NHTSA's Interpretation Files Search

Displaying 51 - 60 of 2915

Interpretations	Date

ID: aiam0569 Open Mr. K. Nakajima, Director/General Manager, Toyota Motor Company, Ltd., Lyndhurst Office Park, 1099 Wall Street West, Lyndhurst, NJ 07071; Mr. K. Nakajima Director/General Manager Toyota Motor Company Ltd. Lyndhurst Office Park 1099 Wall Street West Lyndhurst NJ 07071; Dear Mr. Nakajima: This letter is in response to your inquiry of January 6, 1972 regarding the relationship of Standards No. 208 and No. 216.; You interpret Standard 216, paragraph S3. Application, which state that the Standard does not apply to passenger cars 'that conform to the rollover test requirements (S5.3) of Standard 208 by means that require no action by vehicle occupants,' as follows:; >>>1. From August 15, 1973, the effective date of Standard 216, t August 15, 1977, passenger cars are not required to meet Standard 216 if they conform to the 'first option' of Standard 208.; 2. For the period of August 15, 1973, through August 14, 1975 passenger cars which are designed to conform to the 'second' or proposed 'third' option of Standard 208 are not required to meet Standard 216 if they meet the rollover requirements (S5.3) by passive means (when tested under the applicable conditions of S8), even though in Standard 208 the rollover requirement is specified only for 'option 1.'<<<; These interpretations are correct. Please write if we can be of furthe assistance.; Sincerely yours, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel
ID: aiam0568 Open Mr. K. Nakajima, Director/General Manager, Toyota Motor Company, Ltd., Lyndhurst Office Park, 1099 Wall Street West, Lyndhurst, NJ 07071; Mr. K. Nakajima Director/General Manager Toyota Motor Company Ltd. Lyndhurst Office Park 1099 Wall Street West Lyndhurst NJ 07071; Dear Mr. Nakajima: This letter is in response to your inquiry of January 6, 1972 regarding the relationship of Standards No.208 and No.216.; You interpret Standard 216, paragraph S3. Application, which state that the Standard does not apply to passenger cars 'that conform to the rollover test requirements (S5.3) of Standard 208 by means that require no action by vehicle occupants,' as follows:; >>>1. From August 15, 1973, the effective date of Standard 216, t August 15, 1977, passenger cars are not required to meet Standard 216 if they conform to the 'first option' of Standard 208.; 2. For the period of August 15, 1973, through August 14, 1975 passenger cars which are designed to conform to the 'second' or proposed 'third' option of Standard 208 are not required to meet Standard 216 if they meet the rollover requirements (S5.3) by passive means (when tested under the applicable conditions of S8), even though in Standard 208 the rollover requirement is specified only for 'option 1.'<<<; These interpretations are correct. Please write if we can be of furthe assistance.; Sincerely yours, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel
ID: aiam3371 Open Mr. Stephen E. Mulligan, International Harvester, 401 North Michigan Avenue, Chicago, IL 60611; Mr. Stephen E. Mulligan International Harvester 401 North Michigan Avenue Chicago IL 60611; Dear Mr. Mulligan: This is in response to your letter of October 1, 1980, in which you as whether compliance with 49 CFR 567, Certification, will satisfy the requirements of S4.3 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 115, 49 CFR 571.115.; Section 4.3 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 115 require that the vehicle identification number (VIN) 'appear clearly and indelibly upon either a part of the vehicle other than the glazing that is not designed to be removed except for repair or upon a separate plate or label which is permanently affixed to such a part.' S4.3.1 requires each character to appear in a capital, sans serif typeface. In the case of passenger cars and trucks of 10,000 pounds or less GVWR, each character must have a minimum height of 4 mm. S4.4 specifies that the VIN for passenger cars and trucks of 10,000 pounds or less GVWR shall be located within the passenger compartment.; Section 567.4 of Part 567, Certification (49 CFR 567), requires tha the certification label be permanently affixed to the vehicle, and display the vehicle identification number. Consequently, for all vehicles except passenger cars and trucks of 10,000 pounds or less GVWR, compliance with S 567.4 of Part 567 would also effect compliance with S4.3 of Standard No. 115 so long as capital, sans serif typeface was used.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel
ID: aiam3369 Open Mr. Stephen E. Mulligan, International Harvester, 401 North Michigan Avenue, Chicago, Il 60611; Mr. Stephen E. Mulligan International Harvester 401 North Michigan Avenue Chicago Il 60611; Dear Mr. Mulligan: This is in response to your letter of October 1, 1980, in which you as whether compliance with 49 CFR 567, Certification, will satisfy the requirements of S4.3 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 115, 49 CFR 571.115.; Section 4.3 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 115 require that the vehicle identification number (VIN) 'appear clearly and indelibly upon either a part of the vehicle other than the glazing that is not designed to be removed except for repair or upon a separate plate or label which is permanently affixed to such a part.' S4.3.1 requires each character to appear in a capital, sans serif typeface. In the case of passenger cars and trucks of 10,000 pounds or less GVWR, each character must have a minimum height of 4 mm. S4.4 specifies that the VIN for passenger cars and trucks of 10,000 pounds or less GVWR shall be located within to passenger compartment.; Section 567.4 of Part 567, Certification (49 CFR 567), requires tha the certification label be permanently affixed to the vehicle, and display the vehicle identification number. Consequently, for all vehicles except passenger cars and trucks of 10,000 pounds or less GVWR, compliance with S 567.4 of Part 567 would also effect compliance with S4.3 of Standard No. 115 so long as capital, sans serif typeface was used.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel
ID: aiam3372 Open Mr. Stephen E. Mulligan, International Harvester, 401 North Michigan Avenue, Chicago, IL 60611; Mr. Stephen E. Mulligan International Harvester 401 North Michigan Avenue Chicago IL 60611; Dear Mr. Mulligan: This is in response to your letter of October 1, 1980, in which you as whether compliance with 49 CFR 567, Certification, will satisfy the requirements of S4.3 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 115, 49 CFR 571.115.; Section 4.3 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 115 require that the vehicle identification number (VIN) 'appear clearly and indelibly upon either a part of the vehicle other than the glazing that is not designed to be removed except for repair or upon a separate plate or label which is permanently affixed to such a part.' S4.3.1 requires each character to appear in a capital, sans serif typeface. In the case of passenger cars and trucks of 10,000 pounds or less GVWR, each character must have a minimum height of 4 mm. S4.4 specifies that the VIN for passenger cars and trucks of 10,000 pounds or less GVWR shall be located within the passenger compartment.; Section 567.4 of Part 567, Certification (49 CFR 567), requires tha the certification label be permanently affixed to the vehicle, and display the vehicle identification number. Consequently, for all vehicles except passenger cars and trucks of 10,000 pounds or less GVWR, compliance with S 567.4 of Part 567 would also effect compliance with S4.3 of Standard No. 115 so long as capital, sans serif typeface was used.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel
ID: aiam4721 Open His Excellency D. H. Burney Ambassador of Canada 501 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W. Washington, D.C. 20001; His Excellency D. H. Burney Ambassador of Canada 501 Pennsylvania Ave. N.W. Washington D.C. 20001; "Dear Mr. Ambassador: Thank you for your letter of March 16, 1990 expressing the concern of your country about this agency's new regulations on importation of motor vehicles and equipment. Canada is concerned that, under P.L. l00-562, the Imported Vehicle Safety Compliance Act of l988, Canadian vehicle brokers, dealers, and private citizens will not, for all practical purposes, be able to export new or used Canadian market vehicles to the United States. It is concerned further that Canadian individuals and firms will be precluded from providing conformance goods and services for vehicles exported to the United States. Canada therefore requests that this agency modify its regulations with respect to Canadian market vehicles, recognizing their near-compliance with the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards, and accommodating their entry in the least costly and burdensome manner. You have five specific requests, and I shall address each. Preliminarily, I want to note several things. First, my assurance that this agency gave very careful consideration to the concerns of Transport Canada in adopting final regulations under the 1988 Act, as well as those expressed by Canadian companies that commented on the proposed regulations. As we noted in the notices proposing and adopting those regulations, our discretion to make changes in the regulations was narrowly circumscribed in many instances by the detailed language of that Act. On a more technical level, I want to note that your understanding of our new regulations expressed in paragraphs (a) through (g) on page 2 of your letter is essentially correct. However, with respect to your paragraph (d), please note that determinations of vehicle eligibility for importation may also be made by me as Administrator on my own initiative, and need not be pursuant to a petition. Also, as to paragraph (e), I would