ID: nht94-2.99

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: May 18, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Donald F. Lett -- Lett Electronics Company

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached To Letter Dated 1/19/94 From Donald F. Lett To Department Of Transportation (OCC-9590)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Lett:

This responds to your letter to me in which you asked whether any "pre-necessary authorization" is needed for molding white sidewalls onto existing passenger car tires. We assume "pre-necessary authorization" means this agency's prior approval or permis sion to modify the tires in the manner you propose.

You explained in your letter that you intend to modify existing radial passenger car blackwall tires by grinding a recess into one sidewall between 1/8 and 3/16 inches deep by 2 1/2 inches wide, then vulcanizing white rubber into that recess to transform a "D.O.T. approved radial blackwall tire" into a white sidewall tire. You would then market those tires, as modified, for classic cars of the 1955-1960 era.

By way of background, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, 15 U.S.C. 1381, et seq. (Safety Act), gives the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) the authority to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. Tires are considered motor vehicle equipment.

The Safety Act establishes a self-certification system in which vehicle and equipment manufacturers certify that their products comply with all applicable FMVSSs in effect on the date of manufacture. Because of this self-certification system, neither NH TSA nor the Department of Transportation (DOT) approves, endorses, certifies, or gives assurances of compliance of any product. Rather, NHTSA enforces its standards by testing products in accordance with the test procedures set forth in applicable FMVSS s. If the product meets the requirements of the standard, no further action is taken. If the product fails to comply, the manufacturer must notify the purchasers of the product and remedy the noncompliance without charge to the purchaser(s). Failure t o

2

comply with any FMVSS can also result in civil penalties of up to $ 1,000 per violation, up to a maximum of $ 800,000 for a series of related violations.

We assume from your letter that you propose to modify new radial passenger car tires. Whether the process you described is permissible depends on whether it adversely affects the tire's compliance with FMVSS No. 109, New Pneumatic Tires (copy enclosed). This standard specifies the performance requirements applicable to passenger car tires, which include tubeless tire resistance to bead unseating, tire strength, tire endurance, and high speed performance.

It does not appear that radial tires can be modified as you propose and still meet the requirements of Standard 109. The average radial tire sidewall is approximately 3/16 inch thick at the shoulder, gradually increasing to approximately 1/2 inch where the sidewall meets the bead. The radial sidewall is unsupported by cords, belts, or other material contributing to the strength of that sidewall. To achieve a 2 1/2 inch whitewall, at least some of the whitewall would extend into the tire shoulder. Th erefore, cutting into a radial tire sidewall at the shoulder to a depth of 3/16 inch would cut through the sidewall. Cutting into the sidewall at the shoulder to a depth of 1/8 inch would leave approximately 1/16 inch of rubber on the shoulder of the ti re. That would, obviously, have the effect of destroying the tire.

Section 108(a)(1)(A) of the Safety Act, 15 U.S.C. @ 1397 (a)(1)(A), prohibits any person from manufacturing or selling any new item of equipment that does not conform to all applicable FMVSSs. A new noncomplying tire that is sold to a retail customer wo uld constitute a violation of @ 108(a)(1)(A), and is subject to the recall and civil penalties described above. In addition, @ 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act, 15 U.S.C. @ 1397(a)(2)(A), prohibits a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle rep air business from knowingly rendering inoperative any safety device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard. Accordingly, modifying previously- complying tires by removing them from compliance with the strength requirements of FMVSS 109 could violate @ 108(a)(2)(A), again subjecting the violator to the civil penalties described above.

Standard No. 109 also requires that certain information be molded into or onto the sidewalls of tires in certain specified locations and that the letters "DOT" appear on each tire sidewall to indicate the manufacturer's certification that the tire compli es with all applicable FMVSSs. In addition, the Uniform Tire Quality Grading Standards (UTQGS), 49 CFR Part 575.104, provides that the ratings required by that section

3

will be molded onto or into the sidewalls of tires. Therefore, if the modification you propose obliterates or removes any of the required labeling, that could violate FMVSS 109 and the UTQGS, again subjecting the violator to penalties.

In addition to the safety implications of grinding and filling recesses in tires, we also note that the suspension systems of older motor vehicles may not be compatible with radial tires. The handling and stability of those vehicles could be adversely a ffected by mounting radial tires on them, or by the mixing radial and bias ply tires, without appropriate modifications to their suspension systems.

