ID: nht79-3.23

DATE: 11/29/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: GSA Center

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your September 21, 1979, letter asking about the certification requirements for vehicles that are purchased by the government. In particular, you ask if certification is required for both new and used vehicles that are purchased and subsequently altered by either a contractor or the government.

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.) requires manufacturers to certify all new vehicles in compliance with Federal safety standards. Accordingly, all new vehicles, whether or not purchased for use by the government, must be certified in compliance with the safety standards. An exception exists for military vehicles. Used vehicles, on the other hand, need not be certified at the time they are altered. However, any repair business, dealer, or manufacturer making such an alteration must not render inoperative the compliance of the vehicle with safety standards in effect at the time of its original manufacture. Application of these general rules to your specific questions results in certain instances when certification would be required.

In your first example, the government purchases cab and chassis units as well as the desired bodies for the units. The bodies are subsequently attached to the chassis by a commercial installer or by the government's own shop. Since the installer or government (depending on who does the attaching) would be the final-stage manufacturer of these vehicles, the rules for the certification of new vehicles apply. Typically, a cab and chassis unit is delivered to a final-stage manufacturer with only an incomplete vehicle certification label and an incomplete vehicle document. If this is the case with your vehicles, they must have a final-stage certification label on them prior to use. That label would be attached by either the commercial business doing the installation or by the government's own shops in those instances where the government is the final-stage manufacturer.

In your second example, vehicles are procured by the government in a complete form and subsequently altered by the government or by a commercial business. We assume that the vehicles when purchased were certified by their manufacturers as completed vehicles. In such cases, the government may alter the vehicles and need not attach any additional labels. Any vehicle owner may alter completed vehicles in any manner that he or she chooses. We suggest that the government take steps to ensure that alteration of its vehicles is done in such a manner as not to impair its compliance with the standards. If a commercial enterprise alters the vehicle while it is still new, that business should attach an alterer's label indicating that as altered the vehicle continues to comply with the safety standard. If a commercial business alters a used vehicle, no label is required, because the labeling requirements apply only to new vehicles.

Your third example pertains to a truck that is damaged in an accident and the body is transferred to another vehicle. If the vehicle to which the body is transferred is new, certification would be required as outlined in the first example. If, on the other hand, the body is added to a used vehicle, no certification is required by either a commercial business or the government.

Finally, you suggest a number of additional circumstances of vehicle modifications and ask whether certification is required. Again, if the modifications pertain to new vehicles, certification labels are necessary in cases similar to those described above. If the vehicles are used, certification labels are not required. If you have further questions concerning this topic, you should contact Roger Tilton of my staff at 202-426-9511.

ID: nht90-2.86

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: June 14, 1990

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Normand Laurendeau, Esq. -- Guy And Gilbert

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 8/4/95 LETTER FROM JOHN WOMACK TO JEREL M. SACHS (A43; STD. 205; REDBOOK 2); ALSO ATTACHED TO 6/26/95 LETTER FROM JEREL M. SACHS TO CLARKE HARPER; ALSO ATTACHED TO 8/4/86 LETTER FROM ERIKA JONES TO HENRY A. GORRY; ALSO ATTACHED TO 6 /10/87 LETTER FROM ERIKA JONES TO DAVID C. MAROON

TEXT: Dear Mr. Laurendeau:

Thank you for your letter on behalf of your client, who distributes auto glass parts in Canada. You had two questions regarding your client's status as an "intermediate" in the motor vehicle industry.

Before I address your specific questions, I believe some background information about this agency may be of assistance to you. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has the authority under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safe ty Act (Safety Act) to issue safety standards 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. Instead, the Act establishes a "self-certification" process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet our safety standards. The agency periodically tests vehicles and equipment items for compliance with the standards, and al so investigates other alleged safety-related defects. I have enclosed an information sheet which briefly describes each of a manufacturer's responsibilities under the Safety Act. The information sheet also explains how a company offering an item of mot or vehicle equipment for importation into the United States must designate an agent within this country for service of process.

Your letter describes your client as "one of the major distributors of auto glass parts in all of Canada." Your letter states that your client's customers demand that your client "certifies all glasses shipped with D.O.T. number AS1 or AS2 for domestic a nd export purposes in all countries." I will now address the specific questions raised in your letter.

Your first question was whether your client, as a distributor of automotive safety glass, needs a D.O.T. number to operate in the United States. The answer to this question depends on what role your client has in the process that results in glazing bein g sold to the customer.