like to point out that the bond processing fee, proposed to be $125, is only $4.35 (however, under paragraph (f) the bond is not less than l50% of the dutiable value of the vehicle). Your first request is that the agency 'recognize Canadian market vehicles as a special class of non-complying vehicles requiring only minor changes to meet the FMVSS.' The l988 Act was enacted on October 31, l988, and became effective January 31, l990. I regret to say that none of its provisions authorize the agency to directly distinguish between non-complying vehicles of Canadian manufacture and those originating in other countries. However, the eligibility provisions that you reference in paragraph (d) do permit a basis for minimizing some of the burden that the l988 Act imposes. We begin with the premise that if a Canadian vehicle has not been certified by its manufacturer as in conformance with U.S. standards, then it cannot be presumed to conform in all respects to the U.S. standards. Canadian and U.S. safety standards do differ in some ways (e.g., mandatory automatic crash protection for U.S. market passenger cars manufactured on and after September 1, l989). Nevertheless, we believe that enough similarity may exist to support a finding that a Canadian passenger car is 'substantially similar' to a U.S. passenger car, justifying a determination that it is eligible for importation into the United States, and capable of conversion to meet U.S. safety standards. Further, such a finding may be made on our own initiative. I am pleased to inform you that NHTSA is publishing a notice of tentative determination that would cover all passenger cars certified as meeting the Canadian Motor Vehicle Safety Standards, and that were manufactured up to September 1, l989. A copy of the notice is enclosed for your reference. After receiving and considering public comment, we will make a final decision on this matter. If we decide to adopt our tentative determination as a final determination, your first request would, in effect, be granted. Your second request is that we 'exempt such vehicles from the fees.' These fees are the ones mentioned in paragraphs (c), (d), and (e) of your letter, the registered importer annual registration fee, the vehicle eligibility petition fee, and the bond processing fee. Each fee is specifically required by the l988 Act, and must be established in advance of the fiscal year in which it is effective. The registered importer fee is required to cover agency costs for administration of the registration program. The vehicle eligibility fee is required to cover the agency's costs in making and publishing eligibility determinations. The bond processing fee is required to reimburse the U.S. Customs Service for its costs in processing the agency's conformance bond that accompanies each nonconforming vehicle. Congress provided no authority to waive these fees, or to modify them during the fiscal year that they are in effect. Thus, the fees that have been established must remain in effect until October 1, l990. When we begin the review that will lead to next year's fees, we shall be happy to consider whether some provision may be made for Canadian market vehicles. In the meantime, I would like to point out that under our notice of tentative determination on eligibility of Canadian vehicles, the fee of $l,560 would cover the blanket determination of all passenger cars, and would not be applied to each individual model and model year of passenger car. This action would effectively moot Canada's second request that Canadian market passenger cars be exempted from the determination fee. Canada's third request is to 'exempt them from the bonding requirement.' The l988 Act requires the importer of a non-conforming vehicle to furnish an appropriate bond to ensure that the vehicle will be brought into compliance, or will be exported or abandoned to the United States. This is not a new requirement, ever since January 1, l968, each nonconforming vehicle, Canadian or otherwise, has been required to be accompanied by a conformance bond upon its entry into the United States. The l988 Act provides us with no authority to exempt Canadian vehicles, and does not distinguish degrees of nonconformity. Therefore, we believe that we are unable to grant Canada's request, absent specific authorization by the U.S. Congress. The fourth request is to 'exempt them from the requirement that they be imported by registered importers, who must be U.S. citizens.' This request raises two issues: whether Canadian market cars may be imported by persons other than registered importers, and whether registered importers must be U.S. citizens. As to the first issue, the l988 Act does allow one alternative to direct importation by a registered importer. That is, a person other than a registered importer may import a nonconforming vehicle if he has a contract with a registered importer to perform conformance work. This would allow a Canadian citizen to import a Canadian market car, without himself becoming a registered importer. The second issue is whether a Canadian company is permitted to be a registered importer. We believe that a registered importer is a person who is physically present in the territory in which importation occurs, as opposed to an exporter, who is outside that territory. While we are not conversant with the laws of the individual States, we believe that a Canadian company could qualify to do business within an individual State, and become a registered importer. Thus, it is not necessary to be a U.S. 