ID: 10536bun

Ms. Lori A. Hawker
20 Begonia St.
Casper, WY 82604

Dear Ms. Hawker:

This responds to your letter asking about safety regulations for a product you wish to manufacture. You describe the product as "bunting" that fits inside an infant-only car seat. (An infant-only seat is lightweight and is easily used as an infant carrier to carry an infant to and from the car.) The bunting is intended as a substitute for a blanket. You state that the bunting has slots through which the harness on the car seat is threaded and the buckle of the harness is attached to the car seat. You believe that, when properly installed, "the bunting in no way interferes with the adjustment or function of the safety straps or buckle mechanism."

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has the authority to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA does not, however, approve or certify any vehicles or items of equipment. The following represents our opinion based on the information in your letter.

There is currently no Federal motor vehicle safety standard (FMVSS) that directly applies to your product. Our standard for "child restraint systems," FMVSS 213, applies to "any device except Type I or Type II seat belts, designed for use in a motor vehicle or aircraft to restrain, seat, or position children who weigh 50 pounds or less." (S4 of FMVSS 213) The standard does not apply to child seat accessories that are sold separately from the child seats, such as car seat pillows, pads and bunting.

While no FMVSS applies to the bunting, your product is considered to be an item of motor vehicle equipment. As a manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment, you are subject to the requirements of 49 U.S.C. ''30118-30121 concerning the recall and remedy of products with safety related defects. I have enclosed an information sheet that briefly describes those and other manufacturer responsibilities. In the event you or NHTSA determines that your product contains a safety-

related defect, you would be responsible for notifying purchasers of the defective equipment and remedying the problem free of charge.

In addition, while it is unlikely that the bunting would be installed by a motor vehicle manufacturer, distributor, dealer or repair business, 49 U.S.C. '30122 prohibits those businesses from installing the device if the installation "makes inoperative" compliance with any safety standard. Standard 213 specifies flammability resistance requirements for infant seats. Any person listed in '30122 who installs the bunting must ensure that the product does not vitiate the seat's compliance with those flammability resistance requirements.

The prohibition of '30122 does not apply to individual owners who install equipment in their own vehicles. Thus, individual owners may install any item of motor vehicle equipment regardless of its effect on compliance with Federal motor vehicle safety standards. However, NHTSA encourages vehicle owners not to degrade the safety of their vehicles.

I would like to close with the following remarks. It is crucial for the safety of an infant that the straps of its infant seat retain the baby's torso in a crash. Excessive slack in the straps due to the straps binding up on a fabric liner in the seat (such as bunting material), or because of excessive compression of the liner, can cause shoulder straps to move off an infant's shoulders. As a consequence, the infant can be ejected from the seat. We know that you recognize the importance of the straps in a crash, and that you believe that the bunting will not interfere with their adjustment or function. We underscore the importance of this feature. Bunting material that degrades the ability of an infant seat to restrain its occupant would be an obvious safety problem.

I hope this information has been helpful. If you have any other questions, please feel free to contact Deirdre Fujita of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Philip R. Recht Chief Counsel

Enclosure ref:213 d:2/2/95

ID: 10553

Mr. G. Brandt Taylor
President
Day-Night Mirrors, Inc.
36 Barnes Hill Road
Berlin, MA 01503

Dear Mr. Taylor:

This responds to your letter asking about the requirements applicable to multiple reflectance mirrors in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 111, Rear View Mirrors. You stated that your mirror can change its reflectivity either by mechanically rotating a shaft or by actuating an electrical motor.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has the authority to issue safety standards for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA does not, however, approve or certify any vehicles or items of equipment. Instead, each manufacturer is responsible for "self-certifying" that its products meet all applicable safety standards. The agency periodically tests vehicles and items of equipment for compliance with the standards.

FMVSS No. 111 specifies requirements for the performance and location of rearview mirrors. Section S11, which specifies requirements for mirror construction, provides in relevant part that

All single reflectance mirrors shall have an average reflectance of at least 35 percent. If a mirror is capable of multiple reflectance levels, the minimum reflectance level in the day mode shall be at least 35 percent and the minimum reflectance level in the night mode shall be at least 4 percent. A multiple reflectance mirror shall either be equipped with a means for the driver to adjust the mirror to a reflectance level of at least 35 percent in the event of electrical failure, or achieve such reflectance automatically in the event of electrical failure.

You asked several questions about the requirement for adjusting the mirror in the event of electrical failure. You first asked if a manual override knob could be removable. You then asked whether a removable manual override could be supplied by the car manufacturer along with the car keys or with the owner's manual for insertion into the mirror and use only in the event of an electrical failure. You also asked about whether "west coast" mirrors and mirrors on trailer trucks could have a removable manual override.

The answer to each of your questions is that a removable manual override knob would not be permitted. In the preamble to the final rule amending the mirror construction requirements in FMVSS No. 111, NHTSA stated that the agency's goal is to assure that multiple reflectance mirrors are capable of providing adequate images at all times during the vehicle's operation, including electrical failure situations where the mirror is unpowered. (see 56 FR 58513, November 20, 1991)

The manual override knob you discuss would serve as the means for the driver to adjust the mirror's reflectance level. However, a removable manual override knob would not always serve this purpose, since it would not necessarily always be with the mirror. We are concerned that a removable override device may become lost or otherwise not available when a mirror's reflectance needs to be adjusted. Accordingly, since the agency's goal of providing adequate images at all times during the vehicle's operation would only be achieved by requiring this device to be permanent, a removable override would not be permitted.

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

Sincerely,

Philip R. Recht Chief Counsel

ref:111 d:2/13/95

ID: 10555

Mr. Robert E. Fouts
President
Earl's Performance Products
189 W. Victoria St.
Long Beach, CA 90805

Dear Mr. Fouts:

This responds to your question whether the whip test specified in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 106, Brake Hoses, can be interpreted to permit a modification to the test apparatus to facilitate your brake hose's meeting the whip test. As explained below, the answer is no.

You describe your brake hose as made of "extruded teflon armored with stainless steel braid." You state your brake hose can meet all Standard No. 106 test specifications except for the whip test (See S6.3). The whip test specifies fastening the brake hose on a test apparatus at two ends and cycling for 35 hours. You state because of "aggravated cyclic stress," your brake hoses fail before 35 hours. To prevent such failures, you wish to add a "whip dampener," a movable "spherical bearing enclosed in a machined housing", to the brake hose. In addition to the two ends, the whip test apparatus will mount the brake hose at the "whip dampener." You wish to know whether the whip test can be interpreted to permit mounting the brake hose at the "whip dampener."

In our opinion, S6.3 cannot be interpreted to permit mounting the brake hose at the "whip dampener." S6.3.1 Apparatus specifies a test apparatus that mounts the brake hose at "capped end fittings" on one end and "open end fittings" on the other, and specifies no mounting points in between. Thus, a test apparatus that mounts the brake hose at a "whip dampener," which is not an end fitting, would not meet Standard No. 106.

However, the issues raised in your letter have led us to consider amending the whip test to permit the "whip dampener" when testing steel braided brake hoses. Accordingly, we will initiate rulemaking to further consider the issues.

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

Sincerely,

Philip R. Recht Acting Chief Counsel

ref:106 d:4/24/95

ID: 10574

Mr. David O'Neil
Hehr International Inc.
3333 Casitas Avenue
Post Office Box 39160
Los Angeles, CA 90039-0160

Dear Mr. O'Neil:

This responds to your inquiry about Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials, with respect to the labeling of glazing installed on transit buses. You stated that the passenger and driver side window glazing on certain transit buses will be a glass-plastic composite consisting of 1/4 inch tempered glass with DuPont Spallshield 307 plastic laminated to the interior surface. You asked whether this glazing must be certified and marked as Item 15B/16B glazing or whether it is possible to certify and mark the glazing as Item 2/3. You also asked whether taping the required cleaning instructions to the glazing satisfies the requirements of paragraph S5.1.2.10.

Question One: Must the glazing be certified and marked as Item 15B/16B or is it possible to certify and mark the glazing as Item 2/3?

The glazing described in your letter is tempered glass-plastic and therefore must be certified and marked as either Item 15B or 16B glazing. Item 2 and Item 3 glazing refers to glass, not glass-plastic glazing. It would be incorrect to certify and mark a glass-plastic item of glazing as glass.

Question Two: Does a label containing all required instructions which is taped to the glazing satisfy the requirements of paragraph S5.1.2.10?

Paragraph S5.1.2.10(a) states that

Each manufacturer of glazing materials designed to meet the requirements of S5.1.2.1, S5.1.2.2, S5.1.2.3, S5.1.2.4, S5.1.2.5, S5.1.2.6, S5.1.2.7, or S5.1.2.8 shall affix a label, removable by hand without tools, to each item of such glazing material. The label shall identify the product involved, specify instructions and agents for cleaning the material that will minimize the loss of transparency, and instructions for removing frost and ice, and at the option of the manufacturer refer owners to the vehicle's Owners Manual for more specific cleaning and other instructions.

S5.1.2.10(a) applies to your Item 15B/16B glazing since the glazing is required to comply with S5.1.2.6 or S5.1.2.8. S5.1.2.10(a) requires a manufacturer to "affix a label, removable by hand without tools..." Taping the instructions to the glazing is one way to affix a label to glazing that could be removed by hand without tools. Therefore, a manufacturer could comply with the requirements in S5.1.2.10(a) by taping the instructions to the glazing.

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,

Philip R. Recht Chief Counsel

ref:205 d:2/14/95

ID: 10595

Mr. Mark Warlick
Four Winds International Corporation
791 C.R. 15 P.O. Box 1486
Elkhart, IN 46515-1486

Dear Mr. Warlick:

This responds to your letter asking how your company would certify compliance with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 302, Flammability of Interior Materials. You stated that your company manufactures motor homes and purchases interior materials from various vendors for these vehicles. These vendors provide you with letters stating that the materials comply with the FMVSS. You enclosed one such letter, which states that "We have tested the panel ... that was made with COR63-AX-40. We used the MVSS 302 flame test, and obtained a flame rating of 0.64 inches per minute." You ask whether this letter provides a sufficient basis for your company's certification of compliance with FMVSS No. 302.

Some background information would be helpful. As you know, since Standard 302 applies to motor homes and other vehicles, Four Winds, as the vehicle manufacturer, is required to certify compliance with the standard. In the event NHTSA were to find an apparent noncompliance with Standard 302 when testing your vehicle to the requirements of the standard, Four Winds would be asked to show the basis for its certification that the vehicle complies with the standard. If in fact there is a noncompliance, Four Winds would be subject to civil penalties unless it can establish that it exercised "reasonable care" in the design and manufacture of the product (through actual testing, computer simulation, engineering analysis, or other means) to ensure compliance, and did not have reason to know that the vehicle or item of equipment did not in fact comply with the safety standards (49 U.S.C. 30112(b)(2)(A)).

With regard to your specific question, we cannot tell you at this time whether Four Winds' s reliance on a letter from its vendor would constitute "reasonable care" on the part of your company in making its certification to Standard 302. NHTSA is unable to judge what efforts constitute "reasonable care" outside of the course of a specific enforcement proceeding. What constitutes "reasonable care" in a particular case depends on many factors, including such things as the limitations of current technology, the availability of test equipment, the size of the manufacturer, and above all, the diligence exercised by the manufacturer. In the situation you present, your vendor indicated that the burn rate of its material (0.64 inch per minute) is well within the limits of Standard 302 (not more than four inches per minute). The difference between the actual performance of a material and the required performance is a factor NHTSA would consider in making a determination of whether a manufacturer exercised reasonable care in making its certification. Another factor is whether the manufacturer should have determined whether the vendor's assurances were bona fide. Among other things, the expertise, reliability and experience of the vendor would be relevant for that issue.