The agency has issued Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials (49 CFR $ 571.205) which specifies performance requirements for glazing for use in motor vehicles. S6 of Standard No. 205 establishes marking and certification requirements for manufacturers and d istributors of glazing materials.

The marking and certification requirements differ, depending upon whether your client is a "prime glazing material manufacturer" or simply a manufacturer or distributor. A "prime glazing material manufacturer" is defined in S6.1 of Standard No. 205 as " one who fabricates, laminates, or tempers the glazing material." If your client performs any of these operations, it must comply with the marking and certification requirements set forth in S6.1 through S6.3 of Standard No. 205. S6.1 requires every prim e glazing material manufacturer to mark all glazing materials it manufactures in accordance with American National Standard "Safety Code for Safety Glazing Materials for Glazing Motor Vehicles Operating on Land Highways". Z-26.1-1977, January 26, 1977, as supplemented by Z26.1a, July 3, 1980 (hereinafter referred to as "ANS Z26). S6.2 of Standard No. 205 requires each prime glazing material manufacturer to certify each piece of glazing designed as a component of any specific motor vehicle or camper by adding to the mark required by S6.1 the symbol "DOT" and a manufacturer's code mark that is assigned by this agency. S6.3 requires each prime glazing manufacturer to certify each piece of glazing designed to be cut into components for use in motor vehi cles pursuant to the requirements of section 114 of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1403).

Assuming that your client would not be considered a "prime glazing material manufacturer," but is simply a distributor, it would not need to be assigned a DOT number pursuant to S6.2 of Standard No. 205. In your letter, however, you incorrectly identifi ed the codes AS1 and AS2 as DOT numbers. Those codes are required on glazing materials by section 6 of ANS Z26. As explained below, your client may be required to add such markings to glazing materials, even if your client is only considered a distribu tor for the purposes of Standard No. 205.

Each manufacturer or distributor who cuts a section of glazing material to which Standard No. 205 applies, for use in a motor vehicle or camper, must comply with the requirements set forth in S6.4 and S6.5 of Standard No. 205. For sections of glazing th at are cut by the manufacturer or distributor, the manufacturer or distributor must mark it in accordance with section 6 of ANS Z26 (S6.4) and certify it in accordance with section 114 of the Safety Act (S6.5).

Your second question asked about the potential liability of a distributor for the certification of automotive safety glazing for importation into the United States.

If your client is required to certify glazing it distributes pursuant to the provisions in either S6.2, S6.3, or S6.5 of Standard No. 205, the failure to so certify would be a violation of the standard. Section

108(a)(1)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(1)(A)) provides 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 motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment manufactured on or after the date any appl icable Federal motor vehicle safety standard takes effect under this title unless it is in conformity with such standard . . .

Thus, if your client is required by Standard No. 205 to certify some glazing it distributes, the failure to make such a certification would be a violation of section 108(a)(1)(A) of the Safety Act. Even if your client is not required to certify the glaz ing it distributes pursuant to Standard No. 205, section 114 of the Safety Act requires every distributor of motor vehicle equipment (such as glazing) to furnish a certification. Section 114 provides: Every manufacturer or distributor of . . . motor veh icle equipment shall furnish to the distributor or dealer at the time of delivery of such . . . equipment by such . . . distributor the certification that each such . . . item of motor vehicle equipment conforms to all applicable Federal motor vehicle sa fety standards. In the case of an item of motor vehicle equipment such certification may be in the form of a label or tag on such item or on the outside of a container in which such item is delivered.

Section 108(a)(1)(C) of the Safety Act provides that no person shall fail to issue a certificate required by section 114, or issue a certificate to the effect that a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment conforms to all applicable safety stand ards, if such person in the exercise of due care has reason to know that such certificate is false or misleading in a material respect. Section 109 of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1398) provides that any violations of section 108 subject the violator to a civil penalty of not to exceed $ 1,000 for each such violation, up to a maximum penalty of $ 800,000.

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

ID: nht92-2.17

DATE: November 20, 1992

FROM: John Paul Barber -- Legislative Counsel, American Association of Blood Banks

TO: Chief Counsel -- NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 5-24-93 from John Womack to John Paul Barber (A41; Part 567; Part 571); Also attached to letter dated 4-29-91 from Paul Jackson Rice to Takeo Wakamatsu (Part 567)

TEXT: This letter is written to request an opinion on whether second stage manufacturers may affix an additional certification label with a new gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) on vehicles. This issue is important in determining if existing stocks of blood mobiles must be classified as commercial motor vehicles for purposes of the Commercial Motor Vehicle Safety Act.

The AABB is the professional and scientific organization for individuals and institutions, involved in blood banking and transfusion medicine. AABB member institutions collect virtually all of the nation's volunteer blood supply. Many AABB blood centers operate "blood mobiles" for collecting blood donations away from the blood center.

The AABB advised its members that second stage manufacturers that convert buses to blood mobiles have the authority under 47 CFR Sections 567 and 568 to affix an additional label with a new GVWR to newly converted vehicles as well as to vehicles already in use (see attached.) We have since received a legal opinion asserting that Sections 567 and 568 PRECLUDE affixing an additional label to vehicles already in use.

We recognize that Sections 567 and 568 do not expressly authorize a second stage manufacturer to affix an additional label establishing a new GVWR for vehicles already in use. However, we analyzed the law and determined that a second stage manufacturer is not PROHIBITED from affixing an additional label with a new GVWR to vehicles already in use.

We interpret Section 108 of the National Traffic and Safety Act to render federal motor vehicle regulations that are not safety standards inapplicable to motor vehicles after they are sold in good faith for purposes other than resale. We therefore conclude that since the labeling requirements found in Sections 567 and 568 are not safety standards, second stage manufacturers may affix additional labels with a new GVWR to blood mobiles already in use.

Please provide us with your opinion regarding whether second stage manufacturers may affix additional labels with a new GVWR to vehicles after they are sold for purposes other than resale. Also, will affixing a new label with an adjusted GVWR have the Chief effect of rendering existing blood mobiles noncommercial motor vehicles for purposes of the Commercial Motor Vehicle Safety Act?

Thank you for your assistance on this issue and I look forward to receiving your response.

Attached to letter dated 9-24-92 from E. Shannon Cooper, MD, President, and Joel M. Solomon, PhD, Executive Director, to AABB Institutional Members "Re: Licensing Requirements Bloodmobile Operators: Gross Vehicle Weight Rating Change Recommended."

(Text omitted.)

ID: 86-3.6

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 05/02/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: South Carolina Legislature

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

The Honorable Ralph Davenport South Carolina Legislature P.O. 1301 Spartanburg, SC 20394

Dear Mr. Davenport:

This is to follow up on your phone conversation with Stephen Oesch of my staff concerning the effect of Federal regulations on the tinting of motor vehicle windows. I hope the following discussion answers your questions.

Some background information on how Federal motor vehicle safety laws and regulations affect the tinting of vehicle windows may be helpful. Our agency is authorized, under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and certain items of motor vehicle equipment. We have issued Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials, which specifies performance and location requirements for glazing used in vehicles. These requirements include specifications for minimum levels of light transmittance (70% in areas requisite for driving visibility, which includes all windows in passenger cars).

You first asked if the Federal motor vehicle safety standards apply to foreign vehicles sold in the United States. As with all our standards, Standard No. 205 applies to any new vehicle, whether made by a foreign or domestic company, manufactured for sale in the United States. Thus, no manufacturer or dealer is permitted to install solar films and other sun screen devices in new vehicles without certifying that the vehicle continues to be in compliance with the light transmittance and other requirements of the standard. Violation of Standard No. 205 can result in Federal civil penalties of up to $1,000 for each violation. In addition, a manufacturer of a vehicle that does not comply with our standards is required to remedy any noncompliances in its vehicles.

You also asked how Federal law affects businesses that tinted the windows of used vehicles. After a vehicle is first sold to a consumer, modifications to a vehicle are affected by section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Vehicle Safety Act. That section prohibits commercial businesses from tampering with safety equipment installed on a vehicle in compliance with our standards. Thus, no dealer, manufacturer, repair business or distributor can install a sun screen device for the owner of the vehicle, if the device would cause the window not to meet the requirements of Standard No 205. Violation of section 100(a)(2)(A) can result in Federal civil penalties of up to $1,000 for each violation.

Section 108(a)(2)(A) does not affect vehicle owners, who may themselves alter their vehicles as they please, so long as they adhere to all State requirements. Thus, under Federal law, the owner may install sun screening devices regardless of whether the installation adversely affects the light transmittance, However, the agency recommends that vehicle owners not install materials that would impair their vision and thus adversely affect safety. Individual States govern the operational use of vehicles by their owners and therefore it is within the authority of the States to preclude owners from using sun screens in their vehicles.

If you need further information, please let me know.

Sincerely,

Original Signed By

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

ID: nht80-1.20

DATE: 02/29/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Kawasaki Motors Corp. USA

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of January 24, 1980, to Mr. Schwartz of my office requesting an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 115.

I understand from your letter that Kawasaki Motors Corp., USA, intends to comply with S4.3 of Safety Standard No. 115 by placing the vehicle identification number (VIN) on the certification label of the motorcycles it manufactures. Since the standard specifies the precise placement of the VIN only for passenger cars and trucks with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less (S4.4), placing the VIN on the certification label of motorcycles is authorized.

You also wish to know whether Standard No. 115 precludes Kawasaki stamping a model designation and production sequence into the frame near the certification label. As long as the number which you stamp into the frame cannot be mistaken for the VIN because of its length or other factors, this would not be prohibited.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

Research & Development Center

January 24, 1980

Frederic Schwartz -- Office of Chief Counsel, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Re: Interpretation of FMVSS 115 V.I.N. Requirements

Dear Mr. Schwartz:

This letter requests your confirmation that Kawasaki's interpretation of, and action to be taken under, the requirements of 49 CFR 571.115 is correct.

The Vehicle Identification Number (VIN) regulations promulgated by NHTSA at 49 CFR 571.115 (FMVSS 115) require vehicle manufacturers to assign to each motor vehicle a unique vehicle identification number, consisting of 17 digits (16 plus check). This VIN is to be used in defect recall and information retrieval efforts where accuracy will benefit the goal of motor vehicle safety. As required by 571.115 S4.3:

"The vehicle identification number and check digit of each vehicle shall 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 part." Standard 115 is silent as to the specific location of the VIN. However, 49 CFR 567, Certification, specifies content and location of the required label certifying compliance with applicable NHTSA requirements. In addressing content, @ 567.4 (g) (6) requires the label to contain the vehicle identification number, while @ 567.4 (e) specifies the location of the label on motorcycles. Finally, @ 567.4 (b) requires that "(t)he label shall, unless riveted, be permanently affixed in such a manner that it cannot be removed without destroying or defacing it."

Our current VIN appears on a non-removable, per @ 567 (b), label located on the portion of the main frame through which the steering assembly pivots, meeting the applicable location requirements of @ 567(e). To accommodate the 17 digit VIN of @ 571.115, we shall simply modify the labels with the new VIN format.

At the present time, we also stamp our model designation and production sequence into the frame near the certification label, although this stamped number is more difficult to see than the VIN as it does not contrast with its background. In order to facilitate our production control we wish to continue stamping this information into the frame, while placing the new VIN on the label in the location it currently occupies. We believe the visual prominence of the VIN and its recognizable format will prevent confusion of the VIN with our internal control system identifier.

We do not interpret Standard 115 as prohibiting placement of other forms of information in a location near the VIN. We ask if you concur with this interpretation.

We are in the process of designing our VIN system and integrating the VIN into our other information control systems. Your timely response to this letter would thus be greatly appreciated.

Please contact the undersigned if more information is required.

Sincerely, KAWASAKI MOTORS CORP., U.S.A.;

Roger Hagie -- Government Relations Manager

CC: L. Yurikusa; N. Murakami

ID: 1811y

Mr. Thomas C. Gravengood
Agap'e Plastics Inc.
Grand Rapids, MI 49504

Dear Mr. Gravengood:

This is in reply to your letter of April 3, l989, to this Office enclosing samples of plastic lenses. Your company manufactures "heated lights" which appear beneficial in melting snow that accumulates on them in the winter months. In your letter, you stated:

"All lights, lenses, and materials to assemble the heated safety lights have already been certified and passed the Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. l08. We have been advised by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration that there is no motor vehicle safety standard no. for heated lights. In order for us to do business at the O.E.M. level we require a letter of approval from you to us that we may pass on to our customers so they may start ordering and we may start producing."

We have no authority to "approve" or "disapprove" items of motor vehicle equipment. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, an equipment manufacturer "approves" each of its own products that are subject to a Federal motor vehicle safety standard by certifying that it meets all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards, or (if it is a vehicle manufacturer), that the vehicle on which the lamp is installed, complies with the standards. However, we can advise you of the relationship of your product to Standard No. l08. This should prove helpful in dealings at the O.E.M. level.

There are two types of O.E.M. lighting equipment: lamps that are required by Standard No. l08, and supplementary lamps that do not come under its coverage. Although your product literature indicates that the highmounted heated taillamp supplements the original equipment lamp, it is not clear whether the heated signal lamp serves as the required signal lamp or is a supplement to the original equipment. Accordingly, this letter discusses how Standard No. l08 treats both original required and original supplemental lighting equipment.

If you are the manufacturer of original lighting equipment required by Standard No. 108, but not the manufacturer of the vehicle on which it is installed, the vehicle manufacturer, and not you, has the legal responsibility under the Act and Standard No. l08 of ensuring that the equipment complies with the standard, and of certifying that the vehicle meets all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. As a practical matter, however, vehicle manufacturers generally insist that equipment manufacturers provide assurance that their products meet Federal standards, but the "certification" they may insist upon is not required by the Act. You are correct that there is no standard that applies to heated lamps as such. The Federal standard that applies is the one imposed by Standard No. l08 for the particular equipment item (taillamps or signal lamps in this instance).

If you are manufacturing a lamp as an original equipment supplement to required original lighting equipment, the burden remains on the vehicle manufacturer who installs it. The only restriction on a supplementary lamp that Standard No. l08 imposes is that it not impair the effectiveness of the required lighting equipment (paragraph S4.1.3). Your lamps "splice into" the wiring for the taillamps and "marker lamps", according to your product literature. Therefore, it is incumbent upon the vehicle manufacturer to ensure that this installation does not negatively affect the performance of the required taillamps and signal lamps, or otherwise impair its effectiveness. If the vehicle manufacturer determines that no impairment exists, then it may certify that its vehicles comply with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards.

Observing that the product literature depicts the heated taillamp installed in the upper corners of a school bus body, we must also call attention to an additional provision of Standard No. l08. The location depicted is one that is frequently used for the clearance lamps required by Standard No. l08. Paragraph S4.4 of Standard No. l08 forbids the optical combination of clearance lamps and taillamps. Thus, your lamp cannot optically combine these two functions if it is to be used as new vehicle equipment.

Other enclosures to your letter indicate that at present the heated lamp is being installed on buses in use, that is to say, as non-original equipment. The requirements imposed by Standard No. l08 and the Act for aftermarket manufacturers of lighting equipment differ from those for original equipment. If the lamp you produce is intended to replace an original equipment certified lamp, it is considered replacement equipment. As a manufacturer of a replacement taillamp or signal lamp, the legal obligation to produce a complying equipment item falls squarely upon you, as does the certification responsibility. If the lamp is intended only to replace a supplemental lamp, you are not required to certify. However, there may be instances in which your lamp is interchangeable with original certified equipment, and even though you may not intend it as replaceable lighting equipment, you may encounter questions from state and federal authorities if it is not manufactured and certified in accordance with Standard No. 108.

Finally, you should be aware of your responsibilities under the Act in the event that your products do not comply with Standard No. l08, or incorporate a safety related defect (an example would be the inability of the lens to withstand the heat produced during the lamp's operation without warping or cracking). If you or this agency determine that a noncompliance or safety related defect occurs in any item of replacement equipment that you manufacture, you have the obligation to notify purchasers, and to remedy the problem through repair, repurchase, or replacement of the item. With respect to original equipment, this obligation falls upon the manufacturer of the vehicle on which it is installed.

If you have any further questions we shall be happy to answer them. We are returning your samples.

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Wood Assistant Chief Counsel for Rulemaking

/ref:108 d:5/l6/89

ID: nht88-2.2

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/19/88

FROM: HIROSHI KATO -- MMC SERVICES, INC

TO: ERIKA JONES, -- NHTSA CHIEF COUNSEL

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 10/31/88 FROM ERIKA Z JONES TO HIROSHI KATO; REDBOOK A32, VSA 102

TEXT: Dear Ms. Jones:

As was discussed in a meeting held on March 14, 1988 with Mr. S. Kratzke of your office, we are requesting an interpretation as to whether Mitsubishi Motors Corporation's (MMC) lightweight industrial truck to be introduced for sale in the U.S. by its aut horized distributor, Mitsubishi Motor Sales of America, Inc. (MMSA), should be classified as a motor vehicle under 15 USC 1391(3) and Section 102(3) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act.

The following provides a general description of MMC's lightweight industrial truck, hereafter referred to as SH27:

Purpose: General or carrier work for off-road applications such as factories, warehouses, dock areas, transportation terminals, golf course, and park settings.

Basic Specifications:

Engine: 548 cc, 3-cylinder

GVW: 2303-3196 lbs.

Length: 125.8 inches

Width: 54.9-59.8 inches

Height: 70.9-73.0 inches

Two-Wheel Drive Models:

* Full cab with doors or side bars

* Full cab with doors or side bars and with tilt-bed

* Flo-Thru (TM) model (full cab with side bars and without windshield or rear window)

Four-Wheel Drive Models:

* Full cab with doors or side bars * Full cab with doors and tilt-bed

Enclosed is a photograph showing the full cab version of the SH27.

The following information characterizes the SH27 under the criteria your agency has used to determine whether a vehicle should be designated a motor vehicle as described in your September 25, 1987 response to Mr. J. Niemela of Ranger International.

1. Whether States or foreign countries have permitted or are likely to permit the vehicle to be registered for on-road use.

Some configurations of the SH27 can be registered for on-road use in several foreign countries including Japan, Taiwan, Cyprus, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka and the Phillipines. However, the U.S. specification SH27 is different in several material aspects from these "general export" vehicles.

The primary differences are 1) the maximum speed of the U.S. SH27 is approximately 25 mph as opposed to a speed of greater than 55 mph for general export vehicles, 2) the engine displacement of the U.S. SH27 is 548 cc as compared to 796 and 783 cc for general export, and 3) the U.S. SH27 uses an hourmeter, similar to agricultural vehicles, in place of a speedometer.

Based on the specification differences between the SH27 and the general export vehicles and the differences in the safety regulations and registration practices of the foreign countries where these general export vehicles can be registered, we believe there is little basis for assuming that foreign registration of the SH27 correlates to the likelihood of U.S. State registration.

2. Whether the vehicle is or will be advertised for use on-road as well as off-road, or whether it is or will be advertised exclusively for off-road use.

MMSA will ensure that advertising and promotional materials will state that the SH27 should be used

for off-road purposes only and will not depict or suggest that the vehicle can be used on-road.

3. Will the vehicle's manufacturer or dealers assist vehicle purchasers in obtaining certificates of origin or title documents to register the vehicle for on-road use?

Dealer personnel will be instructed by MMSA that the SH27 is to be used solely for off-road purposes and that no assistance should be given to obtain a title for the vehicle or to register the vehicle in the U.S.. Neither MMSA or Mitsubishi Motors Co rporation will be providing any similar assistance.

MMSA also desires to state on the face of any ownership documents (as permitted by applicable law) that the SH27 is not intended for on-road use.

4. Will the vehicle be sold by dealers also selling vehicles that are classified as motor vehicles?

Only dealerships engaged in the sale of non-motor vehicles, such as material handling equipment; (i.e. for lifts, and agricultural equipment) will be authorized by MMSA to sell the SH27.

5. Will the vehicle have a warning label affixed which states that the vehicle is not intended for use on public roads?

There will be four warning labels affixed to the interior and exterior of the body. Labels stating "Off Road Use Only" will be applied to the exterior front panel of the cab, the rear gate, and the instrument panel. Additionally, a label worded "War ning: Off Road Use Only" will be affixed to the exterior rear panel of the cab.

Based on this information, we believe that the SH27 should clearly not be designated a motor vehicle within the meaning

of 15 USC 1391(3). We would appreciate your expedited confirmation of our interpretation.

If you have any questions, please call D. Bakker of my staff at (313) 353-5444.

ENCLOSURE

ID: 8292

Mr. John B. White
Industry Standards & Government Regulations
Michelin
Post Office Box 2501
Greenville, SC 29602

Dear Mr. White:

This responds to your letter asking the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to clarify our certification procedures for the information of some of your customers. Specifically, you stated that some customers believe that you are required to test your tires for compliance with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) and the Uniform Tire Quality Grading Standards (UTQGS), and that this agency then certifies your tires after reviewing and evaluating your test results.

Those impressions are incorrect. All new tires sold in the United States for use on passenger cars must be certified by the manufacturer as complying with FMVSS 109, New pneumatic tires, found at 49 CFR 571.109, while all new tires sold for use on motor vehicles other than passenger cars must be certified as complying with FMVSS 119, New pneumatic tires for vehicles other than passenger cars, found at 49 CFR 571.119. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, 15 U.S.C. 1381, et seq. (Safety Act) establishes a self-certification procedure applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment, which includes tires. This means that the tire manufacturer, and not a governmental agency such as NHTSA, certifies that its tires comply with applicable FMVSSs. Each new tire must be certified as meeting the applicable FMVSSs regardless of whether the tire meets an equal or higher standard in another country.

The UTQGS are set forth in 49 CFR 575.104. Those standards do not require certification in the same manner as the FMVSSs. The UTQGS require that manufacturers mold onto or into the sidewalls of their tires the comparative ratings of those tires for treadwear, traction, and temperature resistance for the use and benefit of consumers. Again, that is the manufacturers' responsibility and NHTSA neither reviews nor approves the ratings prior to their assignments by the manufacturers.

Neither the Safety Act nor NHTSA standards and regulations require that a manufacturer base its certifications on any specific tests, any number of specified tests or, for that matter, any tests at all. A manufacturer is only required to exercise due care in certifying its tires. It is the responsibility of each tire manufacturer to determine initially what test results, computer simulations, engineering analyses, or other information it needs to enable it to certify that its tires comply with applicable Federal safety standards. Once a manufacturer has determined that its tires meet all applicable Federal safety standards, it certifies such compliance by molding the letters "DOT" onto at least one sidewall of each certified tire. If manufacturers conduct any tests, they are not required by Federal law or regulation to release their test results to the public.

This agency does not perform any pre-sale testing, approval, or certification of tires, whether of foreign or domestic manufacture, before introduction into the U. S. retail market. Similarly, NHTSA does not approve or certify manufacturers' test results. Rather, NHTSA randomly tests certified tires to determine whether the tires do, in fact, comply with applicable standards. For such enforcement checks, NHTSA purchases tires "off the shelf" from retail tire dealers and tests those tires according to the procedures specified in the standards. If the tires pass the tests, no further action is taken. If they fail the tests and are determined not to comply with any applicable standard or standards, the manufacturer is responsible for recalling the tires and remedying the noncompliance without charge to the consumer. Government compliance test results are available to the public upon request from the NHTSA Technical Reference Division (NAD 52), 400 Seventh Street SW, Room 5108, Washington, D.C. 20590; (202) 366-2768.

I hope this information will assist you in clarifying tire certification requirements to the satisfaction of your customers. If you have any further questions or desire further clarification, please feel free to contact Walter Myers of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

ref:#109#119#575 d:4/27/93

ID: nht93-3.24

DATE: April 27, 1993

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

TO: John B. White -- Industry Standards & Government Regulations, Michelin

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 1-13-93 from John B. White to General Counsel, NHTSA (OCC 8292)

TEXT: This responds to your letter asking the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to clarify our certification procedures for the information of some of your customers. Specifically, you stated that some customers believe that you are required to test your tires for compliance with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) and the Uniform Tire Quality Grading Standards (UTQGS), and that this agency then certifies your tires after reviewing and evaluating your test results.

Those impressions are incorrect. All new tires sold in the United States for use on passenger cars must be certified by the manufacturer as complying with FMVSS 109, NEW PNEUMATIC TIRES, found at 49 CFR 571.109, while all new tires sold for use on motor vehicles other than passenger cars must be certified as complying with FMVSS 119, NEW PNEUMATIC TIRES FOR VEHICLES OTHER THAN PASSENGER CARS, found at 49 CFR 571.119. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, 15 U.S.C. S1381, ET SEQ. (Safety Act) establishes a self-certification procedure applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment, which includes tires. This means that the tire manufacturer, and not a governmental agency such as NHTSA, certifies that its tires comply with applicable FMVSSs. Each new tire must be certified as meeting the applicable FMVSSs regardless of whether the tire meets an equal or higher standard in another country.

The UTQGS are set forth in 49 CFR 575.104. Those standards do not require certification in the same manner as the FMVSSs. The UTQGS require that manufacturers mold onto or into the sidewalls of their tires the comparative ratings of those tires for treadwear, traction, and temperature resistance for the use and benefit of consumers. Again, that is the manufacturers' responsibility and NHTSA neither reviews nor approves the ratings prior to their assignments by the manufacturers.

Neither the Safety Act nor NHTSA standards and regulations require that a manufacturer base its certifications on any specific tests, any number of specified tests or, for that matter, any tests at all. A manufacturer is only required to exercise due care in certifying its tires. It is the responsibility of each tire manufacturer to determine initially what test results, computer simulations, engineering analyses, or other information it needs to enable it to certify that its tires comply with applicable Federal safety standards. Once a manufacturer has determined that its tires meet all applicable Federal safety standards, it certifies such compliance by molding the letters "DOT" onto at least one sidewall of each certified tire. If manufacturers conduct any tests, they are not required by Federal law or regulation to release their test results to the public.

This agency does not perform any pre-sale testing, approval, or certification

of tires, whether of foreign or domestic manufacture, before introduction into the U.S. retail market. Similarly, NHTSA does not approve or certify manufacturers' test results. Rather, NHTSA randomly tests certified tires to determine whether the tires do, in fact, comply with applicable standards. For such enforcement checks, NHTSA purchases tires "off the shelf" from retail tire dealers and tests those tires according to the procedures specified in the standards. If the tires pass the tests, no further action is taken. If they fail the tests and are determined not to comply with any applicable standard or standards, the manufacturer is responsible for recalling the tires and remedying the noncompliance without charge to the consumer. Government compliance test results are available to the public upon request from the NHTSA Technical Reference Division (NAD 52), 400 Seventh Street SW, Room 5108, Washington, D.C. 20590; (202) 366-2768.

I hope this information will assist you in clarifying tire certification requirements to the satisfaction of your customers. If you have any further questions or desire further clarification, please feel free to contact Walter Myers of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht94-1.57

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: February 14, 1994

FROM: Lawrence A. Beyer, Esq.

TO: Z. Taylor Vinson, Esq. -- Office of Chief Counsel, NHTSA/DOT

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 4/11/94 from John Womack to Lawrence A. Beyer (A42; Part 591; Part 592)

TEXT:

This letter requests an opinion latter from your office concerning a determination made my OVSC regarding the importation of vehicles from Canada.

OVSC has allowed the importation of vehicles which conform to Canadian safety standards, and U.S. safety standards with the exception of "minor labeling requirements." These vehicles must be for the owner's personal use.

OVSC has interpreted "personal use" to exclude importations of vehicles by corporations for their corporation's personal use. For example, an individual moving to the U.S. would be allowed to import a vehicle, provided he had a statement from the manufa cturer that the vehicle complied with all FMVSS with the exception of labeling. However, a company moving to the U.S. with the identical vehicle and letter would be required to import the vehicle through the R.I. program, under bond, etc.

I agree that if the company was importing the vehicle for resale, the R.I. program is necessitated. I do not understand the distinction OVSC makes between individual personal use and corporate personal use.

Please provide me with an interpretation to settle this issue.

ATTACHMENT

PERMANENT IMPORTATION OF CANADIAN VEHICLES PERSONAL USE (Not included - vehicles owned by business or used in commerce)

If an individual has a letter from the manufacturer stating that a Canadian vehicle was manufactured to comply with the U.S. Federal motor vehicle safety, bumper and theft prevention standards (FMVSS), except minor labeling:

a. A letter is provided by our agency that it is satisfactory to import the vehicle under the Box 2 category on the declaration statement (Form HS 7). b. The HS-7 form must be completed with Box 2 checked and a copy of the manufacturers letter and our correspondence must be attached. c. If a manufacturers letter isn't available - a registered importer must be used. FOR SALE

Such vehicles have to be imported by a registered importer (The RI is not necessarily the owner. If the vehicle manufacturer provides a letter that the vehicles comply except for minor labelling, we will require:

a. An HS-7 form indicating the registered importer (RI) as the importer of records. A Box 3 entry will be required. b. A compliance package showing any modifications that were required including photos of the speedometer and Canadian certification label, DOT bond, and payment of appropriate fees. c. Warranty Insurance Policy

MANUFACTURERS LETTERS

Since we have previously made a determination about Canadian vehicles that was published in the Federal Register, if a manufacturers letter is not available, the process also falls into a Box 3 category. We will require all of the items listed above. I f a Canadian vehicle was built on or after September 1, 1989, if it is not on our approved-eligible vehicle list, and if the MANUFACTURER DOES NOT INCLUDE AUTOMATIC RESTRAINTS THAT COMPLY WITH STANDARD NO. 208, or any other crash survivability standard, a petition will be required and it will have to be entered as a Box 3 (formerly allowed for determination under Box 7).

HOWEVER If the vehicle is equipped with the necessary automatic restraints and other modifications required to meet U.S. Federal motor vehicle safety standards but the manufacturers letter is not available, the RI DOES NOT have to petition if it can verify ident icality with a car certified by its original manufacturer to meet the U.S. Standards by part numbers, drawings etc.