'citizen', but it is necessary to be subject to U.S. jurisdiction. The l988 Act requires the registered importer regulation to contain requirements for recordkeeping, and inspection of records and facilities. Since the jurisdiction of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act does not extend beyond the boundaries of the United States, we believe that it would be difficult to enforce our provisions on inspection of premises, documents, etc. in the territory of another country. This brings us to your fifth and final request, that we 'allow modifications to be done in either the United States or Canada.' Under current regulations, conformance work is permitted to be performed outside the United States. However, vehicles modified in this fashion must be admitted under the same procedures as if they had not been modified. This allows the agency to review the documents on pre-importation conversion work, to ensure that it has been satisfactorily accomplished, before the conformance bond is released. Accordingly, we believe that the concern underlying this request has already been accommodated. If, after reviewing this letter, you have further suggestions for reducing the burdens that the new law may have imposed on importations of Canadian-manufactured vehicles, I would be happy to consider them. Sincerely, Jerry Ralph Curry Enclosure";
ID: aiam4362 Open The Honorable John P. Murtha, Member of Congress, Post Office Box 780, Johnstown, PA 15907; The Honorable John P. Murtha Member of Congress Post Office Box 780 Johnstown PA 15907; Dear Mr. Murtha: Thank you for your letter to the Department of Transportation's Offic of Congressional Affairs, which has been referred to me for a response. In an addendum enclosed with your letter, you note that one of your constituents, Mr. Gene Bird, would like information on the Federal regulations addressing 'completing the finishing work on automobiles.' Apparently, another manufacturer would send small sports cars to Mr. Bird's business. Your addendum states that these sports cars 'will need the following type of work done: installation of the engine, components, radiators, interiors, and the cars will finally have to be tested.' I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our statute and regulations to you.; By way of background, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Ac (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.) requires every new motor vehicle sold in the United States to be certified as complying with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. The Safety Act also specifies that the manufacturer itself must certify that each of its vehicles complies with all applicable safety standards in effect on the date of manufacture. Because of this statutory requirement, this agency does not 'approve' any vehicles or offer assurances that the vehicles comply with the safety standards.; Further, the Safety Act does not require that a manufacturer' certification be based on a specified number of tests or any tests at all. The Safety Act only requires that the certification be made with the exercise of 'due care' on the part of the manufacturer. It is up to the individual manufacturer in the first instance to determine what data, test results, or other information it needs to enable it to certify that its vehicles comply with the safety standards. We would certainly recommend that a new manufacturer test some of its vehicles for compliance with the applicable safety standards.; It is not entirely clear from your addendum whether Mr. Bird would b classified as an 'alterer' or a 'final stage manufacturer' under our regulations. His company would be considered an 'alterer' of motor vehicles, if the second company referred to in your addendum furnishes completed and certified sports car to Mr. Bird's company, and Mr. Bird's company changes the engine and other components on those vehicles. If this is the contemplated action, Mr. Bird's company would be treated as an alterer under our regulations.; The certification requirements for alterers are set forth in 49 CF S567.7 (copy enclosed). Generally speaking, that section requires a person who alters a vehicle before its first purchase to supplement the certification label affixed by the original manufacturer with its own certification label. The alterer's certification label must include all