ID: aiam5380

Dear Mr. Vierimaa: We are replying to your letter of August 9, 1993 with respect to your views on the enforceability of a section of the Michigan Motor Vehicle Code. This issue apparently arose in correspondence between you and the Michigan Department of State Police in May 1989. Under Section 719(8)(c) of the Michigan Code, a 'semitrailer' whose overall length is more than 50 feet is required to be equipped with 'two clearance lamps, 1 on each side of the semitrailer, located at 1/2 the distance from the front to the rear and as near to the top of the semitrailer as practicable.' In your letter of May 12, 1989, to the State Police, you stated your assumption that the 'two clearance lamps' are the 'intermediate side marker lamps' specified in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, and, if Michigan is requiring two additional intermediate side marker lamps, 'then it would appear that your requirement is invalid as FMVSS 108 preempts State regulations which substantially differ.' In support of your views, you provided Michigan with copies of relevant NHTSA interpretations. Michigan replied on May 16, 1989, that NHTSA had not notified it that 'the requirement of an additional 'clearance lamp' as near as to the top of the semitrailer as practicable is preempted by section 103(d)', and that 'the lamp is not a marker lamp as mentioned in 1.7 of the DOT interpretations.' You indicate that this is a reference to our letter of December 10, 1974, to the California Highway Patrol. You ask for our concurrence in your conclusion that Michigan is preempted from enforcing its requirements. The Federal motor vehicle safety standard on motor vehicle lighting is 49 CFR 571.108 Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 Lamps, Reflective devices, and Associated Equipment. Table II of Standard No. 108 applies, in pertinent part, to trailers of 80 or more inches overall width, and requires them to be equipped with front and rear side marker lamps as far to the front and to the rear as practicable, and with 'intermediate side marker lamps', amber in color, 'located at or near the midpoint between the front and rear side marker lamps.' All side marker lamps are to be mounted not less than 15 inches above the road surface. However, paragraph S5.1.1.3 states that intermediate side marker devices are not required on vehicles less than 30 feet in overall length. Section 103(d) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (l5 U.S.C. 1392(d)) states that whenever a Federal motor vehicle safety standard is in effect, no State 'shall have any authority either to establish or continue in effect with respect to any motor vehicle . . . any safety standard applicable to the same aspect of performance of such vehicle . . . which is not identical to the Federal standard' (emphasis added). In our opinion, the 'aspect of performance' covered by Section 719(8)(c) of the Michigan Code is the side conspicuity of extra long trailers, the same 'aspect of performance' that is addressed by the requirements of Table II that I have discussed in the preceding paragraph. Because Standard No. 108 requires trailers more than 50 feet in length to be equipped with intermediate side lamps located not less than l5 inches above the pavement, any State requirement that such trailers be equipped with a supplementary set of lamps in the same approximate vertical plane but as near the top of the trailer as practicable is preempted by Table II of Standard No. 108. The fact that Michigan calls the lamp a 'clearance' lamp rather than a 'marker' lamp does not affect this conclusion (in fact, we regard all non-signal lamps other than headlamps as 'marker' lamps, including the 'clearance' lamps Table II requires on the front and rear of wide trailers). The purpose of the preemption clause is to relieve the burden on interstate commerce that would result from a manufacturer having to meet more than one set of safety requirements to address the same safety concern. It does not affect the right of a State to establish its own safety requirements in areas where there are no Federal ones. The interpretation provided the California Highway Patrol is consistent with this one. There we advised that to the extent that California law prohibited multiple marker lamps or prescribed different mounting requirements other than as permitted by Standard No. 108, those laws were preempted by section 103(d).

