier, cut the glazing, you must ensure the glazing meets the requirements of FMVSS No. 205, and must certify its compliance pursuant to S6.3 of FMVSS No. 205. On the other hand, if you only assemble the barrier using pre-cut glazing that has been certified by a glazing manufacturer, you are not required to certify the glazing. However, as the manufacturer of the aftermarket barrier, you are responsible for ensuring your product is free from safety-related defects. If you or this agency finds your product to contain a safety-related defect after you market the product, you are responsible for conducting a notice and recall campaign as required under 49 U.S.C. §§ 30118- 30120.

As described in your email, the barrier would be located to the right of the driver. In that location, and for every vehicle type, portions of the glazing would be requisite for driving visibility. Any portion of the glazing that the driver would see through in order to view windows requisite for driving visibility would also be considered requisite for driving visibility. For buses and multipurpose passenger vehicles (MPVs), this would include any window to the immediate right or left of the driver and the front windshield.3 (For passenger cars, all windows are considered requisite for driving visibility.)

1 Requirements for glazing vary by vehicle type. You state that the barriers will be installed in buses and “vans.” NHTSA does not use the term “van” when classifying motor vehicles for purposes of FMVSS applicability. If the vehicle in which the barriers will be installed carry more than 10 persons, the vehicle would be classified as a bus under NHTSA’s FMVSS. If the vehicle carries 10 or fewer persons, it would be classified as either a multipurpose passenger vehicle (MPV) or passenger car, depending on whether the vehicle is built on a truck chassis or with special features for occasional off-road operation (49 CFR 571.3). Based on your email, we assume that the vehicles in which the barriers would be installed are not passenger cars. Thus, we assume the vehicles are “buses” or “MPVs.” We assume the vehicles are not trucks. This classification is important for determining the application of the glazing standard to the vehicles.

2 49 CFR 571.205, S6.

3 In a letter to Cris Morgan, NHTSA concluded that low-level glazing on doors to the right or left of the driver are considered windows that are requisite for driving visibility. Therefore, glazing through which the driver would view

Glazing for interior partitions in areas requisite for driving visibility must be of one of the following types of glazing: Item 1, Item 2, Item 4, Item 4A, Item 10, Item 11A, Item 11C,4 Item 14, Item 15A, or Item 15B. Glazing for interior partitions in areas not requisite for driving visibility must be one of the following types of glazing: Item 1, Item 2, Item 3, Item 4, Item 4A, Item 5, Item 10, Item 11A, Item 11B, Item 11C, Item 12, Item 13, Item 14, Item 15A, Item 15B, Item 16A, or Item 16B.

Please note that there may be additional requirements depending on who installs the barrier. If the barrier is installed prior to first vehicle sale, the installer must ensure that, with the barrier installed, the vehicle complies with FMVSS No. 205 and all other applicable FMVSS, and must certify the vehicle as complying with all applicable FMVSS. If the barrier is installed as aftermarket equipment by a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, rental company, or motor vehicle repair business, that entity would be subject to 49 U.S.C. 30122, which prohibits the entity from knowingly making 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 FMVSS. In either case, the entity installing the barrier should pay particular attention to ensuring that installation of the barrier does not obstruct the driver’s view of the mirrors and/or rearview image required under FMVSS No. 111, “Rear visibility,” impact the vehicle’s compliance with FMVSS No. 302 “Flammability of interior materials,” prevent the driver from readily accessing emergency exits installed in compliance with FMVSS No. 217, “Bus emergency exits and window retention and release,” or impede the driver’s ability to see through the windows needed for driving visibility.5

Apart from requirements that NHTSA administers, the installation of the barrier may be subject to other Federal or State laws or regulations. For example, purchasers or lessees of the vehicles may be subject to the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the accessibility requirements found at 49 CFR Parts 37 and 38 and may need to ensure that the vehicle they purchase or lease continues to comply with the requirements after the barrier is installed.

these windows would be considered requisite for driving visibility. Letter to Cris Morgan (January 14, 2009), available at https://isearch.nhtsa.gov/files/08-004149--19%20Nov%2008--sa.htm.

4 If the partition is a bullet-resistant shield constructed using Item 11C glazing, the combined parallel luminous transmittance with perpendicular incidence through both the shield and the permanent vehicle glazing is to be at least 60 %.

