ID: 07-004899-Jan08--sa

ID: 19437-1.pja

Mr. Robert Douglas
Director of Product Integrity
AmTran Corporation
P.O. Box 6000
Conway, AR 72033

Dear Mr. Douglas:

This responds to your letter to James Jones of our Safety Assurance Office requesting an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 217, Bus emergency exits and window retention and release. Your letter was forwarded to my office because the Office of the Chief Counsel responds to requests for interpretation. AmTran manufactures a school bus with a rear push out window, and you want to know whether the window is large enough to meet the specifications in Standard No. 217. As explained below, your window is not big enough.

From the drawing you enclosed, it appears that the height of the window opening on the interior wall of the bus is about 41.9 centimeters (cm) high. The window is hinged at the top, and when opened the bottom edge swings upward and outward with the assistance of "gas springs." When fully opened, the plane of the window inclines at its outward edge toward the ground at approximately 15 degrees. At the top and bottom of the window, there is a frame that projects toward the interior of the bus, perpendicular to the window surface. As the window rotates open, the interior edge of the frame rotates outward and downward, reducing the window opening by 3.1 cm, to 38.8 cm.

The pertinent part of S5.2.3.1(b)⁽¹⁾ specifies "a push out rear window that provides a minimum opening clearance of 41 centimeters high and 122 centimeters wide  . . .." (emphasis added). We cannot agree with your suggestion that the window opening constitutes the "hole in the body with trim." The words "opening clearance" mean that the exit must meet the clearance specification when the emergency exit window is open. We would measure the exit with the window open during compliance testing because that is the actual opening that would be provided to the passengers in an emergency. The opening needed to comply with the standard must be at least a 41 cm by 122 cm rectangle extending from the interior wall of the bus all the way through to the exterior when the window is opened.

The opening on the rear emergency exit window of your bus is only 38.8 cm high when the window is open, 2.2 cm less than the specified minimum height. Thus, we conclude that your emergency exit window design does not comply with S5.2.3.1(b) of Standard No. 217. The additional fact that you mention, that the window may satisfy the separate requirement of S5.4.2.1(c) involving the passage of the ellipsoid, does not have any bearing on its compliance with S5.2.3.1(b).

I hope that this information has been helpful. If you have any further questions, feel free to contact Paul Atelsek of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
ref:217
d.6/1/99

1. Although your letter referred to S5.2.2.2(b), we assume you meant S5.2.3.1(b), which corresponds to the quotation you included.

ID: 21068.ztv

Mr. Seymour Hanks
Rt. 1 Box 144
Medora, IL 62063

Dear Mr. Hanks:

This is in reply to your letter of December 10, 1999, asking for our views on the issues that you raise.

In the first case that concerns you, Sun International Racing Corp. is reported as importing and certifying for sale in the United States niche cars otherwise unavailable, such as the Renault Sport Spider and Lotus Elise. You have asked whether either car can "be disassembled overseas imported into the U.S. and re-assembled by Sun Int'l as a complete vehicle?"

The Renault and Lotus have never been certified by their original manufacturers as complying with the U.S. Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS). Nevertheless, uncertified vehicles may be imported for resale under certain conditions specified by 49 U.S.C. 30141 and 49 CFR Part 593. These vehicles may be imported if, as is the case here, "there is no substantially similar United States motor vehicle [and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) decides that] the safety features of the vehicle comply with or are capable of being altered to comply with" the FMVSS (49 U.S.C. 30146(a)(1)(B), and "the vehicle is imported by a registered importer" (Section 30146(a)(2)). We make these decisions either on our own initiative, or upon the petition of the manufacturer or a "registered importer" (RI). RIs are entities that we have recognized as being capable of performing conformance work and are the only entities permitted to import nonconforming vehicles for resale after conformance to the FMVSS.

Thus, a RI could import nonconforming vehicles (either assembled or disassembled), provided they are covered by a NHTSA conformance capability decision, and provided that the RI conforms and certifies conformance of the vehicles before sale to a member of the public. However, we have made no such conformance capability decision with respect to either the Renault or the Lotus, and thus a RI could not legally import either the Renault or the Lotus for resale. The vehicles, however, could be imported temporarily, as provided by 49 CFR Part 591, for purposes other than resale, such as for participation in competitive racing events.

