ID: 3059yy

Erika Z. Jones, Esquire
Mayer, Brown & Platt
2000 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20006-1882

Dear Ms. Jones:

This responds to your request for an interpretation of 49 CFR Part 565, Vehicle Identification Number - Content Requirements. More specifically, you asked whether NHTSA's regulations would prohibit or otherwise affect the ability of a foreign subsidiary of an American company from obtaining a special world manufacturer identifier (WMI) code from the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) in the subsidiary's name for use on vehicles to be offered for sale outside of the United States. As explained below, the answer is no.

Your letter posed the following hypothetical situation. The XYZ Company manufactures motor vehicles for sale in the United States and Europe. XYZ certifies that the motor vehicles offered for sale in the United States comply with the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS), and accepts full responsibility as a manufacturer of the U.S. vehicles under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. XYZ has two wholly-owned subsidiaries: ABC Company, which performs "assembly and marketing functions" solely for vehicles sold in the United States for the U.S.-certified vehicles manufactured by XYZ, and the DEF Corporation, which performs "assembly and marketing functions" solely for vehicles sold outside the United States.

Your first question was whether "there would be any implications under NHTSA rules" if wholly-owned subsidiary DEF were to obtain a WMI from the SAE in its own name, for use solely on vehicles assembled and sold outside of the United States. The WMI, which serves to uniquely identify the vehicle manufacturer, consists of the first three digits of the vehicle identification number assigned to the vehicle in accordance with Standard No. 115 and Part 565.

To answer your question, we must consider the scope of NHTSA's authority. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, NHTSA administers Federal regulations, including Part 565, relating to the manufacture, sale, introduction into interstate commerce, and/or importation of motor vehicles into the United States. In your hypothetical, wholly-owned subsidiary DEF is not engaged in any activities with respect to vehicles offered for sale in the United States. In that case, the Federal regulations administered by NHTSA would not apply to the activities of wholly-owned subsidiary DEF.

As you may be aware, NHTSA has entered into a contract with SAE under which SAE coordinates the assignment of WMI's pursuant to 49 CFR 565.5. NHTSA's contract with SAE is naturally limited by NHTSA's statutory authority. That is, NHTSA's contract with SAE relates to coordinating the assignment of WMI's to manufacturers that manufacture motor vehicles sold or offered for sale in the United States. SAE has no contractual obligation to NHTSA with respect to the assignment of WMI's to manufacturers whose vehicles are not offered for sale in the United States. So long as such assignments do not confuse or obscure the meaning of the WMI's assigned for vehicles offered for sale in the United States, SAE is free to exercise its judgment as to the appropriateness of any such assignments.

Your second question was whether NHTSA would object if XYZ were to ask the SAE to include in its next directory of WMI's a simple notation indicating that XYZ had authorized its subsidiary, ABC, to use one of XYZ's world manufacturer identification codes on vehicles assembled or marketed by ABC. The purpose of the WMI is to ensure that the vehicle manufacturer is uniquely identified. So long as the parent corporation agrees to be treated as the "manufacturer," for the purposes of the Safety Act, for the vehicles produced by its wholly-owned subsidiary, nothing in Part 565 prohibits the wholly-owned subsidiary from identifying the vehicles with a WMI assigned to the parent corporation.

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

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

/ref:565 d:7/8/9l

ID: 3060yy

Messrs. Steven M. and Morris G. Healy
P.O. Box 73
Worthington, MA 01098-0073

Dear Messrs. Healy:

This responds to your letter of June 5, l99l, to Richard Van Iderstine of this agency, asking for an opinion as to the legality of your device that attaches monitoring lights to bug deflectors "and/or to other appropriate mounting areas on vehicles."

As you state it, the primary purpose of the device is to "bring indicator lights up and into the line of vision of the vehicle operator." You specifically mention the turn signal and upper beam indicators ("or other appropriate applications desired by the operator)." You mention that the existing indicator lights on the dashboard are left undisturbed.