Sincerely, John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel

ID: aiam3644

Dear Mr. Yang: This responds to your letter asking about the requirements fo importing tires into this country from China. I have enclosed a copy of a 1981 letter I sent to Mr. Deng Shin- Wen, the chief engineer of the Shanghai No. 1 Rubber Plant. That letter generally explains the requirements which must be met in order to import tires into this country. While that letter answers many of your questions. I will repeat the requirements to ensure that you understand them, and respond to those questions not covered in the previous letter.; To receive a DOT code mark, a tire manufacturer must complete th enclosed application form and return it to the address shown on the form. A separate application must be filed for each manufacturing plant, and a separate code mark will be assigned to each plant.; Before a code mark is assigned, the tire manufacturer must designate a agent for the service of process, according to the requirements of 49 CFR S 551.45 (copy enclosed). That section specifies that the designation of agent must meet the following six criteria:; 1. A certification that the designation is valid in form and binding o the manufacturer under the laws, corporate by-laws, or other requirements governing the making of the designation at the time and place where it is made,; 2. The full legal name, principal place of business and mailing addres of the manufacturer,; 3. Marks, trade names, or other designations of origin of any of th manufacturer's products which do not bear his name,; 4. A statement that the designation shall remain in effect unti withdrawn or replaced by the manufacturer,; 5. A declaration of acceptance duly signed by the agent appointed which may be an individual, a firm, or a U.S. corporation, and; 6. The full legal name and address of the designated agent. In addition, the designation must be signed by one with authority t appoint the agent, the signer's name and title should be clearly indicated beneath his signature. When this agency has received a completed application for a code mark and a valid designation of an agent, a code mark will be assigned to the manufacturer promptly, usually within two weeks. You should note that the code mark is sent to the manufacturer at the mailing or main office address shown on the application, and not to the designated agent. The DOT code mark assigned to the manufacturer remains valid until such time as the manufacturer notifies this agency that it is no longer using that code mark.; No testing of the tires is done by this agency before assigning the DO code mark. The United States does not use a certification process similar to the European Economic Community, in which the manufacturer is required to deliver tires to be certified to the governmental entity for approval. Instead, in the United States the individual manufacturer must certify that the tires comply with all requirements of Standard No. 109 (49 CFR S 571.109) if they are passenger car tires or Standard No. 119 (49 CFR s 571.119) if the tires are for use on motor vehicles other than passenger cars. I have enclosed copies of both these standards for your information. Further, this agency does not require that the certification be based on a specified number of tests or any tests at all, we only require that the Certification be made with the exercise of due care on the part of the manufacturer. It is up to the individual manufacturer in the first instance to determine what data, test results, or other information it needs to enable it to certify that its tires comply with the applicable standards. Certainly, we recommend that a manufacturer selling tires in the United States test those tires according to the procedures specified in the applicable standard. Once a manufacturer determines that its tires meet the requirements of the applicable standards, it certifies that compliance by molding the letters 'DOT' on one sidewall of each certified tire.; For purposes of enforcement this agency conducts spot checks of tire after they have been certified, by purchasing and testing tires according to the procedures specified in the applicable standard. If the tires pass the tests, no further steps are taken.; If the tires fail the tests and are determined not to comply with th applicable standards or if it is determined that the tires contain a safety-related defect, the manufacturer of the tires is required to remedy the problem. Section 154(a)(2)(B) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, as amended (15 U.S.C. 1414(a)(2)(B)) specifies that, in the case of tires which fail to comply with a standard or contain a safety related defect, the manufacturer may elect to either:; 1. repair the tires so that the defect or noncompliance is removed, or (2) replace the tires with an identical or reasonably equivalent tir which does not have the defect or noncompliance.; Whichever of these options is chosen, the tire manufacturer must bea the expense and cannot charge the tire owner for the remedy.; With respect to the markings required on the sidewall of the tires those markings and their required size and location are set forth in section S4.3 of Standard No. 109 for passenger car tires and S6.5 of Standard No. 119 for tires for use on motor vehicles other than passenger cars. 49 CFR Part Part (sic) 574 (copy enclosed) also sets forth marking requirements for all types of tires.; If you have any further questions on this subject or need furthe information, please feel free to contact me.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam3668