5 To ensure that installation does not impact the vehicle’s compliance with applicable FMVSS, the installer should be familiar with FMVSS requirements for a vehicle of its type and weight. Please note that installation of a safety barrier in vehicles with a GVWR of 4,536 kg (10,000 pounds) or less may require additional considerations as there are different, and often more stringent, requirements for lighter vehicles.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Callie Roach of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

JONATHAN CHARLES MORRISON

Digitally signed by JONATHAN CHARLES MORRISON 

Date: 2020.06.04 19:42:26 -04'00'

Jonathan C. Morrison Chief Counsel

Dated: 6/4/20

Ref: FMVSS No. 205

ID: aiam5292

Dear Mr. McQuiston: This is in reply to your letter of September 29 1993, to Taylor Vinson of this Office. Your company provides an aftermarket spoiler which incorporates a center stop lamp 'that complies with SAE standards.' You have asked us for a statement that you could provide your dealers that 'would affirm that when the dealer installs a spoiler containing a high mount third brakelight meeting/exceeding SAE standards, they are, in fact providing an equivalent light source, thereby allowing them (dealers) to remain in compliance with federal regulations.' You have also enclosed a November 1992 report from ETL Testing Laboratories rendered to Leegold Enterprise Co., Ltd. covering the lamp that we assume to be the one you are offering in your spoiler. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.), in the fact situation you present, the dealer has the following obligations with respect to new and used vehicles. It is obliged to deliver a new vehicle to the buyer with a center highmounted stop lamp that is in full compliance with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, and if it does not, it may be in violation of section 108(a)(10(A) of the Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(1)(A)). With respect to a vehicle in use, under section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Act, it may not knowingly render inoperative, in whole or in part, the original center highmounted stop lamp unless it provides a conforming equivalent (agency interpretation of 15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)). Therefore, as a general principle, we affirm your understanding that a dealer may knowingly render an original equipment center highmounted stoplamp inoperative on a vehicle in use, or cause it on a new vehicle to become noncompliant with the requirements of Standard No. 108 if the dealer provides a substitute lamp that meets Standard No. 108's requirements. The test report you provided indicates that the Model LG 03-60B lamp that was tested meets requirements specified in Standard No. 108 and SAE Recommended Practice J186a, and that that particular lamp is an equivalent in performance to an original equipment light source. Having said that, however, we feel that further comments are in order. The first comment is to clarify a misunderstanding reflected in your letter. The lamp must comply with Standard No. 108, and not with SAE specifications as you have stated. Although Table III of Standard No. 108 does incorporate by reference SAE Recommended Practice J186a, 'Supplemental High Mounted Stop and Rear Turn Signal Lamps,' September 1977, certain provisions of J186a, such as photometrics, do not apply because they have been modified by the text of Standard No. 108 itself. We are pleased to note that the summary of the test report appears to recognize this distinction. Our second comment is that, in addition to the assurances that you as the spoiler manufacturer provide the dealer, both you and the dealer are afforded a degree of protection from violations of the Act if Leegold's lamp, in fact, fails to meet Standard No. 108. This is true whether the dealer installs the spoiler either as original equipment or as aftermarket equipment. With respect to original equipment (i.e., installed before delivery of the vehicle to its first purchaser), Leegold, as the manufacturer of the lamp, is required by section 114 of the Act (15 U.S.C. 1403) to certify to its dealers and distributors that the lamp complies with Standard No. 108 (which may be signified by the symbol 'DOT' on the lamp). If the lamp is later discovered to be noncompliant, those who have sold the lamp and any new vehicle on which it has been installed are in technical violation of the Act, but are protected by section 108(b)(1) of the Act from civil penalties, unless they have actual knowledge that the lamp does not meet Standard No. 108 (15 U.S.C. 1397(b)(1)). With respect to a nonconforming lamp installed after the vehicle's first sale, the original lamp may have been disconnected or partially blocked by the aftermarket lamp, resulting in either case in a 'rendering inoperative' of required equipment within the meaning of the prohibition. However, we would not view this as a 'knowingly' rendering inoperative because the dealer's intent is to install a conforming lamp, as indicated by the lamp's certification. One final comment, one directed more to Leegold than to your or your dealers. As a result of our experience over the years, we have come to realize the value of surveillance testing of production lamps to assure that the lamps continue to comply withFederal requirements. Periodic testing may be regarded as evidence of the manufacturer's exercise of due care in the event of noncompliances. If the November 1992 ETL test is of a prototype lamp, Leegold may wish to have new tests conducted on production lamps. Even if that test were of production lamps, sufficient time has elapsed, in our view, for Leegold to conduct a new test, to ensure that design tolerances have been maintained in production and that the lamp continues to conform to Standard No. 108. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel;