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

Sincerely,

Philip R. Recht Chief Counsel

ref: 302 d:2/27/95 You should also note that, while the exercise of "reasonable care" may relieve a manufacturer of liability for civil penalties in connection with the manufacture and sale of noncomplying vehicles, it does not relieve a manufacturer of the responsibility to notify purchasers of the noncompliance and remedy the noncompliance without charge to the purchasers (i.e., "recall" the noncomplying vehicle or equipment).

ID: 10619

Mr. Tom Hindson
7810 N.W. 40 Street
Coral Springs, FL 33065

Dear Mr. Hindson:

This responds to your letter asking about how this agency's regulations might apply to your product. I apologize for the delay in responding. In your letter, you described your product as a car cover that stows beneath the rear bumper of an automobile. When used, the cover is propelled from its casing by an electric motor as the driver guides the cover over the car with a handle, which then attaches to the front bumper. In a February 14, 1995 telephone conversation with Paul Atelsek of my staff, you described the product in more detail and said that vehicle owners will not be installing your product. Instead, you plan to market this either as a dealer-installed option on new cars or by having a business approved by you retrofitting used cars.

The short answer to your question is that there are no regulations that apply specifically to your car cover. However, there are some safety concerns and Federal requirements that you should know about.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has not issued any standards for car covers. However, the cover is an item of motor vehicle equipment. As a manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment, you 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. If you or NHTSA determines that your product contains a safety related defect, you would be responsible for notifying purchasers of the defective equipment and remedying the problem free of charge.

Since your product would be installed by a motor vehicle manufacturer, distributor, dealer or repair business, you should know that section 30122(b) of title 49 prohibits those commercial businesses from "knowingly mak[ing] inoperative any part of a device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle . . . in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard . . ." Any violation of this "make inoperative" prohibition would subject the violator (i.e., the installer) to a potential civil penalty of up to

$1,000 for each violation. Because your product is not "readily attachable," if the car cover is installed on a new vehicle prior to sale, the installer would be considered an "alterer" under section 567.7 of Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations. Therefore, the installer would have to certify that the vehicle, as altered, continues to comply with all the standards affected by the modification.

There do not appear to be any definite problems with your system, as it was described to us. However, allow me to reiterate our concern in a few areas that Mr. Atelsek described to you over the phone. These are safety related areas that you want to be careful of.

Our regulations are in title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations. Part 581 describes the bumper standard, which basically requires that there be no damage in collision at 2.5 mph. The housing of the car cover unit bolts both to the bumper and to the trunk pan, thus bridging the area between the bumper and the vehicle chassis. Although you said the polyurethane housing "gives" and did not degrade performance even in a 5 mph collision you conducted, this is a standard you should consider for all vehicles on which your device is installed.

Standard 301 is the fuel system integrity standard. It restricts fuel system spillage in collisions from many angles. Although you told Mr. Atelsek there were no pieces that could pierce the gas tank in a rear end collision, the illustrations you sent him seem to show some kind of rod-like support structure running longitudinally on either side of the cover housing. These structures run the entire length of the housing and even extend slightly beyond it. You told him that the housing was approximately 40 to 44 inches in the longitudinal direction. In a rear end collision (the test we use is described in S6.2 of Standard 301) these structures must not be driven into the gas tank to cause an unsafe fuel leakage problem.

A related area of concern is the electrical conduit that runs from the battery lead to the electrical motor on the rear bumper which deploys the car cover. We suggest that you consider constructing and routing the conduit so that it will not be damaged in an accident, possibly causing a short and increasing the likelihood of ignition if there is fuel spillage.

Finally, you should be cautious when mounting your unit near hot exhaust system components. You stated that you may mount the housing within 3/4 of an inch underneath the muffler, in which case you would use heat resistant aluminum sheet materials. You appeared to be very conscious of this potential danger, and we agree the flammability of components attached to a vehicle is an important safety concern.

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

Sincerely,

Philip R. Recht Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosure

ref:VSA d:4/24/95

ID: 10621

Mr. Glyn Thomas
Thomas Tire
13342 - 72d Avenue
Surrey, B.C. Canada
V3W 2N5

Dear Mr. Thomas:

This responds to your letter of December 19, 1994, and your telephone conversation with Walter Myers of my staff on that date, in which you requested a waiver enabling you to import into the United States truck tire casings without the DOT symbol on the sidewalls but with more than 2/32 inch tread depth for the purpose of retreading. You stated that casings with less than 2/32 inch tread depth are usually not of sufficient quality to be retreaded.

By way of background information, Chapter 301 of Title 49, United States Code (U.S.C.) authorizes this agency to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. The statute requires that all newly manufactured motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment comply with all FMVSSs applicable to that product on the date of manufacture. Generally speaking, upon the sale of that vehicle or item of equipment to the first retail purchaser, the use of that vehicle or item of equipment becomes a matter of state regulation.

However, 49 U.S.C. '30112(a) provides:

[A] person may not . . . import into the United States, any motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment manufactured on or after the date an applicable motor vehicle safety standard . . . takes effect unless the vehicle or equipment complies with the standard . . . .

In your telephone conversation, you asked about importing used passenger car tires from Canada into the United States. The effect of section 30112(a) with regard to passenger car tires is to require that such tires which are manufactured after the effective date of FMVSS No. 109, New pneumatic tires (January 1, 1968), must be certified as complying with the requirements

of that standard, whether the tire is now new or used. That certification is exhibited by molding the letters "DOT" into or onto the sidewall of the tire. To be legally imported into the United States, therefore, used passenger car tires must either display the DOT symbol on the sidewall of the tire or be accompanied by proof that the tire was manufactured before January 1, 1968.

With respect to tires for motor vehicles other than passenger cars, FMVSS No. 119, New pneumatic tires for vehicles other than passenger cars, became effective March 1, 1975. That standard also requires display of the DOT symbol as the manufacturer's certification that the tire complies with all applicable FMVSSs. Accordingly, in order for such tires to be imported into the United States, they also must either display the DOT symbol on the tire sidewall or be accompanied by proof that the tires were manufactured prior to March 1, 1975.

Used tires for use on motor vehicles other than passenger cars which have less than 2/32 inch of tread depth and which are imported solely for retreading may be imported without the DOT symbol on the sidewall. I have enclosed a copy of a letter to Mr. Roy Littlefield, which explains in detail the requirements of this narrow exception to the requirement that used tires have a DOT symbol on the sidewall to be legally imported. In determining that these tires are not motor vehicle equipment, NHTSA found persuasive that those tires cannot legally be used on the public highways, and require remanufacturing before they can be operated on the highways.

Although this agency has statutory authority to grant exceptions to compliance with the FMVSSs in certain specific categories of situations, NHTSA does not have the authority to waive requirements such as the one at issue here. Therefore, any used tire imported into the United States must either display the DOT symbol, be accompanied by proof that they were manufactured prior to the effective date of applicable FMVSSs, or in the case of tires for motor vehicles other than passenger cars, have less than 2/32 inch tread depth and be imported solely for retreading.

I hope the information provided above is helpful to you. Should you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Mr. Myers at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Philip R. Recht Chief Counsel

Enclosure

ref:591#109#119 d:2/27/95

ID: 10628

Mr. Richard Kreutziger
Executive Director
NYSBDA
1111 Lac De Ville Boulevard
Apartment No. 309
Rochester, NY 14618

Dear Mr. Kreutziger:

This responds to your letter of January 3, 1995, telefaxed to Walter Myers of my staff in which you asked whether the bottom edge of a flip-up school bus seat, when in the vertical position, could extend past the rearward edge of a side emergency exit door a maximum of 3/4 inch. The short answer to your question is no.

You enclosed with your letter a copy of Figure 5B of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 217, Bus emergency exits and window retention and release, which shows the permitted positions of the seats forward and rearward of a school bus side emergency exit door. You drew in a depiction of the flip-up seat bottom showing the seat bottom extending into the access aisle a maximum of 3/4 inch. You stated that even with such intrusion, 11.75 inches of clear aisle space remains without obstruction of the door release mechanism.

Paragraph S5.4.2.1(a)(2)(i) of FMVSS No. 217 provides that no seat or restraining barrier shall be installed within the area bounded by a vertical transverse plane tangent to the rearward edge of the door opening frame and a vertical transverse plane parallel to that plane at a distance of 30 centimeters forward of that plane. Paragraph S5.4.2.1(a)(2)(ii) then provides:

A seat bottom may be located within the area described in paragraph (a)(2)(i) of this section if the seat bottom pivots and automatically assumes and retains a vertical position when not in use, so that no portion of the seat bottom is within the area described in paragraph (i) when the seat bottom is vertical. (See Figure 5B). (Emphasis added).

This requirement for a specific minimum aisle space leading to side emergency exit doors on school buses was contained in the final rule issued by this agency on November 2, 1992 (57 FR 49413) to permit bus occupants unobstructed access to the emergency exit door. The language is very clear. No variation from that requirement is permitted.

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

Sincerely,

Philip R. Recht Chief Counsel

ref:217 d:2/13/95

ID: 10629

Courtney M. Price, Esq.
Reid & Priest
701 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20004

Dear Ms. Price:

This responds to your questions about how this agency's regulations apply to a product known as a Brake Locker that is manufactured by your client, Maatzorit. You requested this agency to confirm your understanding that installation of the Brake Locker is not precluded by Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 105, Hydraulic Brake Systems, FMVSS No. 106, Brake Hoses, or Section 108(a)(2)(A) of what you refer to as the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act ("Safety Act.").

According to your letter, the Brake Locker prevents the theft of a parked vehicle by locking its brakes, without affecting brake usage while the vehicle is driven by an authorized driver. You stated that the Brake Locker is installed in the engine compartment on the brake fluid line between the brakes and the brake pump. An electronic coded transmitter is used to activate a motor which in turn activates a check valve, thereby preventing the release of the brakes by restricting the flow of brake fluid. When the check valve is activated, you state that "every press on the brake pedal causes the brakes to be locked."

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized under Title 49, Chapter 301 of the United States Code to issue FMVSSs that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA does not approve or certify any vehicles or items of equipment. Instead, Chapter 301 establishes a "self-certification" process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards. The agency periodically tests new vehicles and items of equipment for compliance with the standards.

Nothing in FMVSS No. 105 nor FMVSS No. 106 precludes the inclusion of a hydraulic brake lock, nor does NHTSA have any other regulations specifically covering such a product. Therefore, Maatzorit, as the device's manufacturer, would not have any certification responsibilities. Nevertheless, the requirements of FMVSS No. 105 are relevant to a hydraulic brake lock. That standard specifies a number of brake performance requirements to which the vehicle manufacturer must certify compliance. Since the installation of a hydraulic brake lock requires the installation of a check valve on the brake fluid line between the foundation brakes and the brake pump, it is possible that the installation of such a device could affect a vehicle's compliance with FMVSS No. 105.

If the Brake Locker is installed as original equipment on new vehicles prior to the first sale of the vehicle to a consumer, then the vehicle manufacturer is required to certify that with the Brake Locker installed, the vehicle complies with all applicable FMVSSs, including FMVSS No. 105 and FMVSS No. 106. A vehicle manufacturer's specific certification responsibilities depend on when the brake locker is installed and are set forth in 49 CFR Parts 567 and 568. For instance, if a vehicle has already been certified by the vehicle manufacturer but has not yet been sold to the consumer, then the person doing the installation after that time would be considered to be an "alterer" who would have to certify that the vehicle, as altered, continues to comply with all of the safety standards affected by the alteration.

If the Brake Locker is installed after the first consumer purchase, then 49 U.S.C. 30122 is relevant to your client's product. That section provides that

A manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or 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.

This provision would prohibit any of the named commercial entities from installing a Brake Locker, if such installation makes inoperative the compliance of the vehicle with any applicable safety standard, such as FMVSS No. 105. For example, if the Brake Locker, caused the vehicle to no longer comply with the parking brake or service brake requirements in FMVSS No. 105, then installation of the system would make inoperative compliance with that standard. Any violation of this prohibition is subject to a potential civil penalty of up to $1,000 for each violation. Please note that the "make inoperative" provision does not prohibit owners from modifying their vehicles, even if such modification adversely affects the compliance of the vehicle with safety standards.

I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Marvin Shaw at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Philip R. Recht Chief Counsel ref:567#105 d:3/8/95 In 1994, Congress codified the Safety Act. The new citation for 108(a)(2)(A) is 49 U.S.C. 30122. In addition, please be aware that on February 3, 1994, NHTSA issued FMVSS No. 135 Passenger Car Brake Systems that will eventually supersede FMVSS No. 105 with respect to passenger cars. Please note that your client's product will be subject to the same responsibilities, regardless of which FMVSS applies.

ID: 1063

Thomas A. Placey, Esq.
Senior Assistant District Attorney
Office of the District Attorney
Cumberland County
One Courthouse Square
Carlisle, PA 17013

Dear Mr. Placey:

This responds to your letter of July 20, 1995. You present the fact situation of the theft in Canada of a Canadian-owned GMC Jimmy which was then imported into the United States and delivered to a conspirator in Pennsylvania. The conspirator altered the VIN and sold the Jimmy which was eventually seized by the Pennsylvania State Police. The Jimmy's buyer wants the vehicle back and has filed with the local state court for its return.

You write "The issue, on the federal level, is can this vehicle ever be properly registered in the United States. What are the specific federal laws or regulations that govern such situations."

We cannot answer the question whether this vehicle can be properly registered in the United States, because there are no Federal requirements that apply to the registration of privately owned vehicles. Each State establishes its own requirements. For an overview of State laws on vehicle registration, we suggest that you write the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA 22203.

There are two Federal laws which we administer that are relevant to the situation you present. Missing from your scenario is the fact whether the Jimmy was manufactured in the United States in compliance with the U. S. Federal motor vehicle safety standards. If the answer is yes, then its importation by any person does not violate the Federal statutes under which we operate. If it was not manufactured to conform, we note that the importation of a nonconforming vehicle is an act forbidden by 49 U.S.C. 30112(a) for which a civil penalty may be imposed under 49 U.S.C. 30165. The

statute does not provide the right to seize a nonconforming vehicle. Furthermore, the statute does not forbid the sale of a used nonconforming imported vehicle.

There may be a violation of 49 U.S.C. 30122 because of the defacing of the VIN. Under this section, no manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or motor vehicle repair business may knowingly make inoperative any part of a device or element of design installed in accordance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard. The VIN was installed in accordance with 49 CFR 571.115 Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No 115 Vehicle Identification Number. We view the alteration of the VIN as a violation of this section, if the conspirator who altered it was a manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or motor vehicle repair business as those terms are described in the statute. Violators of this section are also subject to a civil penalty under 49 U.S.C. 30165.

We are unable to advise you on the laws or regulations administered by other Federal agencies. For example, we cannot advise you whether the U.S. has entered into any treaties or other agreements with Canada concerning the treatment of property that is stolen from that country. You may write for an opinion to the United States Department of State, Office of Foreign Mission, 3507 International Place, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20008.

If you have further questions, Taylor Vinson of this Office will be able to help you with them (202-366- 5263).

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

ref:591 d:8/11/95