ID: 19948.ztv

Mr. Ron Dawson
4224 Quince Road
Portsmouth, VA 23703

Dear Mr. Dawson:

This is in reply to your e-mail of May 5, 1999, to Taylor Vinson of this Office, on kit cars. We had previously written you on this subject on March 29, 1999, and you have two further questions. I apologize for the delay in our response.

In our earlier letter we informed you that we would regard the person installing the engine and transmission of a kit car, whether the kit purchaser or a commercial entity, as the manufacturer of the vehicle and responsible for its compliance with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. You cite a letter from this Office to Kent Morris, dated April 22, 1991, in which we stated that a manufacturer is any person assembling more than one motor vehicle. Your asked whether we will "consider the kit purchaser who installs an engine and transmission into a single car a manufacturer."

The answer is that the assembler of a single kit car is a "manufacturer." We have reviewed the statement you cited in our April 22, 1991 letter and concluded that it was incorrect. In other letters, we have stated that a purchaser who completes a kit is a manufacturer (see 1979 letter to the Honorable John C. Stennis) and that even if someone produces only a single motor vehicle, that vehicle must be certified to conform to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards if its producer intends it to operate on the public roads (see 1997 letter to Mr. Dion A. DeVan).

You note that 49 U.S.C. 30112 states that, with certain exceptions, "a person may not manufacture for sale, sell, offer for sale, introduce or deliver for introduction in interstate commerce, or 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 . . . ." I would point out that driving a vehicle on the public roads would be considered an introduction into interstate commerce. Therefore, a person who assembled a kit car which did not comply with Federal motor vehicle safety standards and then drove the vehicle on the public roads would be in violation of this section.

You also asked whether we would "enforce compliance upon a person who installs an engine and transmission in a kit car and then uses the completed motor vehicle for his/her personal highway use." If we should become aware of an apparent violation in such a situation, we would decide what action to take at that time. I would also note that, in addition to facing a potential Federal enforcement action, such a person might also be in violation of State laws. Moreover, in the event of a crash, there could be potential liability issues both for the assembler of the kit car and for the kit manufacturer. A local attorney could advise you about the laws of your state and potential liability issues.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
ref:571
d.6/20/00

ID: 19951

Ms. Sharon Elsenbeck
Director of Support Services
Three Springs of North Carolina
P.O. Box 1370
Pittsboro, NC 27312

Dear Ms. Elsenbeck:

This responds to your April 28, 1999, letter that asks whether your residential treatment facility for "adolescents with emotional and behavioral problems" must transport its students by buses that meet the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's (NHTSA's) school bus safety standards. You state that your residents attend an on-campus, non-public, school.

By way of background, NHTSA is authorized to issue and enforce Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles. Our statute at 49 U.S.C. 30112 requires any person selling or leasing a new vehicle to sell or lease a vehicle that meets all applicable standards. Accordingly, persons selling or leasing a new "school bus" must sell or lease a vehicle that meets the safety standards applicable to school buses. Our statute defines a "schoolbus" as any vehicle that is designed for carrying a driver and more than 10 passengers and which, NHTSA decides, is likely to be "used significantly" to transport "preprimary, primary, and secondary" students to or from school or related events. 49 U.S.C. 30125. By regulation, the capacity threshold for school buses corresponds to that of buses -- vehicles designed for carrying more than ten (10) persons. For example, a 15-person van that is likely to be used significantly to transport students is a "school bus."

Our statute thus regulates primarily manufacturers and sellers of new school buses. Any person selling a new school bus must sell a vehicle that is certified as meeting our school bus standards. Conventional buses (including 15-person vans) are not certified as doing so, and thus cannot be sold, as new vehicles, under circumstances where they are likely to be used to carry students on a regular basis.

You did not describe the program of Three Springs, so we are unable to determine whether your facility is a "school" under our statute. For your information, I am enclosing an April 8, 1998, letter to Mr. Gary Hammontree, director of a residential treatment program called Starr Commonwealth. The main purpose of Starr Commonwealth was to provide psychological and therapeutic counseling to youths placed in the program by the juvenile justice system. In our letter to Mr. Hammontree, we determined that Starr Commonwealth provided services that are distinct from the academic instruction associated with a "school," and that Starr Commonwealth was therefore not a school. Accordingly, we concluded that persons selling a new bus to the facility to transport the youths to counseling-related activities, such as service projects in the community, are not required to sell a "school bus." On the other hand, Starr Commonwealth also transported some students to off-campus public schools and events related to the schools. We therefore also determined that new buses sold to regularly transport students to those schools or to school-related events are "school buses" and would have to meet Federal school bus standards.

As to whether you must use school buses, that question is answered by State law. Because our regulations apply only to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles, we do not prohibit facilities from using non-school buses to transport their pupils.  Matters relating to motor vehicle use are determined by state law, so you should check North Carolina law to see what State requirements apply to your vehicles. For information on North Carolina's requirements, you can contact North Carolina's State Director of Pupil Transportation:

Mr. Derek Graham, Section Chief
North Carolina Department of Public Instruction
301 N. Wilmington St.
Raleigh, NC 27601
Telephone: (919) 715-1950

In closing, we wish to emphasize that school buses are one of the safest forms of transportation in this country, and that we therefore strongly recommend that all buses that are used to transport school children be certified as meeting NHTSA's school bus safety standards. Further, using buses that do not meet NHTSA's school bus standards to transport students could result in increased liability in the event of a crash. Since such liability would be determined by State law, you may wish to consult with your attorney and insurance carrier for advice on this issue.

I hope this information is helpful. For more information about the safety features of a school bus, I am enclosing NHTSA's publication: "School Bus Safety: Safe Passage for America's Children." If you have any further questions please feel free to contact Dorothy Nakama at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
Enclosure
ref:VSA#571.3

ID: 19975-1.pja

Major P.D. McClellan
Commander
Office of Licensing and Commercial Standards
Ohio State Highway Patrol
1970 W. Broad Street
P.O. Box 182074
Columbus, OH 43218-2074

Dear Major McClellan:

This responds to your letter asking for an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 217, Bus Emergency Exits and Window Retention and Release. I apologize for the delay in responding. You ask whether Ohio's school bus construction standard is in conflict with our standard as to the location of side window emergency exits. Based on our understanding of your standard, our answer is no.

You explain that your standard requires school buses with a seating capacity greater than 50 to have "two emergency swing out windows on the right and left side of the body" located in the front and rear third of the bus. Thomas Built Buses has told you that they have an interpretation letter from us stating that Standard No. 217 requires a window exit at the midpoint of the bus no matter how many exits are on each side of the bus. (Although you did not identify the letter, we believe you are referring to our August 4, 1995, letter to Ms. Jane L. Dawson of Thomas Built Buses.) You ask whether your standard may require the swing out windows in the front and rear third of the bus.

S5.2.3.1 of Standard No. 217 requires school buses to be equipped with certain numbers and types of emergency exits, at specified locations. At the school bus manufacturer's option, a school bus may either have:

(1) one rear emergency door and the additional exits described in Table 1 of the standard (S5.2.3.1(a)); or

(2) one emergency door on the vehicle's left side, a push-out rear window, and the additional exits described in the standard's Table 2 (S5.2.3.1(b)).

According to your letter, your school buses have a push-out rear window installed pursuant to S5.2.3.1(b). We gather from this that the two additional windows to which you refer are those described in Table 2, which permits manufacturers the option of installing the two window exits in lieu of a right side exit door. Our August 4, 1995, letter states that Standard No.217 does not specify a fore-aft location for a right side exit door or for window exits installed in lieu of a right side exit door. The letter states that these exit windows should be positioned fore-and-aft in the school bus so as to provide bus passengers with maximum accessibility to an emergency exit, in accordance with what is reasonable and practicable. We believe that your requirement that the two exit windows be placed on each side of the bus and in the front and rear thirds of the bus provides for appropriate accessibility. On this point, our standards are consistent.

However, there are some potential differences between our standards that we would like to highlight.

• According to your letter, your standard requires all type B-D school buses, regardless of seating capacity, to have at least two window exits. S5.2.3.1 of our standard allows buses seating less than 46 persons to have only a single rear exit door, or a left side exit door and a rear exit window, with no other exit windows.
• For buses with seating capacities between 46 and 49, your standard requires two side exit windows located at the midpoint. S5.2.3.1(a) of our standard allows an option of either two side exit windows or a left side exit door located as near as practicable to the mid-point of the passenger compartment (see Table 1 and S5.2.3.2(a)). Because a side exit window and a side exit door cannot occupy the same location, under your standard the side exit door option is essentially no longer available.
• For buses with seating capacities of 50 to 62, your standard requires four side emergency window exits, while S5.2.3.1, Tables 1 and 2 of our standard require only two.

Section 30103(b) of our statute, at 49 U.S.C. 30101 et seq., states:

when a motor vehicle safety standard is in effect under this chapter, a State . . . may prescribe or continue in effect a standard applicable to the same aspect of performance of a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment only if the standard is identical to the standard prescribed under this chapter. However,  . . . a State . . . may prescribe a standard for a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment obtained for its own use that imposes a higher performance requirement than that required by [the Federal standard].

To the extent that the Ohio requirements are different from those in Standard No. 217, their application to private school buses would be preempted. With respect to buses procured for the state's own use (including use by local school districts), the state standard is not preempted. The state standard results in no apparent reduction in the number of emergency exits and the locations appear to be reasonable and practicable.

If you have any further questions, please contact us.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
ref:217# 205
d.5/30/00

ID: 19994.ztv

Mr. F. Barry Hennegan
General Counsel
Atlas and Reusable Launch Systems
Lockheed Martin
P.O. Box 179
Denver CO 80201-0179

Re: SS-99-10099

Dear Mr. Hennegan:

This is in reply to your letter of May 3, 1999, to the Office of Chief Counsel, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, "regarding possible exemptions from certain of the requirements of 49 C.F.R. Sections 571.121 and 393.52" with respect to two trailers owned by Lockheed Martin.

The Office of Motor Carrier Safety, Department of Transportation, enforces 49 CFR 393.52. I am forwarding a copy of your letter to that Office for its response to you on this issue.

In brief, Lockheed Martin is the owner of two trailers manufactured for it by Martinez and Turek of Riato, California. These trailers were manufactured to your specifications, which included compliance with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 121, Air brake systems. The trailers also feature steerable rear wheels mounted on a removable bogie assembly. You inform us that "after completion of acceptance and road testing of both trailers, it appears that neither will fully meet Section 571.121, Paragraphs S5.3.3 Brake actuation Time and S5.3.4 Brake Release time."

However, you note that S3(a) of Standard No. 121 excludes trailers which exceed 102.36 inches in width and which are "equipped with two short track axles in a line across the width of the trailer." Your trailers are wider than this but don't meet the axle specification. Nevertheless, you believe that the intent of this exception is "not to have the requirements apply to oversize, slow, or specialty trailers such as ours." Accordingly, you ask that we exempt your trailers from S5.3.3 and S5.3.4 of Standard No. 121.

I am sorry to inform you that we have no authority to exempt these trailers from Standard No. 121 under the circumstances that you relate. Because they are not equipped with two short track axles across their width, the trailers do not qualify for the exclusion from Standard No. 121 provided by S3(a). The trailers, then, were required by 49 U.S.C. 30112(a) to comply with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards, and to be certified by their manufacturer as conforming to those standards.

We have authority to exempt trailers from Standard No. 121 at any point up to and including their first sale for purposes other than resale, upon application by their manufacturer (49 U.S.C. 30113). Given the fact that these trailers are already owned by Lockheed Martin, it is too late for their manufacturer, Martinez and Turek, to apply for an exemption.

When either we determine, or a manufacturer determines, that a motor vehicle fails to comply with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard, the manufacturer is required to notify us and its dealers and purchasers, and to remedy the noncompliance (49 U.S.C. 30118-30120, as implemented by 49 CFR Parts 573 and 577). However, if the manufacturer believes that the noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety, it may petition us for a decision to that effect. If we grant the petition, the manufacturer is relieved of its statutory obligation to notify and remedy (49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and 30120(h), as implemented by 49 CFR Part 556).

Therefore, if the manufacturer, Martinez and Turek, agrees that Lockheed Martin's trailers fail to comply with S5.3.3 and S5.3.4 of Standard No. 121, the company is required, at a minimum, to notify us in the manner prescribed in 49 CFR Part 573. Within 30 days of notifying us, it may also submit an inconsequentiality petition with us under 49 CFR Part 556. In this particular instance, the manufacturer might want to discuss, as part of such a petition, whether this vehicle is operated only under special permit and with escort vehicles. If it does not file a petition (or if the petition is denied), it is required to remedy the noncompliance.

Although you did not address the issue, under our interpretations, the removable bogie assembly appears to be a trailer, and subject to compliance with Federal requirements. You state that the auxiliary axle was added after delivery of the trailers to ensure that the vehicles, when in use, would not exceed the maximum Colorado allowable rear wheel road loading for tandem axle trailers. A bogie/axle unit installed as part of a trailer's original equipment is considered to be part of the trailer itself, and covered by its manufacturer's certification and the trailer's VIN. However, a bogie/axle unit sold and installed after the trailer has been delivered to its owner is considered a trailer, and is required to comply with Federal requirements applicable to trailers, including compliance with Federal standards, the VIN regulation, and certification by the bogie/axle manufacturer. I am enclosing a copy of a letter we furnished Jay Reese on September 25, 1996, which explains this in further detail. If the bogie/axle units installed on your two trailers do not in fact comply with Federal standards applicable to trailers, the bogie manufacturer is subject to the same notification, recall, and inconsequentiality procedures discussed in the preceding paragraph.

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

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
Enclosure

cc: Martinez & Turek
Riato, CA

ref:121#573#555
d.11/9/99

ID: 20014.ztv

Mr. Joel Sacher
Director of Product Development
Italjet U.S.A.
302 Spring Street
New York NY 10013

Dear Mr. Sacher:

We have received your letter of May 11, 1999, asking for a temporary exemption for "a small number of Italjet scooters" from one requirement of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 123 Motorcycle Controls and Displays.

I am sorry to inform you that the petition does not meet our procedural requirements, and we request that you revise and resubmit it in accordance with the following comments. Our regulation, 49 CFR 555.5(b)(3), requires that a petition

state the full name and address of the applicant,

the nature of its organization (individual, partnership, corporation, etc.) and the name of the State or country under the laws of which it is organized.

Italjet U.S.A. appears to be petitioning on behalf of Italjet S.p.A. If our assumption is correct, please provide the identifying information for Italjet S.p.A. that the regulation requires. If Italjet U.S.A. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Italjet S.p.A., we ask that you confirm this as well. If Italjet U.S.A. is not a wholly-owned subsidiary of Italjet S.p.A., we would like to have a copy of the authorization from Italjet S.p.A. to you to petition on its behalf.

In order that any possible exemption be limited in scope, please inform us of the model name or number of the vehicle for which you are requesting exemption.

Finally, we call your attention to 49 CFR 555.5(b)(2) which requires that temporary exemption petitions be filed in three copies; we received only one copy.

When we have this information, we shall be pleased to consider your request.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
ref:555
d.6/3/99

ID: 2638y

Mr. William Waltz
Wagner Division
Cooper Industries, Inc.
155 Algonquin Parkway
Whippany, NJ 07981

Dear Mr. Waltz:

This is in reply to your letter of April 12, l990, stating that Wagner Division "would like to petition N.H.T.S.A. for a 'Determination of Inconsequentiality' for non-compliance."

Specifically, Wagner wishes to manufacture round sealed beam headlamps (not "bulbs" as you call it) for Lectric Limited, a small parts business geared towards the antique automobile hobby. The headlamps are intended for use on "antique automobiles". We understand that term to mean any automobile manufactured in l940 and subsequent model years that was originally equipped with round sealed beam headlamps. Although the headlamps would be designed to conform to current specifications, those of SAE Standard J579c, the word "top" would be used on the 7-inch diameter headlamp instead of the designation "2CI" (you mean "2D1"), the numeral "1" for "1C1" on the single beam 5 3/4-inch diameter headlamp, and the numeral "2" for "2C1" on the dual beam 5 3/4-inch diameter headlamp. The lamps would not bear "DOT" identification. Lectric Limited is willing to "ink stamp" DOT, 2Dl, 1C1, and 2C1 "on either the face and or the rear" of each headlamp so that they would not be mistaken for those conforming to SAE J579a, and to print instructions for purchasers explaining the difference. Lectric Limited is also willing to insure that the headlamps are marketed only through antique auto specialty retailers.

First, let me explain that your request cannot be considered as one for a determination of inconsequentiality. These determinations are made after-the-fact in order to determine whether a manufacturer must fulfill statutory obligations which include replacement, repurchase, or repair of the already-manufactured noncompliant product. What you seek is permission to produce motor vehicle equipment that fails to comply with labeling requirements. Unfortunately, the agency has no exemption provisions which can address this issue. We have authority to exempt manufacturers of motor vehicles from compliance for a temporary period, but we have no authority to exempt manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment, on either a temporary or permanent basis. Further, we cannot waive the marking requirements of sections S7.2 and S7.3 of Standard No. l08, even for the limited purpose and subject to the restrictions you discuss.

After due consideration of the matter, we believe that you have no choice other than to conform to the marking requirements of Standard No. l08. Although neither the marking nor the performance of J579c headlamps replicates that of J579a headlamps, I hope that auto enthusiasts will be willing to accept the marking that goes with the improved performance.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel ref:l08 d:7/25/90

ID: 2639o

Art Look, Marketing Executive
Burke Communication Industries
1165 North Clark Street
Chicago, IL 60610

Dear Mr. Look:

Your letter of October 30, 1987, addressed to Administrator Diane Steed, was referred to me for reply. You are apparently seeking this Department's approval of your product which you describe as a new warning device for stopped motor vehicles. As explained below, we do not provide approvals for products.

Your product is made of inflatable plastic material that you describe as "flexible and extremely durable." When a user inflates your device, the product takes the shape of a cone standing about 18" high. The pictures you enclose indicate that the inflatable part of the cone has three broad alternating stripes. Two of the stripes are orange, and a 6" "reflective" white stripe is sandwiched between them. Your cone sits on a non-inflatable, spherical, black base filled with "approximately" 3 lbs. of sand.

You state that your device has many advantages over the warning device currently specified in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 125, Warning Devices. Among the advantages you list are that your device is "more visible at night, up to 1,000 ft. away;" that it "(is) not affected by winds up to 50 MPH;" and that if struck, it "will return to an upright position" without damaging the vehicle involved. You state your company's intention to package your device in a corrugated container with three inflatable cones to a kit, including both a "new-type double-action hand pump" and instructions for proper use of your device.

Let me begin with some general information about this agency. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is an agency of the Department of Transportation, and has authority under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Safety Act) to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and certain items of motor vehicle equipment. However, NHTSA does not approve nor certify motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, or endorse any commercial product. Instead, the Safety Act establishes a "self-certification" process under which each manufacturer is required to certify that its products meet all applicable safety standards issued by this agency. Periodically, NHTSA conducts tests to determine whether vehicles or equipment comply with these standards, and may investigate alleged safety-related product defects.

One of the safety standards issued by this agency is Standard 125, Warning Devices, which sets uniform performance requirements for certain devices that are designed to be carried in a motor vehicle and used when needed to warn approaching traffic when the vehicle is disabled and stopped in or by the side of the road. The Standard applies to any such device that does not have a self-contained energy source (such as a battery). Your product falls under this Standard. Thus, it must meet the requirements of Standard 125, such as those on configuration, color, and reflectivity. Failure to comply with a standard renders the manufacturer subject to a civil penalty of $1,000 for each violation and a maximum penalty of $800,000 for a series of violations. In addition, the Safety Act requires a manufacturer to recall and remedy or replace a noncomplying item of motor vehicle equipment.