ID: aiam4010

Dear Mr. Ori: Thank you for your letter of June 24, 1985, to Stephen Oesch of m staff concerning your meeting to discuss the interaction of Federal and State laws affecting the tinting of motor vehicle windows. I am glad that you and the other members of your committee found the meeting as helpful and productive as Mr. Oesch did.; I believe you will be interested to learn that subsequent to you meeting, the agency has corresponded with Congressman John S. McCain III concerning conflicting State laws on motor vehicle window tinting, a copy of the agency's letter to Mr. McCain is enclosed. We understand that Mr. McCain has also written directly to the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators on this issue. We look forward to discussing possible joint actions to resolve the apparent problems in this area.; As you have requested, we have reviewed your interpretation of Mr Oesch's answers to the questions discussed at your meeting and find that you have accurately summarized them. To ensure a full understanding of each of the answers, we have provided below a complete response to each of the questions.; First, I would like to review some background information. The Nationa Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act authorizes the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to issue Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards applicable to new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. In 1967, the agency issued Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205, *Glazing Materials*, which sets performance requirements for glazing materials used in new motor vehicles and glazing materials sold as items of replacement equipment. The performance requirements of the standard include ones regulating the light transmittance and abrasion resistance of glazing. The standard went into effect on January 1, 1968.; Vehicle manufacturers are responsible for certifying that al components on their vehicles comply with applicable Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards prior to sale. A manufacturer of new vehicles must certify that the glazing used in windows requisite for driving visibility, whether clear or tinted, conforms with all of the requirements of the standard, including those on light transmittance and abrasion resistance. Any person who manufactures or sells a new vehicle which does not conform to applicable safety standard (sic) is subject to civil penalties and recall action under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act.; In 1974, Congress amended the Vehicle Safety Act to address the proble of persons tampering with safety equipment installed on a motor vehicle. The 1974 amendments added section 108(a)(2)(A) to the Act. That section provides, in part, 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 . . . .<<<; Thus, no manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repai business may add tinting to glazing materials of a used motor vehicle, if that tinting would 'render inoperative' the glazing's compliance with Standard No. 205. Based on the law and regulations discussed above, we have provided the following answers to your questions.; *Question (1)*: What impact does Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standar No. 205 have upon commercial installers of tinting materials if the installation is performed:; (a) prior to the sale of the vehicle? *Answer*: If a commercial installer places tinting film on glazing in new vehicle prior to the sale of the vehicle, that person must certify that the glazing continues to be in compliance with the requirements of Standard No. 205. Thus, for example, the light transmittance through the combination of tinting film and the glazing must be at least 70 percent in the case of glazing used in windows requisite for driving visibility. Similarly, the combination must also meet the abrasion resistance and other requirements of the standard.; (b) after its first sale? *Answer*: If a commercial installer adds tinting material to a use vehicle and the material reduces the light transmittance of the glazing to a level below 70 percent or otherwise reduces the compliance of the glazing with one of the standard's requirements, the agency would consider that action a rendering inoperative of the glazing's compliance with Standard No. 205 in violation of section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Vehicle Safety Act. Section 108(a)(2)(A) does not prohibit tinting by commercial businesses, it merely limits the use of tinting.; *Question (2)*: What impact does Standard No. 205 have upon individual who install tinting on their own vehicles?; *Answer*: Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Vehicle Safety Act does not appl to individual vehicle owners. Thus, individual vehicle owners can, themselves, add any level of tint to the windows in their vehicles without violating Federal law. States retain the authority to set their own laws regulating the application of window tinting by individual vehicle owners.; *Question (3)*: What impact does Standard No. 205 have upon th manufacture and sale of window tinting material?; *Answer*: Standard No. 205 does not regulate the manufacture or sale o window tinting materials, it affects only the application of the tinting materials to windows in a motor vehicle. States retain the authority to issue laws affecting the manufacture and sale of such materials.; *Question (4)*: What impact does Standard No. 205 have on new vehicle versus old vehicles?; *Answer*: All new motor vehicles manufactured after January 1, 1968 must be certified as complying with Standard No. 205. As discussed in our response to Question 1(b), the tinting of used vehicles, manufactured after January 1, 1968, by commercial businesses would be affected by section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Vehicle Safety Act.; *Question (5)*: What specifically is a State preempted from doing b regulation or Federal law?; *Answer*: Federal law generally preempts any inconsistent state laws o the same subject covered by Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. Section 103(d) of the Vehicle Safety Act provides:; >>>Whenever a Federal motor vehicle safety standard . . . is in effect no State or political subdivision of a State shall have any authority to establish, or to continue in effect, with respect to any motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment , any safety standard applicable to the same aspect of performance of such vehicle or item of equipment which is not identical to the Federal standard.<<<; Thus, States may not establish provisions regarding tinting or othe vehicle window requirements which are either more or less stringent than those provided by Standard No. 105. States may establish and enforce identical requirements, they may also, as part of their motor vehicle inspection regulations, prohibit vehicle owners from modifying their windows, through tinting or otherwise, in any way that would violate Standard No. 205.; *Question (6)*: Must a state develop laws or regulations governing th actions of individuals pertaining to window tinting? If a state were to adopt Standard No. 205 which apparently governs manufacturers and commercial installers and adopt no other rules or regulations pertaining to actions taken by individuals regarding window tinting would that state be subject to Federal sanctions? Does a state have to adopt Standard No. 205?; *Answer*: There is no Federal requirement that States adopt law regulating the tinting of motor vehicle windows by vehicle owners. The agency does not have authority to sanction a State if the State decides not to regulate the actions of individual vehicle owners. As explained in our response to question 5, if a state adopts a law that regulates tinting by commercial businesses, then its laws must not be more or less stringent than Standard No. 205. States are not required to adopt a law identical to Standard No. 205 if that applied *only* to tinting by individual vehicle owners.; *Question (7)*: If a state were to adopt regulations or laws pertainin to the actions taken by individuals with regard to window tinting, would those laws or regulations have to mirror Standard No. 205? How could they be different?; *Answer*: As explained in our response to question 6, State law regulating tinting by individual vehicle owners do not have to be identical to Standard No. 205. We believe that NHTSA and the States have a common interest in promoting highway safety and in minimizing inconvenience to traveling motorists. We are interested in working with the States to see that State laws regulating tinting by vehicle owners are consistent.; *Question (8)*: Some would prefer that Standard No. 205 be amended t make glazing requirements for passenger vehicles and multipurpose passenger vehicles the same.; *Answer*: We understand that AAMVA is considering filing a petition fo rulemaking on this issue. Part 522 of our regulations sets forth our procedure on rulemaking petitions. A copy is enclosed for your reference.; *Question (9)*: Is it anticipated that there will be any materia change to Standard No. 205 in the near future?; *Answer*: The agency does not have any pending rulemaking actions o Standard No. 205. As with all of our standards, as the agency acquires data indicating a need to change a standard or if we receive a petition for rulemaking, we would determine if a rulemaking proceeding is justified.; *Question (10)*: May a manufacturer of window tinting materials sell product that does not conform to Standard No. 205? If not, is the sale of such a product based on its nonconformance to Federal standards?; *Answer*: Standard No. 205 does not regulate the manufacture or sale o tinting materials. Thus, there is no Federal regulation that applies to a manufacturer who sells tinting materials that, when applied to motor vehicle glazing, would render inoperative the compliance of the glazing with Standard No. 205. Although the agency would encourage all manufacturers of tinting materials to sell products which can be used on a vehicle and not affect the vehicle's compliance with Standard No. 205, we do not monitor the sale of glazing materials. A state may adopt and enforce its own law regulating the manufacture and sale of tinting materials.; *Question (11)*: What does requisite for driving mean? *Answer*: The agency considers all windows in a passenger car to b requisite for providing the driver with a sufficient view to operate safely his or her car.; You also asked whether the agency has any guidelines for medica exemptions to Standard No. 205. Standard No. 205 does not have provisions concerning medical exemption. I hope this information is of assistance to you. If you have further questions, please let me know.; Sincerely, Jeffrey R. Miller, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam4982

"Dear Mr. Sens: This responds to your letter to me dated March 26 1992, in which you sought our interpretation of whether the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards 206, Door Locks and Door Retention Components, 214, Side Door Strength, and 216, Roof Crush Resistance--Passenger Cars,, applied to a 1985 American Motors Corporation (AMC) Jeep CJ- 7. You stated in your letter that AMC classified the vehicle as a 'sport utility vehicle' and that it came with a soft top or an optional fiberglass top, both with removable side doors. By way of background information, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (Safety Act), 15 U.S.C., 1381, et seq., as amended, authorizes the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to issue safety standards for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. All motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment manufactured or imported for sale in the United States must comply with all applicable safety standards. In accordance with 49 CFR 567, Certification, manufacturers of motor vehicles must certify that their products comply with all such standards. Each safety standard applies to specified 'types' of motor vehicles and/or motor vehicle equipment. Motor vehicles are classified into the following types: passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, buses, trailers, and motorcycles. A definition for each motor vehicle type is set forth at 49 CFR 571.3. Thus, a 1985 AMC Jeep CJ-7 was required to comply with all safety standards that applied to its vehicle type at the time of its manufacture. In order to determine what safety standards applied to the vehicle, it is first necessary to establish its classification under Part 571.3. The Safety Act places the responsibility for classifying a particular vehicle in the first instance on the vehicle's manufacturer. For this reason, NHTSA does not approve or endorse any vehicle classification before the manufacturer itself has classified a particular vehicle. NHTSA may reexamine the manufacturer's classification during the course of any enforcement actions. While AMC may have marketed the 1985 AMC Jeep CJ-7 as a 'sport-utility vehicle,' it classified it as a multipurpose passenger vehicle for purposes of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. The term 'multipurpose passenger vehicle' is defined in Part 571.3 as 'a motor vehicle with motive power, except a trailer, designed to carry 10 persons or less which is constructed either on a truck chassis or with special features for occasional off-road operation.' It is our opinion that AMC's classification was appropriate, given that the 1985 Jeep CJ-7 is a 4-wheel drive vehicle with an approach angle of 33o, departure angle of 25o, breakdown angle of 18o, axle clearance of 7.8', and minimum running clearance of 8.1', and thus clearly has special features for occasional off-road operation. With specific reference to the three standards you inquired about concerning possible applicability to a 1985 AMC Jeep CJ-7, Standards 214 and 216 applied only to passenger cars at the time the CJ-7 was manufactured. See S2 of Standard 214 and and S3 of Standard 216. Since the 1985 AMC Jeep CJ-7 was classified as a multipurpose passenger vehicle and not a passenger car, those two standards, by their terms, did not apply to it. Standard 206, on the other hand, did apply to multipurpose passenger vehicles as well as passenger cars. However, S4 thereof provided in pertinent part: '. . . C omponents on folding doors, roll-up doors, doors that are designed to be easily attached to or removed from motor vehicles manufactured for operation without doors, . . . need not conform to this standard.' You indicated that the Jeep CJ-7 came with removable side doors, and we understand that the vehicle was manufactured for operation without doors. Accordingly, the AMC Jeep CJ-7 came within the above-quoted exception to Standard 206 and was not subject to its requirements. I hope the above information will be helpful to you. If you have any further questions or need additional information regarding this matter, please feel free to contact Walter Myers of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel";