Dear Mr. Yang: This responds to your letter asking about the requirements fo importing tires into this country from China. I have enclosed a copy of a 1981 letter I sent to Mr. Deng Shin- Wen, the chief engineer of the Shanghai No. 1 Rubber Plant. That letter generally explains the requirements which must be met in order to import tires into this country. While that letter answers many of your questions, I will repeat the requirements to ensure that you understand them, and respond to those questions not covered in the previous letter.; To receive a DOT code mark, a tire manufacturer must complete th enclosed application form and return it to the address shown on the form. A separate application must be filed for each manufacturing plant, and a separate code mark will be assigned to each plant.; Before a code mark is assigned, the tire manufacturer must designate a agent for the service of process, according to the requirements of 49 CFR S551.45 (copy enclosed). That section specifies that the designation of agent must meet the following six criteria:; 1. A certification that the designation is valid in form and binding o the manufacturer under the laws, corporate by-laws, or other requirements governing the making of the designation at the time and place where it is made,; 2. The full legal name, principal place of business and mailing addres of the manufacturer,; 3. Marks, trade names, or other designations of origin of any of th manufacturer's products which do not bear his name,; 4. A statement that the designation shall remain in effect unti withdrawn or replaced by the manufacturer,; 5. A declaration of acceptance duly signed by the agent appointed which may be an individual, a firm, or a U.S. corporation, and; 6. The full legal name and address of the designated agent. In addition, the designation must be signed by one with authority t appoint the agent, the signer's name and title should be clearly indicated beneath his signature. When this agency has received a completed application for a code mark and a valid designation of an agent, a code mark will be assigned to the manufacturer promptly, usually within two weeks. You should note that the code mark is sent to the manufacturer at the mailing or main office address shown on the application, and not to the designated agent. The DOT code mark assigned to the manufacturer remains valid until such time as the manufacturer notifies this agency that it is no longer using that code mark.; No testing of the tires is done by this agency before assigning the DO code mark. The United States does not use a certification process similar to the European Economic Community, in which the manufacturer is required to deliver tires to be certified to the governmental entity for approval. Instead, in the United States the individual manufacturer must certify that the tires comply with all requirements of Standard No. 109 (49 CFR S571.109) if they are passenger car tires or Standard No. 119 (49 CFR S571.119) if the tires are for use on motor vehicles other than passenger cars. I have enclosed copies of both these standards for your information. Further, this agency does not require that the certification be based on a specified number of tests or any tests at all, we only require that the certification be made with the exercise of due care on the part of the manufacturer. It is up to the individual manufacturer in the first instance to determine what data, test results, or other information it needs to enable it to certify that its tires comply with the applicable standards. Certainly, we recommend that a manufacturer selling tires in the United States test those tires according to the procedures specified in the applicable standard. Once a manufacturer determines that its tires meet the requirements of the applicable standards, it certifies that compliance by molding the letters 'DOT' on one sidewall of each certified tire.; For purposes of enforcement this agency conducts spot checks of tire after they have been certified, by purchasing and testing tires according to the procedures specified in the applicable standard. If the tires pass the tests, no further steps are taken.; If the tires fail the tests and are determined not to comply with th applicable standards or if it is determined that the tires contain a safety-related defect, the manufacturer of the tires is required to remedy the problem. Section 154(a)(2)(B) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, as amended (15 U.S.C. 1414(a)(2)(B)) specifies that, in the case of tires which fail to comply with a standard or contain a safety related defect, the manufacturer may elect to either:; (1) repair the tires so that the defect or noncompliance is removed, or (2) replace the tires with an identical or reasonably equivalent tir which does not have the defect or noncompliance.; Whichever of these options is chosen, the tire manufacturer must bea the expense and cannot charge the tire owner for the remedy.; With respect to the markings required on the sidewall of the tires those markings and their required size and location are set forth in section S4.3 of Standard No. 109 for passenger car tires and S6.5 of Standard No. 119 for tires for use on motor vehicles other than passenger cars. 49 CFR Part Part (sic) 574 (copy enclosed) also sets forth marking requirements for all types of tires.; If you have any further questions on this subject or need furthe information, please feel free to contact me.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam5118