of the information set forth in Part 567, including a statement that the altered vehicle complies will all applicable safety standards in effect on the date the vehicle was altered. In the case of sports cars, an alterer must certify that the altered car complies with all of the following:; >>>49 CFR S571.101 Controls and Displays, 49 CFR S571.102 Transmission Shift Level Sequence, 49 CFR S571.103 Windshield Defrosting and Defogging Systems, 49 CFR S571.104 Windshield Wiping and Washing Systems, 49 CFR S571.105 Hydraulic Brake Systems, 49 CFR S571.106 Brake Hoses, 49 CFR S571.107 Reflecting Surfaces, 49 CFR S571.108 Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment, 49 CFR S571.110 Tire Selection and Rims, 49 CFR S571.111 Rearview Mirrors, 49 CFR S571.112 Headlamp Concealment Devices, 49 CFR S571.113 Hood Latch System, 49 CFR S571.114 Theft Protection, 49 CFR S571.115 Vehicle Identification Number, 49 CFR S571.116 Motor Vehicle Brake Fluids, 49 CFR S571.118 Power-operated Window Systems, 49 CFR S571.124 Accelerator Control Systems, 49 CFR S571.201 Occupant Protection in Interior Impacts, 49 CFR S571.202 Head Restraints, 49 CFR S571.203 Impact Protection for the Driver from the Steerin Column,; 49 CFR S571.204 Steering Control Rearward Displacement, 49 CFR S571.205 Glazing Materials, 49 CFR S571.206 Door Locks and Door Retention Components, 49 CFR S571.207 Seating Systems, 49 CFR S571.208 Occupant Crash Protection, 49 CFR S571.209 Seat Belt Assemblies, 49 CFR S571.210 Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages, 49 CFR S571.211 Wheel Nuts, Wheel Discs, and Hub Caps, 49 CFR S571.212 Windshield Mounting, 49 CFR S571.214 Side Door Strength, 49 CFR S571.216 Roof Crush Resistance, 49 CFR S571.219 Windshield Zone Intrusion, 49 CFR S571.301 Fuel System Integrity, and 49 CFR S571.302 Flammability of Interior Materials.<<< Alternatively, Mr. Bird's company may be treated as a 'final stag manufacturer,' as that term is defined at 49 CFR S568.4. A final stage manufacturer means a person who finishes the manufacturing operations on an incomplete vehicle. Thus, if the second company referred to in your addendum is planning to furnish Mr. Bird's company with sports cars that have no engine, radiator, and so forth, the vehicles provided to Mr. Bird's company would be considered 'incomplete vehicles' and Mr. Bird's company would be considered a 'final stage manufacturer.'; If this is the case, Mr. Bird's certification responsibilities depen on the information he is provided by the manufacturer of the incomplete vehicle, i.e., the second company referred to in your addendum. Part 568 (copy enclosed) requires the manufacturer of the incomplete vehicle to furnish Mr. Bird's company with a document that states one of three things for the incomplete vehicle. These are:; >>>1. The vehicle when completed will conform to some or all of th applicable safety standards if no alterations are made to any identified components of the incomplete vehicle.<<<; If Mr. Bird receives such a document and does not make any of th specified alterations, his company could certify compliance with the standards listed in the previous manufacturer's document simply by stating that compliance has not been affected by the operations performed by Mr. Bird's company. See 49 CFR S567.5(C)(7). Mr. Bird's company would have to certify compliance with any applicable standards not listed in this document.; >>>2. The vehicle when completed will conform to some or all of th applicable safety standards if specific conditions are followed by the final stage manufacturer.<<<; If Mr. Bird receives this type of document, his situation will be ver similar to that described above. That is, if his company follows the specific conditions, it could certify compliance with the standards listed in the previous manufacturer's document simply by stating that compliance has not been affected by the operations performed by Mr. Bird's company. See 49 CFR S567.5(c)(7). Again, Mr. Bird's company would have to certify compliance with any applicable standards not listed in this document.; >>>3. Conformity with some or all of the standards is not substantiall affected by the design of the incomplete vehicle, so the incomplete vehicle manufacturer makes no representation as to conformity with the standards.<<<; If Mr. Bird receives this type of document, his company would b required to certify compliance with the standards identified in the document on its own. This type of document would put Mr. Bird's company in the same position as an alterer for the listed standards.; I have also enclosed a general information sheet for new manufacturer of motor vehicles. This sheet highlights the relevant Federal statutes and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration regulations that may apply and explains how to get copies of our regulations. I hope that this information is helpful. If you have any further questions about our regulations, please contact this office.; Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel
ID: aiam3159 Open Mr. Maurice Paul Pare, Jr., Director of Legal Compliance/Design, Cars & Concepts, Inc., 12500 E. Grand River, Brighton, MI 48116; Mr. Maurice Paul Pare Jr. Director of Legal Compliance/Design Cars & Concepts Inc. 12500 E. Grand River Brighton MI 48116; Dear Mr. Pare: In your letter of October 29, 1979, you commented on Mr. Taylo Vinson's opinion, expressed to you a week earlier, that the scope of the agency to grant exemptions under the Cost Savings Act is narrower than that which exists under the Traffic Safety Act. Your interpretation of the Cost Savings Act is that the authority is broader because the exemption can be based upon the fact that compliance with the bumper standard would 'unreasonably interfere with the special use of such vehicle' while the Traffic Safety Act set forth 'very exact' criteria for the granting of an exemption. You have asked for a further explanation.; To begin with, the exemption scheme varies greatly between the tw statutes. Under the Traffic Safety Act, exemptions are 'temporary' in nature, with the anticipation that at the end of the exemption period, three years at the most, the condition giving rise to the need for an exemption will have passed and the vehicle will comply. Four bases for application are provided. On the other hand, the Cost Savings Act appears to me narrower in scope though broader in effect (which may be what you had in mind). Since 'special use' refers directly to the functional characteristics of a vehicle, the manufacturer's need for an exemption will be 'permanent' as long as the configuration involved is required for the vehicle's 'special use.' Therefore, the Secretary, 'in promulgating any bumper standard' (Sec. 102(c)(1)(B), emphasis supplied) is authorized to exempt special- use vehicles if compliance would interfere with the special use. I interpret this as meaning the standard itself would have to be amended to exclude a vehicle permanently from its applicability rather than an exemption granted as it is under the Traffic Safety Act. The concept that the exemption or exclusion from applicability of the bumper standard is permanent is also reflected in the provisions of the Cost Act regarding importation of non-complying used vehicles. The Traffic Safety Act authorizes the Secretary to permit 'temporary importation' (Sec. 108(B)(4)) while the Cost Savings Act does not modify the noun 'importation' (Sec. 106(b)(4)), indicating that vehicles may be admitted without the necessity of conformance.; While neither the Cost Savings Act nor NHTSA has defined 'special use, the statute is explicit that a vehicle can be exempted only if two conditions are met: that it be manufactured for a special use, and that compliance would unreasonably interfere with that use. An example that I cite is a vehicle with a front power take-off (a special use) on which a full bumper might unreasonably interfere with that function. It is clear to us that passenger cars, exotic cars (such as the Lamborghini Countach), and replicars (such as the Model A) are not special use vehicles. Indeed, no manufacturer wishing an exemption from the bumper standard has tried to convince us to the contrary. Now I hope you understand our opinion that exemptions are more difficult to obtain under the Cost Savings Act than under the Traffic Safety Act.; Your impression that the Lamborghini Countach as been granted a exemption from the bumper standard in 1978 is indeed erroneous. The car was granted an exemption from the safety bumper standard No. 215, in 1975, to expire on November 1, 1978. But early in 1978 we notified it (and three other manufacturers whose exemptions from Standard No. 215 were stated to expire on October 1 and November 1, 1978) that Standard No. 215 was revoked effective September 1, 1978, and its exemption would expire on that date, and that we had no authority to provide it with an exemption under the Cost Savings Act.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel
ID: aiam4629 Open Mr. William L. Dunlap Engineering Manager Philips Industries, Inc. Dexter Axle Division 500 Collins Road Elkhart, IN 46515; Mr. William L. Dunlap Engineering Manager Philips Industries Inc. Dexter Axle Division 500 Collins Road Elkhart IN 46515; "Dear Mr. Dunlap: This responds to your request for an interpretatio of Standard No. 120, Tire Selection and Rims for Motor Vehicles other than Passenger Cars (49 CFR /571.120, copy enclosed). I apologize for the delay in this response. You stated that your company manufactures rims that you sell to other wheel manufacturers. These wheel manufacturers combine your company's rims with center disc sections of their own design to produce finished wheels for use on light trucks and trailers. Section S5.2(c) of Standard No. 120 specifies that each rim shall be marked with certain information. You asked whether your company, as the rim manufacturer, or any subsequent manufacturer that uses your company's rims to produce complete wheels is required to mark the rims in compliance with section S5.2(c). The answer is that the rim manufacturer is responsible for those markings, as explained below. Section 108(a)(1)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(1)(A), the Safety Act) specifies that 'No person shall manufacture for sale, sell, offer for sale, or introduce or deliver for introduction in interstate commerce, or import into the United States, any ... item of motor vehicle equipment manufactured on or after the date any applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard takes effect under this title unless it is in conformity with such standard ...' In this case, section S5.2 of Standard No. 120 requires certain markings to appear on all newly manufactured rims for use on motor vehicles other than passenger cars. These requirements became effective August 1, 1977. Thus, section 108 of the Safety Act makes it illegal for any person to 'manufacturer for sale, sell, offer for sale, or introduce or deliver for introduction in interstate commerce, or import into the United States' any rim manufactured on or after August 1, 1977 designed for use on motor vehicles other than passenger cars unless that rim is marked in accordance with section S5.2 of Standard No. 120. Your company would violate this provision of the law if you were to sell light truck rims without the required markings, even if the party to whom you sold such rims was going to use the rims to produce completed wheel assemblies. You suggested in your letter that your company's markings on its rims used by other manufacturers to produce completed wheel assemblies may be misleading or unfair, because your company has no control over the integrity of the completed wheel assemblies. This may represent a misunderstanding of the meaning and purpose of the required rim markings. The markings and certification required on rims for motor vehicles other than passenger cars by section S5.2 of Standard No. 120 provide information about only the rims, not the entire wheel assembly. In your letter, you indicated that other wheel manufacturers simply add center discs to your company's rims to produce completed wheel assemblies. In these circumstances, the accuracy of the markings and certification put on a rim by your company as the rim manufacturer would not be affected by another manufacturer simply adding a center disc to that rim to produce a completed wheel assembly. If you have any further questions or need additional information on this subject, please feel free to contact Marvin Shaw of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel";
ID: aiam2987 Open Mr. Moe Pare, Jr., Director of Design, Cars & Concepts, Inc., 12500 E. Grand River, Brighton, MI 48116; Mr. Moe Pare Jr. Director of Design Cars & Concepts Inc. 12500 E. Grand River Brighton MI 48116; Dear Mr. Pare: This responds to your March 2, 1979, letter concerning the definitio of the vehicle sub-classification, 'convertible.' Your letter included several Figures of various vehicle designs and asked whether each would be considered a 'convertible' by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.; While our regulations do not include a formal definition o 'convertible', the agency has stated that it considers a convertible to be a vehicle whose 'A' pillar or windshield peripheral support is not joined with the 'B' pillar (or rear roof support rearward of the 'B' pillar position) by a fixed rigid structural member. Therefore, passenger cars equipped with a 'sun roof' or a 'Hurst hatch roof' do not qualify as convertibles, because they have a fixed, rigid structural member in the described location (April 21, 1976, letter of interpretation enclosed). This interpretation applies, moreover, whether the rigid structural member joining the 'A' and 'B' pillars is a hidden reinforcing component or whether the structural member is part of the exterior roof panel.; Given this interpretation, only the Fiat X-19 vehicle desig illustrated in your Figure 5 would qualify as a 'convertible.' Each vehicle design in your other illustrations (Figures 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9) include fixed, rigid structural components joining the 'A' and 'B' pillar sections of the vehicles and, therefore, would not be classified as convertibles. Likewise, the designs would not be considered 'open-body type vehicles' (49 CFR 571.3) for the same reason, the structural member, whether hidden or not, would be considered part of the vehicle top. Also, I would point out that the 'open-body vehicle' designation generally refers to multipurpose passenger vehicles such as 'Jeeps' or 'dune buggies.'; I hope this clarification is responsive to your inquiry. If you hav any further questions please contact Hugh Oates of my office (202-426-2992).; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel