ID: 14246.drn

Mr. Robert Elzey
Customer Service Manager
Beck Imports
141 E. Independence Blvd.
Charlotte, NC 28212

Dear Mr. Elzey:

This responds to your letter asking about a dealer's rights and responsibilities under Federal law when asked by a customer to disconnect an air bag. I apologize for the delay in this response.

As you may be aware, air bags are installed in cars and light trucks in conformity with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard that requires automatic protection for front seat occupants. Under Federal law, dealers and motor vehicle repair businesses normally are prohibited from deactivating components that have been installed to comply with such safety standards. NHTSA has a policy of allowing air bag deactivation for certain medical conditions, or if there is a special need for children to be in the front seat. In response to written requests, NHTSA has been issuing, on a case by case basis, letters to vehicle owners that would allow their dealer or repair business to disconnect one or both air bags without facing Federal civil penalties from this agency.

If the vehicle owner shows such a letter from NHTSA, the dealer or repair business would not be subject to Federal civil penalties for deactivating that air bag. However, it does not mean that the dealer or repair business is under any obligation to perform the deactivation. Further, NHTSA's letter does not shield any business from their potential civil liability to others.

I hope this information is helpful to you. If you have any further questions, please feel free to send them to us at this address or FAX them to (202) 366-3820.

Sincerely,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
ref:208
d:6/4/97

ID: 14247.ogm

Mr. Michael D. Quinn
Vice President Consulting Services
Body Shop Video's Business Development Group
4346 Woodland Ave.
Drexel Hill, PA 19026

Dear Mr. Quinn:

This is in response to your letter asking several questions about automobile replacement parts. Specifically, your letter is directed to "crash" parts such as fenders, hoods, and other body components that are manufactured by companies other than the companies that manufactured the original equipment (O.E.M.) parts. Before responding to your specific requests, I would like to provide you with some background information regarding the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's (NHTSA)regulation of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment.

Pursuant to Federal law, 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301, NHTSA is responsible for promulgating and enforcing safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and new motor vehicle equipment. Under this authority, NHTSA has promulgated Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. Pursuant to 49 U.S.C.  30112(a), a person may not manufacture for sale, sell, offer for sale, introduce or deliver for introduction into interstate commerce, or import into the United States any motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment unless it complies with all applicable safety standards and is covered by a certification of such compliance. This prohibition applies to new vehicles and equipment. Section 30112(b) provides that the prohibition does not apply to the sale of a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment after the first purchase of the vehicle or equipment for purposes other than resale.

Your letter notes that non-O.E.M. parts are often less expensive than O.E.M. parts and that body shops are often encouraged by insurance companies to use these less costly components. You have asked several questions which are repeated below and followed by an answer.

Question 1. Does the United States require that replacement crash parts on automobiles (e.g. fenders, bumpers, hoods etc.) be crash tested for crashworthiness?

No. The vehicle manufacturers are required to certify that vehicles and equipment they produce meet all applicable safety standards. Some of the vehicle standards set performance requirements for vehicles in certain types of crash tests. However, these standards apply to new vehicles and do not require testing of replacement parts such as fenders, bumpers and hoods that may be used to repair a vehicle. (Safety standards do apply to some replacement parts, such as lamps.)

However, 49 U.S.C. 30122 specifies (in pertinent part) that a motor vehicle repair business:

may not knowingly make inoperative any part of a device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable motor vehicle safety standard prescribed under this chapter...

This section prohibits repair businesses from knowingly making inoperative any device or element of design installed in compliance with a safety standard. However, it does not impose an affirmative duty on repair businesses to repair vehicles in a manner that restores their original performance. I note, however, that NHTSA has long recommended the repair, restoration, or replacement of all safety systems that may have been damaged in a crash. The individual States may regulate the repair of used vehicles.

Question 2. If not, should they be allowed on the streets and highways, posing a possible threat?

NHTSA has not conducted any studies of the effect, if any, that non-O.E.M. "crash" parts may have on the ability of vehicles to comply with applicable standards. If the design or configuration of a replacement part obviously compromises a vehicle's compliance with a standard, e.g., omitting or obscuring a side marker lamp, such a part should not be used by a repair business.

Question 3. Does the United States require product testing of imported goods for the safe use of its citizens?

Answer: Whether a particular imported product must be tested under federal law is dependent both on the product being imported and the regulatory scheme of any federal law or agency that regulates that product. In regards to motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment, Chapter 301 does not require testing prior to sale and does not authorize the agency to require such pre-sale testing. Instead, manufacturers (this term includes importers) are required to certify that all products sold in the United States, whether manufactured in the United States or abroad, comply with all applicable standards. These standards largely apply to completed vehicles rather than equipment or replacement parts and there are no standards that apply directly to sheet metal body parts unless these parts are integrated into a vehicle before sale to consumers.

Manufacturers are under a continuing duty to remedy any vehicles or equipment that do not comply with an applicable standard or contain a safety related defect. NHTSA routinely performs compliance testing to determine if vehicles or equipment meet applicable standards and, if evidence of a defect exists, conducts investigations to determine if manufacturers or importers should provide a remedy.

Question 4. Does the NHTSA, in its investigation of auto crashes have any data to support that non-original equipment automobile replacement parts will withstand an impact, as good as the original parts by the manufacturer? Thus, clearing these shops of this liability?

Answer: Assuming that your question is limited to "crash" parts as described above, NHTSA has not conducted any studies or investigations specifically dedicated to determining the ability of replacement body parts to withstand an impact when compared to O.E.M. parts. We suggest that you consult with a private attorney concerning potential liability.

I hope that this response is helpful. If you have any questions, please contact Otto Matheke of my staff at (202) 366-5263.

Sincerely,

John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
ref:VSA

ID: 14248.ztv

Mr. Marcin A. Gorzkowski, P. Eng.
Compliance Engineer,
Motor Vehicle Safety Enforcement
Road Safety and Motor Vehicle Regulation
Transport Canada
Ottawa, ON K1A 0N5

Dear Mr. Gorzkowski:

We have received your letter of February 13, 1997, expressing concern that the intended functions of certain motor vehicle lamps and reflectors are not being met by manufacturers. You are specifically concerned about "separation of turn signal lamps/hazard warning lamps, separation of reflex reflectors, and the installation of reflex reflectors or hazard warning lamps on movable parts of the vehicle."

With respect to spacing of lamps and reflectors, you believe that "[t]here seems to be a need for introduction of [an] acceptable range of distances from the edge of the vehicle where the reflex reflectors and turn signal lamps/hazard warning lamps should be located. This range may be expressed either by an actual measurement or by a percentage related to the width of the vehicle."

As you recognize, this suggestion would have to be implemented through rulemaking. Both Federal and Candadian Motor Vehicle Safety Standards No. 108 specify that turn signal/hazard warning lamps and rear reflex reflectors be located "as far apart as practicable." However, in point of fact, both standards specify that all front and rear lighting equipment required to be provided in pairs must be located "as far apart as practicable."

Literal compliance with this requirement could mean that lamps and reflectors would have to be stacked vertically at the extreme edges of a vehicle. But we have never sought to enforce the location requirements of Standard No. 108 in that manner.

We generally rely on the good faith of a manufacturer in determining that the location of any particular pair of lamps and reflectors is "as far apart as practicable." The manufacturer's certification of compliance of the vehicle represents, in part, its certification that its lamps and reflectors are located "as far apart as practicable." NHTSA has repeatedly stated in its interpretations that it will accept the manufacturer's certification unless that determination appears clearly erroneous. For example, where there is room on a truck or trailer rear header for identification lamps and these lamps are placed at bumper level, NHTSA will question the lower location and try to persuade the manufacturer to relocate them. Both Transport Canada and NHTSA have alerted Ford Motor Company to their concern that the front turn signal lamps on the 1996-97 Mercury Sable passenger cars are not as "far apart as practicable" because they are spaced farther apart on the similar companion car, the 1996-97 Ford Taurus. We agree with you that the Mercury design does not fulfill the intent of a turn signal spacing requirement.

The question, then, is whether it is appropriate for NHTSA to develop a more objective regulation on lamp spacing. The gathering of accident data is not sufficiently discriminant to ascribe causation of crashes involving passenger cars to lateral spacing of their lamps or reflectors. Thus, a logical rationale would have to be developed in support of a more explicit regulation for the horizontal spacing of lamps and reflectors, if NHTSA decides that the requirement of "as far apart as practicable" is inadequate regulatory language..

Your second concern is the location of certain lamps and reflectors on trunk lids. You cite NHTSA's interpretations that compliance is judged with the vehicle in its normal operating configuration (i.e., with doors, trunk lids, cargo hatches, etc. closed), and present situations in which lamps and reflectors mounted on the deck lid will not be seen when the lid is open.

As I recall, we have advised over the years that lamps such as stop and turn signals should not be placed on trunk lids, and that, if a two-compartment lamp is placed both on the trunk lid and the adjacent rear sheet metal, the lamp located on the sheet metal should alone comply with the requirements of Standard No. 108. My review of the standard shows that S5.3.1 requires lamps, reflective devices, and associated equipment to be "securely mounted on a rigid part of the vehicle other than glazing that is not designed to be removed except for repair." We will consider whether sufficient safety justification exists for proposing that no lamp, reflective device, or item of associated equipment be located on a trunk lid, door, panel, or other movable body part unless the regulated item complies with Standard No. 108 with the trunk lid, etc. in its fully open position, or unless an alternative fully-complying item is provided on the movable part.

As you recognize, any changes to respond to your concerns and the inconsistencies between interpretations of the U.S. and Canadian lighting standards would have to be implemented through rulemaking. NHTSA will carefully consider your suggestions and take the appropriate actions. We will coordinate any proposed regulatory changes with Transport Canada to ensure that any changes are harmonized by both countries. Harmonization with international standards is a stated policy of the United States.

Thank you for bringing these matters to our attention. If you have any questions, you may refer them to Taylor Vinson of this Office (202-366-5263).

Sincerely,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
ref:108
5/6/97

ID: 14261.drn

Timothy D. McDonnell, Esq.
Vice President, General Counsel and Secretary
Trailmobile Corporation
Amoco Building, Suite 6820
200 East Randolph Drive
Chicago, IL 60601

Dear Mr. McDonnell:

This responds to your request for an interpretation whether a world manufacturer identifier (WMI) assigned to Pullman Trailmobile can continue to be used after Pullman was sold to Trailmobile Corporation, which changed Pullman's name to Trailmobile Trailer Corporation (TTC). Under the facts described below, TTC may continue to use the WMI originally assigned to Pullman.

Your letter states that Pullman Trailmobile, a predecessor of TTC, was assigned the WMI "1PT." In 1991, TTC (as Pullman Trailmobile) was sold to Trailmobile Corporation. Today, TTC is still a division of Trailmobile, and manufactures trailers.

In a telephone conversation with Dorothy Nakama of my staff, you explained that Trailmobile is a holding company, does not manufacture motor vehicles, and is not assigned a WMI. You stated that Trailmobile does not intend to merge TTC into Trailmobile, but to keep TTC as a separate division, and to advertise Trailmobile Trailers Corporation as a trade name. You also stated that Trailmobile will continue to be responsible for trailers manufactured in the past with the WMI "1PT."

NHTSA's regulation at 49 CFR Part 565 Vehicle Identification Number Requirements states that the WMI shall "uniquely identify the manufacturer, make and type of the motor vehicle if its manufacturer produces 500 or more motor vehicles of its type annually." (49 CFR section 565.6(a)) In past interpretation letters, NHTSA has interpreted "uniquely identify" to mean that the same WMI cannot be used for two corporate entities if there is a possibility the two entities will be confused.

The facts of your case are similar to those in a March 20, 1997 letter to Monaco Corporation (copy enclosed). As was the case in Monaco, in your case, no WMI is assigned to the parent company (Trailmobile), but a division (TTC) has a WMI. NHTSA was assured in the Monaco case that there are no plans for the parent company, Monaco, to manufacture motor vehicles (which would require assigning a WMI). Similarly, you assure us that since it is a holding company, Trailmobile Corporation itself will not manufacture motor vehicles. You have also assured us that TTC will remain a separate division, and advertised as a trade name.

Because the relevant facts in your case and Monaco's are the same, we arrive at the same decision in your case as we did in Monaco's. Since Trailmobile itself is not assigned a WMI, but its division, TTC has a WMI, we agree that TTC may continue to use the WMI that was assigned to Pullman. Under the facts described, there would be no confusion as to which corporate entity manufactured the motor vehicle.

A copy of this letter will be sent to the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE), which has a contract to administer the WMI system for NHTSA. The SAE will make appropriate notations in its records about Trailmobile Corporation and TTC, and may contact you if it needs further information.

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

Sincerely,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
Enclosure

cc: Ms. Cathy Douds
Society of Automotive Engineers
400 Commonwealth Drive
Warrendale, PA 15096

(Please enclose copy of incoming letter to Ms. Douds also)

ref:565
NCC-20:DNakama:mar:apr/18/97:62992
[U:\NCC20\INTERP\565\14261.DRN]
Interps: Part 565, Redbook (2)
cc: NCC-20, Subj/chron, DN, NPS, NSA

ID: 14270.wkm

Arthur N. Arschin, Esq.
Attorney at Law
450 Seventh Avenue, Suite 2803
New York, NY 10123

Dear Mr. Arschin:

Please pardon the delay in responding to your letter requesting DOT identification numbers for Union Autoparts Manufacturing Company, Ltd.(Union). Please be advised that Union is not required to have a DOT identification number, as discussed below.

You stated that Union, a Thailand company, manufactures steel wheel rims for motorcycles and bicycles, as well as steel spokes and steel nipples for motorcycle and bicycle tires. Union wants to export some of its wheel rims and parts to the U.S. and for that purpose, wants to obtain DOT identification numbers for their rims. You further stated that Union's motorcycle rims bear the words "Union Cycle" on the weather side, and that bicycle rims are marked "UAB." Finally, you stated that you have been designated Union's resident agent in the U.S. for the service of process.

Unless equipped with a motor, bicycles and bicycle equipment are not covered by the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. Thus, a DOT identification number is not necessary for importation and sale of bicycles and related equipment. The Consumer Product Safety Commission has issued regulations relating to bicycles, however, which can be found at 16 CFR 1512, including requirements for tires (1512.10), wheels (1512.11), and wheel hubs (1512.13).

With respect to motorcycle rims, paragraph S5.2 of Standard No. 120, Tire Selection and Rims for Motor Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars (49 CFR 571.120), specifies rim marking requirements applicable to all rims for use on motor vehicles other than passenger cars. Subparagraph (d) requires rims to be marked with "A designation that identifies the manufacturer of the rim by name, trademark, or symbol." This information allows this agency and the public to identify the manufacturer of the rim should the need arise. The use of a trademark or symbol instead of the manufacturer's name is permitted because the agency can determine the identity of the manufacturer from the trademark or symbol. Domestic manufacturers' trademarks and symbols are registered with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. Foreign manufacturers are required by 49 CFR 551.45 to include in their resident agent designations a list of the "marks, trade names, or other designations of origin" that appear on any of their products in lieu of their legal names. Thus, the assignment of an individual DOT identification code, as the agency does for tire manufacturers, is not required for rim manufacturers. In that respect, Union's continued use of "Union Cycle" and "UAB" is acceptable.

It should be noted, however, that in accordance with 49 CFR Part 566, Manufacturer Identification (copy enclosed), if it has not already done so, Union will be required to provide NHTSA the information called for therein.

I hope this information is helpful to you. Should you have any further questions or need additional information, please feel free to contact Walter Myers of my staff at this address or by fax at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosure

ref:120

d.9/22/97

ID: 14280.jeg

Mr. Bob Van Hazelen
Fleet and Building Manager
Public Works Department
City of Burbank
124 South Lake Street
P.O. Box 6459
Burbank, CA 91510-6459

Dear Mr. Van Hazelen:

This responds to your letter, on behalf of the Police Department of the City of Burbank, requesting a "formal written passenger air bag deactivation waiver." The Department requested deactivation of the passenger side air bag and the removal of the passenger side seat in two Ford Crown Victoria police patrol vehicles. According to your letter, computers will be mounted in the deployment area of the passenger air bag, and the front passenger seats will be removed. As explained below, this type of modification would be permitted under Federal law. Therefore, you do not need an "air bag deactivation waiver."

Some background information about our agency may be helpful. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized under Title 49, Chapter 301 of the U.S. Code to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. Federal law prohibits the manufacture or sale of any new motor vehicle or new item of motor vehicle equipment which does not conform to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards.

Among the standards that NHTSA has issued are two which could be affected by the modification you propose: Standard No. 207, Seating Systems, (49 CFR 571.207), which requires each vehicle to have an occupant seat for the driver and sets strength and other performance requirements for all occupant seats in a vehicle, and Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection (49 CFR 571.208), which specifies occupant protection requirements based on vehicle type and seating position within the vehicle.

If your contemplated modification is made before a vehicle's first purchase for purposes other than resale, the person who modifies the vehicle would be an alterer of a previously certified motor vehicle and would be required to certify that, as altered, the vehicle continues to comply with all of the safety standards affected by the alteration (See 49 CFR Part 567.7). Once the front passenger seat is removed, Standard No. 208 would not require an air bag for that location since an occupant restraint is only required if a seating position is there.

Federal law also limits the modifications that can be made by certain businesses to vehicles. Manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and repair businesses may not "knowingly make inoperative" any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or equipment in compliance with an applicable safety standard.

NHTSA does not consider there to be a violation of the "make inoperative" prohibition with respect to occupant restraints if, after one of the named types of commercial entities modifies a used vehicle, the vehicle is equipped with occupant restraints at every seating position and those occupant restraints are the type that Standard No. 208 permitted when the vehicle was new.

Again, if a seating position were removed from a used vehicle, the removal of the air bag as well would not violate the make inoperative provision because the presence of the air bag was originally premised on the presence of the seating position.

However, the make inoperative prohibition would be violated if removal of the passenger side air bag caused the driver side air bag to malfunction or deploy. I would like to caution you to contact the vehicle manufacturer concerning the proper procedure for any air bag removal. Removing an air bag could cause it to deploy and injure the mechanic. In addition, removal of the passenger side air bag could cause the driver side air bag to malfunction or deploy.

I note that the "make inoperative" prohibition applies only to the named entities. Therefore, vehicle owners are permitted to make any modifications to their vehicles, even if the vehicle would no longer comply with applicable safety standards.

I also note that S4.5.2 of Standard No. 208 requires a readiness indicator for an air bag system which is clearly visible from the driver's seating position. NHTSA believes that most manufacturers install one indicator for both air bags. After the passenger side air bag is removed, this indicator would show that the air bag system is not operative. NHTSA is concerned that the driver would then be unable to tell if the driver side air bag were functional. Therefore, I urge you to contact the manufacturer to determine how the indicator could be altered to monitor the readiness of the driver side air bag only.

As a final caution, I note that the purpose of the "make inoperative" provision is to ensure, to the degree possible, current and subsequent owners and users of the vehicle are not deprived of the maximum protection afforded by the vehicle as newly manufactured. It is our understanding that it is common for police cars to be sold after a few years of service. Presumably any police equipment would be removed before such a sale. I urge you to either reinstall the passenger seat and occupant restraint or to make these modifications in a way that will discourage reinstallation of the passenger seat, so that future users of the vehicle are unlikely to use a seating position that does not have any occupant restraint.

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

Sincerely,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
ref:VSA#207#208
d:5/29/97

ID: 14285.mls

Mr. Ken Bratlie
President
Columbia Corporation
5775 NW Wagon Way
Hillsboro, OR 97124-8531

Dear Mr. Bratlie:

This responds to your inquiry about whether two types of "trailer tippers" (a "Woods Products Trailer Tipper" and a "Landfill Trailer Tipper") are motor vehicles that would have to comply with the applicable Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. A trailer tipper is used to empty the contents from a semitrailer onto the ground by elevating (tipping) one end of the trailer and pouring the content out the other end. You state that each trailer tipper stays at an off-road work site, such as a mill or a landfill, the majority of its life and is infrequently transported over public roads between job sites.

As way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) interprets and enforces the laws under which the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSSs) are promulgated. NHTSA's statute defines the term "motor vehicle" as follows:

"Any vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power manufactured primarily for use on the public streets, roads, and highways, except any vehicle operated exclusively on a rail or rails."

Whether the agency considers your trailer tippers to be motor vehicles depends on their use. It is the agency's position that this statutory definition does not encompass mobile construction equipment, such as cranes and scrapers, which use the highway only to move between job sites and which typically spend extended periods of time at a single job site. In such cases, the on-highway use of the vehicle is merely incidental and is not the primary purpose for which the vehicle was manufactured. In contrast are instances where vehicles, such as dump trucks, frequently use the highway going to and from job sites, and stay at a job site for only a limited time. Such vehicles are considered motor vehicles, since the on-highway use is more than "incidental."

Based on the available information, it appears that your trailer tippers are not "motor vehicles" within the meaning of the statutory definition. This conclusion is based on your statements in your letter that the trailer tippers typically spend extended periods of time at a single site and only use the public roads infrequently to move between job sites. Thus, the agency would consider the use of the trailer tippers on the public roads to be incidental and not their primary purpose. Since your trailer tippers are not motor vehicles, they would not be subject to our Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. Accordingly, the trailer tippers would not be required to be equipped with antilock brake systems.

If NHTSA were to receive additional information indicating that your trailer tippers used the roads more than on an incidental basis, then the agency would reassess this interpretation. If the agency were to determine that your trailer tippers are motor vehicles, then they would have to comply with the applicable Standards, including Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment, which addresses conspicuity, Standard No. 119, New Pneumatic Tires for Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars, and Standard No. 120, Tire Selection and Rims for Motor Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars. The content requirements for the vehicle identification number are found at 49 CFR Part 565. In addition, if the trailer tipper were a motor vehicle, while it would not be required to be equipped with brakes, if it is equipped with hydraulic brakes, then you would need to use brake hoses and brake fluids that comply with Standard No. 106, Brake Hoses, and Standard No. 116, Motor Vehicle Brake Fluids. Please note that trailers equipped with air brakes are required to comply with Standard No. 106 and Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems.

In addition, if your trailers were motor vehicles, you, as a motor vehicle manufacturer, would be required to submit identification information to this agency in accordance with 49 CFR Part 566, Manufacturer Identification. You would also be required to certify that each trailer complies with all applicable Federal safety standards. This certification procedure is set out in 49 CFR Part 567.

Please note that since a State may require an off-road vehicle to be registered, you may wish to contact the States in which your trailer tippers are used about any such requirements.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions about NHTSA's safety standards, please feel free to contact Marvin Shaw of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
ref:VSA
d:5/6/97

ID: 14305a.mls

Mr. Frank Johnson
Executive Vice President
Nichirin Co., Ltd.
139 Copernicus Blvd.
Brantford, Ontario
N3P 1N4

Dear Mr. Johnson:

This responds to your letter to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), Office of Crash Avoidance Standards, asking about Standard No. 106, Brake hoses, for vacuum brake hoses. Your letter was referred to my office for reply. I apologize for the delay in the agency's response.

According to your letter, your company is a wholly owned subsidiary of Nichirin Co. Ltd. Japan. Your company manufactures and sells vacuum brake hoses and assemblies to vehicle manufacturers, including Honda.

You state that the "current registered trademark" (which we understand to be the manufacturer's designation required by S9.1 of Standard 106) that is imprinted on one brake hose end fitting is "NNI." The hose is marked "NCRN," which is the designation registered with NHTSA for your parent company. You are currently supplying vacuum brake hoses to Honda that are manufactured in Japan with the NCRN designation. In the future, you plan to have the bulk hose "licensed to a USA based hose manufacturer who [you] will buy it from, assemble valves, clips, etc. and supply it to Honda."

You first ask whether you need to register a designation for vacuum brake hose assemblies under S9.1.3 of Standard 106, even though you have "NNI" registered for hydraulic brake hose assemblies. The answer is no. Because you already are registered for hydraulic brake hose assemblies, you do not need to register again with NHTSA. The purpose of registering your designation with the agency is to help us identify you in case of a recall resulting from a safety-related defect or a noncompliance. Please note that we have examined a sample product you submitted which does not appear to be a "brake hose assembly" as defined in Standard No. 106 because it has clamps only, and no end fittings. Therefore, it is not required to be labeled in accordance with S9.1.3 of Standard No. 106.

You then ask whether you or the licensee would be considered the manufacturer of the hose for purposes of registering the manufacturer's designation. You note that the hose is to be manufactured under license to your material and manufacturing specifications. I have enclosed a May 12, 1994 letter to Russell Performance Products which addresses the same issue. As the agency explained in that interpretation, only the licensee's designation is required to be marked, since the licensee is the entity that will actually manufacture the brake hose. Such a designation will identify the licensee as the manufacturer of the brake hose in the event of a possible defect or noncompliance with the hose.

Please note that HBD Industries (HBD), the proposed licensee, has not registered a designation with the agency. Therefore, HBD should file its planned designation with NHTSA's Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance.

I have also enclosed copies of two procedural requirements you must satisfy in order to sell your products in this country. The first requirement is NHTSA's regulation for manufacturer identification (49 CFR Part 566). This regulation requires a manufacturer of equipment to which an FMVSS applies (e.g., brake hoses) to submit its name, address, and a brief description of the items of equipment it manufacturers to NHTSA within 30 days after it first imports its products into the United States.

The second requirement is NHTSA's regulation for designations of agents (49 CFR Part 551, Procedural Rules, Subpart D). The regulation requires all manufacturers headquartered outside of the United States to designate a permanent resident of the United States as the manufacturer's agent for service of all process, notices, orders and decisions. This designation should be mailed to me at the following address: Chief Counsel, Room 5219, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh St., S.W., Washington, D.C., 20590. The designation must include the following information:

1. A certification that the designation of agent 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 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 agency appointed, which may be an individual, a firm or a United States corporation; and,
6. The full legal name and address of the designated agent.
7. In addition, the designation must be signed by a person with authority to appoint the agent. The signer's name and title should be clearly indicated beneath his or her signature.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have further questions, please contact Mr. Marvin Shaw of this office at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
Enclosure
ref:106
d:5/6/97

ID: 14307.ztv

Mr. Tadashi Suzuki
Manager
Automotive Equipment
Legal & Homologation Service
Stanley Electric Col, Ltd2-9-13, Nakameguro, Meguro-ku
Tokyo 153, Japan

Dear Mr. Suzuki:

This is in reply to your letter of March 10, 1997, asking for interpretations of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 with respect to the effective projected luminous area of stop lamps and turn signal lamps.

Paragraph S5.1.1.25 states that "[e]ach turn signal lamp on a motorcycle manufactured on and after January 1, 1973, shall have an effective projected luminous area of not less than 3 1/2 square inches." Your interpretation is "Turn signal lamp on a motorcycle shall have an effective projected luminous area of not less than 3 1/2 square inches." (S5.1.1.25). Your understanding of this requirement is correct.

Section 5.3.2 of SAE J586 FEB84 Stop Lamps For Use on Motor Vehicles Less than 2032MM in Overall Width, specifies that "the functional lighted lens area of a single compartment lamp shall be at least 37.5 square centimeters." Your interpretation is that the "stop lamp on a motorcycle shall have an effective projected luminous area of not less than 37.5 square centimeters (SAE J586 FEB84)." This is not correct. Although SAE J586 FEB84 has been incorporated by reference into Standard No. 108 by paragraph S5.1.1, section 5.3.2 of SAE J586 FEB84 does not apply. Paragraph S5.1.1 allows exceptions to SAE J586 FEB84, and the applicable provisions for motorcycle stop lamps are set forth in two paragraphs under S5.1.1: paragraphs S5.1.1.22 and paragraph S5.1.1.26(a).

Under these two paragraphs, if a motorcycle is a motor driven cycle (i.e., one with an engine developing 5 brake horsepower or less) and if its speed attainable in 1 mile is 30 mph or less, it may be equipped with a stop lamp whose effective projected luminous lens area is not less than 3 1/2 square inches (S5.1.1.22). Otherwise, a motorcycle must be equipped with at least one single compartment stop lamp whose functional lighted lens area is not less than 50 square centimeters. The terms "effective projected luminous lens area," "effective projected luminous area," and "functional lighted lens area" are used interchangeably in Standard No. 108.

You also ask for confirmation that "[t]he functional lighted lens area of a single compartment stop lamp, and a single compartment rear turn signal lamp on a motor vehicle (other than motorcycle) whose overall width is less than 80 inches, shall be not less than 50 square centimeters. (S5.1.1.26)." This is correct, except that paragraph S5.1.1.26(a) applies to motorcycles as well as to other vehicles.

If you have any further questions about this letter, you may refer them to Taylor Vinson of this Office (FAX 202-366-3820).

Sincerely,

John Womack

Acting Chief Counsel

ref:108

d:4/21/97

ID: 14308.drn

Robert M. Kampfer, Esq.
Attorney at Law
Strain Building, Suite 613
P. O. Box 1946
Great Falls, MT 59403-1946

Dear Mr. Kampfer:

This responds to your request for an interpretation whether your client, which intends to transport adults and children to and from activities at a church camp, must purchase a school bus. Since the camp appears to be neither a school nor school-related, NHTSA does not consider the vehicles used to transport the children to be school buses. However, state law determines vehicle use, so Montana's laws determine the answer to your question.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has issued Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles, including school buses. It is a violation of Federal law for any person to sell any new bus that does not meet all Federal school bus safety standards if that person is aware that the purchaser intends to use the vehicle as a school bus. NHTSA defines "school bus" as a motor vehicle designed for carrying 11 or more persons, including a driver, and sold for purposes that include transporting students to and from "school or school-related events." Whether your client must be sold school buses depends on whether the camp is considered a "school or school-related event."

For the following reasons, NHTSA does not consider the camp to be a "school." To determine whether the church camp is a school, the agency looks at whether the function of the facility is primarily educational or custodial in nature. In describing the camp's activities, your letter states: "There is no particular schooling involved as such, but the camp does include various religious and recreational activities." In a telephone conversation with Dorothy Nakama of my staff, you confirmed that the camp offers outdoor recreational activities and religious instruction, but offers no "academic education." Since you have indicated that academic instruction is not provided, it does not appear that the church camp is a school.

As to whether the church camp is a school-related event, the agency looks at the overall relationship between the program and the schools from which children are being transported to attend the program. Since the camp is not related to a school, NHTSA would not consider the camp to be a "school-related event."

Under Federal law, your client need not be sold school buses. However, each State has the authority to regulate the use of vehicles within its jurisdiction. Since the individual States have authority over the use of vehicles, you must look to the State law of your client's camp to determine if the camp may use vans to transport children.

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

Sincerely,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
ref:VSA#571.3
d:6/2/97