ID: 11345WKM

Mr. Lance Tunick
Manager, Special Projects
Vehicle Science Corporation
Post Office Box 1015
Golden, CO 80402-1015

Dear Mr. Tunick:

This responds to your letter asking whether your rear side door locking system would meet the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 206, Door locks and door retention components (49 CFR 571.206). The answer is a qualified yes.

By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has the authority to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA, however, does not approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, nor do we endorse any commercial products. The following represents our opinion based on the facts set forth in your letter.

You stated that on your locking system, the first pull of the inside rear door handle unlocks the door but does not release the latch to open the door. The second pull releases the latch to open the door. These features are in addition to a "child safety lock." You asked whether your rear side door locking system would comply with the requirements of S4.1.3 and S4.1.3.2 of FMVSS No. 206.

Paragraph S4.1.3, FMVSS No. 206 provides:

Door Locks. Each door shall be equipped with a locking mechanism with an operating means in the interior of the vehicle.

We have interpreted S4.1.3 to require the following features. Each door must have a locking mechanism, and there must be an interior operating means for engaging the locking mechanism. (See April 10, 1987 letter to Karl-Heinz Ziwica of BMW, copy enclosed.) In your letter, there is an implication that your system has an interior means for engaging each door lock. Assuming such a means is provided, the requirement of S4.1.3 would appear to be met. Because the aspect of performance required by S4.1.3 is that the interior operating means for the door locks be capable only of engaging the door locking mechanism, S4.1.3 does not address what means must be provided to unlock the locking mechanism, and thus does not prohibit unlocking a locking mechanism by means of the "inside rear door handle."

Paragraph S4.1.3.2 of FMVSS No. 206 provides:

Side Rear Door Locks. In passenger cars and multipurpose passenger vehicles, when the locking mechanism is engaged both the outside and inside door handles or other latch release controls shall be inoperative.

Your letter did not specifically state that when your locking system is engaged both the inside and outside latch release controls would be inoperative. Assuming that they would be, the question is whether the inside door handle on your system is "inoperative" when the handle can still operate to disengage the locking mechanism. We conclude that the answer is yes. This issue was addressed in an October 7, 1993 letter to Mr. Ziwica of BMW (copy enclosed), concerning a side rear door lock and latch mechanism similar to yours. The BMW system consisted of a door handle that served the dual function of acting as a door locking mechanism and door latch release. When the side door is locked, the door handle would be pulled once to disengage the locking mechanism. The handle would be pulled a second time to open the side rear door.

In NHTSA's response to BMW, the agency stated that S4.1.3.2 is intended, in part, to reduce inadvertent door openings due to impact on or movement of inside or outside door handles. Thus, the agency concluded that "inoperative," as used in S4.1.3.2, refers to the operation of opening the door, rather than that of disengaging the lock. Accordingly, NHTSA determined that the BMW system met the requirement of S4.1.3.2.

The door handle of your system serves the same "dual function" as that of the BMW system, and thus would be permitted. The door handle of your system cannot open the door when the locking mechanism is engaged.

You asked whether the second pull unlatching the door could occur at any time after the first pull, or only within a specific time frame after the first pull. The standard does not specify that a door can only be unlatched after a certain amount of time from disengagement of the door lock. The second pull unlatching the door can thus occur at any time after the first pull.

Finally, you stated that you were concerned about the final rule of April 27, 1968, 33 FR 6465, which promulgated the rear door lock requirements discussed today. You quoted that portion of the preamble to the final rule which stated that the requirement for rear door locks was a child-protection device because it prevents opening the rear door by movement of the inside rear door handle by children. You asked us to "address this issue."

As explained above, your locking system would meet S4.1.3.2 because, when the locking mechanism is engaged, the inside door handle cannot open the door. Since the inside door handle cannot open the door when the door is locked, that aspect of performance serves as a child protection measure. However, we agree with your decision to equip the door with a child safety lock. A child safety lock, when engaged, renders the inside rear door handle incapable of opening the door. The outside door handle is operative and can be used to open the door. The lever deactivating the child safety lock is typically inaccessible to the child passenger. A child safety lock may be appropriate as an added child protection measure.