In the second case, you refer to an article listing Ameritech as the manufacturer of a U.S. version of the McLaren F1. You have asked if your understanding is correct, that the vehicle must be imported through DOT's RI program and EPA's independent commercial importer (ICI) program.

As I explained in my answer to your first question, a non-conforming vehicle imported for resale must have been the subject of a conformance capability decision, imported by a RI, and then be brought into conformity with our standards by the RI. Ameritech, which was not a RI, entered several McLaren F1s into a "foreign trade zone," modified and certified them to U.S. standards, and entered them as "Ameritech" vehicles. All these actions took place before we were aware of them. Properly, the vehicles should not have been imported in the absence of a conformance capability determination under Part 593, and then only through the RI program. We have directed Ameritech to cease such importations and have advised the U.S. Customs Service that it should not allow them.

You have asked "who is the manufacturer of the vehicles in Case 1 and Case 2."

A "manufacturer" of motor vehicles is defined by 49 U.S.C. 30102(a)(5) both as a person manufacturing or assembling motor vehicles, as well as a person who imports motor vehicles for resale. In both cases, the vehicles were originally manufactured in one stage. Therefore, we consider the entity that assembled these vehicles to be the manufacturer, that is to say, Lotus, Renault, and McLaren. I note also that any person importing these motor vehicles for resale is also a "manufacturer" for Federal safety purposes.

I would like to note here that the vehicle import laws have been amended since the articles that concern you were written. We are now authorized to allow permanent entry of nonconforming vehicles for "show or display." Under regulations we adopted in mid-1999, an importer for "show or display" must demonstrate that the vehicle is of technological or historical interest. If we approve an entry on this basis, the vehicle may not accumulate more than 2,500 miles a year on its odometer until it is 25 years old.

Your final question is whether "a completed motor vehicle [can] be disassembled then shipped into the U.S. as parts, and then re-assembled here in the U.S. as a motor vehicle listing a different manufacturer than the original manufacturer."

A disassembled vehicle that was not certified by its original manufacturer as being in compliance with our standards is subject to the same import restrictions as an assembled one; i.e., it must have been the subject of a conformance capability determination, and be imported, reassembled, and brought into compliance by a RI, which must certify its conformance with our standards. In this event, there are two manufacturers of the vehicle, the original manufacturer whose marque name should appear on the vehicle, and the RI, which, under 49

U.S.C. 30102(a)(5), is a "manufacturer" for purposes of notification and remedy in the event that a safety-related defect or noncompliance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard is determined to exist in the reassembled vehicle.

If you have further questions, you may phone Taylor Vinson of this Office (202)-366-5263.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
ref:571
d.2/22/2000

ID: nht90-2.66

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 05/31/90

FROM: STEPHEN P. WOOD -- NHTSA ACTING CHIEF COUNSEL

TO: SATOSHI NISHIBORI -- VICE PRESIDENT INDUSTRY/GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS NISSAN RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT, INC.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 02/15/90 FROM SATOSHI NISHIBORI -- NISSAN RESEARCH TO STEPHEN P. WOOD -- NHTSA; OCC 4485

TEXT: This responds to your letter requesting an interpretation of 49 CFR Part 575, Consumer Information Regulations. Specifically, you asked about the requirement in @ 575.6(a)(2)(i), which requires the "name of the manufacturer" to be inserted in two places in a statement required to appear in the owner's manual. You asked whether you could use the name "Infiniti" as the required "name of the manufacturer" for vehicles manufactured by that division of Nissan Motors, or whether Nissan would have to be ident ified as the manufacturer of those vehicles. The answer is that identifying Infiniti as the manufacturer of the vehicles produced by that division of your corporation would not violate @ 575.6(a)(2), as explained below.

The term "manufacturer" is not specifically defined for Part 575 in @ 575.2. However, @ 575.2(a) provides that all terms used in Part 575 that are defined in section 102 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Safety Act; 15 U.S.C. 1391 ) are used as defined in the Safety Act. Section 102(5) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1391(5)) defines a manufacturer as "any person engaged in the manufacturing or assembling of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, including any person importing m otor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment for resale." According to your letter, Infiniti is a division within Nissan Motor Corporation (USA), the importer of Nissan and Infiniti vehicles. The Infiniti vehicles are assembled by Nissan Motor Company, Ltd. , the parent corporation, in Japan. Hence, both the parent corporation, as the assembler of the Infiniti cars, and the U.S. subsidiary, as the importer of those cars, would be "manufacturers" of the Infiniti cars, within the meaning of the Safety Act.

Generally speaking, when this agency's regulations require disclosure of the name of the manufacturer, it is permissible to identify the

manufacturer as the division that sells and markets the vehicle, instead of naming the corporation of which the division is a part. The only exception to this general rule would arise if naming the division, instead of the whole corporation, as the manu facturer would be likely to confuse the public or otherwise frustrate the purposes of the regulation.

With respect to @ 575.6(a)(2), the preamble to the final rule that added these requirements identified their purpose as "to increase consumer awareness of the [Auto Safety] Hotline and the agency's efforts to strengthen its defect investigation activitie s." 54 FR 48745, at 48746; November 27, 1989. It does not appear that identifying Infiniti, instead of Nissan, as the manufacturer of the Infiniti cars would in any way hamper or frustrate this purpose. Additionally, that preamble also included the foll owing discussion:

NHTSA nevertheless agrees with the commenters that the public should be instructed to also contact the manufacturer. Therefore, the agency has revised the message to state that a consumer should also contact the manufacturer or its designate (e.g., i ts authorized dealer) to resolve safety-related or other problems with the vehicle. 54 FR 48747. (Emphasis added)

This language shows that NHTSA intended these requirements to provide the consumer with necessary information to resolve safety-related or other problems with the vehicle, not to provide the consumer with information about the corporate structure of the manufacturer. In fact, identifying Infiniti instead of Nissan as the manufacturer of Infiniti cars may be more useful information for the purchasers of those cars. Hence, we conclude that nothing in @ 575.6(a)(2) prohibits Nissan from identifying its I nfiniti division as the manufacturer of Infiniti cars.

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

Sincerely,

ID: 16337.drn

Mr. E. Hunter Stone, II
P. O. Box 61419
Denver, CO 80206-8419

Dear Mr. Stone:

This responds to your request for a "written corporate endorsement" of your invention the "Signal Square," which you describe as a "location marker for safety and emergency purposes" that can be temporarily attached to a motor vehicle. The invention is a bright orange rectangular piece of plastic approximately 41" by 40" plus two 6" long flat white magnets. As explained below, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) cannot endorse or otherwise "approve" your product. Since the product is "motor vehicle equipment," the manufacturer of your product may be subject to NHTSA's laws as described below.

By way of background information, NHTSA is authorized to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. Unlike the practice in many countries, NHTSA does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Instead, manufacturers are required to certify that their vehicles and equipment meet applicable standards.

Your product is "motor vehicle equipment" for the following reasons. Our statute (at 49 USC 30102(a)(7)) defines the term "motor vehicle equipment" as:

(A) any system, part, or component of a motor vehicle as originally manufactured;

(B) any similar part or component manufactured or sold for replacement or improvement of a system, part, or component, or as any accessory or addition to a motor vehicle; or

(C) any device or an article or apparel ... that is not a system, part, or component of a motor vehicle and is manufactured, sold, delivered, offered, or intended to be used only to safeguard motor vehicles and highway users against risk of accident, injury, or death. (Emphasis added.)

The agency uses two criteria in determining whether a device is an "accessory." The first criterion is whether a substantial portion of the expected use of the item is related to the operation or maintenance of motor vehicles. We determine a product's expected use by considering product advertising, product labeling, and the type of store that retails the product, as well as available information about the actual use of the product. The second criterion is whether the product is purchased or otherwise acquired, and principally used, by ordinary users of motor vehicles. If a product satisfies both criteria, then the product would be an "accessory."

Applying these criteria to the "Signal Square," we conclude that it is an accessory to a motor vehicle. The product labeling describes the "Signal Square" as an "air and ground vehicle location marker." The label also describes how to place the "Signal Square" on the "steel, hood, top, flatbed and/or side of vehicle," and provides specific instructions on how to place the product on smaller vehicles.

Although we have no information about how the product will be advertised, from the product's labeling, we conclude that its expected use is related to the operation of a motor vehicle. Because of the detailed instructions provided in the label, we conclude that the product is intended to be purchased and principally used by ordinary users of motor vehicles.

Please note that NHTSA has issued Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 125, Warning devices. Standard No. 125 establishes requirements for devices, without self-contained energy sources, that are designed to be carried in motor vehicles and used to warn approaching traffic of the presence of a stopped vehicle, except for devices designed to be permanently affixed to the vehicle. The application section (S3) states that: "the standard applies to devices, without self-contained energy sources, that are designed to be carried in buses and trucks that have a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) greater than 10,000 pounds."

If sold for use with buses and trucks with a GVWR greater than 10,000 pounds, the "Signal Square" must meet Standard No. 125's detailed specifications for a warning device. However, if the "Signal Square" is sold for use with vehicles with a GVWR under 10,000 pounds, Standard No. 125 would not apply.

Even if sold for use with vehicles with a GVWR under 10,000 pounds, and no safety standard applies, other NHTSA laws may apply to your product. As an accessory to a motor vehicle, the "Signal Square" is an item of "motor vehicle equipment." You (or whoever is the manufacturer of the "Signal Square") would be subject to Title 49 of the U.S. Code, sections 30118-30122, concerning the recall and remedy of products with defects related to motor vehicle safety. If the manufacturer or NHTSA determined that the product contains a safety related defect, the manufacturer would be responsible for notifying purchasers of the defective equipment and remedying the problem free of charge.

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

Sincerely,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
d.12/29/97
ref:125#VSA

ID: 22492

Mr. David Dobradenka
Quality Manager
IEE Automotive
Zone Industrielle Findel
2b, Route de Treves
L-2632 Luxembourg





Dear Mr. Dobradenka:

This responds to your request that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) provide you with specific information regarding the possibility of certifying your company's sensor mat to the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208, Occupant Protection Systems (FMVSS No. 208), as it was amended last year. Automatic suppression is one means of complying with one aspect of the new advanced air bag requirements that were published on May 12, 2000 (65 FR 30680). You specifically request what the procedure is for certification, whether it can be done on a test buck, the "timing" involved, and whether you must pay for the certification.

By way of background information, NHTSA is authorized under Title 49, Chapter 301 of the U.S. Code (Motor Vehicle Safety) to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards that apply to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. Chapter 301 prohibits any person from manufacturing, introducing into commerce, selling, or importing any new motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment unless the vehicle or equipment item is in conformity with all applicable safety standards. NHTSA does not approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, nor do we endorse any commercial products. Chapter 301 establishes a "self-certification" process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards.

With one exception that is not relevant to your product, FMVSS No. 208 applies only to new vehicles, not to items of individual equipment. Thus, it is the vehicle manufacturer's responsibility to certify compliance with all applicable requirements of FMVSS No. 208. We note that many vehicle manufacturers require their equipment vendors to provide them with data that they can use in certifying their vehicles. This is a contractual obligation between two private parties, and NHTSA does not involve itself in these business arrangements.

Because manufacturers are responsible for self-certification, we do not require any payment to the Federal government. Likewise, NHTSA does not require that any particular procedure be followed. However, we purchase vehicles and test whether a certified vehicle complies with the requirements of FMVSS No. 208 by following the test procedure detailed in that regulation. While a manufacturer may certify based on another test procedure, using NHTSA's test procedure is the best way for a manufacturer to ensure that its vehicles comply with all applicable requirements.

I hope this addresses all your concerns. For your general information, I am enclosing a copy of NHTSA's white paper on information for new manufacturers of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. Should you have additional questions, please contact Rebecca MacPherson, of my staff, at the above address or at (202)366-2992.

Sincerely,

John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosure
ref:208
d.5/16/01

ID: 19097.wkm

Mr. Stuart Leopold
DGS Enterprises, Ltd.
2800 Covered Bridge Road
Merrick, NY 11566

Dear Mr. Leopold:

Please pardon the delay in responding to your letter to Walter Myers of my staff in which you asked for a letter stating that use of your "Tire Mend" does not "violate" any Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) and may be used in any vehicle. "Tire Mend" is not subject to any FMVSSs. The question of whether the use of "Tire Mend" would violate Federal law is addressed below.

Your letter described "Tire Mend" as a light gel-like substance that when injected into a tire, coats the interior of the tread, rim, and back of the valve stem to seal punctures of up to 5 millimeters (1/4 inch) in diameter. You stated that "Tire Mend" is non-toxic, non-flammable, biodegradable, and contains rust and corrosion inhibitors. You also stated that Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company and Yokohama Tire Corporation have told you that the use of "Tire Mend" does not invalidate their warranties; and that the State of New York has permitted the use of "Tire Mend" in that state.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has the authority under Chapter 301 of Title 49, U.S.Code (U.S.C.) (Safety Act) to issue FMVSSs applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. The Safety Act establishes a self-certification system in which manufacturers certify that their products comply with all applicable FMVSSs in effect on the date of manufacture. NHTSA enforces compliance with the standards by purchasing and testing motor vehicles and equipment. The agency also investigates safety-related defects. If NHTSA or the manufacturer ascertains that a vehicle or item of equipment does not comply with an applicable standard or has a safety-related defect, the manufacturer is responsible for notifying owners and for remedying the defect or noncompliance at no charge to the consumer. In view of that self-certification system, NHTSA does not approve, disapprove, test, endorse, or certify any motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment prior to its introduction into the retail market.

NHTSA has not issued any FMVSSs specifically applicable to substances such as "Tire Mend." You stated in a recent telephone conversation with Mr. Myers that "Tire Mend" is primarily an aftermarket item that is currently used primarily by fleet operators and other medium to heavy vehicles and is not yet available to the general public. Section 30122 of the Safety Act provides that a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business may not knowingly "make inoperative" any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in accordance with any FMVSS. Therefore, any product such as "Tire Mend" could not be installed by one of those entities if such use adversely affected the compliance of a vehicle or tire with any FMVSS. This provision does not apply, however, to equipment attached to or installed on or in a vehicle or item of equipment by the vehicle owner.

The use of "Tire Mend" may be subject to the laws of various states in which it is sold and/or used. We are unable to advise you on state laws, thus we recommend that you check with the motor vehicle departments of the states in which you intend to market "Tire Mend." In that connection, you may also contact the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 4301 Wilson Blvd., Suite 400, Arlington, VA 22203, (703) 522-4200.

I note that the Federal Highway Administration has jurisdiction over commercial carriers in interstate commerce. We are therefore coordinating this response through the Program Manager for Motor Carriers and Highway Safety for that agency, this address, telephone (202) 366-4012.

For your information, I am enclosing a fact sheet prepared by this agency titled Information for New Manufacturers of Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Equipment. This fact sheet provides general information on the requirements applicable to manufacturers of new motor vehicles and equipment.

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

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
Enclosure
ref:109#119
d.3/30/99

ID: nht90-2.27

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: APRIL 25, 1990

FROM: STEPHEN P. WOOD -- ACTING CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TO: JERRY W. MOONEY -- RESIDENT IN CHARGE, DEPT. OF THE TREASURY, U.S. CUSTOMS SERVICE TITLE: FILE SV08PLOSV001

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 3-29-90 TO STEVEN WOOD FROM JERRY W. MOONEY; (OCC 4612) TEXT:

This is in reply to your letter of March 29, 1990, with respect to your investigation of the importation of 17 M151A2 military jeeps from Canada. The jeeps were imported as "parts" rather than as vehicles, shipped intact inside containers "and covered w ith parts."

You have asked three questions:

1. "We are of the understanding that a list does not exist naming certain vehicles as being noncomplying. If not, what is the procedure to determine if a vehicle complies to DOT standards?"

Your understanding is correct; no list of nonconforming vehicles exists. No procedure per se exists to determine if a vehicle meets DOT standards. However, under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, each motor vehicle must bear the permanen tly-affixed certification of its manufacturer that it complies with all Federal motor vehicle safety standards that applied to it on its date of manufacture. The presence of the certification label gives rise to, the presumption that the vehicle meets D OT Standards, and vehicles offered for importation bearing the certification label are admitted into the United states as complying vehicles.

2. "We are of the understanding that the M151A2 does not comply to DOT standards. What makes it a noncomplying vehicle?"

The M151A2 jeep was not certified as conforming to Federal standards. The lack of certification raises a presumption of nonconformance with all standards. Whether it did, in fact, meet some or all of those standards is a question to which we do not have the answer.

3. Does the fact that the M151A2 was manufactured for DOD make it a noncomplying vehicle?

No. Under the regulations of this agency, no Federal motor vehicle safety standard applies to a vehicle manufactured for, and sold directly to, the Armed Forces of the United States, in compliance with contractual specifications. Although this relieves the manufacturer of the legal obligation of compliance, he may nevertheless choose to manufacture his vehicle in conformance with one or more standards. As I said in response to your second question, we have no knowledge as to the M151A2's state of com pliance with any Federal motor vehicle safety standard.

I hope that this is responsive to your questions. Although the importation of these vehicles appears to be a violation of the regulations of this agency (the failure to file a declaration), it is only a technical one, since no Federal motor vehicle safe ty standard applied to the jeeps at the time of their manufacture. Nevertheless, we are concerned about the safety implications of this importation.

For many years, the Department of Defense, with the encouragement of this agency, has maintained the policy that all M151 vehicles must be scrapped at the end of their useful military life in a manner such that they cannot be reassembled for use on the p ublic roads. Over the years, these vehicles have exhibited a tendency to roll over, even when operated by drivers specifically trained in their correct usage. Consequently, it has been deemed in the interests of safety to ensure that they will not be o perated by untrained drivers on the public roads. While exportation of unscrapped M151s to Canada initially removed the threat to safety in the United States, their importation into this country renews that threat. Thus, we support your investigative e fforts. We understand that, under Customs procedures, merchandise entered fraudulently may be redelivered for export, or seized by Customs. If the vehicles are seized, we recommend their export or destruction, rather than disposal by sale at auction or by use by Customs personnel in the performance of their duties.

ID: nht87-1.30

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/10/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: M.R. Dunn

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

AIR MAIL

Mr. M. R. Dunn Engineering Director Rolls-Royce Motor Cars Limited Crew Cheshire CW1 3PL ENGLAND

Dear Mr. Dunn:

Thank you for your telefax of December 18, 1986, concerning Rolls-Royce's ability to meet the automatic restraint phase-in requirements of Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection. You reported that Rolls-Royce has experienced setbacks in both its aut omatic belt and airbag programs and faces "a real possibility of being unable to comply during the 1987 model year to 31 August 1987." You asked "whether there would be any restriction imposed on our sales of non-complying 1987 model year cars and the ex tent of any financial penalty per car if any."

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act sets out a manufacturer's obligation to produce vehicles that comply with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. The Vehicle Safety Act provides for a number of remedies the agency would p ursue if a manufacturer has failed to comply with the requirements of the Act. Those remedies are discussed below.

Section 108(a)(1)(A) of the Vehicle Safety Act obligates a manufacturer to produce vehicles that conform to the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. That section prohibits a manufacturer from manufacturing, introducing into interstate commerce, sellin g, or importing a vehicle that does not conform with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. Section 114 of the Vehicle Safety Act also obligates a manufacturer to furnish, at the time of delivery of a vehicle to a distributor or dealer, a certificate that the vehicle conforms to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. It is a violation of section 108(a)(1)(C) of the Vehicle Safety Act for a manufacturers to issue such a certification if it "in the exercise of due care has reason to know that such certificate is false or misleading in a material respect."

The Vehicle Safety Act provides NHTSA with a wide range of remedies the agency can pursue if there is a violation of the Act. Section 109(a) provides for a civil penalty of $1,000 for each violation of a provision of section 108 or any regulation issued under the authority of that section. Section 109(a) further provides that each non-complying motor vehicle constitutes a separate violation and entitles the agency to collect a civil penalty of up to $800,000 for a series of violations.

Under section 110 of the Vehicle Safety Act, the agency has authority to seek injunctive relief to restrain "violations of this title (or rules, regulations or orders thereunder), or to restrain the sale, offer for sale, or the introduction or delivery f or introduction in interstate commerce, or the importation into the United States" of non-complying motor vehicles.

Section 111 of the Vehicle Safety Act imposes additional duties on a manufacturer of a non-complying vehicle that has been delivered to a distributor or dealer but nor yet sold to a retail customer. That section requires the manufacturer to repurchase th e non-complying vehicle from the distributor or dealer, and to reimburse the dealer or distributor for a portion of its expenses. As an alternative, the manufacturer can furnish she purchasing distributor or dealer with the necessary conforming parts and reimburse the distributor or dealer for a portion of its expenses. If a non-complying vehicle has been sold to a retail purchaser, sections 151-159 of the Vehicle Safety Act require the vehicle's manufacturer so conduct a non-compliance notification and remedy campaign.

Under the phase-in requirements of Standard No. 208, Rolls-Royce has the obligation to install automatic restraints in ten percent of its vehicles manufactured during the period September 1, 1986 - August 31, 1987 for sale in the United Stares. If the ag ency were to determine that passenger cars manufactured by Rolls-Royce for sale in the United States do not conform to the automatic restraint requirements of Standard No. 205, the agency could pursue any or all of the following remedies under the Vehicl e Safety Act. To determine the extent of Rolls-Royce's compliance, the agency could require Rolls-Royce to provide information on the number of vehicles produced and the number equipped with automatic restraints. The agency could seek to restrain the sal e of the non-complying Rolls-Royce cars that have been imported into the United States. In addition, the agency could seek to restrain the further importation of non-complying Rolls-Royce passenger cars into the United States. Further, the agency could s eek a civil penalty against Rolls-Royce for each violation of section 108(a)(1)(A) and (C). In addition to seeking those remedies, the agency has authority under section 152 of the Vehicle Safety Act to determine whether Rolls-Royce should be ordered to conduct a notification and remedy campaign for the non-complying vehicles. While your question and the above discussion are hypothetical, we strongly urge Rolls-Royce to take all necessary steps to assure compliance with the phase-in requirements of Stan dard No. 208.

If you have any further questions, please let me know.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

TELEFAX No 010 1 202 366 5930

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Washington USA

For the attention of:

Barry Felrice, Associate Administrator for Rulemaking Room 5401

Following our telephone conversation I acknowledge your advice that a petition for temporary exemption from FMVSS 208 passive restraints is unlikely to be successful for 1987 model year. As described in our original petition for an extension of the effec tive 1987 model year to 31 December 1987 extra time is required to improve our chances or offering airbags. I must report that with setbacks in both our passive belt and our airbag programs we face a real possibility of being unable to comply during 1987 model year to 31 August 1987.

Will you please advise me whether there would be any restriction imposed on our sales of non-complying 1987 model year cars and the extent or any financial penalty per car if any.

N R Dunn Engineering Director Rolls-Royce Motor Cars Ltd, Crewe

ID: nht95-1.1

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: January 1, 1995 EST

FROM: Andrew Grubb

TO: U.S. Department of Transportation, NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 6/12/95 LETTER FROM JOHN WOMACK TO ANDREW GRUBB (A43; VSA 102(4))

TEXT: To whom it may concern,

I am writing in regards to motor vehicle regulations as applicable to two products I am currently selling. I have a copy of a letter dated April 1st of 1991 from Mr. Paul Jackson Rice, of your office dealing with a small push scooter like product, eq uipped with a 37cc engine called a "Walk Machine". In this letter, Mr. Rice had written "NHTSA has stated in many interpretations that vehicles that regularly use the public roads will not be considered a motor vehicle if such vehicles have a maximum at tainable speed of 20 mph or less and have an abnormal configuration which readily distinguishes them from other motor vehicles." He then went on to say since the "Walk Machine" fit this description, and that it was not a "motor vehicle", that none of the NHTSA's standards would apply to it.

The products I have in question both seem to fit into these guidelines, however I would like to get an official ruling on that by your office. Enclosed you will find sales brochures for both products which may prove helpful in understanding what each one entails.

The first product is a scooter called the "California Go-Ped". The Go-Ped resembles a small push scooter, with a 22.5cc 2 cycle motor mounted above the rear wheel. It is a small, foldable scooter with 6" diameter non-pneumatic tires, weighing 20 lbs . This scooter cruises at an average of 15mph, with a maximum of 20 mph.

The other "scooter" type product is called "TSi Power Scooter". Similar to the Go-Ped it too resembles a push scooter, however it has a slightly larger wheel diameter (14" inflatable tires), and is not foldable. This scooter is driven by a 21cc 2 cy cle motor mounted above the rear wheel, with a top speed of approximately 15mph. TSi Powered Sports also produces a few other models including a motorized "skateboard", and motors for mounting on a conventional bicycle. Any input on these other product s would be appreciated.

I want to try and clear up where exactly these products fit into MV regulations, so I can tell my customers exactly wher they can and can not opperate them. I have also written to get more information on state MV laws, and federal safety regulations applicable to these scooters. I appreciate and await a reply dealing with these products.

Brochures omitted.