As bug deflectors or shields are accessory equipment sold in the aftermarket, it is clear that you do not intend your device to be original equipment offered by the vehicle manufacturer. The Federal statute governing the manufacture of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment is the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. There is no regulation or standard under this Act that relates to the manufacture and sale of your device.

We must, however, add a cautionary note relating to the use of your device by its purchaser. The Act prohibits any "manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business" from rendering "inoperative, in whole or in part, any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle . . . in accordance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard." You have assured us that the existing indicator lamps are not affected. However, one of the requirements of the lighting standard (Standard No. l08) that applies to motor vehicles is that accessory equipment not "impair the effectiveness" of the lighting equipment required by the standard. We regard the potential to create confusion as the potential to impair the effectiveness of lighting equipment. It does not appear that the turn signal indicator portion of your device, operating in tandem with the turn signals, would create confusion. Likewise, the upper beam indicator would be too small to be perceived by an oncoming car at any great distance. However, you have added qualifications to your letter ("other appropriate mounting areas on vehicles" and "other appropriate applications desired by the operator") that require us to advise you of the statutory prohibition.

The prohibition does not affect vehicle owners, and if you intend the device to be installed by them, you may disregard the foregoing. However, in any event, the use of the device is also subject to the laws of any State in which it will be used. We are unable to advise you on these laws, and suggest that you write for an opinion the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Va. 22203.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

ref:l08#VSA d:7/8/9l

ID: 3061yy

Mr. Samuel Albury
President
Three Wolves and Associates, Inc.
7124 Temple Hills Road
Suite 169
Camp Springs, Maryland 20748

Dear Mr. Albury:

This responds to your letter of June 3, 1991 concerning whether your company would be considered the manufacturer of certain vehicles. Your company is planning to use jeep conversion kits on Chrysler Corporation jeeps. Under one approach, your company would purchase the basic stripped down model jeep from Chrysler and add the body, stereo, air conditioning, tires, running lights, carpeting, and high visibility seats. You state that the body would be one solid piece and that your company would add wheel wells, doors, a solid or canvas top, and a windshield. Alternatively, your company would purchase the chassis, with engine and transmission, from Chrysler and add the above items.

I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our regulations to you. Some background information on Federal motor vehicle safety laws and regulations may be helpful. As you are aware, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized, under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq., the Safety Act), to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and certain items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA, however does not approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, nor do we endorse any commercial products. Instead, the Safety Act establishes a "self-certification" process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards.

I will address the responsibilities of your company under the Safety Act in each of the situations you described. First, if your company purchased a stripped down vehicle from Chrysler and made the modifications described, it could be considered an alterer under our regulations. Under 49 CFR Part 567, Certification, an alterer is defined as:

A person who alters a vehicle that has previously been certified . . . other than by the addition, substitution, or removal of readily attachable components such as mirrors or tire and rim assemblies, or minor finishing operations such as painting, . . . before the first purchase of the vehicle in good faith for purposes other than resale . . . .

As an alterer, your company would be required to certify compliance of its vehicles with the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards in accordance with 49 CFR Part 567. The only exception would be if:

1. The modifications consisted solely of "readily attachable components;" or

2. The modifications were only "minor finishing operations."

Whether modifications involve "readily attachable" components depends on the difficulty in attaching those components. In the past, the agency has looked at such factors as the intricacy of installation and the need for special expertise. Without extraordinary ease of installation, NHTSA would not consider modifications involving the addition or substitution of seats to involve "readily attachable" components.

If considered an alterer, your company would be subject to the certification requirements of 49 CFR 567.7. These requirements include provisions that the alterer supplement the existing manufacturer certification label, which must remain on the vehicle, by affixing an additional label. The label would state that the vehicle as altered conforms to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. The label would also state the alterer and the month and the year in which the alterations were completed.

In addition to these certification requirements, an alterer is considered a "manufacturer" for the purposes of the Safety Act. Among other things, this means an alterer is responsible for notification and remedy of defects related to motor vehicle safety and noncompliances with applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards, as specified in sections 151-160 of the Safety Act. Alterers also are subject to the requirements of 49 CFR Part 573, Defect and Noncompliance Reports.