Notwithstanding the foregoing discussion, the system you describe raises serious safety concerns, in that a child could disengage the lock and then open the door by playing with the handle. The fact that your proposed system would also be equipped with a Atraditional child lock@ reduces but does not eliminate such concerns.

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

Sincerely,

Samuel J. Dubbin Chief Counsel

Enclosures

ref:206 d:3/28/96

The capability of the operating means to engage the required door locks must not be interfered with by any additional door locking device.

ID: nht80-1.23

DATE: 03/04/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Ross Frame & Axle, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your January 8, 1980, letter asking whether the computers connected to the air brake systems of trucks can be disconnected.

The computerized braking systems were used by some manufacturers to comply with the requirements of Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems. Part of that safety standard was invalidated by the court in PACCAR v. NHTSA, 532 F2d. 632 (9th Cir. 1978). In that decision, the Court invalidated portions of the standard involving some of the road test requirements for trucks and trailers. The computer systems that you question were usually added for purposes of complying with the invalidated antilock sections of the standard.

The agency has previously addressed the question of whether the antilock systems can be disconnected in light of the court decision. Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Act) states that--

No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or part, any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard . . . .

The issue is whether the antilock was "installed . . . . in compliance with an applicable . . . . standard." Because the NHTSA concluded that the "no lockup" and 60-mph stopping distances have been invalidated from the effective date of the standard, we also conclude that a manufacturer could not have actually been installing antilock systems or the brake performance levels in satisfaction of such a requirement, however much intended. Therefore, the NHTSA would not consider it to be a violation of @ 108(a)(2)(A) for a commercial facility to disconnect an antilock system or to provide instructions on how it can safely be disconnected. The NHTSA recommends that any modification be undertaken only after consulting with the manufacturer about the safest configuration of the particular vehicle.

SINCERELY

Jan. 8, 1980

National Highway Traffic Safety Admin.

Attn: Office of Administration

Dear Sirs:

I run a truck repair shop in southern Ohio. One of my customers has around thirty-five trucks. The largest percentage of these are equipped with the computerized braking system. Due to one accident and constant problems with the other trucks, it is their desire to disconnect the computers from their trucks braking system.

We have received word from the manufacture that this is now legal. My customer requests, in writing, a verification of this matter so they may turn it over to their lawyer for verification, so that in case of an accident, there will not be a law suit due to the disconnecting of the computerized brakes.

Any information you may have about this, please send to me so I may forward it on to my customer.

Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.

Joe Cain Ross Frame & Axle, Inc.

ID: 17179.wkm

Mr. Curtis M. Spencer
President
John Evans Manufacturing Company, Inc.
P. O. Box 669
Sumter, SC 29150

Dear Mr. Spencer:

Please pardon the delay in responding to your letter addressed to the attention of Walter Myers of my staff in which you asked whether the antilock brake system (ABS) requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (Standard) No. 121, Air brake systems, would apply to a "loader frame" that your company manufactures. The answer is no.

You stated in your letter that your company manufactures, among other things, "loader frames" that are used to transport log loading machinery to and from logging operation sites. You explained that a log loader is attached to the loader frame and used in forestry harvesting operations to load cut timber onto log trailers for transport to paper mills or wood yards. You also stated that loader frames are designed for incidental highway use between job sites, thus are classified as portable machinery and thereby exempt from the Federal excise tax.

Chapter 301 of Title 49, U.S. Code (hereinafter Safety Act) authorizes the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to establish Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. The Safety Act defines "motor vehicle" as:

[A] vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power and manufactured primarily for use on the public streets, roads, and highways, but does not include a vehicle operated only on a rail line.

49 U.S. Code 30102(6).

You enclosed with your letter pictures of loader frames, both with and without log loaders attached, and a copy of a letter with the addressee deleted that I wrote on May 14, 1997. In that letter I stated that a "knuckle boom loader trailer" does not constitute a motor vehicle within the statutory definition and therefore does not need to be equipped either with ABS or with underride protection. Similarly, it is our opinion that your loader frame is not a motor vehicle within the statutory definition. It is used as a platform on which to mount a log loader, which in turn is used primarily at off-road logging sites. The loader frame with attached log loader is occasionally transported over the public roadways from one job site to another at which the combined equipment typically spends extended periods of time. In that case, the on-highway use of the loader frame is merely incidental and is not the primary purpose for which the vehicle was manufactured. This is in contrast to instances in which vehicles such as dump trucks frequently use the public roads and highways going to and from off-road job sites, but stay there for only a limited time. Such vehicles are considered motor vehicles for purposes of the Safety Act, since their on-road use is more than "incidental."

In summary, it is our opinion that your loader frame is not a motor vehicle, and therefore not subject to the ABS requirements of Standard No. 121.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions or need additional information, feel free to contact Mr. Myers at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992, fax (202) 366-3820.

Sincerely,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
Ref:121#VSA
d.5/6/98

ID: 86-1.29

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/10/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Mr. T. Chikada

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

February 10, 1986 Mr. T. Chikada Manager, Automotive Lighting Engineering Control Dept. Stanley Electric Co., Ltd. 2-9-13, Nakameguro, Meguro-ku Tokyo 153, Japan Dear Mr. Chikada: This is in reply to your letter of November 13, 1985, to the former Chief Counsel of this agency, Jeffrey R. Miller, with respect to the ratio of the candlepower between the taillamp, stop lamp, and turn signal lamp (Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108). You have enclosed a hypothetical two-compartment lamp design which could be manufactured in three variations of stop, turn signal, and taillamp combinations (layout 1, layout 2, and layout 3). Standard No. 108 incorporates by reference various SAE standards which prescribe candlepower ratios for multiple compartment lamps (J585e Taillamps; J586c Stop Lamps; J588e Turn Signal Lamps). You ask how you can apply the ratio of the candlepower between the lamps. The requirements to which you refer are contained in Note 4 to Table 1 of each of the referenced SAE standards, which in turn cite paragraph 3.1 of each standard. The first sentence of Note 4 establishes the ratio when one function is combined with another (that is to say, optically combined within a single compartment). The second sentence of Note 4 provides, however, that if a multiple compartment lamp is used and the distance between the optical axis for both functions is within the dimensions specified in paragraph 3.1, the ratio is computed with all the compartments lighted. The third sentence of Note 4 states that if these dimensions are exceeded the ratio is computed for only those compartments where the functions are optically combined. In layout 1 the turn signal lamp is not combined with the tail/stop lamp and you have asked for confirmation that only the ratio between the tail lamp and stop lamp must be considered. That is correct. The dimension specified in paragraph 3.1 of each of the SAE standards is a maximum of 22 inches between filament centers in two-compartment lamps. Your layout 2 combines the tail lamp and turn signal lamp in one compartment, and the tail lamp and stop lamp in the second, whereas in layout 3 the first compartment contains one lamp, the tail lamp, and in the second compartment, the tail lamp, stop lamp, and turn signal lamp are present. You ask for confirmation that only the ratios of the lamps in the individual compartments shall be considered. Your hypothetical lamp design does not depict the distance between filament centers of each function, but if they exceed 22 inches then you are correct with respect to layouts 2 and 3. If the distance is less than 22 inches, then the ratio is computed with both compartments lighted. I hope that this answers your questions.

Sincerely, Original Signed By Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

ID: nht70-2.24

DATE: 09/03/70

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Douglas W. Toms; NHTSA

TO: General Motors Corporation

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: On August 13, 1970, you petitioned, on behalf of General Motors Corporation, for reconsideration of the amendment of 49 CFR 571.3, published on July 14, 1970 (35 F. R. 11242), which established a definition of "fixed collision barrier". The views presented in your petition have been carefully considered. For the reasons stated below, your petition is denied.

You argued that the phrase "absorb no significant portion of the vehicle's Kinetic energy" was subjective, and therefore not in accord with the statutory requirement that standards be stated in objective terms. This argument is without merit. It appears to be based on the misconception that the purpose of the definition is to describe, or prescribe standards for, a manufacturer's test barrier, as evidenced by your statement that it "gives manufacturer no guidelines for determing whether or not he has built a barrier which complies with the definition." The Bureau does not intend that manufacturers should build barriers to "comply with the definition." As stated in the notice,

"this is not intended to be a description of an actual test barrier. It is a device used in various standards to establish required quantitative performance levels of a vehicle in a crash situation, and means simply that the vehicle must meet the requirement no matter how small an amount of energy is absorbed by the barrier."

Far from being subjective, the definition is mathematically precise. As the energy absorption of the barrier approaches zero as a limit, the performance characteristic being measured must remain at or above the minimum stated in the standard.