"Dear Ms. Campfield: This responds to your letter asking the Nationa Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to issue an 'approval' letter for your method of repairing cracks in windshields. As explained below, this agency does not approve motor vehicles or items of motor vehicle equipment. However, this letter does discuss Federal safety requirements in connection with windshield repairs. By way of background information, section 103 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (Safety Act, 15 U.S.C. 1392) authorizes this agency to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and items of new motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA, however, does not approve motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment, nor do we endorse any commercial products. Instead, the 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 alleged safety-related defects. NHTSA has issued Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials (49 CFR 571.205) which establishes performance and location requirements for glazing used in new motor vehicles and for all new replacement glazing for motor vehicles. Neither Standard No. 205 nor any other FMVSS establishes performance requirements for repair kits, such as the Ultra B-O-N-D method, used to repair cracks in broken glazing. However, use of such a material or process in a new windshield prior to the first consumer purchase which requires repair, for example, as a result of damage sustained in shipment would be affected by Standard No. 205. Manufacturers must certify that their new vehicles comply with all applicable safety standards. If a windshield is repaired prior to the new vehicle being sold for the first time to a consumer, the person making the repairs would be considered a vehicle alterer under our certification regulations (Part 567). As an alterer, the person would have to certify that the vehicle, as altered, continues to comply with all of the requirements of Standard No. 205. In the case of a used vehicle, use of a windshield repair kit could potentially be affected by section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act. That section prohibits commercial businesses from knowingly rendering inoperative devices or elements of design installed in a vehicle in compliance with a FMVSS. In discussing the applicability of section 108(a)(2)(A) to the repair of windows in used vehicles, NHTSA has said that the prohibitions of that section do not apply to use of a product or process used in the repair of a windshield which has been previously installed in a vehicle and damaged in use. The agency has considered the event that damaged the windshield, and not any subsequent action by the person repairing the damaged window in a used vehicle, as the event which rendered inoperative the compliance of the glazing with the standard. Thus, there is no Federal regulation which would prohibit the use of a product or process in the repair of a windshield which has previously been installed in a vehicle and damaged in use. I note, however, that if the repair shop, in the course of fixing a damaged windshield that is installed in a vehicle renders another part of the vehicle or element of design inoperative with respect to another applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard, then the repair shop would violate section 108(a)(2)(A). In addition, the manufacturer of the windshield repair kit is considered a manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment. Accordingly, it is subject to the requirements in sections 151-159 of the Safety Act concerning the recall and remedy of products with defects related to motor vehicle safety. Please be aware that the laws of the individual States may be relevant to the repair of motor vehicle glazing. For more information about these laws, you should contact the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators. Its address is 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Va. 22203. I hope this information is helpful. Please feel free to contact Marvin Shaw of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992 if you have any further questions or need additional information. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel Enclosure";

ID: aiam1992

Dear Mr. Lang: This is in response to your letter of July 15, 1975, in which yo inquire as to the applicability of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act and the regulations promulgated thereunder to your client, Star Vision, as a manufacturer and installer of see-through fiberglass replacement tops.; Section 108(a) (2) (A) prohibits a manufacturer, distributor, dealer or motor vehicle repair business from knowingly rendering 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. This means that the installation on the top by Star Vision must not take a vehicle out of compliance with Safety Standard No. 216 or any other applicable safety standard. You should note that the requirements of section 108(a) (2) (A) apply to modifications of vehicles following their sale to a purchaser for purposes other than resale. It appears from the literature accompanying your letter that the tops are not installed on vehicles prior to their first sale. If they are, then Star Vision is subject to the notification, remedy, certification, and recordkeeping requirements of section 108(a) (1).; There is no specific requirement for testing the replacement tops i order to determine compliance with standard No. 216. However, since the Act prohibits knowingly rendering inoperative any vehicle or part of a vehicle in compliance with an applicable safety standard, Star Vision is under an obligation to test its product if it has reason to believe that installation of the tops will substantially degrade the performance of the vehicle roofs. If the company has no reason to believe that installation will affect the safety characteristics of the vehicle, it is not obligated to conduct compliance tests.; The replacement tops appear to be subject to Safety Standard No. 205 *Glazing Materials* (49 CFR 571.205). As a result, Star Vision must certify the tops in accordance with section 114 of the Act (15 U.S.C. S 1403).; If the tops do not comply with Standards Nos. 205 or 216 or any othe applicable safety standard, or if they contain a malfunction or defect related to motor vehicle safety, the company will be obligated by sections 151-60 of the Act to notify the purchasers of the kits and to remedy the defect or noncompliance without charge. In addition, section 108(c) of the Act provides that compliance with the Act will not exempt a person from common law liability.; We trust that this information will be of assistance. Sincerely, Frank A. Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel

ID: aiam1993

Dear Mr. Lang: This is in response to your letter of July 15, 1975, in which yo inquire as to the applicability of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act and the regulations promulgated thereunder to your client, Star Vision, as a manufacturer and installer of see-through fiberglass replacement tops.; Section 108(a) (2) (A) prohibits a manufacturer, distributor, dealer or motor vehicle repair business from knowingly rendering 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. This means that the installation of the top by Star Vision must not take a vehicle out of compliance with Safety Standard No. 216 or any other applicable safety standard. You should note that the requirements of section 108(a) (2) (A) apply to modifications of vehicles following their sale to a purchaser for purposes other than resale. It appears from the literature accompanying your letter that the tops are not installed on vehicles prior to their first sale. If they are, then Star Vision is subject to the notification, remedy, certification, and record-keeping requirements of section 108(a) (1).; There is no specific requirement for testing the replacement tops i order to determine compliance with Standard No. 216. However, since the Act prohibits knowingly rendering inoperative any vehicle or part of a vehicle in compliance with an applicable safety standard, Star Vision is under an obligation to test its product if it has reason to believe that installation of the tops will substantially degrade the performance of the vehicle roofs. If the company has no reason to believe that installation will affect the safety characteristics of the vehicle, it is not obligated to conduct compliance tests.; The replacement tops appear to be subject to Safety Standard No. 205 *Glazing Materials* (49 CFR 571.205). As a result, Star Vision must certify the tops in accordance with section 114 of the Act (15 U.S.C. S 1403).; If the tops do not comply with Standards Nos. 205 or 216 or any othe applicable safety standard, or if they contain a malfunction or defect related to motor vehicle safety, the company will be obligated by sections 151-160 of the Act to notify the purchasers of the kits and to remedy the defect or noncompliance without charge. In addition, section 108(c) of the Act provides that compliance with the Act will not exempt a person from common law liability.; We trust that this information will be of assistance. Sincerely, Frank A. Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel

ID: aiam4170

Dear Mr. Lowe: This responds to your letter dated July 22, 1986, requesting thi agency to withdraw the granting of four petitions for exemption from the vehicle theft prevention standard.; You state in your letter that the Vehicle Security Association (VSA challenges the granting of petitions to Volkswagen of America, Inc., General Motors Corporation, Isuzu Motors Corporation, and Nissan Research and Development, Inc., for exemption of certain vehicle lines beginning in model year 1987. For the reasons given below, the agency believes these petitions for exemption from the vehicle theft prevention standard were properly granted according to the requirements of section 605 of the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act and 49 CFR Part 543, *Petitions for Exemption from the Vehicle Theft Prevention Standard*.; You state that the lack of theft data concerning vehicles marked i accordance with the theft prevention standard makes it difficult for NHTSA to make a determination, based upon substantial evidence, that a standard equipment antitheft device is likely to be as effective as compliance with Part 541 in reducing and deterring theft. You add that the agency is not required to approve petitions for exemption and request that the agency withdraw its grants of those petitions for that reason.; Section 605 of the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Ac permits vehicle manufacturers to petition NHTSA to allow high theft vehicle lines to be exempted from the standard. To be exempted, a high theft line must be equipped with an antitheft device as standard equipment and NHTSA must determine that antitheft device is likely to be as effective as parts marking in reducing and deterring theft. This section requires that the agency's determination to grant or deny a petition be made within 120 days after the date of filing the petition. If the agency fails to make a determination within the specified time period, this section also states that the petition shall be considered granted.; In the notices granting the petitions filed by these fou manufacturers, NHTSA noted that the limited and apparently conflicting data on the effectiveness of the pre-standard parts marking programs makes it difficult in the first year of this legislation's implementation to compare the effectiveness of an antitheft device with the effectiveness of compliance with the theft prevention standard. Section 605 clearly requires such a comparison, which the agency has made on the basis of the limited data available. However, the House Committee Report stated that section 605 was adopted because the Committee was willing to give standard equipment antitheft devices 'an opportunity to be proved as effective in deterring theft as the numbering standard.' H.R. Rep. No. 1087, 98th Cong., 2d Sess., at 17. The agency believes that Congress did not intend that the data limitations in the early phase of implementing the theft prevention standard result in across-the board denials of exemption petitions.; If, as the standard is implemented, NHTSA receives data indicating tha a manufacturer's antitheft device has not been as effective in reducing and deterring motor vehicle theft as compliance with the theft prevention standard, the agency may terminate the exemption under section 605(d). The agency will be monitoring these and other theft data in an attempt to effectively implement the purposes of the vehicle theft legislation.; Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam4338