ID: aiam4708

"Dear Mr. Sundstrom: This is in response to your letter of December 9 1989 to this office, asking us to confirm your opinion that Standard No. 302, Flammability of Interior Materials (49 CFR 571.302) does not apply to the 'HOOD LOCKER' product you describe in your letter. You state that this product will be a plastic box to hold tissues which consumers may use to wipe off the engine crankcase dipstick when checking the crankcase oil. According to your letter, the product can be mounted near or on the vehicle fender well, on the under side of the hood, on the side or top of the air cleaner, or in another location near the dipstick. You believe that Standard No. 302 does not refer to the product because it will not be placed within the occupant compartment of motor vehicles and will not be placed within one-half inch of any occupant's air space. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our law and regulations for you. By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has no authority to certify or approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment for compliance with the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. Instead, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Safety Act, 15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.) establishes a 'self-certification' process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that every one of its products complies with all applicable safety standards. This agency periodically tests vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment for compliance with the safety standards, and also investigates other alleged defects related to motor vehicle safety. The Safety Act also gives this agency authority to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. We have exercised this authority to establish Standard No. 302. That standard sets forth flammability resistance requirements applicable to all new motor vehicles. Therefore, any motor vehicle manufacturer that installs your 'HOOD LOCKER' as original equipment in its vehicles must certify that the vehicle meets all applicable safety standards, including Standard No. 302, with the 'HOOD LOCKER' installed. However, Standard No. 302 does not apply to aftermarket items of motor vehicle equipment, as your 'HOOD LOCKER' appears to be. Hence, you are not required to certify that this product complies with Standard No. 302 before offering it for sale. Parenthetically, I note that your observation is correct that Standard No. 302 applies only to materials used in the occupant compartment of motor vehicles, and not to materials used in an engine compartment that is separated from the occupant compartment. However, there are other statutory requirements that may affect this product. First, manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment such as this 'HOOD LOCKER' are subject to the requirements in sections 151-159 of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1411-1419) concerning the recall and remedy of products with defects related to motor vehicle safety. If either the equipment manufacturer or this agency were to determine that the 'HOOD LOCKER' contained such a defect, the manufacturer would have to notify purchasers of the defect and remedy the problem free of charge to the purchasers. Second, use of this product could be affected by section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)). That section prohibits manufacturers, distributors, dealers, or repair shops from knowingly 'rendering inoperative' devices or elements of design that were installed in a motor vehicle to comply with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. To avoid a 'rendering inoperative' violation, the above-named parties should examine the proposed installation instructions for the 'HOOD LOCKER' and compare those instructions with the requirements of our safety standards, to determine if installing the 'HOOD LOCKER' in accordance with those instructions would result in the vehicle no longer complying with the requirements of the safety standards. The most relevant safety standards would seem to be Standards No. 113, Hood Latch System, and 302. If the installation of the 'HOOD LOCKER' would not result in a rendering inoperative of the vehicle's compliance with the safety standards, the 'HOOD LOCKER' can be installed by dealers, distributors, and repair shops without violating any Federal requirements. I trust that we have been responsive to your questions. For your information, I am enclosing an information sheet for new manufacturers of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment and information on how to obtain copies of motor vehicle safety standards. Please feel free to contact us if you have any further questions. Sincerely, Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel Enclosure";