From a practical standpoint, the definition is an important aid in regulation, and is a help to all parties in that a potential source of controversy concerning compliance with the standards is removed. It simply means that when the Bureau crash-tests a vehicle, the vehicle must meet the requirement no matter what the energy-absorption properties of the barrier, and therefore there is no room for argument on the differing properties of the Bureau's and the manufacturer's test barriers. The purpose of the standards is to regulate vehicles and equipment, not test barriers; manufacturers may use whatever barriers or tests they wish to ensure compliance It is a reasonably simple matter to erect a barrier that absorbs only a minute fraction of an impacting vehicle's energy. A conscientious manufacturer should therefore have no difficulty in determining whether a particular design will meet a standard.

Your petition also argued that the definition was impracticable because

"there is no known method of measuring the amount of energy absorbed by a barrier. Therefore, there is no way that the manufacturer could even attempt to determine whether or not his barrier complied with the definition, and, more importantly, whether or not his vehicle when tested complied with the performance requirements of the standards."

The energy absorption of a barrier is a direct function of the movement of the barrier during the impact. To be sure, there are other properties, such as its effective mass and elasticity, that also are factors in energy absorption. But it is clear that as the barrier movement approaches zero, the energy absorption also approaches zero; and the barrier movement can be measured, as you indicated by your recommendation that a specified amount of movement be allowed. In all cases where the vehicle has a tangible margin of safety performance over the required minimum, therefor, a manufacturer will have no difficulty in determining that his vehicle complies,

If our standards "allowed" barrier movement, it would be far more difficult to establish conclusively that a given vehicle did not meet the standard, since it would always be open to the manufacturer to argue that the Bureau's barrier did not move as far, and consequently did not absorb as much energy, as the standard allowed. To the extent that there may be a small degree of uncertainty as to the variance is the vehicle test performance caused by the variance of a barrier from zero absorption, that uncertainty must rest with the manufacturer, who is free to design into his vehicles whatever margin of performance he desires.

This matter was thoroughly considered by the Bureau, and the opinions of knowledgeable members of the public were sought and carefully evaluated. For these reasons, your petition for reconsideration must be denied.

We appreciate your cooperation in the field of motor vehicle safety.

ID: 05-001084drn

Mr. Jim Kaplan
Cornell Dubilier
140 Technology Place
Liberty, SC 29657




Dear Mr. Kaplan:

This responds to your letter asking a number of questions about the regulations of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) as applied to your manufacture of pickup truck assemblies. You explain that you want to provide purchasers "all steel cars, with steel panels and steel frames including all the wiring and subassemblies needed for driving with the exception of the drive train". You also explain that you "would like to be able to provide the drive train processing service to the purchaser saving them the trouble of going to two different companies for their finished vehicle".

By way of background, NHTSA has the authority to establish regulations for motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment (49 U.S.C. Chapter 301, "the Safety Act". ) The Safety Act defines "motor vehicle" in part as a vehicle that is "driven by mechanical power" (49 U.S.C. 30102(a)(6)). The Safety Act defines "manufacturer" as a person "manufacturing or assembling motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment; or.importing motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment for resale". 49 U.S.C. 30102(a)(5).

We have stated in past interpretation letters that a unit would be considered only an assemblage of motor vehicle equipment, and not a motor vehicle, until such time as a power source is added. (July 9, 1993, letter to Christopher Banner, copy enclosed. ) We have also stated in past interpretation letters that, if an unassembled vehicle were sold with all of the parts needed to produce a completed vehicle, we would treat the unassembled vehicle as a motor vehicle for purposes of our regulations. (See February 16, 2005, letter to Kevin Alsop, copy enclosed. )

If you did not provide the drive train, you would not be considered as selling a motor vehicle. However, you describe an arrangement in which you would charge the purchaser the total price of the vehicle with a processing fee and engine installation fee. You would have the vehicle sent to the engine installer, and would pay the engine installer its fee for installing the engine. The engine installer would then send the vehicle back to you so the purchaser could pick it up from you. We believe that in this situation, you are providing the power source with the assemblage. You are charging the customer for the complete truck, and the engine installer appears to be akin to just a subcontractor to your company. Accordingly, in this situation, we would consider the unassembled vehicle to be a "motor vehicle" and you to be a motor vehicle manufacturer.

Your first several questions ask about parties responsibilities for complying with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs). Under the Safety Act, manufacturers of motor vehicles have the responsibility to certify that their vehicles comply with all applicable FMVSSs. Note that under 49 CFR 567.4(g)(1)(ii):

If a vehicle is fabricated and delivered in complete but unassembled form, such that it is designed to be assembled without special machinery or tools, the fabricator of the vehicle may affix the [certification] label and name itself as the manufacturer[. ](Emphasis added.)

Your fourth question asked, "Can I provide a vehicle identification number (VIN) for registration purposes?If so, who would provide that, us or the installer?"As the vehicle manufacturer, your company is responsible for assigning VINs to the trucks, and must ensure that the trucks meet all VIN requirements specified in 49 CFR Part 565, Vehicle Identification Number Requirements.

Your last question asked about supplying a warranty for the vehicle. Our regulations do not govern this issue.

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

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

Enclosures
ref:567
d.3/17/05

ID: 8404r

Mr. Steve Thomas
General Manager
Texas Bragg Enterprises
Route 6, Box 875
Mt. Pleasant, TX 75455

Dear Mr. Thomas:

This responds to your letter of March 16, 1993, addressed to Walter Myers of this office. You stated in your letter that several of your dealers want to buy trailers from you without tires and wheels. You expressed doubt that those dealers have that many customers desiring to mount their own tires and wheels, and asked whether you can legally sell trailers to your dealers without tires and wheels and if so, whether you need them to sign a waiver or form to that effect.

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 120. Tire selection and rims for motor vehicles other than passenger cars (copy enclosed), provides that each vehicle equipped with pneumatic tires for highway use must be equipped with tires that, in the case of trailers, meet the requirements of Standard No. 119, New pneumatic tires for vehicles other than passenger cars (copy enclosed). Rims mounted on new trailers must meet the requirements of S5.2 of Standard 120.

There is, however, no specific requirement in Standard 120 that vehicles be equipped with tires and wheels. In fact, this agency's definition of a "completed vehicle" envisions the situation where a vehicle is sold without tires and wheels. That definition is set forth at 49 CFR Part 568.3, which defines a "completed vehicle" as "a vehicle that requires no further manufacturing operations to perform its intended function, other than the addition of readily attachable components, such as mirrors or tire and rim assemblies, or minor finishing operations such as painting" (emphasis added).

The trailer dealers to whom you ship your trailers are required by the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, 15 U.S. Code 1381 - 1431 (Safety Act) to sell vehicles that comply with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards, including Standard 120. Therefore, if they sell the trailers with tires and wheels installed, those tires and wheels must meet the requirements for tires and wheels set forth in Standard 120.

In the event a new trailer sold by one of your dealers has tires and wheels that do not meet the applicable requirements of Standard 120, from a compliance standpoint it would be important to determine who equipped that vehicle with the noncomplying tires and wheels. Therefore, although not required by this agency, you might consider obtaining written statements or acknowledgements from the dealers concerned that you provided the trailers without tires and wheels, and retain those documents for your records. You might also consider consulting your attorney regarding any potential liability on your part for the actions of your dealers. Finally, we recommend that you inform any dealer whom you know to be considering installing noncomplying tires and wheels on your trailers to contact this agency for information about their responsibility under the Safety Act to sell trailers that meet the requirements of Standard 120.

I hope this information will clarify this matter for you. If you have any further questions or need further clarification, please feel free to contact Mr. Myers at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosures ref:120#119 d:4/14/93

ID: nht93-3.1

DATE: April 14, 1993

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, U.S. Department of Transportation, NHTSA

TO: Steve Thomas -- General Manager, Texas Bragg Enterprises

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 3-16-93 from Steve Thomas to Walter Meyers (OCC 8404)

TEXT: This responds to your letter of March 16, 1993, addressed to Walter Myers of this office. You stated in your letter that several of your dealers want to buy trailers from you without tires and wheels. You expressed doubt that those dealers have that many customers desiring to mount their own tires and wheels, and asked whether you can legally sell trailers to your dealers without tires and wheels and if so, whether you need them to sign a waiver or form to that effect.

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 120. TIRE SELECTION AND RUINS FOR MOTOR VEHICLES OTBOR THAN PASSENGER CARS (copy enclosed), provides that each vehicle equipped with pneumatic tires for highway use must be equipped with tires that, in the case of trailers, meet the requirements of Standard No. 119, NEW PNEUMATIC TIRES FOR VEHICLES OTHER THAN PASSENGER CARS (copy enclosed). Rims mounted on new trailers must meet the requirements of S5.2 of Standard 120.

There is, however, no specific requirement in Standard 120 that vehicles be equipped with tires and wheels. In fact, this agency's definition of a "completed vehicle" envisions the situation where a vehicle is sold without tires and wheels. That definition is set forth at 49 CFR Part 568.3, which defines a "completed vehicle" as "a vehicle that requires no further manufacturing operations to perform its intended function, other than the addition of readily attachable components, such as mirrors OR TIRE AND RIM ASSEMBLIES, or minor finishing operations such as painting" (emphasis added).

The trailer dealers to whom you ship your trailers are required by the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, 15 U.S. Code SS 1381 - 1431 (Safety Act) to sell vehicles that comply with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards, including Standard 120. Therefore, if they sell the trailers with tires and wheels installed, those tires and wheels must meet the requirements for tires and wheels set forth in Standard 120.

In the event a new trailer sold by one of your dealers has tires and wheels that do not meet the applicable requirements of Standard 120, from a compliance standpoint it would be important to determine who equipped that vehicle with the noncomplying tires and wheels. Therefore, although not required by this agency, you might consider obtaining written statements or acknowledgements from the dealers concerned that you provided the trailers without tires and wheels, and retain those documents for your records. You might also consider consulting your attorney regarding any potential liability on your part for the actions of your dealers. Finally, we recommend that you inform any dealer whom you know to be considering installing noncomplying tires and wheels on your trailers to contact this agency for information about their responsibility under the Safety Act to sell trailers that meet the requirements of Standard

120.

I hope this information will clarify this matter for you. If you have any further questions or need further clarification, please feel free to contact Mr. Myers at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

Attachments: Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard Nos. 119 and 120 (Text omitted.)

ID: 19883.wkm

Tim Broten, President
Skiddd Wheel Indicator
Box 129
Starbuck, Mb.
ROG 2PO
CANADA

Dear Mr. Broten:

Your letter to Mr. Ron Evenson, State Director, Office of Motor Carrier Safety, Bismarck, North Dakota, was forwarded to this agency for reply.

You stated in your letter that your company produces the Skiddd wheel lock indicator that is described as a strip of special nylon plastic that is attached to the wheel stud of a truck. The Skiddd protrudes out from the wheel about two inches, which allows the driver to see from his rear view mirror whether the wheel is turning. The intent is to permit the driver to determine from the truck cab whether the wheels are in fact turning or whether one or more of them are skidding. You asked for a "letter of approval" to indicate that the Skiddd indicator complies with applicable safety standards.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has the statutory authority to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. Federal law establishes a self-certification system under which motor vehicle and equipment manufacturers themselves certify that their products comply with all applicable FMVSSs. For that reason, NHTSA neither tests, approves, disapproves, endorses, nor grants letters of approval of products prior to their introduction into the retail market. Rather, we enforce compliance with the FMVSSs by purchasing vehicles and equipment and testing them. We also investigate safety-related defects.

Turning now to the Skiddd wheel lock indicator, we would classify it as an item of motor vehicle equipment, defined in 49 U.S. Code (U.S.C.) 30102(a)(7)(B) as any "part or component manufactured or sold for replacement or improvement of a system, part, or component, or as an accessory or addition to a motor vehicle." Specifically, the Skiddd wheel lock indicator is an accessory if it meets the following criteria:

a. A substantial portion of its expected uses are related to the operation or maintenance of motor vehicles; and

b. It is purchased or otherwise acquired, and principally used by ordinary users of motor vehicles.

After reviewing your letter and its enclosed product brochure, we conclude that the Skiddd wheel lock indicator is an accessory. It was designed with the expectation that a substantial portion of its expected use will be with motor vehicles. Further, the pictures of the Skiddd in the brochure make it clear that the wheel lockup indicator is intended to be purchased and principally used by ordinary users of motor vehicles, mostly truck drivers, to continuously monitor whether their wheels are turning properly.