Dear Mr. Moss: This responds to your letter to Ms. Barbara Kurtz of our Office o Market Incentives. In your letter, you posed several questions about a stencil your company would like to offer to direct importers for marking their vehicle parts in compliance with 49 CFR Part 541, *Federal Motor Vehicle Theft Prevention Standard*. Before responding to your specific questions, I would like to briefly explain the parts marking requirements of Part 541 as they apply to direct importers.; Direct importers are required to *inscribe* an identifying number o the specified parts for each passenger car subject to Part 541 that they import, S541.5(a). The identifying number inscribed on the parts must be the original vehicle identification number assigned to the car by its original manufacturer in the country where the car was assembled or produced, S541.5(b)(3). The identifying number inscribed on the parts must satisfy the size and style requirements specified for vehicle certification labels, S541.5(c). Finally, the identifying number inscribed on the parts must comply with the three requirements of S541.5(d)((2). These requirements are:; >>>1. Removal or alteration of any portion of the number must visibl alter the appearance of the section of the vehicle part on which the identification is marked,; 2. The number must be placed on each part in a location that is visibl without further disassembly once the part has been removed from the vehicle, and; 3. The number must be placed entirely within the target area specifie by the original manufacturer for that part.<<<; There are no other requirements for marking direct importers' vehicles Once the direct importer determines that its vehicle complies with these requirements, it certifies that compliance by affixing a label to the vehicle, as specified in 49 CFR S567.4(k). This certification must be affixed to the vehicle *before* it is imported into the United States.; To respond to your specific question, you stated that you advise direc importers to leave your stencil on each part after etching it. You then posed three questions:; >>>1. Must the initials DOT appear on the stencil?<<< ANSWER: No. Part 541 does *not* require that the DOT symbol appear as part of or in conjunction with inscribed markings on parts.; >>>2. May we leave our name (logo) printed on the stencil?<<< ANSWER: Yes. Using the same principles we have applied in the case o labeling requirements in our safety standard, manufacturers may label information in addition to that which is required by the theft prevention standard, *provided* that the additional information does not obscure or confuse the meaning of the required information or otherwise defeat its purpose. The purpose of requiring the vehicle identification number to be inscribed on specified parts is to allow law enforcement officials to quickly and conclusively establish whether a vehicle or major part is stolen. We do not believe it is possible that law enforcement officials will be distracted from examining the markings inscribed on the parts by the presence of a stencil with your company name on it. Therefore, you are free to leave you company name on the stencil.; >>>3. Do you have any suggestions or objections to offer?<<< ANSWER: Our only concern is that direct imports comply with th requirements of Part 541. Assuming that your stencil is a means for direct importers to comply with those requirements, we have no additional advice to offer.; If you have any further questions or need more information on thi subject, please feel free to contact Steve Kratzke of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.; Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam0125

