ID: nht79-1.6

DATE: 12/27/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Manning Equipment, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

In reply refer to: NOA-30

Mr. Denis Urban Manning Equipment, Inc. P.O. Box 23229 Louisville, Kentucky 40223

Dear Mr. Urban:

This responds to the questions raised in your December 5, 1979, conversation with Roger Tilton of my staff concerning the application of Federal safety standards to devices designed to aid the handicapped. In your conversation, you indicated that you will manufacture some devices that enable the handicapped to operate their own vehicles. These would be sold by you to individuals and installed in either new or used vehicles. You also will install lifts in vehicles.

The agency has no specific safety standards applicable to handicapped control devices or other devices designed to aid the handicapped. Therefore, we have no special guidelines that you must follow in constructing these devices. However, other Federal agencies, such as the Veterans Administration, have guidelines for such devices and we suggest that you comply with those guidelines.

The agency requires new vehicles to comply with all applicable safety standards. Accordingly, if you manufacture and install handicapped devices in new vehicles, those vehicles should comply with the standards. However, the agency has long realized that, in the instance of handicapped driver controls, it may be difficult to comply with some safety standards, particularly Standard No. 124, Accelerator Control Systems (copy enclosed). As a result of compliance problems and the need for these devices to promote the mobility of the handicapped, the agency has stated that it will not enforce standards whose compliance may be impaired as a result of the installation of handicapped driver control devices. Nonetheless, the agency encourages manufacturers to try to comply with all of the safety standards.

The compliance of vehicles with the safety standards, however, should not be affected by the installation of lifts. Many companies now install lifts in regular vans and in school buses. In all instances the compliance of the vehicle with the safety standards is maintained. Therefore, the agency will not allow any noncompliances to result from the installation of lifts in vehicles.

For used vehicles that you modify by the addition of devices to aid the handicapped, you need not ensure that the vehicles comply with all safety standards. You should not render inoperative the compliance of the vehicle with the safety standards, however. As in the case of new vehicles, if the addition of handicapped driver controls interferes with the compliance of the vehicle with the safety standards, the agency would not enforce the noncompliance.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

Enclosure

ID: nht90-1.1

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 01/01/90 Est.

FROM: MARK F. HOLMES

TO: STEPHEN P. WOOD -- NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 01/22/90 FROM STEPHEN P. WOOD -- NHTSA TO MARK F. HOLMES; REDBOOK A35; STANDARD 108

TEXT: Prior to your written reply to my letter dated October 31, 1989, concerning the Alarm Strobe Light / Collision Avoidance Light, enclosed please review two brief discriptive sketches of a revised and redesigned CAL-Strobe Alarm Light.

As you can see from these sketches the Collision Avoidance Light and the Strobe Light with its combined LCD-display are housed separately in there own plastic molding cases. The C.A.L. Lamp is the same as it's featured in all vehicles up to date. In the new design the C.A.L. Lamp continues to remain the same with no removal or reconstruction of its original equipment including wiring and chassey.

Only the Strobe lights with it's LCD-display is redesigned to fit in front of the C.A.L. Lamp. By way of a plastic holder or clip the base of the Strobe light with it's LCD-display with measurements and dimensions that have also been redesigned, will allow the unit to fit onto the C.A. Lamp. The Strobe light and LCD-display will not enter into the plastic molding case of the C.A.L. Lamp. Nor will the wiring and circuitry be connected or housed in the same chassey.

The Strobe Light with LCD-display will be an added optional accessory that can be connected to the C.A.L. Lamp by a seperate outer holder or clip.

The Strobe Light with LCD-display and the C.A.L. Lamp will naturally function separately from each other. The Collision Avoidance Light functions only when the vehicle has been turned on and/or is operating in motion. The Strobe Light with LCD-displ ay only functions when the vehicle is parked and the alarm has been actuated by the owner.

The C.A.L. Lamp has and will continue to have wires that will be connected to the brake lights at the rear of the trunk.

The Strobe Alarm with LCD-display has wires that are connected only to the alarm of the vehicle.

The incorporation of a voice actuator that will be heard only when the Strobe light of the car locator is actuated, will be featured by way of a small computer chip. This small computer chip will be safely connected to the strobe light.

Mr. Wood, I have designed these items to make Department of Transportation standards and requirements.

A speedy reply to these concerns would be highly appreciated. I'd like to Thank you once again for your previous reply.

