ID: aiam4187

Dear Mr. Hacker: This is in response to your letter dated May 15, 1986, to Edward Glanc concerning the conversion of the speedometer/odometer from kilometers to miles per hour.; In 1972, Congress enacted Title IV of the Motor Vehicle Information an Cost Savings Act (the 'Act'), 15 U.S.C. SS 1981-1991, to establish certain safeguards for the protection of motor vehicle purchasers. Pursuant to the Act, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration promulgated rules for the disclosure of odometer information, 49 C.F.R. Part 580. Neither the Act nor the regulations prohibit the use of an odometer which records in kilometers.; In replacing an odometer that registers kilometers with one tha registers miles, you should be aware of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) 101, 49 CFR S 571.101, which requires that if the odometer indicates kilometers, then 'KILOMETERS' or 'km' shall appear, otherwise no identification is required. Furthermore, FMVSS 101 requires that if the speedometer is graduated in miles per hour and in kilometers per hour, the identifying words or abbreviations shall be 'MPH and km/h' in any combination of upper and lower case letters.; The Act does prohibit an individual from disconnecting, resetting altering or causing to be disconnected, reset or altered the odometer 'with intent to change the number of miles indicated thereon' 15 U.S.C. S 1984. Moreover, it permits the service, repair and replacement of odometers, provided the mileage remains the same 15 U.S.C. S 1987. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration interprets mileage to mean actual distance travelled regardless of whether that mileage is calculated in terms of miles or kilometers. While it is clear that this section was intended to accommodate repairs of odometers that are malfunctioning, I have determined that it may also be relied upon to lawfully replace odometers which register kilometers travelled with those that register miles travelled. You may, therefore, convert the odometer reading from kilometers to miles by multiplying the kilometer reading by .62.; Additionally, the Federal regulations provide for the inclusion of tw sets of certifications on the odometer disclosure statements which must be completed at the time the vehicle is transferred. Transferors who convert the odometers from kilometers to miles should check the first box of the first set which reads:; >>>I hereby certify that to the best of my knowledge the odomete reading as stated above reflects the actual mileage of the vehicle described below.<<<; Furthermore, these transferors should check the second box in th second set of certifications which reads:; >>>I hereby certify that the odometer was altered for repair o replacement purposes while in my possession, and that the mileage registered on the repaired or replacement odometer was identical to that before such service.<<<; I hope this opinion is helpful to you in your attempt to assist dealer in complying with the Federal odometer laws. If you have any further questions, do not hesitate to contact me.; Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam4086

Dear Ms. Fiedler: Thank you for your letter enclosing corresponence (sic) from you constituent, Mr. William Griffiths of Newbury Park, who asked several questions about our regulations for safety belts on passenger motor vehicles, buses and school buses. Your letter has been referred to my office for reply.; Your constituent asked why safety belt designs vary between differen seating positions and among different types of motor vehicles. He observes that some vehicles have a combination of pelvic and upper torso restraints ('lap and shoulder belts') in the front seats, while providing only lap belts for the rear seats. He further notes that safety belts are not required for passengers in buses and school buses. Apparently Mr. Griffiths believes that shoulder belts are uncomfortable and feels that they should not be installed in the front seats of passenger motor vehicles.; I am pleased to have this opportunity to clarify our requirements fo your constituent. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is responsible for developing safety standards for all new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 208, *Occupant Crash Protection*, establishes performance requirements for the protection of vehicle occupants in crashes. Under FMVSS No. 208, motor vehicle manufacturers must provide lap and shoulder belts for front outboard passenger positions in order to comply with the standard. Since persons in the front seating positions of an automobile should be protected from rigid structures forward of those positions, such as the windshield pillars, we believe that an upper torso restraint of some kind is necessary. Our requirements differ for the rear seating positions, where only a lap belt need be provided, because the area forward of those positions does not contain the relatively hard surfaces found in the areas surrounding the front seats.; As Mr. Griffiths has noted, our safety standards for buses and schoo buses do not require safety belts for passengers. NHTSA does not require safety belts for transit-type buses because the crash forces experienced by those vehicles are less severe than those of lighter vehicles in similar collisions. Also, the safety record for transit buses is good. Accordingly, we believe that revising our requirements for their seating systems would not reduce injuries substantially. Safety belts are not required for passengers in large school buses because those vehicles are required to provide high levels of occupant crash protection through a concept called 'compartmentalization.' Compartmentalization requires that the interior of large school buses be constructed so that children are protected without the need to use safety belts. The seating improvements include higher and stronger seat backs, additional seat padding, and improved seat spacing and performance.; Your constituent might be interested to know that we have addressed hi concern regarding the discomfort some passengers experience with safety belts equipped with shoulder restraints. We have taken steps to improve the comfort and convenience of safety belt systems by a recent amendment to our safety standards. A copy of the amendment is enclosed.; I hope this information is helpful. Please do not hesitate to contac my office if you have further questions.; Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam5244

"Dear Mr. Ziwica: This responds to your request for an interpretatio regarding Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 206, with respect to a new design for a door lock and latch mechanism that BMW is planning to introduce in the United States. It appears that your proposed door lock and latch mechanism would comply with FMVSS No. 206. Based on information provided in your letter, the new locking mechanism will be placed on side rear doors, and will consist of a door handle that serves the dual function of acting as a door locking mechanism and door latch release. When the side door is locked, a rear seat passenger would pull the door handle once to disengage the locking mechanism. The passenger would have to pull the door handle a second time to open the side rear door. Based on additional information received from a demonstration given to David Elias of my office, I understand that the side rear doors, themselves, cannot be individually locked by the rear passengers. The doors can be locked only when the driver or front seat passenger lock all the car doors via the vehicle's electronic locking mechanism. The internal mechanisms are located at the rear part of the driver's and front seat passenger's armrests located on the front doors, which are reached fairly easily by belted rear seat passengers. The door handle on the side rear door, as noted above, is the mechanism by which the locking mechanism is disengaged. S4.1.3 requires that each door be equipped with a locking mechanism with an operating means in the interior of the vehicle. Your proposed operating means for engaging the locking mechanism in each door is inside the vehicle, even though the four individual door locking mechanisms are controlled by the two operating means located on the armrest on the side front doors. S4.1.3 requires only that the operating means for the locking mechanisms be located inside the vehicle, and does not require that each door have its own, independent operating means for engaging the locking mechanism. Thus, it would seem that your proposed locking mechanism complies with S4.1.3. S4.1.3.2 requires that inside and outside door handles be inoperative when the locking mechanism is engaged. An issue concerning your system is whether the inside door handle is 'inoperative' even though it can operate to disengage the door locking mechanism when the locking mechanism is engaged. We conclude the answer is yes. S4.1.3.2 is intended, in part, to reduce inadvertant door openings in a crash due to impact on or movement of inside door handles. Thus, 'inoperative,' as used in S4.1.3.2, refers to the operation of opening the door. When the locking mechanism is engaged, the door handle cannot open the door, which meets the requirement of S4.1.3.2. I hope this information has been helpful. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Mr. Elias at the above address or by phone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel";

ID: aiam4520

"Dear Mr. Wright: This is in response to your letter of April 21, 1988 asking whether a vehicle produced by your company is a motor vehicle subject to the requirements of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. This vehicle, referred to as a hydrant truck, consists of a chassis-cab with an equipment platform mounted on its rear. According to your letter, the platform would be equipped with accessories that allow the vehicle to be used to filter and meter aircraft fuels as fuel is pumped from airport storage tanks into aircraft. Section 102(3) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1391(3)) defines a 'motor vehicle' as any vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power manufactured primarily for use on the public streets, roads, and highways, except any vehicle operated exclusively on a rail or rails. We have interpreted this language as follows. On the one hand, vehicles that are equipped with tracks or are otherwise incapable of highway travel are plainly not motor vehicles. Agricultural equipment, such as tractors, are not motor vehicles. In addition, vehicles intended and sold solely for off-road use are not motor vehicles, even though they may be operationally capable of highway travel. Examples include airport runway vehicles. On the other hand, vehicles that use the public roads on a necessary and recurring basis are motor vehicles. For instance, jeep-type utility vehicles are plainly motor vehicles, even though they are equipped with special features to permit off-road operation. We have found vehicles to be motor vehicles if their on-road use is substantial, even though these vehicles' predominant intended use is off-road. Further, if a vehicle is readily usable on the public roads and is in fact used on the public roads by a substantial number of vehicle owners, NHTSA has found that the vehicle is a 'motor vehicle.' This finding was made in the case of dune buggies, regardless of the manufacturers' stated intent that the vehicles were to be used off-road only. You stated in your letter that this vehicle is not 'perceived as being moved over public roads or from airport to airport in its daily use.' It appears that this vehicle is intended and sold solely for off-road use, even though the vehicle appears operationally capable of highway travel. Based on the information provided in your letter, we conclude that your company's 'Hydrant Truck' does not appear to be a motor vehicle. However, we will reexamine this conclusion if we learn that, for example, the vehicle is regularly being used on the public roads. We note that if your vehicle ever came to be regarded as a motor vehicle, there are probably few changes that would have to be made to bring it into compliance with the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS). NHTSA encourages (but cannot require) you to make these changes. The chassis-cab used to produce the hydrant truck already has been certified by its manufacturer as an incomplete vehicle. Therefore, in order to achieve compliance, it is likely that few standards would require any changes by your company. One such standard is FMVSS 108, Lamps, reflective devices, and associated equipment. Additional changes might also be required if the weight added by the equipment platform exceeds any weight maxima specified by the chassis-cab manufacturer in making his certification. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel";

ID: 07-002269drn

ID: aiam5118

"Dear Ms. Campfield: This responds to your letter asking the Nationa Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to issue an 'approval' letter for your method of repairing cracks in windshields. As explained below, this agency does not approve motor vehicles or items of motor vehicle equipment. However, this letter does discuss Federal safety requirements in connection with windshield repairs. By way of background information, section 103 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (Safety Act, 15 U.S.C. 1392) authorizes this agency to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and items of new motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA, however, does not approve motor vehicle 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 our safety standards. The agency periodically tests vehicles and equipment items for compliance with the standards, and also investigates alleged safety-related defects. NHTSA has issued Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials (49 CFR 571.205) which establishes performance and location requirements for glazing used in new motor vehicles and for all new replacement glazing for motor vehicles. Neither Standard No. 205 nor any other FMVSS establishes performance requirements for repair kits, such as the Ultra B-O-N-D method, used to repair cracks in broken glazing. However, use of such a material or process in a new windshield prior to the first consumer purchase which requires repair, for example, as a result of damage sustained in shipment would be affected by Standard No. 205. Manufacturers must certify that their new vehicles comply with all applicable safety standards. If a windshield is repaired prior to the new vehicle being sold for the first time to a consumer, the person making the repairs would be considered a vehicle alterer under our certification regulations (Part 567). As an alterer, the person would have to certify that the vehicle, as altered, continues to comply with all of the requirements of Standard No. 205. In the case of a used vehicle, use of a windshield repair kit could potentially be affected by section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act. That section prohibits commercial businesses from knowingly rendering inoperative devices or elements of design installed in a vehicle in compliance with a FMVSS. In discussing the applicability of section 108(a)(2)(A) to the repair of windows in used vehicles, NHTSA has said that the prohibitions of that section do not apply to use of a product or process used in the repair of a windshield which has been previously installed in a vehicle and damaged in use. The agency has considered the event that damaged the windshield, and not any subsequent action by the person repairing the damaged window in a used vehicle, as the event which rendered inoperative the compliance of the glazing with the standard. Thus, there is no Federal regulation which would prohibit the use of a product or process in the repair of a windshield which has previously been installed in a vehicle and damaged in use. I note, however, that if the repair shop, in the course of fixing a damaged windshield that is installed in a vehicle renders another part of the vehicle or element of design inoperative with respect to another applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard, then the repair shop would violate section 108(a)(2)(A). In addition, the manufacturer of the windshield repair kit is considered a manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment. Accordingly, it is 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. Please be aware that the laws of the individual States may be relevant to the repair of motor vehicle glazing. For more information about these laws, you should contact the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators. Its address is 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Va. 22203. I hope this information is helpful. Please feel free to contact Marvin Shaw of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992 if you have any further questions or need additional information. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel Enclosure";

ID: aiam5492

"Dear Mr. Peters: This responds to your letter to me in which you aske whether Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 110, Tire selection and rims (49 CFR 571.110), applies to your Electricar sedan. You explained that your Electricar sedan (Electricar), a converted Geo Prizm, is being built under NHTSA Exemption No. 92-3 for low-emission vehicles. You stated that the Electricar's speed and endurance limitations are substantially below those of internal combustion-powered vehicles. You further stated that it is your understanding that 'the purpose of Standard No. 110, S4.4.2 (I assume you meant paragraph S4.2.2, since there is no S4.4.2 in the standard) is to ensure against tire failure due to prolonged operation at speeds in the range of 75 mph or higher.' Thus, you interpret FMVSS No. 110 as not applying to the Electricar or other electric passenger cars 'in which it is physically impossible to operate at high speeds for an extended duration.' You asked this agency, therefore, to review paragraph S4.2.2 and provide you our opinion as to its applicability to your Electricar. As discussed below, the requirements of S4.2.2 are applicable to electric passenger cars. By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration issues safety standards for motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. The agency does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Instead, manufacturers are required to certify that their vehicles and equipment meet applicable safety standards. Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 110 specifies requirements for tire selection to prevent overloading. Section S2 of the standard provides that the standard applies to passenger cars. S4.2 of the standard specifies the following tire load limits: S4.2.1 The vehicle maximum load on the tire shall not be greater than the applicable maximum load rating as marked on the sidewall of the tire. S4.2.2 The vehicle normal load on the tire shall not be greater than the test load used in the high speed performance test specified in S5.5 of section 571.109 of that tire. The test load used in the high speed performance test specified in S5.5 of Standard No. 109 is 88 percent of the tire's maximum load rating as marked on the tire sidewall. With respect to your question whether S4.2.2 applies to electric passenger cars, the answer is yes. That section applies on its face to all passenger cars, and does not include an exception for electric passenger cars. Your understanding that the purpose of S4.2.2 is limited to ensuring against tire failure due to prolonged operation at speeds in the range of 75 mph or higher is incorrect. The reference in that requirement to Standard No. 109's high speed performance test is for the sole purpose of specifying a load and not to indicate that the requirement is limited to high speed operation. As indicated above, Standard No. 110 seeks to ensure that tires are not overloaded. One way Standard No. 110 does this is by requiring in S4.2.1 that the vehicle maximum load on the tire not exceed the maximum load rating of the tire. Another way Standard No. 110 does this is by limiting the vehicle normal load on the tire, so that the tire will have some reserve load carrying capacity available to handle safely cargo and other kinds of added loading the car may experience. S4.2.2 does this by limiting the normal load on a tire to 88 percent of the tire's maximum load rating, which ensures that 12 percent of the tire's load rating will be available to bear cargo and other added loads. I hope this information is helpful to you. Should you have any further questions or need additional information, please feel free to contact Walter Myers of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Philip R. Recht Chief Counsel Enclosure";

ID: aiam3853

Dear Mr. Marion: This responds to your recent correspondence concerning Federal Moto Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 217, *Bus Window Retention and Release*. Your correspondence comprised two letters to this office. In your first letter, you asked two questions regarding the labeling requirements for emergency exits. Your second letter inquired into the provision of push-out windows in buses other than school buses.; Your first question concerns the labeling of emergency exits i non-school buses with GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less. Section 5.5.1 of the Standard requires labels for all emergency exits except for doors and roll-down windows.; The purpose of the emergency exit marking requirements of Standard No 217 is to identify for occupants the location and use of specially-installed emergency exits. In the case of buses having a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less, FMVSS No. 217 permits the emergency exit requirements to be met with a vehicle's doors and with windows which are manually operable to an open position that provides a specified area for egress. Standard roll-down windows generally meet these requirements. The agency has determined that the operation of standard roll- down windows and doors are generally familiar to persons who are old enough to read instructions. Thus there would be little justification for providing emergency exit markings for these exits. On the other hand, Section 5.5.1 provides that specially- installed emergency exits whose operation are not immediately obvious in such buses, such as push-out windows, are not exempted from the emergency exit identification requirement.; Your second question asked: >>>Would there be any labeling requirements for push-out windows, on school bus with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less, if installed in addition to the requirements of S5.2.3.1 since these push-out windows are not required by this section?<<<; The answer to your question depends on whether the additional window are designed or constructed as emergency exits. Standard No. 217 does not require that every exit installed in a school bus beyond those required by S5.2.3.1 must comply with the requirements applicable to school bus exits. On the other hand, additional emergency exits in school buses, beyond those required by Standard No. 217, must comply with the emergency exit requirements applicable to exits in buses other than school buses if the exit is intended as an emergency exit. These additional exits would be required to be labeled in accordance with Sections 5.5.1 and 5.5.2 of the standard.; In your second letter to this agency you described a situation wher school bus contractors utilize school buses as general transit vehicles on charter trips when the buses are not in use for school purposes. You asked, 'Are these buses required to have push-out windows as mandated for non-school buses since they are manufactured and sold primarily as school buses?'; The answer to your question is no. The vehicles you described woul have to comply with the Federal school bus safety standards if they are sold as school buses. Thus, these vehicles would only be subject to the standards applicable to school buses. Further, even though these vehicles are not subject to the safety standards applicable to vehicles other than school buses, I would note that Standard No 217 does not mandate push-out windows to be used for emergency exits in non-school buses. The agency determined that devices such as panels and doors which meet the emergency exit requirements would be as effective as push-out windows for emergency egress. Sliding emergency exits must, of course, comply with all of the requirements of Standard No. 217. They must be capable of complying with the standard when the non-exit half of the window is either open or closed. Also, while the standard permits devices other than push-out windows to be used for emergency exits, the agency prefers the use of push-out emergency exits because they are less likely to 'bind up' during a side impact than sliding emergency exits.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam5488

"Dear Mr. Peters: This responds to your letter to me in which you aske whether Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 110, Tire selection and rims (49 CFR 571.110), applies to your Electricar sedan. You explained that your Electricar sedan (Electricar), a converted Geo Prizm, is being built under NHTSA Exemption No. 92-3 for low-emission vehicles. You stated that the Electricar's speed and endurance limitations are substantially below those of internal combustion-powered vehicles. You further stated that it is your understanding that 'the purpose of Standard No. 110, S4.4.2 (I assume you meant paragraph S4.2.2, since there is no S4.4.2 in the standard) is to ensure against tire failure due to prolonged operation at speeds in the range of 75 mph or higher.' Thus, you interpret FMVSS No. 110 as not applying to the Electricar or other electric passenger cars 'in which it is physically impossible to operate at high speeds for an extended duration.' You asked this agency, therefore, to review paragraph S4.2.2 and provide you our opinion as to its applicability to your Electricar. As discussed below, the requirements of S4.2.2 are applicable to electric passenger cars. By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration issues safety standards for motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. The agency does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Instead, manufacturers are required to certify that their vehicles and equipment meet applicable safety standards. Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 110 specifies requirements for tire selection to prevent overloading. Section S2 of the standard provides that the standard applies to passenger cars. S4.2 of the standard specifies the following tire load limits: S4.2.1 The vehicle maximum load on the tire shall not be greater than the applicable maximum load rating as marked on the sidewall of the tire. S4.2.2 The vehicle normal load on the tire shall not be greater than the test load used in the high speed performance test specified in S5.5 of section 571.109 of that tire. The test load used in the high speed performance test specified in S5.5 of Standard No. 109 is 88 percent of the tire's maximum load rating as marked on the tire sidewall. With respect to your question whether S4.2.2 applies to electric passenger cars, the answer is yes. That section applies on its face to all passenger cars, and does not include an exception for electric passenger cars. Your understanding that the purpose of S4.2.2 is limited to ensuring against tire failure due to prolonged operation at speeds in the range of 75 mph or higher is incorrect. The reference in that requirement to Standard No. 109's high speed performance test is for the sole purpose of specifying a load and not to indicate that the requirement is limited to high speed operation. As indicated above, Standard No. 110 seeks to ensure that tires are not overloaded. One way Standard No. 110 does this is by requiring in S4.2.1 that the vehicle maximum load on the tire not exceed the maximum load rating of the tire. Another way Standard No. 110 does this is by limiting the vehicle normal load on the tire, so that the tire will have some reserve load carrying capacity available to handle safely cargo and other kinds of added loading the car may experience. S4.2.2 does this by limiting the normal load on a tire to 88 percent of the tire's maximum load rating, which ensures that 12 percent of the tire's load rating will be available to bear cargo and other added loads. I hope this information is helpful to you. Should you have any further questions or need additional information, please feel free to contact Walter Myers of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Philip R. Recht Chief Counsel Enclosure";

ID: aiam0154

Dear Mr. Tolson: We regret the delay in replying to your letter of January 15, 1969, t Dr. William Haddon, Jr., concerning regulations applicable to replicas of antique automobiles which you manufacture.; As a general rule, motor vehicles manufactured on or after January 1 1968, must comply with all applicable Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards in order to be imported into the United States. Section 114 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (the Act) requires that manufacturers permanently affix a tag or label to the motor vehicle certifying that the motor vehicle conforms to all applicable Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) established under authority of Section 103 of the Act. Your vehicles would properly be classified as passenger cars. Thus the FMVSS applicable to this classification would apply. The above standards are currently applicable only to motor vehicles over 1,000 pounds curb weight. Curb weight includes a full load of engine fuel, oil, and coolant as defined in 49 CFR 371.3. In accordance with a proposed rule making published in 32 FR, page 14282, October 14, 1967, the Administrator is considering adding new standards applicable to motor vehicles of 1,000 pounds or less curb weight, and revising certain of the initial standards to extend their applicability to these motor vehicles. Comments have been received from industry and a discussion paper on the subject prepared. This discussion paper will be mailed to industry in the near future, together with a notice of a meeting to be held on the subject. Your name is being added to the mailing list for this information.; 19 CFR 12.80, Importation of Motor Vehicles and Items of Motor Vehicl Equipment, was jointly issued and published by the Secretary of Transportation and the Secretary of Treasury in implementation of Section 108(b)(3) of the Act. This regulation makes provision for importation of certain motor vehicles not conforming to the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards, subject to specific conditions.; An amendment to the Act has granted authority to the Secretary o Transportation, based upon certain specified findings, to exempt temporarily, a limited production motor vehicle from any Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard. A limited production motor vehicle is a defined as a motor vehicle produced by a manufacturer whose total motor vehicle production, as determined by the Secretary, does not exceed 500 annually. It is to be noted, however, that exemptions are granted to the person actually producing the motor vehicle, not to the importer or distributor of such motor vehicle. Regulations for petitioning for an exemption are contained in 49 CFR 355.5.; In the United States, motor vehicles are licensed for operation by eac of the states and the District of Columbia. A letter addressed to the State Department of Motor Vehicles in the capitol city of the states in which you intend marketing your product, should reach an individual who can provide you with information regarding state licensing requirements.; While you did not inquire about Federal regulations concerning contro of anti-pollution emission devices, this is another area of possible effect in your situation. These regulations are not the responsibility of the Department of Transportation, but of the Department of Health, Education and Welfare. By copy of this letter, Mr. William H. Megonnell, Associate Commissioner for Standards and Compliance, Department of Health, Education and Welfare, National Air Pollution Control Administration, BCT, 801 North Randolph Street, Arlington, Virginia, 22203, is being requested to forward such information as he deems appropriate.; Publications of the Socity (sic) of Automotive Engineers (SAE) including copies of SAE Standards, may be obtained by writing to: Society of Automotive Engineers, Inc., 2 Pennsylvania Plaza, New York, New York, 1001 (sic).; For your information and guidance, enclosed are copies of the Act, a amended, the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards, (49 CFR 351, 353, 355 and 371), 19 CFR 122.80, Importation of Motor Vehicles and Items of Motor Vehicle Equipment, Declaration Form HS-7, Importation of Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Equipment Subject to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards and the proposed rule making, Docket 5-1.; Sincerely, Robert Brenner, Acting Director