Dear Mr. Nurse: This is in response to your letter of November 13 with regard to th applicability of Federal motor vehicle safety standards to the GT-18 Trail Bike kit, and the 'Boonie-Bike' assembled from it.; I am unable to tell from your letter the exact nature and use of th Boonie-Bike but I will assume that it is an off-the-road special purpose motorcycle designed for recreational use. Such a machine is a 'motor vehicle' for purposes of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 since, like a multipurpose passenger vehicle, it is equipped with special features for off-road use but is capable of being operated both on and off the public roads. Thus it is not correct to say that trail bikes have not been considered motor vehicles in the past. The interpretation to which you refer, incidentally, if it appears, will be directed toward the so-called 'mini-bikes'.; Accordingly, it is possible to confirm your understanding that: >>>'...for the purposes of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicl Safety Act of 1966, Heath's responsibility is limited to insuring that any kit item which it supplies to which a Federal Safety Standard is directly applicable (i.e., only glazing materials at the present time) shall meet such Safety Standards, and inasmuch as Heath does not build the kits or perform the actual conversion, it is not a manufacturer of motor vehicles and consequently not responsible for the entire assembled product.'<<<; Since a Boonie-Bike is equipped with a '5-brake horse power Briggs an Stratton 4-cycle engine' it is sub-classified as a 'motor-driven cycle' which is defined as 'a motorcycle with a motor that produces 5-brake horsepower or less'.; As you infer Federal Standard 108 will apply to motorcycle manufactured or assembled on or after January 1, 1969. Motorcycles are required to be manufactured with one white headlamp in accordance with SAE Standard J584 (Motorcycle and Motor Driven Cycle Headlamps). This SAE Standard allows a motor driven cycle to be assembled with either a single or multiple beam headlamp. Consequently a motor driven cycle assembled with a single beam headlamp is not subject to paragraphs S3.4.1 and S3.4.2 of Federal Standard No. 108 requiring provision of a headlamp beam switch and indicator.; I hope this answers your questions. Sincerely, Robert M. O'Mahoney, Assistant Chief Counsel for Regulations

ID: aiam5211

"Dear Mr. Muraski: This responds to your letter requesting a interpretation about the use of your product, the Equa-Brake mechanical auxiliary air brake system. You stated that this product 'increases brake force and improves brake performance on all vehicles that are equipped with air brakes.' You were concerned about whether the use of your product would be affected by an agency decision to deny a petition for rulemaking submitted by the Washington Company. That petition had requested the agency to require a device that regulates air pressure differential between the two wheels on each axle (57 FR 29459, July 2, 1992). As explained below, neither the requirements of Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems nor those of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Safety Act), under which the standard was issued, prohibit the installation of your product in most situations. The one exception is that if your product is installed on a vehicle by a vehicle manufacturer, dealer, or repair business, neither the act of installation nor the operation of the device may render inoperative any device or element of design installed on that vehicle. By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Administration (NHTSA) does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under the Safety Act, it is the responsibility of the manufacturer to ensure that its vehicles or equipment comply with all applicable standards. The following represents our opinion based on the facts provided in your letter. NHTSA does not have any specific regulations about auxiliary brake systems. However, since this device is tied to a vehicle's air brake system, it could affect a vehicle's compliance with Standard No. 121. That standard applies to almost all new trucks, buses, and trailers equipped with air brake systems. If the Equa-Brake is installed as original equipment on a new vehicle, the vehicle manufacturer is required to certify that, with the device installed, the vehicle satisfies the requirements of all applicable safety standards, including Standard No. 121. (See 15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(1) and 49 CFR Part 567. If the device is added to a previously certified new motor vehicle prior to its first consumer purchase, then the person who modifies the vehicle would be an alterer of a previously certified motor vehicle and would be required to certify that, as altered, the vehicle continues to comply with all of the safety standards affected by the alteration. 49 CFR 567.7. If the device is installed on a used vehicle by a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business, then the installer would not be required to attach a certification label. However, it would have to make sure that it did not knowingly render inoperative, in whole or in 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. 15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A). Your letter expressed concern about the effect of the agency's decision to deny the rulemaking petition submitted by the Washington Corporation. Please note that the Washington petition requested that the agency amend Standard No. 121 to require a device that regulates a brake system's air pressure differential between two wheels on each axle. In denying the petitioner's request to require such a device, the agency emphasized that its decision not to require a product in no way prohibited the optional installation of the device provided the vehicle continued to comply with the applicable standards. I hope this information is helpful. If you have any questions about NHTSA's safety standards, please feel free to contact Marvin Shaw at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel Enclosure";