Finally, I note that you used the term "previously D.O.T. approved" tire in your letter. As explained above, NHTSA does not use that term because neither NHTSA nor the Department of Transportation "approves" tires or any other motor vehicle product. We assume that by using that expression you mean that the tires you select for modification contain the "DOT" code that signify the manufacturer's, not NHTSA's, certification. Nevertheless, since the meaning of the term is unclear and might be misleading to consumers, we ask that you not use that term in any of your promotional materials.

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

Sincerely,

Enclosure

ID: nht94-5.21

DATE: May 18, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Donald F. Lett -- Lett Electronics Company

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached To Letter Dated 1/19/94 From Donald F. Lett To Department Of Transportation (OCC-9590)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Lett:

This responds to your letter to me in which you asked whether any "pre-necessary authorization" is needed for molding white sidewalls onto existing passenger car tires. We assume "pre-necessary authorization" means this agency's prior approval or permission to modify the tires in the manner you propose.

You explained in your letter that you intend to modify existing radial passenger car blackwall tires by grinding a recess into one sidewall between 1/8 and 3/16 inches deep by 2 1/2 inches wide, then vulcanizing white rubber into that recess to transform a "D.O.T. approved radial blackwall tire" into a white sidewall tire. You would then market those tires, as modified, for classic cars of the 1955-1960 era.

By way of background, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, 15 U.S.C. 1381, et seq. (Safety Act), gives the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) the authority to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. Tires are considered motor vehicle equipment.

The Safety Act establishes a self-certification system in which vehicle and equipment manufacturers certify that their products comply with all applicable FMVSSs in effect on the date of manufacture. Because of this self-certification system, neither NHTSA nor the Department of Transportation (DOT) approves, endorses, certifies, or gives assurances of compliance of any product. Rather, NHTSA enforces its standards by testing products in accordance with the test procedures set forth in applicable FMVSSs. If the product meets the requirements of the standard, no further action is taken. If the product fails to comply, the manufacturer must notify the purchasers of the product and remedy the noncompliance without charge to the purchaser(s). Failure to

2

comply with any FMVSS can also result in civil penalties of up to $ 1,000 per violation, up to a maximum of $ 800,000 for a series of related violations.

We assume from your letter that you propose to modify new radial passenger car tires. Whether the process you described is permissible depends on whether it adversely affects the tire's compliance with FMVSS No. 109, New Pneumatic Tires (copy enclosed). This standard specifies the performance requirements applicable to passenger car tires, which include tubeless tire resistance to bead unseating, tire strength, tire endurance, and high speed performance.

It does not appear that radial tires can be modified as you propose and still meet the requirements of Standard 109. The average radial tire sidewall is approximately 3/16 inch thick at the shoulder, gradually increasing to approximately 1/2 inch where the sidewall meets the bead. The radial sidewall is unsupported by cords, belts, or other material contributing to the strength of that sidewall. To achieve a 2 1/2 inch whitewall, at least some of the whitewall would extend into the tire shoulder. Therefore, cutting into a radial tire sidewall at the shoulder to a depth of 3/16 inch would cut through the sidewall. Cutting into the sidewall at the shoulder to a depth of 1/8 inch would leave approximately 1/16 inch of rubber on the shoulder of the tire. That would, obviously, have the effect of destroying the tire.

Section 108(a)(1)(A) of the Safety Act, 15 U.S.C. @ 1397 (a)(1)(A), prohibits any person from manufacturing or selling any new item of equipment that does not conform to all applicable FMVSSs. A new noncomplying tire that is sold to a retail customer would constitute a violation of @ 108(a)(1)(A), and is subject to the recall and civil penalties described above. In addition, @ 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act, 15 U.S.C. @ 1397(a)(2)(A), prohibits a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business from knowingly rendering inoperative any safety device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard. Accordingly, modifying previously-complying tires by removing them from compliance with the strength requirements of FMVSS 109 could violate @ 108(a)(2)(A), again subjecting the violator to the civil penalties described above.

Standard No. 109 also requires that certain information be molded into or onto the sidewalls of tires in certain specified locations and that the letters "DOT" appear on each tire sidewall to indicate the manufacturer's certification that the tire complies with all applicable FMVSSs. In addition, the Uniform Tire Quality Grading Standards (UTQGS), 49 CFR Part 575.104, provides that the ratings required by that section

3

will be molded onto or into the sidewalls of tires. Therefore, if the modification you propose obliterates or removes any of the required labeling, that could violate FMVSS 109 and the UTQGS, again subjecting the violator to penalties.

In addition to the safety implications of grinding and filling recesses in tires, we also note that the suspension systems of older motor vehicles may not be compatible with radial tires. The handling and stability of those vehicles could be adversely affected by mounting radial tires on them, or by the mixing radial and bias ply tires, without appropriate modifications to their suspension systems.

Finally, I note that you used the term "previously D.O.T. approved" tire in your letter. As explained above, NHTSA does not use that term because neither NHTSA nor the Department of Transportation "approves" tires or any other motor vehicle product. We assume that by using that expression you mean that the tires you select for modification contain the "DOT" code that signify the manufacturer's, not NHTSA's, certification. Nevertheless, since the meaning of the term is unclear and might be misleading to consumers, we ask that you not use that term in any of your promotional materials.

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

Sincerely,

Enclosure

ID: nht87-1.22

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 01/15/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Barry Felrice; NHTSA

TO: Harry H. Kazakian -- President, Corleone International Traders, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Harry H. Kazakian President Corleone International Traders, Inc. P.O. Box 3417 Los Angeles, Calif. 90028

Dear Mr. Kazakian:

This is in reply to your letter of April 29, 1986, to which was attached a "Magic Eyes Brake Light". This device consists of the small lamps whose primary functions are to flash automatically "upon catching light" within safety range and when the car's b rake is in use". The purpose of the device is to reduce rear end collisions. The artwork on the package shows the lamps mounted at the base of the rear window on either side of the vehicle's vertical centerline. You asked that your letter centerline as a petition for rulemaking to require the device as original equipment, or for the aftermarket.

I regret that we have decided to deny your petition that the device be required as original equipment. The agency's research has shown that the most effective device for reducing rear end collisions in the single center high-mounted stop lamp, and the ag ency now require that device to be installed as original equipment on passenger cars. You have presented no facts that demonstrate that an amendment of the nature you have requested is necessary. Although the agency has specified no requirements for afte rmarket supplementary stop lamps (other than those that replace original equipment), on the basis of the agency's research, we believe that aftermarket equipment should meet as closely as possible the specifications for original equipment. Therefore, we are also denying your petition for aftermarket equipment.

We would like to advise you that there are no Federal restrictions on the importation and sale of "Magic Eyes". However, any State may impose its own restrictions on the use of this lamp on roads within its borders, and you should consult these laws bef ore selling the device.

As a final note, the copy for model JA 201 on the package states "To comply with latest United States' regulations, this single lamp lights on automatically upon catching light within safety range and when the car's brake is in use". Please delete the re ference to United States regulations on your packages. The single lamp required by the United States is steady burning and has but one function, to indicate application of the brake pedal. It cannot be combined with any other light or device. In comparis on, your lamp has two functions, and appears to flash in each.

As an accessory item of motor vehicle equipment, your lamp is subject to the notification and remedy provisions of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. This means that if a safety related defect occurs in the lamp, the manufacturer or impor ter is obligated to inform dealers, distributors and purchasers to repair, repurchase, or replace the item. We are returning your device with this letter.

Sincerely,

Barry Felrice Associate Administrator for Rulemaking

APRIL 29, 1986 OUR REF. COR/030886 BANKERS: CALIFORNIA OVERSEAS BANK

INTERPRETATION CHIEF COUNCIL NATIONAL TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION Rm. # 5219 p 400, 7th St. South West Washington D.C. 20590

ATT: Erika Z Jones

Dear Erika,

In response to our conversation with Mr. Bob Nikelson in Department of Traffic Safety, after a long conversation over the phone about the "Magic Eyes Brake Lights" we were advised to get your attention with this safety device, which could reduce a large quantity of rear endings, help saving lives in U. S. highways an street roads and at the mean time be helpful financially. Therefore we would certainly appreciate to get your precious time and attention, if you would, to explain about this safety device after a small brief about our business.

Corleone International Traders Inc. is known as well established incorporation in U. S. A. with many satisfied customers. We have relations all over the world, we specialize medical items, auto accessories, foodstuff and many novelties. We also represent variety of manufacturers overseas on exclusive basis.

We would like to take this opportunity to introduce you one of our new sophisticated low coast brake light system which was invented and made with few of our engineers to reduce tail gating and rearending in U.S. highways. This magnificent system is "The Third Brake Light" of the car which has a built in sensor device. This system flashes automatically upon catching light within safety range and when the car's brake is in use.

Our main goal is to see less rear endings in U.S. highways. Therefore we would like to have this sophisticated light activated sensors to be included in every auto's brake system is being built in U.S.A.

We sincerely would like to ask to have this "Safety Device" to be treated as a petition for rule making to require this device or permitted originally or after market "Vehicle Safety Standard Cod--108."

