ID: 9677

Lawrence A. Beyer, Esq.
674 Lake Road
Webster, NY 14580

Dear Mr. Beyer:

This is in reply to your FAX of February 14, 1994, to Taylor Vinson of this Office, relating to a policy of the Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance (OVSC) regarding importation of vehicles from Canada.

Under this policy, and because of the close congruence of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards of both the U.S. and Canada, OVSC has, in essence, waived the requirement for bond and entry through the registered importer process if the Canadian vehicle is accompanied by a letter from the vehicle manufacturer stating that the vehicle was manufactured to comply with the U.S. standards, except for minor labelling variations. You state that this policy has been restricted to personally owned vehicles and does not allow "importations of vehicles by corporations for their corporation's personal use." Instead, these vehicles must be entered under bond and conformance verified or achieved by a registered importer. You state that you do not understand the distinction OVSC makes between individual personal use and corporate personal use.

Under the Imported Vehicle Safety Compliance Act of 1988, as a general matter, a noncomplying vehicle may enter the United States permanently only if it is imported by a registered importer who brings it into compliance. However, an exception is made by 15 U.S.C. 1397(f)(1)(B) which allows importation by a person other than a registered importer if that person has a conformance contract with a registered importer and if the vehicle is imported "for personal use, and not for purposes of resale, by any individual (other than an individual described in subsections (g) and (h)). . . ." The term "individual" refers to a human being and not a corporate person. Therefore, the Act distinguishes both as to whether an importation is for personal use and whether the importer is an individual or a corporation.

I hope that this answers your question. Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel ref:591#592 d:4/11/94

ID: 9679

Mr. Donald P. Green
809 Huasna Road
Arroyo Grande, CA 93420

Dear Mr. Green:

This responds to your letter to this agency asking whether there is a State or Federal regulation prohibiting the use of passenger radial tires on recreational "pull type" trailers. I regret the delay in responding.

You explain that you were told by various tire dealers that radial tires should not be used on trailers because the soft sidewalls of radial tires could cause an uncontrollable swaying that could result in a serious accident. You then state that while towing a trailer mounted with four radial tires, you were caught in a crosswind which caused the trailer to jackknife, resulting in a serious accident.

To begin, I am sorry to hear about your accident but am thankful that no one was hurt. The tire safety standards and regulations issued by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) require tires to be able to safely carry the load on a vehicle and to be labeled with important safety information, such as tire size, construction, and inflation pressure. There is nothing in our standards or regulations that prohibits the use of passenger car radial tires on trailers. In fact, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 120, "Tire selection and rims for motor vehicles other than passenger cars," expressly permits the use of passenger car tires on vehicles like trailers, provided that adjustment is made to the tire's load-carrying capacity.

NHTSA also issues consumer advisories to alert consumers to certain practices that should be avoided, such as mixing radial and non-radial tires. However, we have never issued a consumer advisory on the use of passenger car radial tires on trailers, and we are not aware of any widespread hazard due to the use of such tires on trailers.

Your State could have requirements for the use of tires on trailers. We suggest that you check with the California Highway Patrol for information on that issue.

We regret we are unable to be more helpful. Should you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Walter Myers of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

ref:109#120 d:6/9/94

ID: 9696

Mr. Thomas Turner
Manager, Engineering Services
Blue Bird Body Company
P.O. Box 937
Fort Valley, GA 31030

Dear Mr. Turner:

This responds to your letter to NHTSA's Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance requesting an interpretation of the conspicuity requirements in Standard No. 131, School Bus Pedestrian Safety Devices. This letter confirms your understanding that a reflectorized stop signal arm that fully complies with the reflectorization requirements in S5.3.1 complies with S5.3, regardless of whether a stop signal arm is equipped with strobe lights that do not comply with S5.3.2.

As you are aware, S5.3 Conspicuity states "The stop signal arm shall comply with either S5.3.1 or S5.3.2, or both." Section S5.3.1 sets forth requirements addressing reflectorization, and S5.3.2, which references S6.2, sets forth requirements addressing flashing lamps. Section S6.2.2 specifies a stop signal arm's flash rate.

You explained that some of the stop signal arms that you install fully comply with the reflectorization requirements in S5.3.1. However, these stop signal arms are also equipped with strobe lights that do not comply with S5.3.2 because they do not comply with the flash rate requirements in S6.2.2.

As we noted above, compliance with the conspicuity requirements in S5.3 can be established by complying with either the reflectorization requirements in S5.3.1 or the flashing light requirements in S5.3.2. (emphasis added) Since the stop signal arms in question comply with the reflectorization requirements, they comply with the conspicuity requirements and need not comply with the flashing light requirements.

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

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel ref:131 d:4/8/94

ID: 9697

Mr. Jeffrey D. Shetler
Manager of Government Relations
Kawasaki Motors Corp. U.S.A.
P.O. Box 25252
Santa Ana, CA 92799-5252

Dear Mr. Shetler:

This is in reply to your letter of February 7, 1994, to the Associate Administrator for Enforcement requesting an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. So that we may serve you better in the future, please note that the Office of Chief Counsel is the one to which requests for interpretations should be addressed.

You have asked whether the "proposed application of a projector beam headlamp to a motorcycle" will meet the requirements of Standard No. 108. In this headlamp "the projector beam (lower beam) is located on the left side and the high beam is on the right side." You continue by saying that "the outer lens of the headlamp assembly is symmetrically positioned about the vertical centerline," and you ask whether the headlamp complies with the requirements of Table IV of Standard No. 108.

Table III of Standard No. 108 requires a motorcycle to have at least one headlamp. Table IV requires the headlamp to be located "on the vertical centerline, except that if two are used they shall be symmetrically disposed about the vertical centerline." The device you describe contains the upper and lower beams in one housing and hence is a single headlamp. Although your projector beam headlamp would be mounted literally on the vertical centerline, the beams provided by the headlamp are located on either side of the centerline and are therefore asymmetrical in relation to the centerline of the motorcycle when either beam is activated. A redesign of the lamp so that its vertical centerline becomes its horizontal centerline and Line A becomes the vertical centerline would be a configuration that meets Table IV since both beams of the single headlamp would then be located on the vertical centerline. SAE J584 does not specify the location of one beam in relation to the other for dual beam motorcycle headlamps, i.e. whether one beam is to be mounted above or below the other.

Your second question concerns an interpretation of S5.1.1.23. This paragraph provides an alternative for motorcycles to the headlamps specified by Table III, and allows a motorcycle to be equipped with "one half of any headlighting system specified in S7 which provides both a full upper beam and full lower beam, and where more than one lamp must be used, the lamps shall be mounted vertically, with the lower beam as high as practicable." You have asked whether this means that your proposed headlamp "shall be mounted on the upper half and the high beam shall be on the lower half when using one half of any headlighting system specified in S7," or "is our proposed layout in the attachment acceptable?"

As I have explained, your proposed layout in the attachment is not acceptable under Table IV without reorientation. The headlighting systems specified in S7 are those intended for four-wheeled motor vehicles (other than trailers). As we understand it, your proposed headlamp has been developed as a headlamp system for motorcycles and not as half of a headlamp system for vehicles other than motorcycles. Because motorcycle photometrics differ from those for vehicle other than motorcycles, your proposed headlamp could not be half of a system specified in S7 which may be used on motorcycles as an alternative to the headlamps specified by Table III.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

ref:108 d:5/6/94

ID: 9709

Air Mail

Mr. Jerry Steffy Triumph Designs Ltd. Jacknell Road Dodwells Bridge Industrial Estate Hinckley, Leicestershire LE10 3BS England

Dear Mr. Steffy:

This responds to your request to Mr. David Elias, formerly of this office, for an interpretation concerning whether a motorcycle certification label may be placed in a location other than that specified in 49 CFR Part 567, Certification. As explained below, the answer is yes, the agency has permitted an alternative location in certain circumstances.

49 CFR '567.4(e) states that motorcycle certification labels "shall be affixed to a permanent member of the vehicle as close as is practicable to the intersection of the steering post with the handle bars, in a location such that it is easily readable without moving any part of the vehicle except the steering system." In your letter, you seem to refer to this intersection as the "headstock area," and ask whether the certification label can be placed elsewhere.

In an interpretation letter of November 23, 1982, to Suzuki Motor Co., Ltd., (copy enclosed) NHTSA permitted the motorcycle certification label to be placed "on the down tubes in front of the engine on either the right or left side." The agency permitted the alternate location because some Suzuki motorcycles were equipped with fairings, obscuring labels placed in the specified location.

Your inquiry seems to imply that Triumph's design would cause a certification label placed in the location specified in '567.4(e) to be obscured. If that is the case, please contact Mr. George Shifflett of NHTSA's Office of Vehicle Safety

Compliance at (202) 366-5307. NHTSA would be happy to work with you on finding an alternative location for your certification label.

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

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosure

ref:567 d:6/9/94

ID: 9711

Mr. Shih-Chiang Chen
President
Top World Traffic Equipments Co., Ltd.
7F-1. No/ 286-9, Hsin Ya Road
Chien Chen Dist.
Kaohsiung
Taiwan R.O.C.

Dear Sir:

This is in reply to your letter of June 15, 1995, to the Department of Transportation regarding your invention, the "brake condition warning sensor." You ask whether such an invention is permissible in this country.

The sensor causes flashing in "the third brake light" keyed to the rate of deceleration.

Under the Federal regulations in the United States, motor vehicles must be manufactured so that the third brake light (or "center highmounted stop lamp" as we call it) and all other stop lamps are steady-burning when they are in use.

After the vehicle is sold, Federal law prohibits any manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or motor vehicle repair business from installing the sensor to modify the performance of the third brake light and cause it to flash.

However, Federal law does not prohibit the owner of the car from installing the sensor. In this circumstance, the law of the State in which the vehicle is operated must be consulted to determine whether a flashing third brake light is permissible. We are not able to answer questions about State laws. If you wish an opinion on State laws governing flashing third brake lights, you should write the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Va. 22203.

If I can be of further assistance, please contact me or Mr. John Womack Acting Chief Counsel (202) 366-9511.

Sincerely,

Ricardo Martinez, M.D.

ref:108 d:7/19/95

ID: 9719

Mr. Thomas D. Turner
Manager, Engineering Services
Blue Bird Body Company
P.O. Box 937
Fort Valley, GA 31030

Dear Mr. Turner:

This responds to your letter of February 21, 1994, requesting further clarification of the requirements of S5.5.3(c) of Standard No. 217, Bus Emergency Exits and Window Retention and Release (as amended at 57 FR 49413; November 2, 1992). Section S5.5.3(c) states that "(e)ach opening for a required emergency exit shall be outlined around its outside perimeter with a minimum 3 centimeters wide retroreflective tape."The July 7, 1993 letter also stated that the agency planned to issue a correction notice of the November 2, 1992 rule that would specify a minimum size of 2.5 cm for the tape. This notice has not yet been published. Until the correction is issued, NHTSA will not take enforcement measures regarding tape size against a manufacturer who uses 1 inch wide retroreflective tape. Your letter referenced our July 7, 1993 letter to you in which we stated that S5.5.3(c) permits interruptions in the tape necessary to accommodate curved surfaces and functional components. You requested confirmation "that retro-reflective tape around the perimeter of the rear of a school bus can be used to satisfy the requirements of S5.5.3(c)."

I cannot interpret the requirements of S5.5.3(c) as you request, since for many, if not most, designs the nearest possible location will be closer than the perimeter of the bus. While we appreciate your concerns about durability if numerous cuts or notches are made to accommodate rivets, our July 7 letter stated that manufacturers have the option of placing the retroreflective tape immediately adjacent to the rivets, rather than over the rivets. As an example, from the illustrations you enclosed, it appears that it may be possible to apply retroreflective tape outside the rivets adjacent to the lower portions of the door. Thus, that would be the nearest possible location, rather than the perimeter of the bus itself. I note, however, that the illustrations do not provide sufficient detail of all obstructions for us to determine the nearest possible location for each design.

I also note that your letter stated in support of your request that all school buses are required to have a rear emergency exit. While this is true, the type of emergency exit will vary and retroreflective tape at the perimeter of the exit would allow rescuers to immediately know the precise location of the exit. Moreover, retroreflective tape at the perimeter would enable rescuers to immediately know which type of exit is in this location. This information could be vitally important. Because push-out windows are not required to have a means of releasing the exit from outside the bus (S5.3.3.2), this information would allow rescuers to quickly determine that they should move to the sides of the bus to locate an exit they can open.

Your letter asked the agency to treat it as a petition for rulemaking if we did not interpret the standard as you requested. You will be notified of our decision to grant or deny your petition.

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

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

ref:217 d:3/28/94

ID: 9730

Mr. Blair Abraham
Biomedical Manager
Mersco Medical
P.O. Box 5061
Sioux Falls, SD 57117

Dear Mr. Abraham:

This responds to your letter requesting information about "the steps to take to certify a vehicle for a higher weight rating than what is issued by the manufacturer." I apologize for the delay in our response. As discussed in your letter and in a telephone conversation with Edward Glancy of my staff, your company owns a 1989 or 1990 Chevy van which it uses to deliver products. You indicate that the GVWR assigned to the vehicle is 5,600 pounds. You modified the suspension to enable the vehicle to handle an additional 1,000 pounds and "would like to certify the vehicle for 6,600 pounds." You asked us to send the information required for increasing the GVWR and also ask, if you cannot increase the GVWR, whether you are liable for noncompliance of a DOT regulation.

By way of background information, under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) issues safety standards for new motor vehicles and new motor vehicle equipment. Manufacturers are required to certify that their vehicles and equipment meet applicable safety standards.

Under NHTSA's certification regulations, manufacturers must assign a GVWR to new vehicles. The term GVWR is defined in 49 CFR Part 571.3 as "the value specified by the manufacturer as the loaded weight of a single vehicle." The GVWR informs vehicle owners how heavily the vehicle may safely be loaded. It also affects the vehicle's loading and other test conditions for the performance tests to ascertain whether the vehicle complies with applicable safety standards. NHTSA expects the GVWR to reflect a manufacturer's good-faith evaluation of the vehicle's size, weight, load carrying capacity, and intended use.

NHTSA's regulation on GVWR only addresses the GVWR of new vehicles. This is because the agency's safety standards apply only to new motor vehicles and new motor vehicle equipment. There is a provision, '108(a)(2)(A), in the Vehicle Safety Act

that prohibits manufacturers, distributors, dealers and motor vehicle repair businesses from knowingly rendering inoperative in whole or in part any device or element of design installed in accordance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard. These parties would be subject to this provision if they were to modify your vehicle's suspension. However, the provision does not apply to individual owners modifying their own vehicles.

Because we do not regulate how individuals modify their own vehicles (and thus do not prohibit you from modifying your vehicle's suspension), we are unable to advise you about the specific modifications that must be made to a vehicle for it to safely carry an additional 1,000 pounds. Among other things, however, you should carefully evaluate whether the vehicle's axles, brakes, tires, and frame can adequately handle the additional load. We suggest that you consult with the original vehicle manufacturer about this question. You may also wish to consult a local attorney concerning possible liability in the event your vehicle is involved in an accident.

Also, the individual states have the authority to regulate used vehicles, and changes in the GVWR of used vehicles may be addressed by state law. State law may also address the operation of a vehicle loaded above GVWR.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions about NHTSA's regulations, please feel free to contact Mr. Glancy at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

ref:567 d:6/30/94

ID: 9731

Mr. Gilbert Gallahar
Kings Environmental Hydrogen Systems
P.O. Box 713
Marana, AZ 85653

Dear Mr. Gallahar:

This responds to your letter requesting information about Federal requirements applicable to an on-board hydrogen generator used on an internal combustion engine to control exhaust emissions. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our regulations to you.

By way of background, NHTSA is authorized by the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Safety Act) to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment, including an on-board hydrogen generator.

NHTSA has not issued any standards for a device such as yours. Nevertheless, there are other Federal laws that indirectly affect the manufacture and sale of your product. You as the product's manufacturer are subject to the requirements in sections 151-159 of the Safety Act concerning the recall and remedy of products with defects related to motor vehicle safety. 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.

Please note that no FMVSS would preclude the installation of your product as an item of original equipment. Nevertheless, if your device were installed on a new vehicle by a vehicle manufacturer or an alterer before the first consumer purchase, then they would have to certify that the vehicle complies with all applicable standards, including Standard No. 301, Fuel System Integrity.

A commercial business that installs the on-board hydrogen generator would also be subject to provisions of the Safety Act that affect modifications of new or used vehicles. Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)) provides that:

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

This means that a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business must not install your device if the system renders inoperative the vehicle's compliance with the FMVSSs. For instance, compliance with FMVSS No. 301 might be degraded if the hydrogen generator affected the integrity of a motor vehicle fuel system. Any violation of this "render inoperative" prohibition would subject the violator to a potential civil penalty of up to $1,000 for each violation.

Please note also that the render 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 install an on-board hydrogen generator 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 State regulations to see whether your device would be permitted.

You may wish to contact the Environmental Protection Agency for any questions concerning emissions and air quality. The general telephone number for the EPA is (202) 382-2090. You may also wish to contact the state of Arizona for information on its emissions testing regulations.

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

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosure

ref:301 d:5/18/94

ID: 9753a

Mr. J. L. Steffy
Triumph Designs Ltd.
Jacknell Road
Dodwells Bridge Industrial Estate
Hinckley, Leicestershire LE10 3BS
England

Dear Mr. Steffy:

This responds to your request for an interpretation of model year designations specified in 49 CFR part 565 Vehicle Identification Number - Content Requirements. You asked whether the vehicle identification number (VIN) for a 1994 model year vehicle may use the symbol "P" to designate model year. The answer is no.

You stated that Triumph wishes to use, in its VIN, a letter code designating the year of vehicle manufacture. Triumph marks the letter "P" in the VIN of a vehicle manufactured in November 1993. Triumph considers this a MY 1994 vehicle.

The format for VIN content information is specified in part 565. Table VI of part 565 specifies that MY 1993 is designated by the letter "P" and MY 1994 is designated by the letter "R." Designating a MY 1994 vehicle with the letter "P," as you wish to do, could engender confusion since it would represent that the vehicle is a MY 1993 vehicle. Such confusion could hinder the accuracy and efficiency of vehicle recall campaigns.

You also asked if Triumph may be permitted a modification of the part 565 model year designations and designate its MY 1994 vehicles as "P." The answer is no. NHTSA has no procedures to permit manufacturers to modify or waive any of part 565.

We note that Triumph could use the letter "P" to designate the vehicle as a 1993 MY vehicle. Section 565.3(h) defines "model year" as:

the year used to designate a discrete vehicle model irrespective of the calendar year in which the vehicle was actually produced, so long as the actual period is less than two calendar years.

Assuming the actual production period of the vehicle is less than two calendar years, a vehicle manufactured in November 1993 could be a MY 1993 vehicle, identified by the letter "P."

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

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

ref:565 d:3/29/94