Sincerely

Mark F. Holmes

THE STROBALARM WITH VOICE ACTIVATOR

the strobalarm system is equipped with a LCD-display that allows the car owner not only to verify the status of the alarm after leaving the car, but it also allows the user to register, after someone attempted to brake into the car, thru which door it to ok place. The word status armed will replace the need to have a blinking LCD light that is seen when most car alarms are armed. Also included is a VCL-Voice Locator that speaks to the owner when the strobe light flashes. This design is made possible by a small computer chip that also speaks as a panic signal during emergencies.

the following information is displayed:

alarm: right door

alarm: left door

alarm: trunk

alarm: hood

status: armed

alarm: left window

alarm: right window

the addition of the LCD-display to the strobe alarm not only protect the car better thru a visual warning to the intruder, but it also keeps the car owner informed about the functions of the alarm system. The strobe alarm with it's LCD-display is wired and housed separately and functions independently from the collision avoidance light. The strobe alarm unit itself has measured dimensions that will allow the base of the unit to fit in front of the CAL. The strobe light in both the strobalarm and the strobe car alarm system II should be a double flash unit to attract as much attention as possible.

*the strobe alarm with it's LCD-display has been designed to meet the department of transportation (lighting division) standards and regulations. *

a design project for mark holmes

STROBALARM

(Illustration Omitted)

>>V.C.L.<< strobalarm

(Illustration Omitted)

>>V.C.L.<<

STROBALARM

(Illustration Omitted)

>>V.C.L.<<

strobalarm voice car locator

design by mark f. holmes

The Strobe Car Alarm II

Bottom View (Installation)

(Illustration Omitted)

Collision Avoidance Light

THE STROBE CAR ALARM SYSTEM II

the new strobe car alarm system is equipped with a LCD-display and a LCD arrow to the left and right of the display that allows the car owner not only to verify the status of the alarm after leaving the car, but it also allows the user to register, after someone attempted to brake into the car, thru which door it took place. The word status armed will replace the need to have a blinking LCD light that is seen when most car alarms are armed.

the following information is displayed:

alarm: right door

alarm: left door

alarm: trunk

alarm: hood

status: armed

alarm: left window

alarm: right window

this addition to the strobe alarm does not only protect the car better thru a visual warning to the intruder, but it also keeps the car owner informed about the functions of the alarm system. The strobe alarm with it's LCD-display is wired and housed se parately and functions independently from the collision avoidance light. The strobe alarm unit itself has measured dimensions that will allow the base of the unit to fit in front of the CAL.

*the strobe alarm with it's LCD-display has been designed to meet the department of transportation (lighting division) standards and regulations. *

a design project for mark holmes

The Strobe Car Alarm II

A Design Project by

Mark F. Holmes

The Strobe Car Alarm II

(Illustration Omitted)

Colision Avoidance Light

The Strobe Car Alarm II

(Illustration Omitted)

Collision Avoidance Light

The Strobe Car Alarm II

Collision Avoidance Light

ID: 86-1.39

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/17/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Ralph Trimarchi -- President, Trimco International Sales

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

ATTACHMT: 3/1/86 (EST) letter from Erika Z. Jones to Dipl.-Ing F. Vapenicek (Nova Hut Klementa Gottwalda)

TEXT:

Mr. Ralph Trimarchi President Trimco International Sales P.O. Box 322 Flushing, NY 11358

This responds to your letter seeking information about the Federal requirements applicable to automotive wheels that are to be imported into the United States. There are two Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards that apply to wheel rims, one for rims for passenger cars and the other for rims for other types of motor vehicles. It is not clear whether your reference to "automotive wheels" is limited to passenger car wheels, so I have included a discussion of the requirements for both types of wheels. None of our standards set requirements for the parts of the wheel assembly other than the rim.

The two potentially applicable standards are No. 110, Tire selection and rims - passenger cars, and No. 120, Tire selection and rims for motor vehicles other than passenger cars. I have enclosed copies of both standards, along with Standards No. 109 and No. 119, which are applicable to tires and are referenced in the rim standards. For those passenger car rims you wish to import, section S4.4 of Standard No. 110 specifies two requirements. First, the rim must be constructed to the dimensions of one of the rims that is listed under the definition of a test rim in Standard No. 109. This means that the rim must comply with the dimensional specifications shown for that rim size in the current publications of specified standardization organizations, such as the Tire & Rim Association or the European Tyre and Rim Technical Organisation. Second, in the event of a rapid loss of inflation pressure with the vehicle travelling in a straight line at 60 miles per hour, the rim must retain the deflated tire until the vehicle can be stopped with a controlled braking application.

For those rims you import for use on vehicles other than passenger cars, Standard No. 120 also specifies two requirements. The first requirement, set forth in section S5.1.1, is that the rims on a vehicle must correspond with the size tire on the vehicle, i.e., be listed as suitable by the tire manufacturer, pursuant to either Standard No. 109 or No. 119. This would be done in the publications of the standardization organizations, as explained above. This requirement is the responsibility of any vehicle manufacturer that uses your rims as original equipment, since only it would know what size tires will be installed on the vehicle. The second requirement, set forth in section S5.2, is that the rim be marked by the rim manufacturer with five specified items of information. These are:

1. A specified designation indicating the source of the rim's published nominal dimensions:

2. The rim's size designation and, in the case of multipiece rims, the rim type designation;

3. The symbol DOT, which constitutes a certification by the rim manufacturer that the rim complies with the applicable requirements of the safety standards:

4. A designation identifying the rim manufacturer by name, trademark or symbol; and

5. The month and year in which the rim was manufactured.

You stated that you wanted to learn if the rims were subject to any tests by the Department of Transportation. The United States does not use a certification process similar to the European countries, in which the manufacturer delivers the rims to be certified to a governmental entity, and that entity tests the rims to determine if they can be certified as complying with the applicable standards. Instead, in the United States, the individual rim manufacturer must certify that its rims comply with comply with all applicable standards. The certification need not be based on actual tests: the only requirement is that the manufacturer exercise due care in making the certification. Obviously, with respect to the requirements for rims, a manufacturer as defined below is not expected to test if the rims have the necessary markings and if the rim size is listed in one of the standardization organization publications.

You should also be aware of the fact that section 102(5) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1391(5)) treats both the actual manufacturer and the importer of a wheel as its manufacturer. If either the manufacturer or this agency determines that the imported rims do not comply with the requirements of the above-described safety standards or determine that the rims contain a defect related to motor vehicle safety, the manufacturer would be required to remedy the defect or noncompliance. Section 154 (a)(2)(B) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1414(a)(2)(B)) specifies that, if the rims fail to comply within applicable safety standard or contain a safety related defect, the manufacturer must notify purchasers of the safety-related defect or noncompliance and must either:

1. repair the rim so that the defect or noncompliance is removed, or

2. replace the rim with an identical or reasonably equivalent rim that does not have a defect or noncompliance.

Whichever of these options is chosen, the rim manufacturer must bear the full expense and cannot charge the rim owner for the remedy if the rim was first purchased less than 8 years before the notification campaign.

In the event that neither the importer nor the actual manufacturer satisfied an obligation imposed on a "manufacturer" by the Act or our regulations, the agency would consider taking enforcement action against both parties. Any such obligation, however, may be completely satisfied by either party.

Additionally, I am enclosing copies of two procedural rules which apply to all parties subject to the regulations of this agency. The first is 49 CFR Part 566, Manufacturer Identification. This requires either the actual manufacturer of the rims or your company as the importer to submit your name, address, and a brief description of the items of equipment you manufacture to the agency within 30 days of the date these wheels arrive in the United States.

The other regulation is 49 CFR Part 551, Procedural Rules. This regulation requires the actual manufacturer of these rims to designate a permanent resident of the United States as the manufacturer's agent for service of process in this country. Your company may be designated as the agent, if the manufacturer so chooses. Part 551 specifies that the designation of agent must contain the following six items of 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 wheels and rims that do not bear its 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 agent appointed by the manufacturer, and that agent may be an individual, firm, or U.S. corporation: and

6. The full legal name and address of the designated agent.

This designation must be received by this agency before these wheels and rims are imported into the United States.

If you need further information, or a clarification of any of the information set forth herein, please contact Steve Kratzke of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 426-2992.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones

Chief Counsel

Enclosures

11/6/85 Office of Cheif Council National Highway Traffic Safety Adm. 400 7th. St. S.W. Washington, 20590

Dear sir,

I own an import/export company in New York and I am planning on importing automotive wheels from Italy. With regards to this, I would like to know if these wheels are subject to any applicable laws or tests by the Dept. of Transportation. If so, please direct me as to the steps involved if not, send a letter stating such.

Thanking you in advance, I remain,

Sincerly yours,

Mr. Ralph Trimarchi

President

RT/c

ID: nht75-2.4

DATE: 06/11/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; J. C. Schultz; NHTSA

TO: Bridgestone Tire Co. of America

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Please forgive the delay in responding to your requests for interpretations of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards Nos. 109 and 119.

Your letter of March 3, 1975, presented the following two questions:

1. Say a person with a vehicle which has Canadian or Mexican license plates is driving this vehicle in the United States. If the tires do not comply with the FMVSS No. 119 is it illegal for this vehicle to be operated in the United States Territories?

Under Part 12 of the Customs Regulations, 19 CFR Sec. 12.80, a person may import such tires if he files a declaration that the importation is primarily for his personal use for a period not exceeding one year and that he will not resell the tires within the United States. For persons regularly entering the United States at the Canadian or Mexican borders, there is a special provision for simplifying the declaration procedure. The relevant portion of the regulation is Section 12.80(b)(2)(v) (copy enclosed).

2. Say a driver is vacationing in Canada or Mexico and receives an unrepairable puncture on one tire. If this new tire does not comply with the FMVSS No. 119, is it legal for him to re-enter the United States with this tire on his vehicle (Illegible Word) run the tire for the remainder of its tire life?

It is not legal for the driver to reenter the United States with this tire. Section 108(a)(1)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 prohibits the importation of such non-complying tires, with certain exceptions specified in Section 108(b). None of the exceptions is applicable to the situation which you have described.

Your letter of April 18, 1975, requested clarification of the testing requirements resulting from the use of the word "any" in the definition of "test rim" in Standard No. 109. That definition is as follows:

"Test rim" means, with reference to a tire to be tested, any rim that is listed as appropriate for use with that tire in accordance with S4.4 . . .

Standard No. 109 does not specify the testing which you must do; it does specify the performance levels which tires must meet when tested by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) for compliance. You have presented the example of tire size JR78-15, for which five rims are approved by the Tire and Ram Association. In this situation, each tire must be capable of meeting all of the Standard's performance requirements with whichever of the five rims the NHTSA chooses to use in its compliance testing. While the surest way for you to be confident of compliance would be to conduct tests with all five rims, you are not legally obligated to do so. The legal requirement is that you exercise due care in assuring yourself that, when tested by the NHTSA with a rim chosen by the NHTSA from among the five possibilities, the tire will meet the specified performance levels. You may do this by whatever means you determine to be reliable and necessary.

The letter of March 14, 1975, from Mr. Ohgiya of the Japan Automobile Tire Manufacturer's Association, Inc., was responded to on May 22, 1975, by Mr. E. T. Driver of this agency. I have enclosed a copy.

ID: nht94-1.38

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: February 3, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: James M. Keitges -- President, Native American Motorcycle Co.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 1/14/94 from James M. Keitges to John Womack (OCC-9089)

TEXT:

This is in reply to your letter of January 14, 1994, in which you ask to be provided the statement "that once the company has complied with all Federal NHTSA statutes, regulations, and standards, then the company has also complied with the State and Loca l requirements as applicable to NHTSA."

It is not possible to provide you with a statement in this form. We are unaware of any State and local requirements that are literally "applicable to NHTSA." However, there may be state and local laws that require compliance with the Federal motor vehi cle safety standards, issued by NHTSA, in order for vehicles to be sold or registered for use on state and local roads. We believe it likely that this is your concern, and we will take this opportunity to explain the relationship between Federal and Sta te or local requirements.

Section 103(d) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1392(d)), in effect, allows a State or a political subdivision of a State to enact a safety standard covering the same aspect of performance as a NHTSA Federal motor vehicle s afety standard if it is identical to the NHTSA standard. A State or local standard cannot impose a higher level of performance than a NHTSA standard, except for vehicles procured for use by the State or the political subdivision. Further, a State or a subdivision is specifically permitted to enforce its own identical safety standard. Finally, State or local standards are permitted in areas of performance where there is no NHTSA standard, such as horns and fog lamps.

Section 114 of the Act (15 U.S.C. 1403) requires each motor vehicle to bear its manufacturer's permanently affixed certification of compliance with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. This certification raises the presumption that the vehicle, in fact, conforms with those standards. If a State or local law is worded so as to require compliance with all Federal motor vehicle safety standards as a condition of vehicle sale or registration, then the manufacturer's certification should be accepted as fulfilling this State or local requirement. We believe, however, that in spite of the certification, a vehicle could be rejected as not in conformance with Federal requirements within the meaning of State or local law if the nonconformanc e was manifest on its face (e.g., failure of a new passenger car to be equipped with a center highmounted stop lamp) in spite of the facts that a State cannot enforce a Federal standard, and that neither the manufacturer nor NHTSA may have made a formal determination of noncompliance.

If the State or local law is worded so as to require compliance with all

State or local requirements as a condition of sale or registration, the manufacturer's certification may be accepted as indicating compliance with all identical State or local requirements if the governing authority so chooses, but obviously the certific ation could not cover compliance with State or local requirements in areas not covered by the Federal safety standards.

We hope that this explanation is useful to you, and will be glad to answer any further questions you may have.

ID: 12669.ztv

The Honorable Bill Baker
U.S. House of Representatives
1801 N. California Boulevard
Suite 103
Walnut Creek, CA 94956

Dear Mr. Baker:

I am replying to your letter of October 22, 1996, addressed to Marilynne Jacobs, Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, on behalf of your constituent, Duane Doyle of San Leandro. You have asked for our views on his letter to you of October 17, 1996, a copy of which you enclosed.

Mr. Doyle bought a 1996 Rover Mini Cooper in Switzerland, and when he attempted to import it, he was informed by the U.S. Customs Service at the Port of Oakland that the vehicle would have to be brought into compliance with the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards which this agency (NHTSA) administers, as well as Federal emissions requirements that are administered by the Environmental Protection Agency. Mr. Doyle offered to retrofit the car with a roll bar and racing safety harness and was told by this agency that this was insufficient to fulfil the requirements of this agency. He then offered to store the car on his property and not drive it on the public roads, and was informed that this, also, was not acceptable. He now seeks to import it under 49 U.S.C. 30112(b), which he interprets as follows: "the prohibitions on importing noncomplying motor vehicles and equipment do not apply to a person that had no reason to know, despite exercising reasonable care that a motor vehicle did not comply with applicable motor vehicle safety standards." The tone of his letter indicates that he feels he is being singled out unfairly by NHTSA.

Although the legal background may have been discussed in other correspondence between Mr. Doyle and this agency, this is the first time that the Office of Chief Counsel has been afforded an opportunity to discuss this matter. There are several provisions of law applicable to Mr. Doyle's situation. First, there has been a prohibition in effect for almost 29 years, since January 1, 1968 (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(1)(A), recodified as 49 U.S.C. 30112(a)), against importing motor vehicles into the United States unless they conform, or are brought into conformance, with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. Furthermore, under the Imported Vehicle Safety Compliance Act of 1988 (codified as 49 U.S.C. 30141 et seq.), since January 31, 1990, for almost 7 years it has not been possible to import a noncomplying motor vehicle unless this agency has determined that the vehicle is capable of being converted to comply with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. The agency has not made such a determination with respect to the 1996 Rover Mini Cooper.

Under 49 U.S.C. 30142, Mr. Doyle may import the Mini Cooper after demonstrating that he has a contract with a "registered importer" to bring the Mini Cooper into full compliance with the Federal safety standards, and that the agency has made a determination under section 30141(a)(1) (B) that "the safety features of the vehicle comply with or are capable of being altered to comply with those standards based on destructive test information or other evidence [NHTSA] decides is adequate." NHTSA makes the determination after the public has commented upon an application filed by the "registered importer", which is an entity that NHTSA has recognized as capable of performing standards compliance work. If Mr. Doyle is interested in pursuing this avenue of approach, the Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance will provide him, upon his request, with a list of "registered importers" in his area. This is the procedure that must be followed by persons seeking permanent importation of vehicles for their own use. The fact that the Mini meets the safety standards of other countries is an argument that may be made in the application.

The modifications which Mr. Doyle offered to make, while addressing some aspects of occupant protection, were insufficient to demonstrate that the Mini would comply afterwards with all the safety standards that apply to it. We note also Mr. Doyle's offer to restrict the Mini's use to private property. The problem with this offer is that it is not binding on a subsequent purchaser of the car, and we have no authority to require a person other than the importer to bring a car into compliance. Thus, an importer must bring into compliance a motor vehicle that was originally manufactured for on-road use even if (s)he intends to use it on private property.

As noted above, Mr. Doyle seeks an exemption based upon his interpretation of Section. 30112(b). Section 30112(a) contains the basic prohibition against, among other things, importing a motor vehicle unless it complies with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards and bears the manufacturer's certification of compliance. Section 30112(b) sets forth nine circumstances in which section 30112(a) does not apply, that is to say, under which a violation will be considered not to have occurred (and for which a civil penalty may not be imposed). One of these exceptions is if a person can establish "that the person had no reason to know, despite exercising reasonable care, that a motor vehicle . . . does not comply with applicable [U.S. Federal] motor vehicle safety standards. . . ."

Mr. Doyle has not violated Section 30112(a). He has not completed importation of the Mini into the United States; indeed, he was prevented from doing so by the U.S. Customs Service because it did not comply with the standards. Since he has not imported a noncomplying vehicle, he has not violated Section 30112(a) and therefore Section 30112(b)(2) does not apply. He cannot now import the Mini using Section 30112(b)(2) as a defense because he now knows that the Mini fails to comply. The exception that applies to Mr. Doyle is that set out by Section 30112(b)(5) -- "a motor vehicle imported for personal use by an individual who receives an exemption under section 30142 of this title", that is, importation of the Mini through the auspices of a "registered importer" who will conform the vehicle.

Taylor Vinson of this Office will be pleased to answer such further questions as may occur (202-366-5263).

Sincerely,

John Womack

Acting Chief Counsel

ref:591

d:11/15/96

ID: 9589

Mr. James M. Keitges
President
Native American Motorcycle Co.
P.O. Box 4287
Omaha, NE 68104

Dear Mr. Keitges:

This is in reply to your letter of January 14, 1994, in which you ask to be provided the statement "that once the company has complied with all Federal NHTSA statutes, regulations, and standards, then the company has also complied with the State and Local requirements as applicable to NHTSA."

It is not possible to provide you with a statement in this form. We are unaware of any State and local requirements that are literally "applicable to NHTSA." However, there may be state and local laws that require compliance with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards, issued by NHTSA, in order for vehicles to be sold or registered for use on state and local roads. We believe it likely that this is your concern, and we will take this opportunity to explain the relationship between Federal and State or local requirements.

Section 103(d) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (l5 U.S.C. 1392(d)), in effect, allows a State or a political subdivision of a State to enact a safety standard covering the same aspect of performance as a NHTSA Federal motor vehicle safety standard if it is identical to the NHTSA standard. A State or local standard cannot impose a higher level of performance than a NHTSA standard, except for vehicles procured for use by the State or the political subdivision. Further, a State or a subdivision is specifically permitted to enforce its own identical safety standard. Finally, State or local standards are permitted in areas of performance where there is no NHTSA standard, such as horns and fog lamps.

Section 114 of the Act (15 U.S.C. 1403) requires each motor vehicle to bear its manufacturer's permanently affixed certification of compliance with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. This certification raises the presumption that the vehicle, in fact, conforms with those standards. If a State or local law is worded so as to require compliance with all Federal motor vehicle safety standards as a condition of vehicle sale or registration, then the manufacturer's certification should be accepted as fulfilling this State or local requirement. We believe, however, that in spite of the certification, a vehicle could be rejected as not in conformance with Federal requirements within the meaning of State or local law if the nonconformance was manifest on its face (e.g., failure of a new passenger car to be equipped with a center highmounted stop lamp) in spite of the facts that a State cannot enforce a Federal standard, and that neither the manufacturer nor NHTSA may have made a formal determination of noncompliance.

If the State or local law is worded so as to require compliance with all State or local requirements as a condition of sale or registration, the manufacturer's certification may be accepted as indicating compliance with all identical State or local requirements if the governing authority so chooses, but obviously the certification could not cover compliance with State or local requirements in areas not covered by the Federal safety standards.

We hope that this explanation is useful to you, and will be glad to answer any further questions you may have.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

ref:VSA d.2/3/94

ID: nht94-8.32

DATE: February 3, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: James M. Keitges -- President, Native American Motorcycle Co.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 1/14/94 from James M. Keitges to John Womack (OCC-9089)

TEXT:

This is in reply to your letter of January 14, 1994, in which you ask to be provided the statement "that once the company has complied with all Federal NHTSA statutes, regulations, and standards, then the company has also complied with the State and Local requirements as applicable to NHTSA."

It is not possible to provide you with a statement in this form. We are unaware of any State and local requirements that are literally "applicable to NHTSA." However, there may be state and local laws that require compliance with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards, issued by NHTSA, in order for vehicles to be sold or registered for use on state and local roads. We believe it likely that this is your concern, and we will take this opportunity to explain the relationship between Federal and State or local requirements.

Section 103(d) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1392(d)), in effect, allows a State or a political subdivision of a State to enact a safety standard covering the same aspect of performance as a NHTSA Federal motor vehicle safety standard if it is identical to the NHTSA standard. A State or local standard cannot impose a higher level of performance than a NHTSA standard, except for vehicles procured for use by the State or the political subdivision. Further, a State or a subdivision is specifically permitted to enforce its own identical safety standard. Finally, State or local standards are permitted in areas of performance where there is no NHTSA standard, such as horns and fog lamps.

Section 114 of the Act (15 U.S.C. 1403) requires each motor vehicle to bear its manufacturer's permanently affixed certification of compliance with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. This certification raises the presumption that the vehicle, in fact, conforms with those standards. If a State or local law is worded so as to require compliance with all Federal motor vehicle safety standards as a condition of vehicle sale or registration, then the manufacturer's certification should be accepted as fulfilling this State or local requirement. We believe, however, that in spite of the certification, a vehicle could be rejected as not in conformance with Federal requirements within the meaning of State or local law if the nonconformance was manifest on its face (e.g., failure of a new passenger car to be equipped with a center highmounted stop lamp) in spite of the facts that a State cannot enforce a Federal standard, and that neither the manufacturer nor NHTSA may have made a formal determination of noncompliance.

If the State or local law is worded so as to require compliance with all

State or local requirements as a condition of sale or registration, the manufacturer's certification may be accepted as indicating compliance with all identical State or local requirements if the governing authority so chooses, but obviously the certification could not cover compliance with State or local requirements in areas not covered by the Federal safety standards.

We hope that this explanation is useful to you, and will be glad to answer any further questions you may have.

ID: nht95-4.26

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: September 19, 1995

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Robert J. Ponticelli -- President, American International Pacific Industries Corp.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 7/25/95 LETTER FROM ROBERT J. PONTICELLI TO JOHN WOMACK (OCC 11082)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Ponticelli:

This responds to your letter asking about how the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's (NHTSA's) regulations apply to your product. You described your product as an aftermarket anti-theft device that is installed between the steering wheel a nd the steering shaft. The device is activated by "a key switch" and causes the steering wheel to become freewheeling, thus preventing actual steering of the vehicle. In an August 29, 1995 meeting with NHTSA staff, you demonstrated this device and stat ed that you also have plans to market it to vehicle manufacturers as original equipment. For the original equipment version of the device, you plan to incorporate a starter interrupt that will prevent the vehicle from starting while the device is in the freewheeling mode. You also requested information on how our regulations apply to regulated parties such as new car dealers and aftermarket service businesses. I will respond to your questions below.

First, I will give you some background information. NHTSA is authorized to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. The FMVSSs are contained in title 49, part 571 of the Code of Federal Regulations.

NHTSA does not have any specific regulations covering an item of motor vehicle equipment such as your anti-theft device. However, since the steering wheel, steering column, and the area in front of the driver are among the most closely regulated parts o f a vehicle, your device could affect a vehicle's compliance with several safety standards.

Because the purpose of your device is to prevent vehicle theft, I will first discuss FMVSS No. 114, the safety standard that deals with theft protection. The pertinent part of Standard No. 114 requires most vehicles to "have a key-locking system which, w henever the key is removed, prevents: (a) the normal activation of the vehicle's engine or motor; and (b) either steering or forward self-mobility of the vehicle or both." Most motor vehicle manufacturers have chosen to comply with this requirement by in stalling a steering lock. Because a device that causes the steering wheel to become freewheeling prevents actual steering, or maneuvering of the vehicle, it could also be used to meet this requirement. However, to be used as a basis for certification wi th FMVSS No. 114, the device would have to be activated by removal of the key that controls engine activation.

In addition to possibly being used as a means of complying with FMVSS No. 114, your device could alternatively be operated by a separate key and installed in addition to a steering lock, assuming that it did not affect compliance of the vehicle with that or other safety standards. However, you should evaluate whether the device might pose a safety hazard if used without your planned starter interrupt. A driver who doesn't know (or forgets) about your device could start the vehicle in motion without re alizing that the turning of the wheel is not affecting the vehicle.

Other standards that you should be concerned about include FMVSS Nos. 203 (impact protection for the driver from the steering control system), 204 (steering control rearward displacement), and 208 (occupant crash protection). As our engineers explained i n our meeting, even small changes to the steering column can affect vehicle compliance with these standards.

Turning to the second part of your question, which legal requirements apply depends on how your product is marketed. If your product is installed by a vehicle manufacturer as original equipment, the vehicle manufacturer would have to certify that the ve hicle with your device installed complies with all applicable FMVSS's, including Standard Nos. 114, 203, 204, and 208. If the device is added to a previously certified new motor vehicle prior to its first sale, e.g. by a new car dealer, the person who m odifies 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.

If your device is installed on a used vehicle by a commercial business, such as an aftermarket service business or new car dealer, that business would have to make sure that it did not knowingly make inoperative any part of a device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable FMVSS. Any violation of this "make inoperative" prohibition would subject the violator to a potential civil penalty of up to $ 1,000 for each violatio n.

The "make inoperative" prohibition does not apply to modifications that vehicle owners make to their own vehicles.

Thus, Federal law would not apply in situations where individual vehicle owners installed your device in their own vehicles, even if the installation were to result in the vehicle no longer complying with the safety standards. However, NHTSA encourages vehicle owners not to degrade any safety device or system installed in their vehicles. In addition, individual States have the authority to regulate modifications that individual vehicle owners may make to their vehicles, so you might wish to consult St ate regulations to see whether your device would be permitted.

You as the product's manufacturer are subject to the requirements in sections 30118-30122 of Title 49 of the U.S. Code concerning the recall and remedy of products with defects related to motor vehicle safety. In the event that the manufacturer or NHTSA determines that the product contains a safety related defect, the manufacturer would be responsible for notifying purchasers of the defective equipment and remedying the problem free of charge.

I hope this information is helpful. I am also enclosing a copy of a fact sheet titled "Information for New Manufacturers of Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Equipment." It outlines other laws and regulations that you should be aware of. If you have any further questions about NHTSA's safety standards, please feel free to contact Mr. Paul Atelsek at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht90-3.98

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: July 5, 1990

FROM: Roger C. Fairchild -- Esq., Shutler and Low

TO: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 9-26-90 from P.J. Rice to R.C. Fairchild (A36; Std. 109; Std. 110; Std. 119; Std. 120)

TEXT:

Our firm advises a number of motor vehicle industry clients regarding their obligations under various Federal statutes and regulations. On behalf of a client, we request your opinion regarding the proper interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards 110 and 120 (49 C.F.R. 571.110 and 571.120), as they relate to certain recommendations for tire selection and pressure/load determinations contained in publications of the Tire and Rim Association ("TRA").

Background

The TRA Year Book is one of the tire industry standardization publications that are listed in section 4.4.1(b) of FMVSS 109 and in section 5.1(b) of FMVSS 119. Under section 4.2.1(c) of FMVSS 109 and section 6.6 of FMVSS 119, tires must have maximum load ratings (molded on the sidewall in accordance with section 4.3(c) of FMVSS 109 and section 6.5(d) of FMVSS 119) that are not less than the lowest of any specified values printed in the listed publications, for tires of that size designation. Under section 4.2.1 of FMVSS 110, the vehicle maximum load on a tire may not be greater than the maximum load rating on the tire sidewall. In addition, section 4.3.1(c) of FMVSS 110 provides that, if a tire pressure other than the maximum pressure is specified on a passenger car tire placard, the vehicle loading condition for that pressure must be specified, and that pressure must be one that will support the vehicle load on the applicable tire, as specified in the listed publications or in a separate submittal by the tire manufacturer. Moreover, it is our understanding that NHTSA has interpreted FMVSS 120 to require that, for vehicles other than passenger cars, the vehicle load on each tire (at the recommended inflation pressure) must not exceed the tire's load rating at that pressure, as specified in the listed publications.

Thus, NHTSA generally requires that the tire selection process and tire information labels must reflect pressure/load relationships that are determined by reference to publications such as the TRA Year Book. However, NHTSA standards do not specify the exact part of each of these publications that is to be used in determining compliance with NHTSA standards. In fact, the publications include some "advisory" requirements that do not appear to be used in determining compliance with the FMVSS.

Examples of TRA criteria that are not clearly referred to in NHTSA standards are those criteria relating to vehicle speed capability.

Although FMVSS 109 and 119 include tire high speed tests, we understand that, in general, no separate provision is made in the FMVSS to account for vehicle high speed capability.

Questions

We request that you inform us as to whether the following three TRA criteria are used in determining compliance with FMVSS:

1. Vehicle Load Adjustment for Speed (Passenger Cars)

The 1990 edition of the TRA Year Book provides that "for applications above 210 km/h (130 mph), both vehicle normal load and vehicle maximum load shall be multiplied by a factor" that is based on the vehicle's maximum speed capability (see Enclosure 1). The Year Book goes on to state that "the resultant vehicle normal load must not exceed 88 percent of the tire maximum load and the resultant vehicle maximum load must not exceed the tire maximum load. In addition, the resultant vehicle maximum load as determined above must not exceed the tire load corresponding to the inflation pressure specified by the vehicle manufacturer."

It is our understanding that the adjustment factor described above is not used in determining compliance with FMVSS 110 or 120. As with the TRA provisions, section 4.2 of FMVSS 110 requires that the vehicle normal load on a tire must not exceed 88 percent of the tire's maximum load rating and the vehicle maximum load on a tire must not exceed the maximum load rating (as marked on the tire sidewall). However, unlike the TRA provisions, the terms "vehicle normal load" and "vehicle maximum load" are defined in section 3 of FMVSS 110 without reference to the speed capability of the vehicle. No explicit reference to the above described adjustment factor appears anywhere in the Federal standards. Therefore, we conclude that the vehicle speed adjustment factor is not applicable under the Federal standards.

2. Vehicle Speed Adjustment for Inflation Pressure (Passenger Cars)

The TRA Year Book also requires that the "speed category of the tire must match or exceed the theoretical maximum speed of the vehicle." The theoretical maximum speed of the vehicle is defined by TRA as the actual maximum speed, as adjusted for tire inflation pressure using another factor specified by TRA. (See Enclosure 2.) TRA also recommends minimum inflation pressures for vehicles of high maximum speed capability. We are aware of no reference anywhere in NHTSA regulations to tire speed categories. Therefore, it is our understanding that the TRA provisions set forth in Enclosure 2 are not used in determining compliance with Federal safety standards.

3. Load Limits at Various Speeds for Diagonal and Radial Ply Truck Tires

TRA also provides for adjustments in recommended tire inflation pressure and "service load" for tires used on trucks and buses, depending on the maximum speed capability of the vehicle (see Enclosure 3).

FMVSS 120 does not explicitly define the required tire pressure/load relationships for trucks and buses. However, section 5.1.2 of that standard provides that the sum of the maximum load ratings of the tires

fitted to an axle must not be less than the applicable GAWR. The maximum load ratings of truck tires are determined under section 6.6 of FMVSS 119 without reference to the vehicle application. The only explicit reference in FMVSS 120 to vehicle maximum speed capability is an exclusion from the requirements of section 5.1.2 for vehicles whose maximum speed attainable in 2 miles is 50 mph or less. Thus, we do not see a basis for using the TRA standard set forth in Enclosure 3 to determine compliance with Federal standards.

Conclusion

In our opinion, the TRA Standards described above should not be used in determining compliance with Federal safety standards. In general, using such private standards would have the effect of delegating to several distinct organizations the power to amend Federal standards in ways that are potentially inconsistent. Moreover, TRA standards are typically made effective on publication, so no advance lead-time would be provided to vehicle manufacturers with respect to new TRA standards. (If NHTSA determines that the above mentioned "advisory" requirements of the TRA standards must be used in determining compliance with the FMVSS, please inform us how NHTSA would deal with this lead-time concern, consistent with section 103(e) of the Safety Act.)

If you have any questions regarding this letter, please contact me at 818-1320 (local number).

Enclosures

Selection of Tires for Passenger Cars and Station Wagons (Source: The Tire and Rim Association 1990 Year Book) (text omitted.)

Vehicle Speed Adjustment (for inflation pressure) (text omitted).

Load Limits at Various Speeds for Diagonal and Radial Ply Truck Tires Used on Improved Surfaces (text omitted).