For your research and study we are including a sample of this device on the back of the carton explains product No. "JA 101 WARNING LIGHTS" and "JA 105 MAGIC EYE SENSOR".

Dear Chief Council, we are taking this opportunities very seriously and depending on your full research and your answer.

At the mean time we are at your disposal for any information you may need or any questions you may ask. We are sincerely thanking you for your time and your attention at this matter and hoping to hear from you soon about your opinion, until than we remai n HARRY H. KAZAKIAN PRESIDENT

ID: 9063

Mr. John M. Tolliday
President
Dayman USA Inc.
P.O. Box 824
Bedford, VA 24523

Dear Mr. Tolliday:

We have received your letter of September 2, 1993, with respect to your wish to import "British Army Ferret Armored Cars". The armaments have been removed. You would be selling these vehicles "on the basis they would only be used for off road purposes." You ask whether the vehicles would be exempt from the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. You have enclosed two photos of the machine.

For purposes of compliance with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards, a "motor vehicle" is a vehicle that has been manufactured primarily for use on the public roads. Given the configuration and original military character of the Ferret, we believe that its manufacturer intended that its use of the public roads would be incidental and not primary. Therefore, we have concluded that the Ferret was not a "motor vehicle" at the time of its manufacture.

The question arises whether removal of the Ferret's armament and its importation for civilian use cause it to become a "motor vehicle" for purposes of our regulations. At first blush, it would appear that the status of a vehicle is permanently determined at the time of its manufacture. This is true with respect to vehicles manufactured and operated exclusively in the United States no matter what modifications are subsequently made. The general provisions of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act do not apply once a domestic vehicle has been sold. As a hypothetical example, the agency does not consider an all-terrain vehicle to have been manufactured primarily for use on the public roads, hence it is not a "motor vehicle". Were an owner to modify it so that it could be licensed for use, the original intent of the manufacturer would have been superseded by that of the modifier, but the Act does not impose any obligation upon the modifier to conform the all-terrain vehicle to any Federal safety standards that might apply to its type.

The situation differs with respect to imported vehicles. The status of a vehicle is judged as of the time of entry. Returning to our all-terrain vehicle hypothetical, if the vehicle has been modified before it enters the United States so that its primary use will be on the public roads, we would regard it as a "motor vehicle" subject to compliance with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. With respect to the Ferret, we believe that more than removal of its armament is required to cause it to become a "motor vehicle". The issue of armament is essentially irrelevant to its character as an off-road or on-road vehicle. The Ferret remains an armored vehicle of limited visibility and of no apparent greater utility for on-road civilian purposes such as transportation of passengers and cargo than it possessed before removal of the armament. It retains the same high ground clearance as it has always possessed, supporting your statement that it will be sold for use on the public roads. We therefore conclude that, as modified, the Ferret will not be a "motor vehicle" subject to our regulations, and that they may be imported without the necessity of conforming them to the Federal standards.

Those military vehicles that are manufactured primarily for on-road use are "motor vehicles". However, in recognition of the fact that conformance with the Federal safety standards might compromise their ability to fulfill their military mission, the agency has exempted from compliance those motor vehicles that have been manufactured for the armed forces of the United States in accordance with contractual specifications. This exclusion does not apply to foreign military vehicles. Thus, for example, were you seeking to import for resale in the United States trucks of the British Army, they would have to be brought into conformance with applicable truck standards.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

ref:591#VSA d:3/16/94

ID: nht95-2.94

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: May 24, 1995

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Terry M. Habshey -- Oxytire Incorporated

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 3/6/95 LETTER FROM TERRY M. HABSHEY TO PHILIP RECHT (OCC 10785)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Habshey:

This responds to your March 6, 1995 letter to Philip Recht, our former Chief Counsel, and your telephone conversations with Walter Myers of my staff in which you requested a "new D.O.T. number." As discussed below, we are unable to provide you a tire man ufacturer's identification mark since the operations you perform on tires are not sufficient to make you the manufacturer of the tires.

You explained that your company is a global exporter of tires, particularly to third world countries, but that you intend to distribute tires domestically in the future. You stated that you obtain new tires from different manufacturers consisting of ori ginal equipment overruns, blems, etc., and that by a new process you intend to remove "most" of the information from the tire sidewalls. The new process includes removing a thin layer of rubber from the tire sidewall, then vulcanizing a layer of new rubb er onto the sidewall. The new layer will contain a new "registered" trade name, logo, and "identifying marks along with the size, safety information, mounting instructions, maximum and minimum inflating instructions, etc." You emphasized that all tires will be new and meet "all minimum standards established by the Department of Transportation."

Before addressing your request, let me first provide some background information. Chapter 301 of Title 49, U.S. Code (hereinafter Safety Act), authorizes the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to issue Federal motor vehicle safety st andards (FMVSS) applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment sold in or imported into the United States. Tires are considered motor vehicle equipment. The Safety Act establishes a self-certification system in which manufact urers certify that their products comply with all applicable FMVSSs effective on the date of manufacture. In the case of tires, manufacturers reflect that certification by molding the letters "DOT" into or onto the sidewalls of all their tires manufactu red for sale in the United States.

The FMVSSs are not applicable to tires intended solely for export, labeled for export on the tires and on the outside of the container, and exported. See 49 U.S.C. @ 30112(b)(3); 49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 571.7(d)). Accordingly, you are free to export any tires you want, whether or not they comply with the FMVSSs and after whatever modifications you make to them.

That is not the case, however, with tires distributed for sale in the United States. FMVSS No. 109, New pneumatic tires and FMVSS No. 110, Tire selection and rims, specify performance standards and labeling requirements for new passenger car tires and r ims. FMVSS No. 119, New pneumatic tires for vehicles other than passenger cars and FMVSS No. 120, Tire selection and rims for motor vehicles other than passenger cars, specify performance standards and labeling requirements applicable to tires and rims for vehicles other than passenger cars. 49 CFR Part 574, Tire identification and recordkeeping, requires new tire manufacturers to permanently mold into or onto one tire sidewall a tire identification number (TIN) and specifies methods by which new tire manufacturers and new tire brand name owners shall maintain records of tire purchasers. 49 CFR Part 575.104, Uniform tire quality grading standards (UTQGS), requires new motor vehicle and new tire manufacturers and brand name owners to provide informat ion to consumers concerning the relative performance of passenger car tires in the areas of treadwear, traction, and temperature resistance. The UTQGS grades are also required to be molded into or onto the tire sidewall.

The labeling requirements specified in the regulations referred to above apply to the actual tire manufacturers and/or brand name owners, and the required information, including the DOT symbol and the TIN, must appear on all new tires before they can be sold to their first retail purchasers. A tire distributor or dealer cannot legally remove any of the required information from new tire sidewalls. The required information on new tires is intended for safety purposes, purchaser information, and to enab le this agency to identify the manufacturer in the event of a noncompliance or defect in a tire line or lot.

A "manufacturer" is defined in 49 U.S.C. @ 30102(a)(5) as one who manufactures or assembles motor vehicles or equipment or one who imports motor vehicles or equipment for resale. The operations you describe would not be sufficient to make you the manufa cturer of the tires in question. According to your letter, you would, for marketing reasons, remove a thin layer of the surface area of the sidewalls of the tires so that most of the existing information is removed. You would then apply a new thin laye r of rubber containing new information. Your operations would thus not be changing the basic tire as such but simply changing the labeling. A change in labeling would not change who manufactured the tire. Thus, since you would not be a manufacturer of tires, you may not obtain a manufacturer's identification mark in accordance with 49 CFR @ 574.6. Only tire manufacturers or retreaders may obtain that mark.

49 U.S.C. @ 30122(b) prohibits manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and/or motor vehicle repair businesses from knowingly making inoperative any part of a device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of equipment in compliance with applicable FMVSSs unless that individual reasonably believes that the vehicle or equipment will not be used when the device or element is inoperative. Thus, removal of the labeling information required to be marked on tire sidewalls in accordance w ith the standards and regulations discussed above could be a violation of @ 30122(b), which could subject the violator to civil penalties of up to $ 1000 per violation, or up to $ 800,000 for a series of related violations.

In summary, the Safety Act does not apply to tires intended solely for export. Thus, those tires are not required to comply with any FMVSSs. However, all new or retreaded tires sold or imported into the United States for sale must comply with all applic able FMVSSs and regulations as discussed above. Distributors and dealers may not remove any of the labeling information required to be marked on new tires by the actual manufacturers and/or brand name owners of those tires. Removal of that information c ould make inoperative an element of design on those tires, which could constitute a violation of 49 U.S.C. @ 30122(b).

I hope this information is helpful to you. Should you need additional information or have further questions, please feel free to contact Mr. Myers at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht67-1.25

DATE: 12/13/67

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; William Haddon, Jr., M.D.; NHTSA

TO: Japan Automobile Manufacturers Association, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: In your letter to me dated November 25, you have raised several questions relating to the status of Japanese motorcycles manufactured after December 31, 1967, and shipped to the United States without windshields.

Specifically you have stated:

"1. Is the . . . understanding (correct) that the importation of motorcycles not equipped with windowshields and/or any glazing material will not violate the . . . National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966."

Answer: Your understanding is correct. Motorcycles are not required to be equipped with windshields, and conformity to Initial Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205 is required only if motorcycles are equipped with windshields.

"2. In case motor cycles without glazing material are imported, what shall motorcycle manufacturers do in respect to certificate requirements according to Paragraph 114 of the Act and the Notice of October 31, 1967."

Answer: No certification is required for motorcycles which are imported without glazing materials.

"3. If certification is not required for motorcycles not equipped with glazing material, would there be any problem at the time of importation at U.S. Customs offices that may naturally seek safety certification on all motor vehicles covered by the Federal Standards."

Answer: Under the proposed joint regulations promulgated by the Treasury Department (Bureau of Customs) and the Department of Transportation covering importation of motor vehicles manufactured after December 31, 1967, vehicles not bearing certification will be admitted upon a declaration by the importer or(Illegible Word) that such vehicle was manufactured on a date when no standards applicable to the vehicle were in effect. To insure that there is no difficulty at the port of entry, it is contemplated that Customs officials will be notified that motorcycles without windshields may be admitted without certification. The proposed joint regulations were published in the Federal Register for November 30, 1967, and I enclose a copy for your consideration.

You have further asked: "Would there be any particular procedures that could be taken by Japanese motorcycle manufacturers in advance to avoid such a possibility."

Answer: If the motorcycles are shipped in a manner in which they are not readily visible, it might be advisable to atencil the shipping containers with a legend to the effect that the motor vehicle therein is not subject to the Federal motor vehicle safety standards (i.e., a motorcycle not equipped with a windshield).

Of course, any glazing material shipped for subsequent installation on a motorcycle must bear appropriate certification.

I hope this sufficiently answers your questions.

ID: nht90-1.73

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: MARCH 16, 1990

FROM: D. H. BURNEY -- AMBASSADOR, CANADIAN EMBASSY

TO: JERRY R. CURRY -- ADMINISTRATOR, NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 4-24-90 TO D. H. BURNEY FROM JERRY RALPH CURRY; (A35; PARTS 591, 592, 593 AND 594) TEXT:

I am writing with regard to your Final Rule on the Importation of Vehicles and Equipment Subject to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards on and after January 31, 1990 (Federal Register, Volume 54, No. 188, September 29, 1989).

The Final Rule and the enabling legislation -- the Imported Vehicle Safety Compliance Act of 1988 (P.L. 100-562) -- were drafted to address and correct the enforcement difficulties associated with the previous regulations governing the importation of veh icles which did not comply with the DOT Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS). These difficulties arose largely from the export to the United States of vehicles originally manufactured for the European marketplace, in particular luxury and spor t automobiles. Canada is concerned that in seeking to address problems related to these vehicles, the NHTSA will be imposing serious and apparently unintended burdens on Canadian exporters of vehicles certified to Canadian safety standards.

"Canadian market vehicles" are those subject to the Canadian Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (CMVSS) established by Transport Canada. Canadian standards are virtually identical to the FMVSS, and where there are differences these differences are well docum ented. As a practical matter, for most Canadian market vehicles the only relevant difference is the metric instrumentation for speedometers and odometers. Most Canadian market vehicles sold in Canada are produced in the United States to meet both Canad ian and U.S. standards because of the rationalization of North American production. Consequently, a Canadian market vehicle would require only minor modification to bring it into compliance with U.S. standards, in contrast to noncomplying imports from o ther countries, which could require significant modification.

Under the Final Rule, a Canadian market vehicle would be deemed to be a non-complying vehicle if it does not bear the original manufacturer's declaration that it meets all U.S. safety standards. In addition:

a) importation of Canadian market vehicles is restricted to importers registered with NHTSA;

b) registered importers must be U.S. residents;

c) each registered importer is required to pay an annual registration fee of $255;

d) for each make, model and year of non-conforming vehicle, a petition fee of $1560 or $2150, depending on whether the petition concerns a vehicle which is "substantially similar" or "capable or being

modified", is required for filing for a determination of eligibility for importation;

e) the registered importer is required to pay a bond processing fee of $125 for each vehicle imported;

f) the registered importer is required to post a bond, not less than the dutiable value of each vehicle imported, for the production of a statement, after conformance, certifying that the conformance work has been accomplished, and

g) conformance work must be done in the United States.

The Final Rule will not have a direct impact on vehicle manufacturers (e.g., the "Big Three") or secondary manufacturers (e.g., truck-body builders), as these original manufacturers are exempted from the Final Rule requirements if they certify their vehi cles as meeting U.S. standards and are able to provide appropriate documentation.

However, given the cost, complexity and delays that the new procedures would entail, Canadian vehicle brokers, dealers and private citizens, acting independently of original manufacturers, would not, for all practical purposes, be able to export new or u sed Canadian market vehicles to the United States. Further, Canadian individuals and firms would be precluded from providing conformance goods and services for vehicles exported to the United States.

Canadian regulations are being changed to give effect to Article 1003 of the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement. These provisions are designed to maintain the integrity of Canadian safety and emission standards while recognizing that Canadian and U.S. sta ndards are virtually identical. U.S. market vehicles exported from the United States are allowed entry into Canada upon demonstration of a U.S. Department of Transport compliance certificate for U.S. standards and a declaration of intent that the vehicle will be modified as required to conform with Canadian safety requirements (currently the required modification for most U.S. market vehicles involves only meeting the metric and bilingual labelling requirements, for which stickers can be purchased from the Canadian Automobile Association for $2.95). Imports of U.S. market vehicles are subject only to the actual costs of modifications and do not face any fees paid to government. U.S. individuals and firms are able to provide conformance goods and serv ices.

In Canada's view, the Final Rule is inconsistent with U.S. obligations under the Canada-U.S. Free trade Agreement and will unduly restrict trade between the two countries. Canada accordingly requests that NHTSA modify the Final Rule with respect to Cana dian market vehicles, recognizing near-compliance with the FMVSS and accommodating their entry in the least costly and burdensome manner. To this end, Canada requests that NHTSA: a) recognize canadian market vehicles as a special class of non- comp lying vehicles requiring only minor changes to meet the FMVSS;

b) exempt such vehicles from the fees;

c) exempt them from the bonding requirement;

d) exempt them from the requirement that they be imported by registered importers, who must be U.s. citizens, and

e) allow modifications to be done in either the United States or Canada.

I would propose that Canadian and U.S officials meet to discuss the technical details of this request.

ID: nht95-6.23

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: August 29, 1995

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Kenneth Zawlocki

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 5/25/95 LETTER FROM KENNETH ZAWLOCKI TO CHIEF COUNSEL (OCC-10949)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Zawlocki:

This responds to your request for an interpretation of Standard No. 218, Motorcycle Helmets. Your questions are addressed below.

You first ask whether the Penetration Test (S7.2) tests the outer shell of the helmet, the Impact, Attenuation Test (S7.1) tests inner protection materials, and the Retention System Test (S7.3) tests straps that hold the helmet on the head. Each of these tests measures the performance of a motorcycle helmet as a total system, i.e., the tests are conducted on a motorcycle helmet as a whole, rather than on helmet components. Therefore, the tests are not limited to measuring the performance of the components you cite. By way of example, while the shell of the helmet may play a critical role in a helmet's resistance to penetration, the composition and thickness of the liner may also be important. Similarly, while certain components are more important than others in meeting certain criteria, overall design and construction of the helmet will determine whether it meets the impact attenuation and retention requirements.

You next ask whether Standard No. 218 specifies the types or amounts of material to be used in manufacturing helmets. Standard No. 218 specifies performance requirements for motorcycle helmets. A manufacturer may use any types or amounts of materials that enable the manufacturer to fully comply with the standard.

While Standard No. 218 does not specify that certain materials must be used in manufacturing a helmet, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's (NHTSA) experience in over 20 years of helmet testing indicates that helmets meeting Standard No. 218 have common characteristics. The first of these is a dense foam liner that is approximately one inch thick. Helmets with thinner liners or liners composed of a soft compressible foam are not likely to meet the impact attenuation or penetration requirements of the Standard. The weight of the helmet, while not governed by any section of Standard No. 218, is also a good indicator of how it will perform in testing. Although it may be technically possible to build a lightweight helmet that satisfies the performance requirements of Standard No. 218, NHTSA is not aware of any motorcycle helmet weighing less than three pounds that has done so.

Finally, you ask whether Standard No. 218 precludes decorating a helmet with any material such as leather or cloth, or with items such as wigs, flowers, decals or hats.

The various helmet decorations you describe could affect a motorcycle helmet's compliance with a variety of Standard No. 218's performance requirements. One example is S5.5, Projections. The inside of the shell must be free of protruding rivets or other projections. The presence of any projections within the helmet indicates that it is not a complying helmet. Projecting snaps or other objects are permitted on the outside of the helmet only if they are required for essential accessories such as visors or face shields. Any projection on the outside of a helmet must not protrude more than five millimeters.

I note that under 49 U.S.C. @ 30112(a), "a person may not manufacture for sale, sell, offer for sale, introduce or deliver for introduction in interstate commerce, or import into the United States" a new motorcycle helmet that does not comply with Standard No. 218. Also, dealers and repair businesses may not modify new or used motorcycle helmets in a manner that results in the helmet no longer complying with the standard. Any of these parties must therefore ensure that any contemplated decorations would not affect a helmet's compliance with Standard No. 218.

Federal law does not address modifications made by a motorcycle helmet owner to his or her own helmet. However, it is NHTSA's policy to discourage motorcycle helmet users from modifying their helmets. This is because even relatively simple modifications can reduce the safety protection provided by the helmet. S5.6.1(f)(3) of Standard No. 218 requires the following instruction to be placed on helmets: "Make no modifications . . ." I also note that State laws may address modifications made by motorcycle helmet owners to their own helmets.

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

ID: nht95-4.1

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: August 29, 1995

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Kenneth Zawlocki

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 5/25/95 LETTER FROM KENNETH ZAWLOCKI TO CHIEF COUNSEL (OCC-10949)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Zawlocki:

This responds to your request for an interpretation of Standard No. 218, Motorcycle Helmets. Your questions are addressed below.

You first ask whether the Penetration Test (S7.2) tests the outer shell of the helmet, the Impact, Attenuation Test (S7.1) tests inner protection materials, and the Retention System Test (S7.3) tests straps that hold the helmet on the head. Each of thes e tests measures the performance of a motorcycle helmet as a total system, i.e., the tests are conducted on a motorcycle helmet as a whole, rather than on helmet components. Therefore, the tests are not limited to measuring the performance of the compon ents you cite. By way of example, while the shell of the helmet may play a critical role in a helmet's resistance to penetration, the composition and thickness of the liner may also be important. Similarly, while certain components are more important th an others in meeting certain criteria, overall design and construction of the helmet will determine whether it meets the impact attenuation and retention requirements.

You next ask whether Standard No. 218 specifies the types or amounts of material to be used in manufacturing helmets. Standard No. 218 specifies performance requirements for motorcycle helmets. A manufacturer may use any types or amounts of materials t hat enable the manufacturer to fully comply with the standard.

While Standard No. 218 does not specify that certain materials must be used in manufacturing a helmet, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's (NHTSA) experience in over 20 years of helmet testing indicates that helmets meeting Standard No. 218 have common characteristics. The first of these is a dense foam liner that is approximately one inch thick. Helmets with thinner liners or liners composed of a soft compressible foam are not likely to meet the impact attenuation or penetration requ irements of the Standard. The weight of the helmet, while not governed by any section of Standard No. 218, is also a good indicator of how it will perform in testing. Although it may be technically possible to build a lightweight helmet that satisfies the performance requirements of Standard No. 218, NHTSA is not aware of any motorcycle helmet weighing less than three pounds that has done so.

Finally, you ask whether Standard No. 218 precludes decorating a helmet with any material such as leather or cloth, or with items such as wigs, flowers, decals or hats.

The various helmet decorations you describe could affect a motorcycle helmet's compliance with a variety of Standard No. 218's performance requirements. One example is S5.5, Projections. The inside of the shell must be free of protruding rivets or other projections. The presence of any projections within the helmet indicates that it is not a complying helmet. Projecting snaps or other objects are permitted on the outside of the helmet only if they are required for essential accessories such as visors or face shields. Any projection on the outside of a helmet must not protrude more than five millimeters.

I note that under 49 U.S.C. @ 30112(a), "a person may not manufacture for sale, sell, offer for sale, introduce or deliver for introduction in interstate commerce, or import into the United States" a new motorcycle helmet that does not comply with Standa rd No. 218. Also, dealers and repair businesses may not modify new or used motorcycle helmets in a manner that results in the helmet no longer complying with the standard. Any of these parties must therefore ensure that any contemplated decorations wou ld not affect a helmet's compliance with Standard No. 218.

Federal law does not address modifications made by a motorcycle helmet owner to his or her own helmet. However, it is NHTSA's policy to discourage motorcycle helmet users from modifying their helmets. This is because even relatively simple modification s can reduce the safety protection provided by the helmet. S5.6.1(f)(3) of Standard No. 218 requires the following instruction to be placed on helmets: "Make no modifications . . ." I also note that State laws may address modifications made by motorcycle helmet owners to their own helmets.

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

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