ID: 9068

Mr. Joey Ferrari
Director Technical Sales
Grant Products
700 Allen Avenue
Glendale, CA 91201

Dear Mr. Ferrari:

This responds to your letter of August 31, 1993, concerning aftermarket steering wheels. Your questions concerned replacement of the steering wheel in a vehicle equipped with an air bag with an aftermarket steering wheel manufactured by your company. The steering wheel you manufacture is not equipped with an air bag.

Before answering your questions, some background information may be helpful. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Safety Act) to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards that apply to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA has exercised this authority to issue Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection. Among other things, Standard No. 208 requires that passenger cars be equipped with automatic crash protection. Light trucks will also be required to provide automatic crash protection beginning with the 1995 model year. Vehicles equipped with automatic crash protection protect their occupants by means that require no action by vehicle occupants. Compliance with the automatic crash protection requirements of Standard No. 208 is determined in a dynamic crash test. That is, a vehicle must comply with specified injury criteria, as measured on a test dummy, when tested by this agency in a 30 mph barrier crash test.

At this time, manufacturers are not required to use a specific method of automatic crash protection to meet the requirements of Standard No. 208. The two types of automatic crash protection currently offered on new passenger cars are automatic safety belts (which help to assure belt use) and air bags (which supplement safety belts and offer some protection even when safety belts are not used). However, a new Federal statutory requirement makes air bags mandatory in all passenger cars and light trucks by the late 1990's.

Your specific questions are addressed below. Where more than one question concerns a common issue, they are addressed by a single response. The responses to your questions explain: (1) Federal law does prevent a repair shop from removing an operating air bag; (2) Federal law does not require a vehicle to have a usable air bag for its life, prevent a private individual from removing the air bag in the vehicle, require a usable air bag before a used vehicle can be sold, or require replacement of an air bag deployed in an accident; (3) State law may address these issues; and (4) our agency strongly discourages owners from removing or modifying the safety systems in their vehicles, and urges the replacement of these systems when they are not functional, to ensure that the vehicles will continue to provide maximum crash protection for occupants.

1. If a vehicle is originally equipped with an air bag, must it have an operable air bag system for its entire useful life?

2. If a repair shop removes an operating air bag system and replaces it with a Grant product not having an air bag: A. Is this legal or illegal? B. If illegal which party is liable?

3. If a private individual removes an operating air bag system and replaces it with a Grant product not having an air bag: A. Is this legal or illegal? B. If illegal which party is liable?

6. Upon resale of a vehicle from the first owner (individual) to a second or subsequent owner, must the vehicle have an operable air bag system as originally equipped?

The Safety Act prohibits any person from manufacturing, selling, or importing any new motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment unless the vehicle or equipment item is in conformity with all applicable safety standards. However, the Safety Act also provides that once a vehicle is sold and delivered to its first retail purchaser, the vehicle is no longer required by Federal law to comply with the safety standards. However, States have authority to require that used vehicles have certain equipment installed and functioning for the vehicles to be registered or sold.

After the first retail purchase of a vehicle, a provision in Federal law that affects a vehicle's continuing compliance with an applicable safety standard is the "render inoperative" provision of the Safety Act which provides that:

No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or in part, any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle ... in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard.

In the case of a vehicle equipped with air bags pursuant to Standard No. 208, this section would prohibit any manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair business from removing, disabling, or otherwise "rendering inoperative" the air bags. Any violation of this "render inoperative" provision would subject the violator to a potential civil penalty of up to $1,000 for each violation. Please note that the "render inoperative" provision does not apply to modifications vehicle owners make to their vehicles.

I would like to caution anyone considering removal of an air bag to contact the vehicle manufacturer concerning the proper procedure for any air bag removal. Improper removal of an air bag could cause it to deploy and injure the person.

4. After an accident in which the air bag was deployed, must a repair shop or individual replace the air bag and/or system so that it is again operable as originally equipped?

5. After an accident in which the air bag was deployed, can a repair shop or individual replace the air bag with a Grant product not having an air bag?

The "render inoperative" provision does not impose an affirmative duty on repair shops to replace equipment that was previously removed by someone else, or to repair equipment that was damaged in a crash. Thus, a repair shop could replace the steering wheel after an accident that deployed the air bag with a steering wheel that was not equipped with an air bag. However, despite the absence of any requirement in Federal law, repair shops may still be required by State law to replace deployed air bags, or they may be liable for failing to do so.

7. If we have a potential liability exposure for someone using our products to replace an original air bag, what do we need to do to limit this exposure?

We suggest that you consult a private attorney familiar with the law regarding potential liability in tort for an answer to this question. While such issues are beyond this agency's area of expertise, we do note that every State provides for some degree of civil liability for consumer products and repair work.

As a final note, and in addition to the legal considerations, it is NHTSA's strong policy that air bags not be removed, and that air bags always be replaced following deployment, unless the vehicle is to be junked. While air bags are in some respects "supplemental" to safety belts, in that the air bags provide additional protection, the air bags are nevertheless vitally important to the vehicle's overall capability to protect occupants in a crash. Air bags provide some protection, even if the safety belt is not worn; and the safety belt system is designed to work in conjunction with the air bag in serious frontal crashes. Additionally, the consumer information available to a subsequent purchaser of the vehicle would identify it as one equipped with air bags. The purchaser may well expect a used car to include the safety equipment that was provided by the original manufacturer.

I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Mary Versailles of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

ref:VSA#208 d:10/6/93

ID: 20345.ztv

Mr. Terry W. Wagar
Vehicle Safety Technical Analyst III
Technical Services Bureau
State of New York
Department of Motor Vehicles
Division of Vehicle Safety Services
6 Empire State Plaza
Albany, NY 12228

Dear Mr. Wagar:

This is in reply to your letter of July 20, 1999, to Taylor Vinson of this Office asking two questions on motor vehicle lighting, as clarified by your conversation with him on October 13, 1999.

Comments on Draft of Regulations to Implement Bill S00577

New York has enacted Bill S00577 on July 29, 1998, effective June 1, 1999, which provides for a reduction in insurance premiums for "motor vehicles weighing in excess of ten thousand pounds" if the vehicles are "equipped with factory installed auxiliary running lamps." The purpose of the legislation is "to reduce accidents by increasing vehicle visibility during the day and night." You have submitted for our review and comment the draft by the New York State Insurance Department of an implementing regulation, and a copy of your memorandum of July 1 to Neal Schoen "of our Legal Bureau" with your own opinions and comments.

We greatly appreciate your seeking our advice before the State adopts a regulation that might conflict with preemptive Federal requirements. Under 49 U.S.C. 30103(b)(1), a state may prescribe a standard applicable to the same aspect of performance of a motor vehicle only if the standard is identical to the Federal standard. The applicable Federal requirements are those of 49 CFR 571.108, Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment. Although the aspect of performance involved is the conspicuity of large vehicles, which the agency has addressed through its requirements for conspicuity marking, New York has not adopted a "standard" that requires the installation of additional conspicuity equipment, but has simply authorized a reduction in insurance premiums for vehicles equipped with auxiliary running lamps. Generally, we do not view this sort of program as preempted by Standard No. 108. However, we are concerned about the specifics of the New York provision.

Specifically, Standard No. 108 seeks to enhance conspicuity of heavy trucks and buses by allowing their manufacturers to equip them with daytime running lamps (DRLs) meeting the requirements of S5.5.11, and by requiring them to be equipped with side marker lamps and reflectors (Tables I and II) and with conspicuity schemes (S5.7). New York offers an incentive to reduce insurance premiums if the visibility of a large vehicle is enhanced day and night with factory installed "auxiliary running lamps." Although New York is not preempted under Federal law from encouraging the installation of such lamps by mandating reduced insurance premiums, the lamps must not be inconsistent with the Federal requirements of Standard No. 108.

The Insurance Department would allow the system to be mounted along the sides and rear of the vehicle, or trailer, at intervals of not more than ten feet. The system would be automatically activated with the ignition of the vehicle's engine and remain so while the vehicle was in operation. The system would flash automatically when the turn/hazard warning system signals are activated, and increase intensity when the brakes are applied. Red lights used as part of the system would not be visible from the front of the vehicle.

This system would not be acceptable under Standard No. 108. Paragraph S5.5.10(d), in essence, requires auxiliary lamps of this nature to be steady burning (unless they supplement lamps that S5.5.10 requires or permits to flash), thus they could not flash with the hazard warning and turn signals. Further, an auxiliary lighting device or system must not impair the effectiveness of lighting equipment required by the standard (S5.1.3).

Your memorandum would modify the Insurance Department's proposed operating scheme by specifying that the lamps be no closer than four feet apart on center, consistent with the height required for side marker lamps. The auxiliary running lamps would essentially be extra side marker lamps, and would be amber in color, and comply with side marker lamp performance. The lamps would automatically illuminate when the head lamps or required side marker lamps are illuminated and would not flash. Finally, the added lamps would not be visible from directly in front or to the rear of the vehicle.

Your suggested modifications largely address the compliance problems inherent in the Insurance Department proposal. We note, however, that S5.5.10(b) of Standard No. 108 permits side marker lamps to flash for signaling purposes. Thus, the lamps that New York is specifying as auxiliary side marker lamps may flash for signaling purposes. However, individual lamps to the rear of the trailer midpoint must be red, rather than amber, to avoid an impairing effect upon the vehicle's red rear side marker lamps. Your phrase "consistent with the height required for side marker lamps" covers a wide range of mounting heights. Standard No. 108 does not specify an upper mounting height limit for side marker devices on large trucks, though it does establish a limit of 60 inches above the road surface for the red side markers mounted at the rear of trailers. We also advise that the lamps should not be mounted directly on the conspicuity tape or reflectors with which these large vehicles are required to be equipped by S5.7 of Standard No. 108. Finally, we note that your modification would result in the auxiliary running lamps operating only when the headlamps are activated, rather than when the ignition is on. This appears contrary to the Legislature's intent to increase visibility by day, as well as by night.

Our Comments on the "Total Vehicle Safety Signalight System"

Your second question deals with the SAFE Foundation's lighting proposal, as shown on a tractor semi-trailer. Your concerns include flashing red and amber lights on the side, and additional amber lamps in a triangular formation on the rear of the vehicle.

As you know, under S5.1.3 of Standard No. 108, auxiliary lighting is prohibited if it impairs the effectiveness of lighting equipment required by Standard No. 108. With this in mind, we have reviewed SAFE Foundation's "Total Vehicle Safety Signalight System" ("the System")(an invention of Harold Caine as presented by his attorney, Samson Helfgott) as described in your letter, and our comments are given below. For purposes of this interpretation, we assume that none of the System's lamps are intended to serve as either the front or rear side marker lamp required by Standard No. 108. We also assume that the System is capable of being operated both during the day and night.

The System consists of:

1. Side mounted lamps:

Element A: at least four steady burning amber lamps on each side, facing to the side, spaced every 7 to 10 feet with three equal spaces between them: to illuminate whenever the vehicle is in operation, but extinguished when the service brakes are applied. In addition, when a turn signal is operating, the lamps on the turn-indicated side of the vehicle would flash also.

The System's amber side lamps are similar in color and function to front side marker lamps and reflectors that are required by Standard No. 108, and intermediate side marker lamps and reflectors that must be on vehicles whose overall length is 30 feet or more. Accordingly, we regard them as supplementary side marker lamps. On July 20, 1994, we advised Mr. Helfgott that supplemental lighting devices to the rear of the midpoint of a vehicle must be red. However, we understand that many supplemental marker systems that are in use and which consist of discrete lamps or reflectors are, in fact, amber. Accordingly, we do not object to the System's use of amber lamps or reflectors located to the rear of the midpoint, provided they are also located forward of the required red side marker lamps. Their steady burning use does not impair any other lamps. Standard No. 108 permits side marker lamps to flash with the turn signal lamps, and this feature would not cause an impairment of required lighting equipment, even if the required side marker lamps do not flash.

Element B: at least four steady burning red lamps on each side, facing to the side, spaced every 7 to 10 feet, located directly above the four amber lamps: to illuminate when the service brakes are applied.

The red side lamps are intended to indicate that the vehicle is braking. The lamps that Standard No. 108 requires to indicate braking are located on the rear. It is our opinion that a supplementary lighting scheme which indicates braking from three or four lamps spaced along the side of a large vehicle can detract from safety rather than add to it by confusing a driver with a novel and unfamiliar lighting scheme. This is of particular concern in situations where the lights will be visible to drivers approaching (rather than following)the vehicle on two-lane roads. When an array of lamps causes confusion, the effectiveness of all a vehicle's lighting system can be said to be impaired.

2. Rear mounted lamps:

Element A: three steady burning amber lamps in a triangular array on the rear, facing to the rear: to illuminate whenever the vehicle is in operation, but extinguished when the service brakes are applied.

Standard No. 108's lighting scheme establishes red and white as the color of steady burning lamps on a vehicle's rear, and amber and white for the front. The use of an amber array on the rear removes the certainty that red provides, and would impair the effectiveness of all red lamps on the rear.

Element B: three steady burning red lamps in a triangular array on the rear, facing to the rear: to illuminate when the service brakes are applied.

These lamps are activated simultaneously with the required stop lamps and supplement them. The triangular array will be similar to that perceived on vehicles equipped with center high mounted stop lamps. Thus, we do not believe that this will create an impairment.

We have previously provided SAFE Foundation's attorney, Samson Helfgott, with interpretations of Standard No. 108 on June 30, 1989, and September 17, 1990. To the extent that these may seem inconsistent with the interpretation we are providing you, each of the letters was based upon the facts as we understood them at the time. The interpretation we are providing you is controlling, under the facts and assumptions of this letter.

We note that 49 U.S.C. 30103(b)(1) does not prohibit New York from disallowing use on its roads, even if NHTSA concludes that it would not impair required lighting equipment. Although a State cannot disallow optional types of lighting equipment specifically covered by Standard No. 108, such as daytime running lamps and motorcycle modulating headlamps, it is not precluded from regulating non-covered and additional lighting equipment (such as fog lamps and a non-impairing version of the TVSSS), even if they would be acceptable under S5.1.3.

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

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
Enclosures

ref.108

d.11/16/99

ID: nht68-1.10

DATE: 04/11/68

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; William Hadden, Jr.; NHTSA

TO: House of Representatives

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Thank you for your letter of March 16, 1968, in reference to an inquiry from Mitts and Merrill, Incorporated, concerning the application of the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards to their brush chipper.

The brush chippers as shown in the brochures you enclosed are less than 80 inches in width; therefore, Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 does not apply at present. However, after January 1, 1968, Table No. III of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, will apply to passenger cars, multi-purpose passenger vehicles, trucks, buses, trailers and motorcycles.

We are enclosing a copy of the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards as per your request and trust they assist you in this matter.

Sincerely,

mitts & merrill, inc.

March 14, 1968

Honorable James Harvey, M. C.

Sir:

REFERENCE: Your Letter of March 6 and Wire of March 11 1968

We have studied the Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 and also reviewed your wire.

With regard to the above Act, the Federal Safety Standards were not sent with it. The establishment of these standards is stated in the Act under Title I, Section 103, paragraph (h) concerning issuance of Federal Safety Standards and subsequent revised standards. Please have copies of these standards sent(Illegible Word) immediately or advise at once where we may obtain same. We must know if our Brush Chipper falls under this Act.

Concerning your wire, enclosed are two copies each of our specification sheets and outline drawings of our Brush Chipper. You will note that no models are over 80" wide which will not bring them under the trailer lighting standards. Our units do require license plates.

Thank you for your efforts in our behalf.

Very truly yours,

Norman E. Hess -- Chief Engineer

enclosures

MITTS & MERRILL CHIPPER SPECIFICATIONS

MODELS -- M7, M8, M9

TRAILER UNITS -- SERIES 160 (16 INCHES) TRAILER: Frame All tubular steel, welded construction. Draw Bar Pintle eye-standard. Ball and socket-optional. Axle Coil spring torsion type, 2" O.D., tubular construction - 61-1/2" track. Wheels Two (2) - Semi-drop center. Tires Two (2) - 15" 8-ply rated - commercial Fenders Two (2) Safety Chains Standard. Parking Wheel Screw action to raise and lower. Rear Stand Folding type.

Combination tail light and license plate holder furnished.

CHIPPING UNIT: Housing Steel Plate, welded construction. Feed Opening 10" x 16" Cutting Bar 7/8" x 2-7/8" x 16-1/2" - Special steel and heat-treated. Dia. of Cylinder 16" Length of Cylinder 16" Cylinder Material Flame cut steel plate. Dia. of Shaft 3" Bearings Two (2) 2-15/16" Dia., single row, piloted and flange mounted. R.P.M. of Cylinder 3000 Number of Knives Twelve (12) Knife Dimensions 4-1/4" x 2-3/8" x 1/2" Type of Knife Double-edged, special knife steel, heat- treated, and with positive lock arrangement.

Cylinder is dynamically and statically balanced. Flywheel and auxiliary blower not required.

POWER UNIT:

Ford Industrial Engines-Standard. Available in the following models:

Model "300", 6-cylinder. 149 B.H.P. with either torque converter, or heavy-duty springloaded type clutch. Engine is calibrated at 2800 RPM.

Model "330", 8-cylinder, 155 B.H.P. with heavy-duty springloaded type clutch. Engine is calibrated at 2800 RPM.

EQUIPMENT-STANDARD WITH ALL MODELS:

Swing-away Feed Chute. Telescoping discharge chute with deflector bonnet, adjustable for height, with 360 degrees rotation for complete control for discharging right, left, or into a truck. Hinged Cover for easy access to cylinder. Matched set of high capacity "V"-Belts. Covered Battery Box. Tool box containing Knife Wrench, Sharpening Stone, Grease Gun and Operating Manual. Mechanical Governor. Paint - Color (customer option) either highway yellow Kem-Lustral F65YQ317, orange Kem-Lustral F65E1, or green Kem-Lustral F65G7.

WEIGHTS - (APPROXIMATED): M & M MODEL NO. POWER UNIT & DRIVE WEIGHT M-7 "300" with Clutch 3675 lbs.

M-8 "300" with Torque 3725 lbs.

M-9 "330" with Clutch 3825 lbs.

OPTIONAL EQUIPMENT: Tachometer Directional Signals Brakes Solenoid Throttle Control Engine Hour Meter Flashing Warning Light Engine Side Panels Fuel Gauge

WARRANTY

Machine & Parts -- 1 year

Service -- Ninety Days

Purchased Parts -- Subject to Original Manufacturer's Warranty.

The Company reserves the right to change the list price of its products without notice. It shall have the right to discontinue the manufacture of any model or type of product, and change design or add improvements at any time without incurring any obligation to install the same on M & M products previously purchased.

For further information, contact your nearest M & M Chipper Dealer, or contact the factory direct.

MITTS & MERRILL will engineer units to suit your needs and requirements.

168 BC-12

MITTS & MERRILL CHIPPER SPECIFICATIONS

MODELS M2, M3, M4, M11, M12, M13

TRAILER UNITS -- SERIES 120 (12 INCHES)

TRAILER: Frame All tubular steel, welded construction. Draw Bar Pintle eye-standard. Ball and socket-optional. Axle Coil spring torsion type, 2" O.D., tubular construction - 61-1/2" track. Wheels Two (2) - Semi-drop center. Tires Two (2) - 15" 8-ply rated - commercial Fenders Two (2) Safety Chains Standard. Parking Wheel Screw action to raise and lower. Rear Stand Folding type.

Combination tail light and license plate holder furnished.

CHIPPING UNIT: Housing Steel plate, welded construction. Feed Opening 10" x 12" Cutting Bar 7/8" x 2-7/8" x 12-1/2" -- Special steel and heat-treated. Dia. of Cylinder 16" Length of Cylinder 12" Cylinder Material Flame cut steel plate. Dia. of Shaft 3" Bearings Two (2) 2-11/16" Dia., single row, piloted and flange mounted. R.P.M. of Cylinder 3000 Number of Knives Nine (9) Knife Dimensions 4-1/4" x 2-3/8" x 1/2" Type of Knife Double-edged, special knife steel, heat- treated, and with positive lock arrangement.

Cylinder is dynamically and statically balanced. Flywheel and auxiliary blower not required.

POWER UNIT:

Ford Industrial Engines-Standard. Available in the following models:

Model "172", 4-cylinder, 59 B.H.P. with torque converter. Engine is calibrated at 2500 RPM.

Model "240", 6-cylinder, 124 B.H.P. with either torque converter, or heavy-duty springloaded type clutch. Engine is calibrated at 2800 RPM.

Model "300", 6-cylinder, 149 B.H.P. with either torque converter, or heavy-duty springloaded type clutch. Engine is calibrated at 2800 RPM.

Model "330", 8-cylinder, 155 B.H.P. with heavy-duty springloaded type clutch. Engine is calibrated at 2800 RPM.

(Graphics omitted) Mitts & Merrill Brush Chipper

engineered for years of maintenance-free service

improved to do all jobs(Illegible Words)

[] telescoping discharge chute

The new telescoping discharge chute gives the operator maximum flexibility in getting jobs done easier and in less time. The chute is adjustable to various heights, and rotatable . . . a combination that means dump boxes can be filled quickly from corner to corner with minimum spill. An adjustable bonnet at the end of the chute also permits discharge to either side, or forward, providing complete freedom in cases such as road right-of-way maintenance where chips may be left on the ground.

[] swing-away feed chute

Knife removal and throat bar adjustments are made relatively easy by the swing-away feed chute. The cutting cylinder is completely exposed when the chute is moved to the side and the hinged cover is lifted. These two features are exclusive with Mitts & Merrill Brush Chippers.

[] staggered knife pattern

The staggered knife pattern, found only on Mitts & Merrill Brush Chippers, provides more cuts per revolution. This results in smoother, more efficient cutting action that reduces material by shaving action rather than the conventional chopping motion. The double-edged knives are securely held in place by a wedge-lock which can be easily disengaged for knife reversal.

[] More outstanding features

Safety-lock pin

The double-edged knives have a positive safety locking pin between the wedge block and the special tool steel knife. This safety feature prevents throw-out of knives not properly tightened.

Easy loading

The feed chute is low to the ground and designed to permit wide-angle loading of brush and free limbs. No pushing is required . . . the cylinder draws the material into the cutting chamber quickly and safely.

All-steel cylinder

The solid steel plate cylinder is supported by a heavy-duty flange mounted ball bearing assembly. The cylinder, rotating in an all-steel welded cutting chamber, has a built-in flywheel and blower arrangement, eliminating the need for any optional equipment for blowing material into the discharge chute.

Excellent roadability

The low profile, strong tubular frame and torsion spring axle assure better roadability over any type of terrain. The certified 100-pound weight at the trailer hitch reduces wear and tear on towing vehicle and adds to the over-all strength and rigidity of the equipment.

Over 70 years of experience . . .

Mitts & Merrill has over 70 years of experience in producing and improving wood reduction machinery. The equipment offered today by Mitts & Merrill is the highest quality, best performing . . . first choice of municipalities, public utilities, highway departments, tree surgeons and others who seek economy in equipment operation through many years of maintenance-free service. The Mitts & Merrill Brush Chipper is the standard by which all brush chippers are judged. You buy it with confidence.

TRAILER UNITS -- SERIES 120 (12 INCH) Total Approximate Pounds Shipping Model Engine Drive Chipping Capacity Weight M-2 Ford "172" Torque Converter Up to 6" Dia. Logs 3350 M-3 Ford "240" Clutch Up to 6" Dia. Logs 3480 M-4 Ford "240" Torque Converter Up to 6" Dia. Logs 3530 M-11 Ford "300" Clutch Up to 8" Dia. Logs 3500 M-12 Ford "300" Torque Converter Up to 8" Dia. Logs 3550 M-13 Ford "330" V8 Clutch Up to 8" Dia. Logs 3675

TRAILER UNITS -- SERIES 160 (16 INCH) Total Approximate Pounds Shipping Model Engine Drive Chipping Capacity Weight M-6 Ford "240" Torque Converter Up to 6" Dia. Logs 3700 M-7 Ford "300" Clutch Up to 8" Dia. Logs 3675 M-8 Ford "300" Torque Converter Up to 8" Dia. Logs 3725 M-9 Ford "330" V8 Clutch Up to 8" Dia. Logs 3825

All trailers are equipped with tires, fenders, taillight, license plate holder, rear support jack, covered tool box, covered battery box, choice of ball or pintle eye hitch on telescopic draw bar, and adjustable front landing wheel. Machines are painted with prime coating plus hi-gloss enamel with color choice optional.

WARRANTY

Parts -- One year; Service Adjustments -- 90 days: Purchased parts are subject to original manufacturers guarantees.

Mitts & Merrill reserves the right to discontinue the manufacturer of any model, to redesign and to add improvements to existing models without incurring any obligation to install same on products previously furnished.

. . . then note how many features are exclusive with Mitts & Merrill Brush Chippers Mitts & Merrill General Brush Chipper Specifications Specifications Trailer frame All tubular steel, welded construction Suspension * Coil spring, torsion type Feed chute * Swing-away type Cutting chamber cover Hinged type Cylinder * 16-inch diameter, dynamically balanced with staggered knife design Cylinder material Flame cut steel plate RPM of cylinder 2,800 to 3,000 Type of knife * Self-adjusting, double-edged, positive-lock type Diameter of shaft 3 inches Feed opening * 10-inch by 12-inch, or 10-inch by 16-inch Bearings 2-15/16 inch diameter, single row, piloted and flange mounted Flywheel * Unnecessary Power Ford 172, 240, 300 or 330 cubic-inch displacement Drive * Torque converter or clutch Blower Standard equipment

ID: 22250

Trooper Dene Kay
Utah Highway Patrol
P.O. Box 1112
St. George, UT 84771





Dear Trooper Kay:

This responds to your letter to this agency regarding Federal standards on "altering" motor vehicles, specifically with regard to taillights, door handles, and windshield wipers. I will begin with some background information on National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) standards and then address each of your questions in turn.

Background

Chapter 301 of Title 49, United States Code (the Act), authorizes NHTSA to issue safety standards for new motor vehicles and new motor vehicle equipment. All motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment manufactured or imported for sale in the U.S. must comply with all applicable Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) set forth in 49 CFR Part 571. Manufacturers of motor vehicles must certify compliance of their products in accordance with 49 CFR Part 567, Certification (copy enclosed). Also enclosed is a brochure entitled "Information for New Manufacturers of Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Equipment," which includes a listing of FMVSS that apply to different vehicle type classifications.

Persons altering a new motor vehicle prior to its first retail sale to a consumer are considered vehicle alterers under NHTSA's certification regulation, 49 CFR 567.7, Requirements for Persons who Alter Certified Vehicles. A person who alters a previously certified motor vehicle must affix an additional certification label to the vehicle which states that the vehicle, as altered, conforms to all applicable FMVSS.

Manufacturers, distributors, dealers, or motor vehicle repair businesses modifying a motor vehicle after its first retail sale are prohibited by 49 U.S.C. 30122 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. However, the "make inoperative" provision does not prohibit consumers from modifying their own vehicles, even if such modifications adversely affect the compliance of the vehicle with the FMVSS. Such modifications may, nevertheless, be regulated by State law.

I will now address each of your specific questions.

Taillights

You state that individuals are installing clear taillight lenses with no red reflectors. The Federal requirements for motor vehicle lighting equipment are established by FMVSS No. 108 (49 C.F.R. 571.108), Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment, which applies to lighting equipment on new vehicles and replacement equipment for that original lighting equipment. Paragraph S5.8, Replacement Equipment, of FMVSS No. 108 requires lighting equipment manufactured to replace original lighting equipment to be designed to conform to FMVSS No. 108.

Table I and Table III of FMVSS No. 108 require reflex reflectors (on the rear and the sides of the vehicle at the rear), tail lamps, and stop lamps to be red in color. The color red is defined by Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) Standard J578c, Color Specifications for Electric Signaling Devices, February 1977, which S5.1.5 of Standard No. 108 incorporates by reference. Thus, the manufacture of clear lenses or lamps intended to replace lenses or lamps whose original color of light emitted was red is a violation of S5.8 of FMVSS No. 108, and the manufacture, importation, and sale of clear lenses or lamps for these purposes is a violation of 49 U.S.C. 30112. You also state that these taillight lenses do not have red reflectors; this too would be a violation.

If a noncompliant lamp or lens is installed as original equipment, the vehicle manufacturer is in violation of FMVSS No. 108. If a noncompliant lamp or lens is installed by a manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or motor vehicle repair business as a replacement item, that entity is in violation of 49 U.S.C. 30122. Note, however, that no federal laws or safety standards prohibit an owner of a vehicle from installing the clear lenses, even if the installation renders inoperative the compliance of the vehicle with an applicable safety standard.

You should note that many lamps such as you describe have been recalled. Many were also missing side markers and side reflectors in red.

Whether it is legal to drive a vehicle with clear lenses installed by the vehicle's owner is a question to be answered under the laws in effect where the vehicle is driven. While we cannot provide an opinion about Utah law, we note that our search of the Utah administrative code showed Rule R714-200-3, "Standards for Vehicle Lights and Illuminating Devices," incorporates FMVSS No. 108 as the standard governing motor vehicle lighting equipment. Thus, it appears that motor vehicle lighting equipment that does not comply with FMVSS No. 108 may also be illegal for use in your state.

Door Handles

You state that individuals are removing vehicles' outside door handles and replacing them with hidden switches to open the doors. FMVSS No. 206 (49 C.F.R. 571.206), Door Locks and Door Retention Components, applies to new motor vehicles and includes requirements that may affect this type of modification. The standard does not require that motor vehicle doors have outside door handles. However, the standard does require each motor vehicle door to "be equipped with a locking mechanism with an operating means in the interior of the vehicle." (49 C.F.R. 571.206, S4.1.3). When the locking mechanism on the side front door is engaged, "the outside door handle or other outside latch release control shall be inoperative." (S4.1.3.1, emphasis added). When the locking mechanism on the side rear door is engaged, "both the outside and inside door handles or other latch release controls shall be inoperative." (S4.1.3.2, emphasis added).

We consider the hidden switches you described in your letter to be "other latch release controls." Thus, these hidden switches must be inoperative when the locking mechanism on the doors is engaged.

If these hidden switches are installed by an alterer prior to first sale, then the alterer must certify that the vehicle continues to comply with all of the safety standards affected by the alteration. If the switches are installed by a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business after first sale, the installation must not render inoperative the compliance of the vehicle with any applicable safety standard, including FMVSS No. 206. However, no federal laws or safety standards prohibit an owner of a vehicle from installing the switches, even if the installation renders inoperative the compliance of the vehicle with any applicable safety standard. Such a modification could, however, be regulated by State law.

Windshield Wipers

You also state that individuals are removing vehicles' windshield wipers and replacing them with "just one large wiper." FMVSS No. 104 (49 C.F.R. 571.104), Windshield Wiping and Washing Systems, specifies windshield wiper requirements for new passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, and buses.

The essential feature of a windshield wiper system, from a safety standpoint, is its ability to clear a specific portion of the windshield. The number of wipers necessary to provide the driver with a sufficient field of view is not specified in FMVSS No. 104. Therefore, the number of wipers is immaterial so long as the minimum percentages of critical areas are cleared.

All of the aforementioned vehicles must have a power-driven windshield wiping system that meets specific frequency or speed requirements, e.g., cycles per minute, as identified in the standard. FMVSS No. 104 requires that passenger car windshield wiping systems wipe that specified percentages of the critical windshield areas defined in that standard and SAE Recommended Practice 903a, May 1966. As you will see in copies of the enclosed documents, defining these critical windshield areas is a complex process.

Additionally, FMVSS No. 104 requires that passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, and buses have windshield washing systems. A passenger car's windshield washing system in conjunction with its associated wiping system shall clear the critical windshield areas identified above. For multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, and buses, the standard states that the critical windshield areas may be specified by the vehicle manufacturer.

The number of windshield wipers required is not specified by this standard.

If the single wiper described in your letter is installed by an alterer prior to first sale, then the alterer must certify that the vehicle continues to comply with all of the safety standards affected by the alteration. If the wiper is installed by a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business after first sale, the installation must not render inoperative the compliance of the vehicle with any applicable safety standard, including FMVSS No. 104. However, no federal laws or safety standards prohibit an owner of a vehicle from installing the wiper, even if the installation renders inoperative the compliance of the vehicle with any applicable safety standard. Such a modification could, however, be regulated by State law.

I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any further questions, please contact Mr. Dion Casey in my office at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosures
ref:104
d.3/8/01

ID: 8517a

Mr. Lawrence Hufstedler
Mr. Raymond Kesler
Kesler Research Enterprises, LTD.
5508 Cahuenga Boulevard
North Hollywood, CA 91601

Dear Messrs. Hufstedler and Kesler:

This responds to your letter inquiring about the field-of-view requirements in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 111, Rearview Mirrors (49 CFR 571.111; copy enclosed) applicable to what you refer to as "passenger vehicles" weighing under 10,000 pounds. You requested a written interpretation explaining the Standard's requirements in situations where such vehicles have a left side and an interior mirror that comply with the field-of-view requirement. In particular, you wanted confirmation that in such situations a manufacturer may equip a vehicle's passenger side with any supplemental mirror or no mirror at all. You also asked whether the vehicle owner may equip a vehicle in this manner.

I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our regulations to you. Along with a copy of Standard No. 111, I am enclosing the final rule that states the agency's decision to permit the use of convex mirrors on the exterior passenger side of passenger cars. (47 FR 38698, September 2, 1982). This notice explains the agency's regulations applicable to such convex mirrors in various situations.

By way of background, NHTSA is authorized by the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Safety Act) to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS's) that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA is not authorized to certify or approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment for compliance with the FMVSS's. Instead, under the Safety Act, each manufacturer of a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards.

NHTSA issued Standard No. 111 to establish performance requirements for mirrors installed in each new vehicle. Section S5 of Standard No. 111 specifies the requirements applicable to mirrors installed on passenger cars. S5 requires that passenger cars be equipped with an inside rearview mirror of unit magnification and a driver's side outside rearview mirror of unit magnification that provide the field-of-view specified in S5.1.1. If the inside rearview mirror meets the field-of-view requirements of S5.1.1, then a mirror on the passenger side is not required. Please be aware that in such a situation a manufacturer could voluntarily install any type of exterior passenger side mirror, which the agency would permit as a supplemental mirror.

If the inside rearview mirror of a passenger car does not meet the field-of-view requirements of S5.1.1, then a mirror of unit magnification or a convex mirror must be installed on the passenger side. If a convex mirror is installed on the passenger side to meet the field-of-view requirements, then that convex mirror must meet certain additional requirements that are set forth in section S5.4. These additional requirements address the convex mirror's permissible radius of curvature and an informational message that must be marked onto the mirror.

Section S6 specifies the requirements applicable to mirrors installed on multipurpose passenger vehicles (MPV's), trucks, and buses other than school buses, with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less. Such vehicles would comply with the standard if they are equipped with mirrors that conform to the requirements (expressed in the previous two paragraphs) that are applicable to passenger cars. Alternatively, MPV's, trucks and buses would comply with the standard if they are equipped with outside mirrors of unit magnification, each with not less than 19.5 square inches of reflective surface, on both sides of the vehicle.

Please note that the requirements of Standard No. 111 apply to new, completed vehicles and do not apply to mirrors installed as aftermarket equipment. The only limitation on aftermarket installations is set forth in section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act, which prohibits any 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 safety standard. The rearview mirror system in a vehicle is a device installed in compliance with an applicable safety standard. If the installation of an aftermarket mirror system resulted in a vehicle no longer complying with Standard No. 111, a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business performing the work would have rendered inoperative a device (i.e., the mirror system) installed in the vehicle in compliance with Standard No. 111, in violation of 108(a)(2)(A).

In addition to the foregoing, you should be aware that manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment, such as vehicle mirrors, are subject to the requirements in 151-159 of the Safety Act concerning the recall and remedy of products with defects relating to motor vehicle safety. If you or NHTSA determines that a safety defect exists, you must notify purchasers of your product and remedy the problem free of charge. (Note that this responsibility is borne by the vehicle manufacturer in cases in which the mirror is installed on a new vehicle by or with the express authorization of that vehicle manufacturer.) Any manufacturer that fails to provide notification of or remedy for a defect may be subject to a civil penalty of up to $1,000 per violation.

Please note that the Safety Act does not establish any limitations on an individual vehicle owner's ability to alter his or her own vehicle. Under Federal law, individual vehicle owners can install any mirror system they want on their own vehicles, regardless of whether that mirror system renders inoperative the vehicle's compliance with the requirements of Standard No. 111. However, NHTSA encourages vehicle owners not to tamper with vehicle safety equipment if the modification would degrade the safety of the vehicle.

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 ref:111#VSA d:4/27/93

ID: 22946.rbm

Mr. Jurgen Babirad
Rehabilitation Technology Associates, Inc
P.O. Box 540
Kinderhook, NY 12106





Dear Mr. Babirad:

This responds to your correspondence regarding the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's (NHTSA) recent final rule on vehicle modifications for individuals with disabilities. You ask about the applicability of that rule to a conversion that requires a lowered floor.

By way of background, NHTSA administers a statute requiring that motor vehicles manufactured for sale in the United States or imported into the United States, i.e., vehicles that are driven on the public roads and highways of the United States, be manufactured so as to reduce the likelihood of motor vehicle crashes and of deaths and injuries when crashes do occur. That statute is the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 ("Vehicle Safety Act") (49 U.S.C. '' 30101, et seq.).

One of the agency's most important functions under that Act is to issue and enforce the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSSs). Many of these standards specify safety performance requirements for motor vehicles, while others do so for items of motor vehicle equipment. Manufacturers of motor vehicles must self-certify compliance with all applicable safety standards and permanently apply a label to each vehicle stating that the vehicle complies with all applicable FMVSSs.

The Vehicle Safety Act also prohibits manufacturers, distributors, dealers, or motor vehicle repair businesses from knowingly making inoperative any part of a device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment that is in compliance with any applicable FMVSS (49 U.S.C. 30122). If NHTSA determines that a business has violated the make inoperative provision, it may assess a civil penalty in the amount of $5,000 per violation (not to exceed $15,000,000 in the aggregate). NHTSA may, through regulation, exempt a person or business from the prohibition if it decides that an exemption is consistent with motor vehicle safety and the Vehicle Safety Act.

On February 27, 2001, NHTSA published a final rule setting forth a limited exemption from the make inoperative prohibition for businesses or individuals who modify vehicles for persons with disabilities (66 Federal Register 12638; Docket No. NHTSA-01-8667). While portions of several FMVSSs were subject to the exemption, FMVSS No. 301, Fuel System Integrity, was not. Additionally, the exception was limited to modifications made after the first retail sale of the vehicle. Accordingly, it does not apply to vehicle alterers.

In your letter, you raised several questions related to the February 27 final rule and FMVSS No. 301, which are detailed below.

1) The Ahnafield Corporation has stated to Mr. Bruce McKay, Program Consultant for Indiana Vocational Rehabilitation Services, that this standard (FMVSS No. 301) does not apply to his products, that it only applies to manufacturers. Please clarify this issue.

FMVSS No. 301 is a vehicle standard that addresses a vehicle's fuel system integrity. How and if the standard applies to the Ahnafield Corporation is dependent upon the product or services that Ahnafield provides. Producers of equipment that is used in a system designed to comply with a particular FMVSS are component suppliers and would not be directly subject to the requirements of the standard, ⁽¹⁾

although any manufacturer or alterer using the product would be. Final stage manufacturers or alterers of vehicles that modify a vehicle system that the previous-stage manufacturer had certified as compliant must certify that the vehicle, as finally manufactured or altered, complies with all applicable FMVSS, including FMVSS No. 301. Vehicle modifiers, i.e., businesses that modify a vehicle after first retail sale, may not modify a vehicle in such a way as to negate the vehicle's compliance with any applicable FMVSSs for which there is no exemption, although the modifier is not required to certify compliance with all applicable standards.

Since NHTSA has not included FMVSS No. 301 as part of the exemption from the make inoperative provision, Ahnafield cannot modify a vehicle in a manner that negates compliance with that standard, even if it is a modifier rather than a manufacturer or alterer. Any modifier using an Anhnafield product that would negate compliance would likewise be acting in violation of Federal law.

2) Some vendors are requesting verification as to whether different configurations will meet the FMVSS standard, namely,
Does the Transfer Flo aft of axle fuel tank meet compliance for the 2000 Ford E150?
For a 4" lowered floor, does the OEM fuel system lowered with a skid plate, requiring minor notching of the frame rail with reinforcement, meet compliance?
For a 4" lowered floor, does the OEM fuel tank remaining intact with a 2" body raise meet compliance?
For a 6" lowered floor conversion, does the OEM fuel system lowered, with a skid plate for protection, requiring minor notching of the frame rail meet compliance?

Because there is no exemption related to fuel systems, vehicle modifiers must take care to ensure that they do not modify the vehicle fuel system in a manner that takes it out of compliance with FMVSS No. 301. The surest way to provide such assurances would be to purchase vehicles where the floor has already been lowered by the vehicle manufacturer or alterer, who has certified compliance with FMVSS No. 301. Another way to provide assurance that compliance has not been compromised is by modifying the vehicle pursuant to a specific protocol based on analysis of crash-testing in accordance with FMVSS No. 301. For example, we believe that the National Mobility Equipment Dealers Association (NMEDA) has successfully crash-tested a vehicle with a lowered floor and that it provides an explanation of how to make such a modification to its Quality Assurance Program (QAP) members. Finally, a modifier may use engineering analysis alone to determine whether the vehicle modification would take a vehicle out of compliance with the standard. This last option is the most risky since there is no crash-test data to verify the soundness of the modifier's judgment.

NHTSA cannot provide information as to whether the types of potential modifications you have discussed would have the effect of taking the vehicle out of compliance with FMVSS No. 301. As noted above, the critical factor is whether the vehicle, as modified, would pass a FMVSS No. 301 crash test. Absent such vehicle specific test data, we urge vehicle modifiers to work closely with the vehicle manufacturers to determine whether a potential modification would take a vehicle out of compliance.

I hope the addresses your concerns. Please contact Rebecca MacPherson of my staff at this address or at (202)366-2992 should you have any additional questions about this matter.

Sincerely,

John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel

ref:595
d.12/10/01

¹ As a practical matter, component suppliers often assume some responsibility for the compliance of their products to applicable FMVSSs. This is done through a contractual relationship between the supplier and the vehicle manufacturer that certifies compliance.

ID: 86-3.3

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 05/01/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Elizabeth Hanford Dole; NHTSA

TO: William von Raab -- Commissioner of Customs, U.S. Customs Service

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. William von Raab The Commissioner of Customs United States Customs Service 1301 Constitution Avenue, N.W. Washington, D,C. 20229

This responds to your letter suggesting a potential enforcement problem with the new Federal motor vehicle theft prevention standard promulgated by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). As you noted, the Customs Service will be the agency responsible for enforcing the provisions in the theft prevention standard requiring subject vehicles and parts to be properly marked and certified before they are imported into the United States. You stated that it was essential that the Customs Service be provided a list of "authorized individuals or companies which have been found by (the Department of Transportation) to possess the capability and integrity to properly certify imported vehicles and parts." Accordingly, you requested that we provide you with such a list. The Department of Transportation does not authorize individuals or companies to engage in the business of importing and modifying vehicles. Therefore, we cannot provide you with a list such as you requested.

This issue arises primarily with respect to "direct importers". These direct importers are individuals and commercial enterprises that obtain foreign cars not originally manufactured for sale in the United States, bring them into this country under bond, and modify the cars so that they can be certified as being in compliance with the U.S. vehicle safety, emissions, and bumper standards. This is commonly referred to as the automotive "gray market". The statutes mandating the Federal safety, emissions, and bumper standards (15 U.S.C. 1397(b)(3), 42 U.S.C. 7522(b)(2), and 15 U.S.C. 1916(b)(3)) explicitly authorize vehicles not in compliance to be brought into this country under bond. However, the Theft Act (15 U.S.C. 2021 et seq.) contains no such provision. Therefore, direct importers must modify all their subject vehicles to comply with the theft prevention standard before the vehicles are imported, and must certify that the vehicles are in compliance at the time of entry.

You stated in your letter that the theft prevention standard could be read to allow any person to certify compliance of an imported vehicle with the standard and that the Customs Service would have no way to judge the authenticity of the certification or the "ability of the party to certify to compliance at the time of importation." You suggested that vehicles and parts could be imported without being properly marked, if Customs had to accept the certification of any person importing such vehicles or parts.

We do not believe that reliance on the importers' certifications will cause the enforcement problems you fear. If subject vehicles or parts bear a certification that complies with the requirements of the theft prevention standard, the Customs Service should allow those vehicles or parts to be imported. NHTSA enforcement personnel will conduct spot checks of the direct importers' vehicles and parts. If we discover that some direct importers are certifying compliance with the theft prevention standard without actually marking in accordance with that standard, we will take appropriate enforcement actions. We expect these actions will help deter any direct importers or other manufacturers who are tempted to falsely certify compliance with the theft prevention standard.

Although we share your concern that all authorized manufacturers and importers of motor vehicles comply with the theft prevention standard, we have no authority to require any person or entity to register with the Department of Transportation and show a capability to comply with the standard before importing a vehicle. We do currently collect information about importers after they have imported a vehicle, as does the Customs Service. However, the fact that a potential importer has not previously imported a vehicle has no legal significance for our enforcement efforts.

I appreciate your concern for the effective enforcement of our theft prevention standard. Please feel free to contact me if you have any further suggestions or ideas in this regard.

Sincerely,

Original Signed By Elizabeth Hanford Dole

Dear Secretary Dole:

I am writing with respect to the recently issued regulations from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration implementing the Motor Vehicle Theft Law Enforcement Act of 1984, 50 Fed. Reg. 43166 (October 24, 1985). As you may be aware, the Customs Service is developing regulations for the implementation of the export provisions of the Act as it applies to motor vehicle exports. In addition, the Service is also directed to enforce the import restriction set forth in the Act and implemented by the October 24, 1985 Federal Register notice. I want to direct your attention to a potential enforcement problem which has been brought to my attention with respect to the final regulations issued by NHTSA.

The regulations as issued can be read to allow any person to place a certification label for vehicle identification marking on an imported vehicle. If this is the Department of Transportation's interpretation, the Customs Service will have no basis for judging the authenticity of the certification or the ability of the party to certify to compliance at the time of importation. This raises a significant enforcement issue within the Service. If the Service must accept the certification of any person importing a vehicle or parts, these items may in fact be imported without being properly marked in accordance with the statute. If, however, a list of parties who have the ability to certify compliance can be established and utilized by the Customs Service to approve imported vehicles and parts, the Service could, as it does today, spot check the individuals on this list and carefully check for possible exclusion any other importers. We believe, from an enforcement standpoint, to carry out the purposes of the Motor Vehicle Theft Act that it is essential that the Service have a list of authorized individuals or companies which have been found by your Department to possess the capability and integrity to properly certify imported vehicles and parts.

In order to assure effective enforcement of the Act's regulations, I would appreciate receiving a listing identifying those parties who are authorized to certify compliance as soon as possible so we may proceed with our implementation plans and instructions to the field in a timely fashion.

Yours faithfully,

The Honorable Elizabeth Hanford Dole Secretary of Transportation 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

ID: 86-2.23

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/18/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Carol Dingledy

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your letter to Steve Kratzke of my staff, asking several questions about the effects of an amendment to the buckle force requirements in Standard No. 213, Child Restraint Systems (49 CFR @ 571.213). Buckles used on child restraints manufactured on or after February 16, 1986, must release with a minimum of 9 pounds force and a maximum of 14 pounds force. Buckles used on child restraints manufactured between January 1, 1981, and February 15, 1986, were required to release with a minimum of 12 pounds applied force and a maximum of 20 pounds applied force. Buckles used on child restraints manufactured before January 1, 1981, were required to release with a maximum of 20 pounds applied force. You asked with which buckle release force requirements replacement buckles provided by your company should comply. Assuming that the replacement buckles are to be installed by you or dealers, distributors, or repair businesses, the answer is that the buckles may, at your option, comply with either the release force requirements applicable to child restraint buckles as of the date of manufacture of the child restraint or with the current buckle release force requirements.

Standard No. 213, like all of our safety standards applicable to items of motor vehicle equipment, does not apply to the equipment after its first purchase in good faith for purposes other than resale. This general rule is, however, limited by the provisions of section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)), which specifies: "No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative . . . any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard . . . ." Please note that these prohibitions do not apply to the child restraint owner rendering inoperative some element of design installed on his or her child restraint. Hence, replacement buckles that are sold to and installed by child restraint owners are not required to comply with the provisions of Standard No. 213.

However, if you as a manufacturer, or any dealers, distributors, or repair businesses were to remove complying buckles from a child restraint and replace them with buckles that did not comply with Standard No. 213, this would violate section 108(a)(2)(A). This result arises because buckles with the specified release force levels were installed on an item of motor vehicle equipment (the child restraint system) in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard (Standard No. 213). Section 109 of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1398) specifies that each violation of section 108(a)(2)(A) subjects the violator to a potential $ 1,000 civil penalty.

Assuming that you or your dealers and distributors will be installing the replacement buckles, section 108(a)(2)(A) gives you an option of which release force requirements the replacement buckles must meet. In connection with several other standards that have been amended, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has stated its opinion that a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair business does not knowingly render inoperative an element of design by replacing components installed in satisfaction of a safety standard with other components used in newer items of the same type in satisfaction of the same standard, even if the newer version of the standard imposes less stringent performance requirements. See, for example, the enclosed opinion issued when Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems, was amended; 42 FR 26279, May 23, 1977. In this context, this opinion means that child restraint manufacturers may install replacement buckles that either:

1. comply with the requirements of Standard No. 213 as of the date the child restraint was manufactured; or

2. comply with the current requirements of Standard No. 213.

If you have any further questions, please let me know.

Sincerely,

Enclosure

ATTACH.

COSCO INC.

OCC 0062

Steve Kratsky -- NHTSA, Office of Chief Counsel

January 16, 1986

Dear Mr. Kratsky,

I am interested in receiving clarification about the FMVSS 213 amendment for reduction of pressure required to operate buckles on child restraints. This amendment, effective February 16, 1986, will require child restraints to have buckles with a release pressure of not less than 9 or more that 14 pounds, instead of the original 12 pounds minimum.

My questions regarding the provision of replacement buckles for child restraints are as follows:

1. Which type buckle will need to be provided for child restraints manufactured prior to January 1, 1981?

2. Must we provide 12 pound minimum pressure buckles for child restraints manufactured between January 1, 1981 and February 16, 1986 so they will continue to be in compliance with the FMVSS 213 standard in effect at time of manufacture?

3. Must we provide buckles meeting the amendment requirements for child restraints manufactured between January 1, 1981 and February 16, 1986 so they will be in compliance with the current FMVSS 213 standard as amended?

Thank you for your assistance.

Sincerely,

Carol Dingledy -- Communications Supervisor

ID: nht93-3.25

DATE: April 27, 1993

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, U.S. Department of Transportation, NHTSA

TO: Lawrence Hufstedler -- Kesler Research Enterprises, LTD.; Raymond Kesler -- Kesler Research Enterprises, LTD.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 4-9-93 from Lawrence Hufstedler and Raymond Kesler to John Womack (OCC 8517)

TEXT: This responds to your letter inquiring about the field-of-view requirements in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 111, REARVIEW MIRRORS; (49 CFR S571.111; copy enclosed) applicable to what you refer to as "passenger vehicles" weighing under 10,000 pounds. You requested a written interpretation explaining the Standard's requirements in situations where such vehicles have a left side and an interior mirror that comply with the field-of-view requirement. In particular, you wanted confirmation that in such situations a manufacturer may equip a vehicle's passenger side with any supplemental mirror or no mirror at all. You also asked whether the vehicle owner may equip a vehicle in this manner.

I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our regulations to you. Along with a copy of Standard No. 111, I am enclosing the final rule that states the agency's decision to permit the use of convex mirrors on the exterior passenger side of passenger cars. (47 FR 38698, September 2, 1982). This notice explains the agency's regulations applicable to such convex mirrors in various situations.

By way of background, NHTSA is authorized by the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Safety Act) to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS's) that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA is not authorized to certify or approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment for compliance with the FMVSS's. Instead, under the Safety Act, each manufacturer of a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards.

NHTSA issued Standard No. 111 to establish performance requirements for mirrors installed in each new vehicle. Section S5 of Standard No. 111 specifies the requirements applicable to mirrors installed on passenger cars. S5 requires that passenger cars be equipped with an inside rearview mirror of unit magnification and a driver's side outside rearview mirror of unit magnification that provide the field-of-view specified in S5.1.1. If the inside rearview mirror meets the field-of-view requirements of S5.1.1, then a mirror on the passenger side is not required. Please be aware that in such a situation a manufacturer could voluntarily install any type of exterior passenger side mirror, which the agency would permit as a supplemental mirror.

If the inside rearview mirror of a passenger car does not meet the field-of-view requirements of S5.1.1, then a mirror of unit magnification or a convex mirror must be installed on the passenger side. If a convex mirror is installed on the passenger side to meet the field-of-view requirements, then that convex mirror must meet certain additional requirements that are set forth

in section S5.4. These additional requirements address the convex mirror's permissible radius of curvature and an informational message that must be marked onto the mirror.

Section S6 specifies the requirements applicable to mirrors installed on multipurpose passenger vehicles (MPV's), trucks, and buses other than school buses, with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less. Such vehicles would comply with the standard if they are equipped with mirrors that conform to the requirements (expressed in the previous two paragraphs) that are applicable to passenger cars. Alternatively, MPV's, trucks and buses would comply with the standard if they are equipped with outside mirrors of unit magnification, each with not less than 19.5 square inches of reflective surface, on both sides of the vehicle.

Please note that the requirements of Standard No. 111 apply to new, completed vehicles and do not apply to mirrors installed as aftermarket equipment. The only limitation on aftermarket installations is set forth in section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act, which prohibits any 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 safety standard. The rearview mirror system in a vehicle is a device installed in compliance with an applicable safety standard. If the installation of an aftermarket mirror system resulted in a vehicle no longer complying with Standard No. 111, a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business performing the work would have rendered inoperative a device (i.e., the mirror system) installed in the vehicle in compliance with Standard No. 111, in violation of 108(a)(2)(A).

In addition to the foregoing, you should be aware that manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment, such as vehicle mirrors, are subject to the requirements in 151-159 of the Safety Act concerning the recall and remedy of products with defects relating to motor vehicle safety. If you or NHTSA determines that a safety defect exists, you must notify purchasers of your product and remedy the problem free of charge. (Note that this responsibility is borne by the vehicle manufacturer in cases in which the mirror is installed on a new vehicle by or with the express authorization of that vehicle manufacturer.) Any manufacturer that fails to provide notification of or remedy for a defect may be subject to a civil penalty of up to $1,000 per violation.

Please note that the Safety Act does not establish any limitations on an individual vehicle owner's ability to alter his or her own vehicle. Under Federal law, individual vehicle owners can install any mirror system they want on their own vehicles, regardless of whether that mirror system renders inoperative the vehicle's compliance with the requirements of Standard No. 111. However, NHTSA encourages vehicle owners not to tamper with vehicle safety equipment if the modification would degrade the safety of the vehicle.

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.

Attached to Federal Register, 49 CFR, Part 571, re: Federal Motor Vehicle Safety

Standards; Rearview Mirror Systems, Final Rule, dated September 2, 1982.

(Text omitted.)

ID: nht90-4.15

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: September 19, 1990

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Martin E. Simms -- Chartered Consulting Engineer

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to instruction sheet dated 9-85 entitled Where to Obtain Motor Vehicle Standards and Regulations (text omitted)

TEXT:

This is in response to your letter on behalf of an Australian client who is proposing to construct, in conjunction with an American company, vehicles for sale in both Australia and the United States. You asked a number of questions about the substantive and procedural requirements of the safety standards. I will answer your questions in order.

1. What standards currently apply in America to 4 wheel drive vehicles (of about the same size as your Ford F350)? Are the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards still the current standards?

The Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) are still the applicable standards. The FMVSS may be found in Part 571 of Volume 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations (49 CFR Part 571). Each standard states the classes of motor vehicles to which it applies. Examples of classes of vehicles are passenger cars, trucks, and multipurpose passenger vehicles. Definitions of those terms may be found in the definitions section of the FMVSS (49 CFR S571.3).

2. Where can those standards be purchased and at what cost?

The FMVSS may be obtained from: Superintendent of Documents U.S. Government Printing Office Washington, D.C. 20402 Phone: (202) 783-3238 Prices must be obtained from the Superintendent of Documents since they are subject to periodic change. For further information, please refer to the information sheet entitled "Where to Obtain Motor Vehicle Safety Standards and Regulations" that is encl osed with this letter.

3. What is the procedure for proving compliance with American Federal standards and how long does it take to obtain approval (from time of application) to be able to market a vehicle?

The United States does not have an approval process similar to that of some other nations. In the United States, a manufacturer of motor vehicles must certify that its products comply with all applicable safety standards. The manufacturer's certificati on need not be based on actual tests, but may, in appropriate situations, be based on engineering judgment or computer simulations. The manufacturer is required to exercise due care in making the certification. The requirements concerning certification may be found at 49 CFR Part 567.

4. What government costs/fees are associated with seeking approval to

market a vehicle in America?

As explained above, the United States does not have an approval system.

5. Is there a classification system for vehicle types under U.S. Federal standards?

There is a classification system for motor vehicle types. Examples of classifications are passenger cars, trucks, and multipurpose passenger vehicles. These terms are defined at 49 CFR S571.3.

6. In instances where our Australian design rule standards are based on FMVSS rules, would testing done in Australia to FMVSS standards be acceptable in America?

As discussed above, there is no requirement in the United States that manufacturers submit test data for approval. Instead, manufacturers must exercise due care in certifying their compliance with the FMVSS. In appropriate cases, manufacturers may be a ble to rely on testing done in Australia to certify compliance with some United States safety standards.

7. Is there any requirement for testing laboratories to meet specific standards for compliance with FMVSS standards?

There is no explicit requirement that testing laboratories meet specific standards. However, an element of the due care that manufacturers must exercise in certifying compliance with FMVSS would be to use appropriate testing laboratories.

8. What requirements exist for the retention and/or submission of test data to American Federal agencies?

As mentioned above, manufacturers are not required to submit test data to have their vehicles approved. However, manufacturers would be well advised to retain such data as evidence of their due care in certifying compliance with the FMVSS. In addition, manufacturers must retain records concerning nonconformity with the FMVSS and possible defects relating to motor vehicle safety. Requirements concerning record retention may be found at 49 CFR Part 576.

9. In Australia, compliance with certain FMVSS standards will be accepted as compliance with Australian standards in some instances (subject to actual test data being submitted to the Australian authorities). Does such an arrangement exist in America?

As discussed above, manufacturers are not required to submit test data as part of any vehicle approval process. Manufacturers, in their exercise of due care in certifying compliance with the FMVSS, may rely on compliance with Australian standards in app ropriate instances. This would be most appropriate when the Australian standard is identical to the FMVSS requirement.

You also asked if there is other information about which your client should be aware. Your client should know that all manufacturers

headquartered outside of the United States must designate a permanent resident of the United States as the manufacturer's agent for service of all process, notices, orders, and decisions. This designation is to be mailed to the Chief Counsel of NHTSA. In accordance with 49 CFR S551.45, the designation must include the following information:

1. A certification that the designation is valid in form and binding on 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 address of the manufacturer;

3. Marks, trade names, or other designations of origin of any of the manufacturer's products which do not bear his name;

4. A statement that the designation shall remain in effect until withdrawn or replaced by the manufacturer;

5. A declaration of acceptance duly signed by the agency 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.

7. The signature of one with authority to appoint the agency. The signer's name and title should be clearly indicated beneath his signature.

I have enclosed, for your review, a designation letter which has been accepted by the agency.

In addition, your client should know that the Vehicle Safety Act requires manufacturers to notify purchasers concerning safety-related defects and failures to comply with the FMVSS and to remedy such defects and noncompliances without charge. Please ref er to 49 CFR Parts 573, 577, and 579 for further details.

We are enclosing an information sheet entitled "Information for New Manufacturers of Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Equipment." This document highlights the major regulatory provisions that may be applicable to your client.

I hope that you find this information useful. Please feel free to contact us if you have any further questions.