Second, as an alternative, your company is considering buying a chassis from Chrysler. In that case, your company would likely be considered a final-stage manufacturer. Under 49 CFR Part 568, Vehicles Manufactured in Two or More Stages, a final-stage manufacturer is defined as:

A person who performs such manufacturing operations on an incomplete vehicle that it becomes a completed vehicle.

Under the regulation, incomplete vehicle is defined as

An assemblage consisting, as a minimum, of frame and chassis structure, power train, steering system, suspension system, and braking system, to the extent that those systems are to be part of the completed vehicle, that requires further manufacturing operations, other than the addition of readily attachable components, such as mirrors or tire and rim assemblies, or minor finishing operations such as painting, to become a completed vehicle.

As a final-stage manufacturer, your company's certification responsibilities would depend on the information provided by the manufacturer of the incomplete vehicle. Under 49 CFR Part 568, the incomplete vehicle manufacturer must furnish your company with a document which states one of the following three things concerning the incomplete vehicle:

1. The vehicle when completed will conform to some or all of the applicable safety standards if no alterations are made to any identified components of the incomplete vehicle;

2. The vehicle when completed will conform to some or all of the applicable safety standards if specific conditions are followed by the final-stage manufacturer;

3. Conformity with some or all of the applicable safety standards is not substantially affected by the design of the incomplete vehicle, so the incomplete vehicle manufacturer makes no representation as to conformity with the standards.

After receiving this document from the incomplete vehicle manufacturer, your company would be required to certify compliance with the safety standards. In addition to these certification requirements, a final-stage manufacturer is considered a "manufacturer" for the purposes of the Safety Act. Among other things, this means a final-stage manufacturer is responsible for notification and remedy of defects related to motor vehicle safety and noncompliances with applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards, as specified in sections 151-160 of the Safety Act. In addition, final-stage manufacturers are subject to the requirements of 49 CFR Part 573, Defect and Noncompliance Reports.

I am also enclosing a general information sheet for manufacturers of new vehicles. This sheet highlights the relevant Federal statutes and regulations and explains how to obtain copies of the regulations.

I hope that this information is useful. If you have any further questions, please contact John Rigby at 202-366-2992.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

ref:567#568 d:7/l2/9l

ID: 3062yy

Mr. Roddy Williams
Container Enterprise
3900 Paris Road
P.O. Box 1098
Chalmette, LA 70044-1098

Dear Mr. Williams:

This responds to your letter that asked whether your company is permitted to assign its own Vehicle Identification Numbers (VINs) pursuant to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 115, Vehicle Identification Number--Basic Requirements (49 CFR 571.115) to trailers that it "remanufactures" from previously used trailers. The answer is that a company that performs the remanufacturing operations described in your letter may assign a new VIN to its remanufactured trailers. By doing so, however, the trailers would be treated as newly manufactured trailers for the purposes of this agency's safety standards and regulations. Among other things, this would mean that your company would be required to certify that the trailers comply with all applicable safety standards in effect as of the date of the remanufacturing operations, including the lighting, tire, and brake standards applicable to new trailers.

In a telephone conversation with Dorothy Nakama of my staff, you stated that your company, Container Enterprise, works on trailers that were used to carry cargo containers. You stated that approximately 90% of the trailers that Container Enterprise works on were originally built between 1974 and 1979. Container Enterprise takes used container chassis that are 23 feet long and removes the axles and half of the crossmembers on the original frame. Container Enterprise then manufactures a 12 foot subframe and reinstalls the used axles on this subframe. The subframe is then attached to the container chassis, extending its chassis length to 27 feet. The conversion allows the chassis to slide open or closed. You stated that upon completion of this process, Container Enterprise will issue "a new manufacturer plate with a new VIN number" and date of remanufacture.