While the Skiddd wheel lock indicator is a motor vehicle accessory, NHTSA has not issued any FMVSSs establishing performance standards applicable to this product. However, the manufacturer, whether you or a licensee, is subject to the requirements of 49 U.S.C. 30118 - 30121 (copies enclosed) which set forth the recall and remedy procedures for products with defects related to motor vehicle safety. Thus, if NHTSA or the manufacturer determines that the product contains a safety-related defect, the manufacturer is responsible for notifying purchasers of the defective equipment and for remedying the problem free of charge to the consumer.

Additionally, 49 U.S.C. 30122 (copy enclosed) provides that a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or vehicle repair business may not knowingly "make inoperative" any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle in accordance with any FMVSS. Therefore, the Skiddd could not be installed by one of those entities if such use would adversely affect the compliance of a vehicle with any FMVSS. This provision does not apply, however, to equipment attached to or installed on or in a vehicle by the vehicle owner.

I note that the Department's Office of Motor Carrier Safety has jurisdiction over interstate motor carriers operating in the U.S. On August 18, 1999, the Vehicle and Operations Division of that agency responded to your inquiry about using the Skiddd indicator on commercial motor vehicles. We have coordinated this response through the Acting Director of the Office of Motor Carrier Safety.

For your further information, I am enclosing a fact sheet we prepared entitled Information for New Manufacturers of Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Equipment, and Where to Obtain NHTSA's Safety Standards and Regulations.

I hope this information is helpful to you. If you have any questions or need additional information, feel free to contact Edward Glancy of my staff at this address, by telephone at (202) 366-2992, or by fax at (202) 366-3820.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
Enclosures

cc: Mr. Ronald O. Evenson
State Director
Office of Motor Carrier Safety
1471 Interstate Loop
Bismarck, ND 58501

ref:119
d.11/23/99

ID: 7548

Ms Carrie Minna
1942 Port Albans
Newport Beach, CA 92660

Dear Ms Minna:

This responds to your letter of July 13, 1992, with respect to your wish to import certain motor vehicles for use off main highways, in "small guarded gate communities such as Golf resorts, small island communities, and possible elderly communities." The vehicles appear to be of Asian origin, are three-wheeled and carry from three to eight passengers. The top speed of the vehicles is 80 kph.

This agency interprets and enforces the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act under which the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (the "standards") are promulgated. The Act defines a motor vehicle as one that is "manufactured primarily for use on the public streets, roads, and highways." You will see from this that the primary determinant of whether the vehicle you wish to import is a "motor vehicle" is the manufacturer's intent, rather than your intent as the purchaser. It is clear to us from the speed capability of the vehicle (not to mention that one of them carries a "taxi" sign) that these vehicles are motor vehicles within the meaning of the Act and are therefore required to meet all applicable standards in order to be imported into the United States, notwithstanding your intent to use them in traffic off the public roads.

The standards that the vehicles are required to meet are those that apply to motorcycles, specifically to brake hoses, brakes, brake fluid, lamps and reflectors, rearview mirrors, vehicle identification number, controls and displays, and glazing. If the motorcycles are originally manufactured to conform with the standards, and bear a certification to that effect affixed by their manufacturer, they may enter the United States as manufactured in compliance with the U.S. standards of this agency.

It is probable, however, that the vehicles have not been manufactured to conform with the standards. In order for a nonconforming vehicle to be imported, the Administrator of this agency must have determined that they are capable of being modified to comply with the standards. Such determinations are most frequently made on the petition of the manufacturer or an entity known as a "Registered Importer." A Registered Importer is one that has been recognized by the agency as capable of performing conformance work. Once the Administrator has determined that a vehicle is eligible for importation, it may be imported only by Registered Importers, or those who have contracted with a Registered Importer to perform the work necessary to bring the vehicle into compliance with the standards. No eligibility determinations have been made that cover the vehicles you wish to import.

If you are interested in pursuing this matter further, you may write Robert Hellmuth, Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, NHTSA, 400 Seventh Street SW, Washington, D.C. 20590. Mr. Hellmuth can provide guidance on the motorcycle standards and other obligations, as well as a list of Registered Importers and information on the eligibility determination procedures.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

ref:VSA d:7/31/92