As the above discussion suggests, you do not need approval from NHTSA or any other agency in the Department of Transportation to market your product. However, you do need both to ensure that your product meets Standard 125's requirements and to certify compliance. Our preliminary review of your product indicates that you may not be able to make that certification. For example, it appears that your product may not comply with the color, reflectivity, configuration, and stability requirements of Standard 125. If your product fails to meet these or other Standard 125 requirements, you cannot legally market it as a warning device.

I hope you find this response helpful.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Enclosure ref:125 d:1/4/88

ID: 2639y

AIR MAIL

Mr. Wayne Brush Director, Material Management Conceptor Industries, Inc. 521 Newpark Blvd. P. O. Box 149 Newmarket, Ontario Canada L3Y 4X7

Dear Mr. Brush:

Thank you for your letter to Mr. Clive Van Orden of our Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance seeking an interpretation of this agency's requirements for a vehicle identification number (VIN), as set forth in 49 CFR Part 565, Vehicle Identification Number - Content Requirements, and Standard No. 115, Vehicle Identification Number - Basic Requirements (49 CFR 571.115). You stated that your company plans to modify vans manufactured by General Motors (GM) to produce electric powered vehicles for sale in the United States. You asked whether these vehicles may use the GM world manufacturer identifier (WMI), as well as a check digit, model year identification, and production sequence codes assigned by GM, and use an X as the engine type code to show that the vehicles were actually manufactured by your company. As explained below, the answer to your question is no.

S4.1 of Standard No. 115 reads as follows:

Each vehicle manufactured in one stage shall have a VIN that is assigned by the manufacturer. Each vehicle manufactured in more than one stage shall have a VIN assigned by the incomplete vehicle manufacturer. Vehicle alterers, as specified in 49 CFR 567.7, shall utilize the VIN assigned by the original manufacturer of the vehicle.

As described in your letter, Conceptor Industries plans to produce completed electric powered vehicles by using an assemblage of motor vehicle equipment produced by GM, including frame and chassis structure, steering, suspension, and braking systems. However, the assemblage provided to your company by GM would not include a power train. The absence of a power train means that this assemblage would not be an "incomplete vehicle," as that term is defined in S3 of Standard No. 115, so the Conceptor electric vehicles would not be considered to be manufactured in more than one stage. Your company would not qualify as a vehicle alterer, based on the information provided in your letter, because GM would not have already certified the vehicles modified by your company. Thus, the electric powered vehicles produced by Conceptor would be considered to be vehicles manufactured in one stage, and the VIN for these vehicles would have to be assigned by Conceptor, the manufacturer of these vehicles.

Part 565 specifies the format and content of the VIN that Standard No. 115 requires your company to assign to its electric powered vehicles. In relevant part, 49 CFR 565.4 provides that:

The VIN shall consist of four sections of characters which shall be grouped accordingly: (a) The first section shall consist of three characters which occupy positions one through three (1-3) in the VIN, This section 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. If the manufacturer produces less than 500 motor vehicles of its type annually, those three characters, along with the third, fourth, and fifth characters of the fourth section shall uniquely identify the manufacturer, make and type of the motor vehicle. * * *

Under the approach suggested in your letter, GM would be identified as the manufacturer of the vehicle by the first three characters of the VIN, and the eighth character would indicate that Conceptor was the actual manufacturer. This approach would be plainly inconsistent with the requirements of 565.4 quoted above, because the regulation requires the first three characters in the VIN to identify the vehicle manufacturer. Your company is the manufacturer of these vehicles, not GM, so your company must be identified by the first three characters of the VIN. Furthermore, 565.4(b) provides that the eighth character in the VIN shall uniquely identify specified attributes of the vehicle, not identify the manufacturer. Hence, the approach suggested in your letter would not comply with this agency's VIN requirements.

Additionally, you informed Dorothy Nakama of my staff in a July 3, 1990 telelphone conversation that, at least in the initial years of your company's production of these vehicles, the annual production will be less than 500. If this is the case, you should note that 565.4(a) requires your company to use not only the first three characters of the VIN to uniquely identify the manufacturer, make and type of the motor vehicle, but also the 12th, 13th, and 14th characters of the VIN as well to make this unique identification.

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

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel /ref:565#115 d:7/25/90

ID: 2640o

Mr. Toshio Maeda
Executive Vice President
& Chief Operating Officer
Nissan Research & Development, Inc.
P.O. Box 8650
Ann Arbor, Michigan 48104

Dear Mr. Maeda:

This is in reply to your letter of June 30, 1987, asking for an interpretation of paragraph S4.1.1.36(b)(3) of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. l08.

That paragraph specifies in pertinent part that a replaceable bulb headlamp shall be designed to conform to Section 6.1-Aiming Adjustment Test, of SAE Standard J580 AUG79 Sealed Beam Headlamp Assembly. Section 6.1.1 states that "when the headlamp assembly is tested in the laboratory, a minimum aiming adjustment of +/-4 deg. shall be provided in both the vertical and horizontal planes." You have asked whether the aiming adjustment is to be achieved by the headlamp assembly, or by both the headlamp assembly "and by the headlamp when it is mounted on the vehicle."

SAE J580 applies to the design of headlamp assemblies, including the functional parts other than the headlamps, such as aiming and mounting mechanisms and hardware. The assembly may include one or more headlamps. Although the headlamp assembly is tested in the laboratory, its design must be identical to the headlamp assembly used on the vehicle. Thus, if the aiming adjustment requirement is met by the headlamp assembly in the laboratory, it should also be met when the assembly is installed on the vehicle. An individual headlamp installed on the vehicle need not meet the aiming adjustment test unless that headlamp is part of a headlamp assembly comprising only one headlamp.

I hope that this answers your question.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel ref:l08 d:1/14/88

ID: 2640y

Mr. Ron Boucher
Energy Savings Systems
P.O. Box 294
Centralia, WA 98531

Dear Mr. Boucher:

Thank you for your letter asking whether the products you plan to market would comply with the laws and regulations administered by this agency. As explained below, the laws and regulations administered by this agency would not be applicable to these products.

Enclosed with your letter were two brochures describing the "Signal Flash" personal identification lights. The brochure included pictures and descriptions of several different types of battery-powered lights that are small enough to be carried on one's person, and include straps that make them suitable to be carried on one's arm, around one's wrist, or inserted into a life preserver. The brochures describe these "Signal Flash" lights as suitable for use in "diving, mountaineering, jogging, sailing, windsurfing, cycling, fishing, car breakdown, life jacket, etc."

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Safety Act) authorizes this agency to regulate "motor vehicles" and items of "motor vehicle equipment." Section 102(4) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1391(4)) defines "motor vehicle equipment", in part, as:

any system, part, or component of a motor vehicle as originally manufactured or any similar part or component manufactured or sold for replacement or improvement of such system, part, or component or as any accessory, or addition to the motor vehicle...

Your "Signal Flash" lights are plainly not a "system, part, or component of a motor vehicle as originally manufactured," nor are they a "similar part or component manufactured or sold for replacement or improvement" of an original equipment part of a motor vehicle. The issue is whether these lights would be considered an "accessory" within the meaning of the Safety Act. In determining whether an item of equipment is considered an "accessory," the agency applies the relevant statutory language and the two following criteria: first, whether a substantial portion of the expected uses of the item are related to the operation or maintenance of motor vehicles, and second, whether the item is intended to be used principally by ordinary users of motor vehicles.

In evaluating the first criterion, the product literature enclosed with your letter emphasizes the versatility of these personal identification lights. While these lights occasionally may be used in connection with a motor vehicle breakdown or repair, most of the suggested uses involve sports activities that have nothing to do with a motor vehicle. Thus, a substantial portion of the expected uses of the light would not appear related to the operation or maintenance of a vehicle, so these "Signal Flash" lights would not be considered items of "motor vehicle equipment." This conclusion means that the "Signal Flash" lights are not subject to any of the laws and regulations administered by this agency.

You may wish to consult the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission to learn if they have any requirements applicable to these lights. That agency protects the public against unreasonable risks of injury from consumer products. You may write to the Consumer Product Safety Commission at 5401 Westbard Avenue, Bethesda, MD 20207, or contact them by telephone at (301) 492-6580.

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

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

/ ref:VSA d:7/27/90