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.) authorizes this agency to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. We have exercised this authority to establish Standard No. 115, which applies to all new vehicles. S4.1 of Standard No. 115 specifies that vehicles manufactured in one stage shall have a VIN assigned by the vehicle manufacturer and S4.5 specifies that the assigned VIN shall appear clearly and indelibly on the vehicle.

Thus, the only person that can assign a VIN to a vehicle is the vehicle's manufacturer. The question then is whether your company's "remanufacturing" operations are substantial enough that the remanufactured trailers should be considered to be new vehicles and the manufacturer of those vehicles would be your company, instead of the original manufacturer of the trailer.

NHTSA's regulations specifically address the question of when trailers produced by combining new components (the subframe fabricated by your company) and used components (the parts of the used container chassis) are considered to be new trailers. 49 CFR 571.7(f) states that when new and used components are used in trailer manufacture, the trailer will be considered "newly manufactured" unless the following three conditions are met. First, the trailer running gear assembly, which includes the axle(s), wheels, braking and suspension, is not new, and was taken from an existing trailer. Second, the existing trailer's identity is continued in the reassembled vehicle with respect to the Vehicle Identification Number. Third, the existing trailer is owned or leased by the user of the reassembled vehicle.

You have stated that your company would assign new VINs to the trailers it remanufactures. Upon doing so, the second condition in 571.7(f), continuing use of the original VIN, would not be met. Therefore, the trailers "remanufactured" by your company would be considered to be newly manufactured. Your company, as the manufacturer, must certify that these trailers comply with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards in effect at the time of the remanufacture. This means that, in addition to complying with the 1991 requirements of Standard No. 115, your company would be required to certify that the trailers comply with the 1991 versions of the lighting standard (Standard No. 108), the tire and rim standard (Standard No. 120), and the air brake standard (Standard No. 121), to name a few examples of applicable standards. To assist you in making any such certifications, I am enclosing a brochure that briefly describes each of the safety standards and an information sheet for new manufacturers of motor vehicles that explains how to get copies of our standards and regulations.

Your letter also referred to U. S. Department of the Treasury Publication 510 on Excise Taxes. We can only tell you that your remanufactured trailers with new VINs would be considered new vehicles for the purposes of the Safety Act and the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. If you have any questions about the trailers for purposes of excise taxes, you should contact the Internal Revenue Service. Their District Office for Louisiana is located at 500 Camp Street, New Orleans, LA 70130.

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

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

Enclosures

ref:571#115#VSA d:7/l2/9l

ID: 3063yy

Mr. Richard E. Wright
Richard E. Wright Associates
151 Fenwick Court
Delran, NJ 08075

Dear Mr. Wright:

This responds to your letter of May 3, 1991 concerning the possible applicability of the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards to tempered glass products in travel trailers and motor homes. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain the situation to you.

Some background information may be useful. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has authority under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A), the Safety Act) to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. Glazing, as an "addition to the motor vehicle," is considered to be an item of motor vehicle equipment (Section 102(4) of the Safety Act). New glazing material for use in motor vehicles is subject to the requirements of Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials (49 CFR 571.205). Standard No. 205 incorporates by reference "ANS Z26," the American National Standards Institute's Safety Code for Safety Glazing Materials for Glazing Motor Vehicles Operating on Land Highways.

The agency has previously stated that Standard No. 205 does not apply to trailers, which our regulations define as "a motor vehicle with or without motive power, designed for carrying persons or property and for being drawn by another motor vehicle." Thus, the standard would not apply to travel trailers.

NHTSA covers motor homes under Standard No. 205. Standard No. 205 specifies performance requirements for glazing material for use in specified locations in motor vehicles, including motor homes. The agency has previously stated that the standard establishes requirements for glazing used in windows and interior partitions in motor vehicles. Glazing used in locations other than windows and interior partitions would not be subject to the requirements of the standard.

I hope that this information is useful to you. If you have further questions, please contact John Rigby of this office at 202-366-2992.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

Ref.# 205 D. 7/1/91

ID: 3064yy

Mr. David McCormick
First Company
9571 Alden
Lenexa, KS 66215

Dear Mr. McCormick:

This responds to your letter to Stephen Wood, our Assistant Chief Counsel for Rulemaking, seeking information about any provisions of Federal law that might apply to a belt positioning device for children. Based on the information provided in your letter, it appears that this device attaches to the seat back of the rear seat and includes an adjustable cushioned head support and an adjustable "convenience center," which serves to reroute the belt to offer a better belt fit for a child occupant of the position.

For your information, I have enclosed two letters in which we have provided a general description of how Federal requirements might apply to belt positioning devices. The first is a February 11, 1988 letter to Mr. Roderick Boutin and the other is a November 22, 1988 letter to Ms. Claire Haven. These letters explain the applicable Federal requirements and the letter to Mr. Boutin sets forth some safety concerns applicable to that particular design. In addition, I have enclosed an information sheet for new manufacturers of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment that explains how to obtain copies of our safety standards and other regulations.

I hope this information is helpful.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

D. 7/1/91

ID: 3065yy

Mr. Cliff Chuang
Chief Design Engineer
Prospects Corporation
114 Crawford Street
Lowell, MA 01854

Dear Mr. Chuang:

This responds to your letter seeking clarification of recent amendments to Standard No. 118, Power-operated Window Systems (49 CFR 571.118), as published in the Federal Register on April 16, 1991. Specifically, you were interested in new requirements applicable to remote control operations of power windows. You first asked for confirmation of your interpretation of the new requirement in S5(a) that, while closing, remote control-operated power windows automatically reverse direction "when they meet a resistive force of 22 pounds or more." You also asked for an interpretation of the term "daylight opening" as it appears in S5(b) of Standard No. 118.

This agency has received several petitions for reconsideration of the recent amendments to Standard No. 118 with respect to the automatic reversal requirements. In response to the petitions, NHTSA is currently reexamining several aspects of this requirement, including those raised in your letter. The agency will publish its response to the petitions for reconsideration in the Federal Register after it has finished its reexamination of the automatic reversal requirement in the April 16 final rule. Please let us know if you have any questions about this new automatic reversal requirement after our response to the petitions for reconsideration has been published and you have had the opportunity to review it.

I hope this information is helpful to you. Please contact us if you have further questions.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

/ref: 118 D. 7/1/91

ID: 3066yy

Mr. Charles Stansell
5414 Robin Road
Garland, TX 75043

Dear Mr. Stansell:

This responds to your letter requesting information about the labeling requirements in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 218, Motorcycle Helmets (49 CFR 571.218). You posed two questions.

First, you asked if it was true that "the law does not prohibit anyone from removing a DOT sticker?" The DOT sticker to which you refer is the helmet manufacturer's certification that the helmet complies with Standard No. 218. Federal law prohibits any manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair business from removing the certification from the helmet. Federal law does not prohibit individual owners from removing the DOT certification from their own motorcycle helmets, but State law may do so. You will need to contact officials in the State of Texas to learn if there is such a prohibition in your State.

Second, you asked if it was true that a "large number" of motorcycle helmets manufactured before October 3, 1988 are not considered in violation of Standard No. 218 even though they do not have the DOT certification sticker. It is true that not all helmets manufactured before October 3, 1988 were subject to Standard No. 218. Those helmets that could not fit on the test headform (typically the small and extra small helmets) were not subject to the standard, and were not labeled with a DOT certification. However, the total population of helmets that were too small to fit on the headform was only approximately 10 percent of all helmets. The remaining 90 percent of helmets manufactured before October 3, 1988 were subject to Standard No. 218 and were required to be certified by means of a DOT sticker. All motorcycles helmets manufactured on or after October 3, 1988 are required to be certified as complying with Standard No. 218.

For your information, I have enclosed two of our interpretation letters that provide detailed responses to the issues raised in your letter. These two letters are a December 8, 1988 letter to Mr. Wayne Ivie of the Oregon State Department of Transportation and a December 4, 1987 letter to Mr. Larry Hoppe. I have also enclosed a NHTSA information sheet on motorcycle helmets.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions or need 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

Enclosures /ref:218 D.6/28/91

ID: 3080o

Raymond M. Momboisse, Esq.
General Counsel
Immigration and Naturalization Service
U.S. Department of Justice
425 Eye Street, NW
Washington, DC 20536

Dear Mr. Momboisse:

Your letter of May 19, 1988, to the General Counsel of the Department of Transportation has been forwarded to this Office for reply. You request a waiver "exempting the Hummer vehicle from the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) when purchased directly from the manufacturer, AM General Corporation."

This response is based upon the information contained in your letter, and upon information my staff has obtained in telephone conversations with Ed Butkera of AM General Corporation, manufacturer of the Hummer, relating to its compliance with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards, and Gary Runyon of the Border Patrol, relating to the mission of that agency and the role the Hummer plays in it. According to our information, the Hummer is a vehicle which was developed specifically for, manufactured for, and sold exclusively to, the U.S. Army. The Border Patrol has bought Hummers from the Army because of certain features it finds advantageous in its operations, and its expanded missions involving interdiction of drugs. The principal reasons for your request are (1) that the Border Patrol desires to buy Hummers equipped with an assembly line addition (a central tire inflation system) is not incorporated on the Hummers sold to the Army, and (2) that, by buying directly from AM General Corporation, the Border Patrol will save $5,000 per vehicle, as the price of Army Hummers reflects the added expense of amortized development costs.

This agency has jurisdiction over "motor vehicles" as that term is defined by l5 U.S.C. 139l(3). If a vehicle is not a "motor vehicle," then the Federal motor vehicle safety standards do not apply to it. The exclusion of military vehicles from applicability of the safety standards in 49 C.F.R. 57l.7(a), which you quoted, is operative only if those vehicles would otherwise be "motor vehicles" required to comply with the standards.

Under l5 U.S.C. 1391(3), a "motor vehicle" is "any vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power manufactured primarily for use on the public streets, roads, and highways...." The agency has interpreted this definition to exclude such vehicles as minibikes, golf carts, all-terrain vehicles, single seat racing cars used on closed courses, airport crash and rescue vehicles, and farm tractors. On the other hand, the agency has included in the definition farm trailers which haul produce over the public roads to processing centers, stock cars modified for racing unless such modifications are so extensive that the vehicle can no longer be licensed for use on the public roads, and vehicles capable of use both on rails and the public roads.

You have informed us that the Hummer will "generally only be used on public highways to travel between stations and assigned duty areas." However, you have also informed us that this will constitute approximately 30% of its operational time. Were we to consider this factor alone, we could not conclude that the Hummer was not a "motor vehicle." However, there are further factors that make the proper classification of the Hummer a close question. The Hummer was developed as a vehicle for military operations and not for civilian applications, its manufacturer does not advertise or sell it for civilian purposes, and its configuration is such that it probably could not be licensed for use on the public roads without modification of some of its original military specifications.

Resolution of this question is not necessary since the mission and method of operation of the Border Patrol provide a separate basis for concluding that the Hummers to be purchased by the Border Patrol are not subject to the FMVSS. We understand that one of the missions of the Border Patrol is to act as an agency of national security in protection of the country's borders to ensure that persons and goods enter and exit only through official Customs and Immigration stations, and that this role has become of paramount importance in the "war against drugs." In this enforcement effort, the Hummers of necessity carry firearms such as the M-l4 and M-16 rifles which the Army Hummer carries, can be equipped with military communications equipment enabling them to serve as command posts, and carry certain military equipment used for electronic interception and sensing movement. It further appears that in this mission the Border Patrol is not only equipped like a component of the Armed Forces of the United States, but also is trained and functions in many respects that are similar to such a component. Accordingly, for the purposes of applying the exclusionary phrase of 49 CFR 571.7(a), it is appropriate to regard the Border Patrol as being akin to a component of the Armed Forces of the United States. In consideration of the foregoing, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has concluded that AM General Corporation will not be in violation of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act if it manufactures and sells Hummers to the Border Patrol for its use as described in your letter.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

/ref:VSA#101#571 d:l0/l8/88

ID: 3081o

Mr. Charles W. Pierson
404 Williams Street
Sturgis, MI 49091

Dear Mr. Pierson:

This responds to your letter in which you made several observations about dynamic testing requirements generally in our safety standards. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain those requirements for you.

You began by observing that this agency has been moving to replace static testing requirements (tests in which individual vehicle components are subjected to specified levels of slowly applied force in a laboratory test) with dynamic testing requirements (e.g., tests in which a vehicle is crashed into a barrier and anthropomorphic test dummies are used to measure the protection provided by the vehicle to occupants in a crash). You then suggested that there were several potential difficulties or misinterpretations that could arise with dynamic testing.

First, you asked which of the several standardized human physical dimensions should be used to determine if a vehicle complies with our safety standards that refer to a specified percentile child or adult. For instance, section S7.1.1 of Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection (49 CFR /571.208) requires the lap belt portion of a seat belt assembly to adjust to fit persons whose dimensions range from a 50th percentile 6 year old child to a 95th percentile adult male, while the shoulder belt portion of a seat belt assembly must adjust to fit persons whose dimensions range from a 5th percentile adult female to a 95th percentile adult male.

When our regulations refer to a specific size for a vehicle occupant, the regulations also clearly specify the dimensions and weights of the vehicle occupants to which we are referring. Section S7.1.3 of Standard No. 208 sets forth the critical weights and dimensions of all vehicle occupants referred to in that standard. The critical weights and physical dimensions for all of the anthropomorphic test dummies used to measure compliance with our safety standards are set forth in 49 CFR Part 572, Anthropomorphic Test Dummies.

Second, you noted that testing facilities will conduct crash testing, but will not certify those results. This practice on the part of the testing facilities is consistent with the requirements of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Safety Act; 15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.). Section 114 of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1403) explicitly requires every manufacturer to certify that each of its vehicles or items of equipment conforms to all applicable safety standards. Hence, regardless of how a testing facility presents test results to a manufacturer, it is the manufacturer of the product, not the testing facility, that is statutorily responsible for certifying that each of its products complies with all applicable safety standards.

Third, you stated that "laws requiring certification usually do not require the actual crash test to be performed." You are correct to the extent that you are suggesting that the Safety Act does not require manufacturers to conduct any testing before certifying that its product complies with all applicable safety standards. The Safety Act requires only that the manufacturer exercise due care in certifying its products compliance with the safety standards. It is up to the individual manufacturer in the first instance what data, test results, computer simulations, engineering analyses, or other information it needs to enable it to certify that each of its products comply with all applicable safety standards.

However, for purposes of enforcing the safety standards, this agency conducts spot checks of products after they have been certified by the manufacturer. NHTSA purchases the products and tests them according to the procedures specified in the applicable standard. If the standard specifies a crash test, NHTSA conducts the crash test according to the specified procedures.

Fourth, you asked how you could obtain a copy of the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) Recommended Practice J833. This and all other SAE materials can be obtained by writing to: Customer Service Department, Publications Group, SAE, 400 Commonwealth Drive, Warrendale, PA 15096-0001. The SAE's Customer Service Department can also be contacted by telephone at (402) 776-4970.

Fifth and finally, you suggested that the formula used to calculate the head injury criterion (HIC), set forth in sections S6.1.2 and S6.2.2 of Standard No. 208, is relatively complex, so the HIC could be miscalculated. It is true that any mathematical calculation can be performed incorrectly. Nevertheless, the formula for calculating the HIC yields only one correct result for any set of variables. This agency has not experienced any difficulties in calculating the proper HIC from any test results, and is not aware of any difficulties that have been encountered by any manufacturers in making such calculations. Hence, we do not believe there are any problems associated with the HIC formula.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions or need additional information in this area, please feel free to contact me.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

ref:VSA#208 d:l0/l7/88