ID: aiam5026

"Dear Mr. Turner: This responds to your letter asking about Federa Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 131, School Bus Pedestrian Safety Devices, with respect to the automatic extension of a stop signal arm. You were especially concerned with the interaction between a provision in Wisconsin's Administrative Code requiring activation of the stop signal arm under specified conditions and the stop signal arm activation requirements set forth in Standard No. 131. I have responded in detail to your questions below. Before I answer your question about your company's design for complying with both the Wisconsin Code and Standard No. 131, I would like to note that it does not appear that the Wisconsin regulation is inconsistent with Standard No. 131 with respect to the stop signal arm activation requirements. The Wisconsin Administrative Code states that: 'Any bus manufactured after January 1, 1978, shall have the stop signal arm controlled by the service door. The stop signal arm shall not become operational until the service door opens. The stop signal arm shall be installed in such a manner that it cannot be activated unless the alternating red lamps are in operation.' S5.5 of Standard No. 131 states that 'The stop signal arm shall be automatically extended in such a manner that it complies with S5.4.1, at a minimum whenever the red signal lamps required by S5.1.4 of Standard No. 108 are activated...' (emphasis added) Both the Wisconsin requirement and the requirement in Standard No. 131 tie the activation of the stop signal arm to the operation of the red signal lamps. In addition, the Wisconsin regulation also ties the activation of the stop signal arm to the opening of the service door. Based on this information, it appears that a manufacturer could comply with both Standard No. 131 and the Wisconsin regulation by designing its school buses so that opening the service door automatically activates both the stop signal arm and the red flashing lamps. If the Wisconsin regulation were interpreted in a way that does not tie the automatic extension of the stop signal arm to opening the service door, then there could be an inconsistency with Standard No. 131. You asked whether Blue Bird's system for activating the stop signal arm in accordance with Wisconsin's requirement complies with the requirements of Standard No. 131. You explained that, on its school buses sold in Wisconsin, Blue Bird provides a system by which the alternating red flashing lamps are activated by a driver controlled manual switch and the stop signal arm is activated by opening the service door. Under this system, the red flashing lamps are activated before the service door has been opened and before the stop signal arm has been extended. Based on the information provided in your letter, we conclude that Blue Bird's system would not comply with the requirements of Standard No. 131. Standard No. 131 explicitly requires the stop signal arm to be automatically deployed whenever the red signal lamps required by Standard No. 108 are activated. As explained in the final rule adopting Standard No. 131, 'any system of activation is permissible provided the stop signal arm is extended during, at least, the entire time that the red warning lamps are activated.' (56 FR 20363, 20368, May 3, 1991). As described in your letter, the system your company has developed for its Wisconsin school buses has the red warning lamps activated by a manual switch and the activation of those lamps does not activate the stop signal arm. Hence, that system does not comply with the explicit requirement of Standard No. 131 that the stop signal arm be automatically extended whenever the red warning lamps are activated. I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions about NHTSA's safety standards, please feel free to contact Marvin Shaw of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel";