ID: nht81-1.21

DATE: 03/03/81

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Vehtek Marketing Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

March 3, 1981 NOA-30

Mr. Michael J. Klein Vice President Vehtek Marketing Inc. 2795 Townline Road Alden, New York 14004

Dear Mr. Klein:

This responds to your February 12, 1981, letter requesting information concerning any Federal requirements that would be applicable to a water injection system used to increase the efficiency of vehicle fuel systems. Your company's water injection system is sold as aftermarket equipment which is attached to a vehicle's carburetor to increase gas mileage.

For your information, I am enclosing a synopsis of agency interpretations which sets forth the general Federal implications of installing auxiliary fuel tanks in vehicles or of converting vehicle fuel systems. This information explains in detail the responsibilities of a manufacturer under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, as amended 1979 (15 U.S.C. 1381, et seq.), in relation to a vehicle's fuel system. Although your product is not an auxiliary gas tank and does not require a conversion of the fuel system, the stated principles are applicable to your product since it is motor vehicle equipment. Following is a summary of the most pertinent aspects of that material as it relates directly to your water injection system.

Safety Standard No. 301, Fuel System Integrity, is applicable only to completed new vehicles and would, therefore, not be directly applicable to your motor vehicle equipment. It may be indirectly applicable, however. The standard specifies performance requirements for fuel systems by limiting the amount of fuel leakage which may occur after a barrier impact crash test of the vehicle. Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Vehicle Safety Act specifies 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 in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard. Any of these persons would be prohibited from installing your product on a vehicle fuel system if that installation would cause the vehicle to no longer be in compliance with Safety Standard No. 301. Since your letter indicates that the water injection system is not directly attached to a vehicle's fuel system, it is not likely that installation of the product would render inoperative the vehicle's compliance with Safety Standard No. 301. However, your company will have to determine whether in fact the installation would affect compliance. I have enclosed a copy of Safety Standard No. 301 for your information.

Under 49 CFR Part 579, your water injection system would be considered "motor vehicle replacement equipment." Part 579 places the responsibility for safety defects in performance, construction components, or materials of motor vehicle replacement equipment on the manufacturer of such equipment. Under section 108(a)(1)(D) and 109(a) of the Vehicle Safety Act, any manufacturer who fails to provide notification of or remedy for a safety defect in its motor vehicle equipment is liable for a civil penalty of up to $1,000 for each violation. Therefore, it is your responsibility to determine that your water injection system contains no safety-related defects. For example, if your system would cause a vehicle's engine to stall, this could be considered a safety defect by the agency.

In closing, I would state that you do not need any prior approval from the agency before marketing your product. All the responsibilities under the Vehicle Safety Act are placed directly on the manufacturer. I hope you will find this information helpful. Please contact Hugh Oates of my office if you have any further questions (202-426-2992).

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

Enclosures

February 12, 1981

Frank Berndt Office of Chief Consul National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 7th. Street - South-West Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Mr. Berndt,

As per my telephone conversation Wednesday, February 11th, 1981, with Steven Wood, I am writing concerning a water injection system we manufacture for automotive use. We recently had some experience with State of New York owned vehicles where we were told that we need D.O.T. approval in order to be legal.

After two days of long distance telephone calls I reached your office. I was told that our situation may involve standard 301, and to mention that to you. Also let me state that we do not tap into the gasoline system or its passage.

Our system is relatively simple in operation. It was patented in 1973 (patent number 3778039) by its inventor, Al Dore, who worked with venter injection since the 1930's. We insert into the boost venturi of the carburetor a brass tube through which the water is drawn in - in much the same way as the gasoline is drawn in - the greater the engine speed, the greater the amount of water. We have a water reservoir mounted in the vehicles engine compartment which when low on water activates a water pump which draws water from a five gallon (D.O.T. 2E rated) container which is mounted, at the customers discretion, in a remote location. I have enclosed a brochure which depicts the system as I have described it. I would like to add that by design no water is drawn into the engine at speeds of below approximately 1500 RPM, as a safety precaution. The system is much more sophisticated than I describe, but for purposes of explanation that is how it works. It uses water at about the rate of one gallon of water to twenty gallons of gasoline.

We have several testimonial letters attesting to considerable mileage increase; above 10%. Most of these average 30%. We give a written money back guarantee of a minimum of a 10% increase in gas mileage! No other water injection manufacturer gives a similar warranty, and there are approximately forty-two other units on the market today. We know our unit works and we're proud to be manufacturing an American made energy saving device. I would appreciate your written comments at your earliest convenience so we may pursue government owned vehicles with the confidence of being legal. I would like to extend my appreciation for your time and efforts.

Sincerely,

Michael J. Klein, Vice President

MJK/JR

ID: 1985-01.32

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/12/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Phyllis A. Sirine -- Adminis

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

ATTACHMT: 6/28/85 letter from Jeffrey R. Miller to Joseph C. Bright, Jr.

TEXT:

Ms. Phyllis A. Sirine Administrative Secretary St. Peter's School 319 Lombard Street Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19147

This responds to your letter to me concerning your use of 13 and 15 passenger vans to transport students to and from extracurricular activities. In a telephone call on January 30, 1985 Mr. John Womack explained how our school bus regulations affect your school's choice of buses. This letter follows up on that conversation and confirms Mr. Womack's discussion of our regulations.

As I understand it, Pennsylvania has recently amended its law to define "bus" to mean "a motor vehicle designed for carrying more than ten persons, including the driver." The old definition had excluded the driver. In effect, a van designed to carry more than ten persons is now a "bus" under Pennsylvania law. To transport students in a van of that size, a school would need to conform the van to the State's requirements for school buses.

The recent change in Pennsylvania law does not in any way affect how our regulations apply to your 13 and 15 passenger vans. Your vehicles have always been classified as buses under Federal law, since under our regulations a bus is defined as a motor vehicle designed for carrying more than ten persons. Further, your vehicles are "school buses" as that term is defined in the Vehicle Safety Act. The basic test under the Vehicle Safety Act is whether, as determined at the time of its first sale, a bus would be used to transport school children to or from school or related events. It is not relevant that the school uses the vehicles only occasionally. When the buses were sold to your school, it should have been clear to the dealer or manufacturer that the vehicles would be used as school buses.

It appears that St. Peter's purchase of new vans for the transportation of students raises questions of compliance with Federal law by the dealers who sold you the vans. The Vehicle Safety Act required the dealer or manufacturer to sell vehicles which were certified as meeting all applicable motor vehicle safety standards. With respect to your future purchases of new vehicles, I urge you to keep in mind that the dealers are obligated to sell you vehicles that meet the school bus safety standards. They should know that they are at risk if they sell nonconforming vehicles.

The Vehicle Safety Act does not prohibit you from operating the 13 and 15 passenger vans. There might, however, be impediments under Pennsylvania State law. We administer a set of guidelines for state highway safety programs under the authority of the Highway Safety Act (Public Law 89-564). These guidelines, called Highway Safety Program Standards, cover a wide range of subjects, including school buses. Individual states have chosen to adopt some or all of the guidelines as their own policies governing their highway safety programs. Highway Safety Program Standard No. 17 (HSPS 17), specifies that a bus used to transport 16 or less students must either be identified with the words "School Bus" and comply with the standard's requirements for color, mirrors and signal lamps, or be devoid of all of these characteristics. As it happens, however, a bus sold for use as a school bus is required by the Vehicle Safety Act to have warning lights and mirrors (as well as many other safety features). Because it must have this equipment, a 13 or 15 passenger bus in a State whose law fully incorporates HSPS 17 would have to be painted and signed as a school bus. For a state that has adopted this standard as its own policy, these specifications apply to activity buses as well as to the buses used for daily transportation.

I want to stress that HSPS 17 will affect you only if Pennsylvania has adopted it and if Pennsylvania accepts our view that the specifications apply to activity buses. Your State officials will be able to give you more information about other State requirements for school buses.

Please let me know if you have any further questions.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

November 15, 1984

Mr. Frank Berndt National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, NW Washington, DC 20001

Dear Mr. Berndt,

I am writing from St. Peter's School, a private independent school, in Philadelphia. In trying to determine how we can comply with Pennsylvania House Bills #2095 and #2522, I have spoken with Mr. William Hilton at the Pennsylvania Department of Motor Vehicles. When I explained to him that we have two vans, one holding 13 people and the other 15, which enable us to transport an entire class, and that we use the vans only for class trips and school sports events, he suggested I write you about your legal opinion exempting schools from compliance because of "occasional use" as opposed to "significant use" of school vehicles.

We do not transport students to and from school on a daily basis. In September 1984 our vans were used for school activities a total of three times. In October 1984 they were used eleven times.

Would we qualify for the above exemption from the Pennsylvania State House Bills? If so, would you send us a copy of your legal opinion.

I appreciate your help in this matter especially since we are a small school and it would be a hardship for us to comply with these bills.

Sincerely yours,

Phyllis A. Sirine Administrative Secretary

ID: nht73-3.37

DATE: 03/02/73

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Chesapeake Maring Products

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of February 5, 1973, in which you suggested, with reference to a previous interpretation, that boat trailer assemblers be allowed to use the "altering distributor" certification of 49 CFR @ 567.6, rather than certifying the vehicle as the manufacturer under @ 567.4.

The altering distributor label was not designed to deal with assemblers of vehicles, but with persons who alter vehicles that have already been completed and assembled. A basic prerequisite to its use is that there be a vehicle that already has been certified. I take it that your suggestion really amounts to requiring the supplier of the unassembled parts to certify the vehicle.

We are unwilling to do this on the basis of our present information. It is true that a boat trailer is among the simplest vehicles on the road, but considering vehicles generally, we must consider a vehicle as a functioning whole, not as a group of parts. There may easily be problems caused by the way in which it is assembled, and we do not consider it reasonable to require a manufacturer of parts, against his will, to take responsibility for the final assembly. Although it is conceivable that such a scheme could work with very simple vehicles, it certainly could cause large problems with more complex ones.

We permit the unassembled parts manufacturer to certify if he wishes. Furthermore, the person who assembles the vehicle can require a written commercial warrantly that

the vehicle will conform if properly assembled, which will protect him in certifying the vehicle. I recommend one of these courses of action as a matter of good business practice.

If the unassembled parts manufacturer does certify the package in accordance with @ 567.4 (g)(1)(ii), then it would be permissible for a distributor to use @ 567.6 where he deviates from the certifier's instructions.

ID: 0391

Mr. Harry L. Williams, Jr.
President
Willy Lights Inc.
RR#1 Box 241
Bloomfield, Iowa 52537

Dear Mr. Williams:

We have received your letter mailed on September 27, 1994, with respect to the permissibility under Federal law of your invention, Willy Lights. This product appears to consist of lights installed on wheel rims.

You enclosed a copy of a memorandum to you on this subject dated October 24, 1988, from Greg Novak, an engineer with the Nevada Division of the Federal Highway Administration. After consulting with members of this agency, Mr. Novak wrote you that there were no regulations that prohibited the use of lighted wheel rims but that they could not "interfere with any standard safety equipment on a vehicle." You have asked whether this interpretation remains valid, and, if the lamps are not prohibited, the color permissible for the lamps.

You have not provided a detailed description of your device, such as the amount of illumination provided by the lights. Mr. Novak's advice that there are "no regulations prohibiting the use of lighted wheel rims" must be qualified. There are no Federal regulations that specifically prohibit the sale and installation of lighted wheel rims, but there may be regulations governing the use of lighted wheel rims issued by the individual States. We have no knowledge of State laws on this matter and suggest that you write for an opinion to the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Va. 22203.

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment establishes the requirements for original lighting equipment for motor vehicles. Standard No. 108, in effect, prohibits the installation of supplementary lighting equipment such as Willy Lights before the initial sale of a vehicle if it impairs the effectiveness of the equipment required by Standard No. 108. Thus, if Willy Lights were sufficiently bright to mask in

whole or in part the side marker lamps and reflectors and any lamps mounted on the front and rear that wrap around the sides, Standard No. 108 would prohibit their installation. The seller (dealer) of the new vehicle has the responsibility of ensuring that the vehicle remains in compliance with Standard No. 108 when it installs supplementary lighting equipment, that is to say, the responsibility of determining whether or not impairment exists. This agency does not question such determinations unless they appear clearly wrong.

There is a similar prohibition for supplementary lighting equipment installed after the initial sale of a vehicle. When Willy Lights are installed by a manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or motor vehicle repair business, they must not make inoperative any of Standard No. 108's required equipment. With respect to Willy Lights, we would regard the question of making inoperative as equivalent to the question of impairing effectiveness. If it is concluded that Willy Lights do not impair new vehicle equipment, then one can conclude that its installation on a used vehicle will not have an operative effect on 108's equipment. However, the States retain the right to say whether or not Willy Lights may be used within their borders.

The color of the lamps may also be important in any determination of impairment or inoperability. Under Standard No. 108, required side marking equipment at or near the front of a vehicle must be amber in color, and red at or near the rear. To lessen the chance of confusion in a driver approaching from the side who may never have seen lighted wheel rims, we believe that it would be preferable to follow Standard No. 108's color code. Use of different colors, such as white or green, could cause momentary confusion in the eyes of an approaching driver, leading to the conclusion that the required side lighting equipment has been impaired or made partially inoperative by Willy Lights.

Sincerely,

Philip R. Recht Chief Counsel

ref:108 d:10/21/94

ID: nht95-1.18

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: January 9, 1995

FROM: Philip R. Recht -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Melinda Dresser -- Manager Contracts/Transportation, Carlin Manufacturing, Inc.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: Attached to 11/28/94 letter from Melinda Dresser to Philip Recht

TEXT: We have received your letter of November 28, 1994, asking whether the exterior lighting of six Oscar Mayer "Wienermobiles" that your company is manufacturing conforms to applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. You have enclosed diagrams showi ng the location of the exterior lighting devices.

Under 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301 - Motor Vehicle Safety, the determination of whether a vehicle conforms with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards is that of the manufacturer who, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30115, must certify compliance of the ve hicle with those standards upon completion of manufacture. NHTSA has no authority to approve or disapprove specific vehicle designs. We do, however, provide interpretations of our standards to manufacturers upon request. The appropriate standard here i s Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment.

Your letter does not state whether Carlin has classified the Wienermobile as a "passenger car" or as a "truck". We believe that the vehicle is a "truck" within the meaning of 49 CFR 571.3 (b) because it appears to be "designed primarily for the transpor tation of property of special purpose equipment", rather than for the transportation of passengers, and that its overall width of 94 inches makes it more appropriate for the Wienermobile to meet wide vehicle lighting requirements. Therefore, the Wienermo bile must be equipped with the lighting equipment specified in Table I of Standard No. 108, and located as specified in Table II, the requirements for trucks whose overall width is 80 inches or more. This means that they must be equipped with the front and rear clearance and identification lamps that Table I requires for wide trucks; these lamps do not appear on your drawings.

In addition, all four-wheeled motor vehicles are required to have hazard warning/turn signal lamps and we don't see these lamps either on the drawings. With respect to front lighting equipment that is depicted, we note that supplementary lighting equipme nt such as fog lamps and the "front marker light" are permissible under Standard No. 108 if the manufacturer determines that they do not impair the effectiveness of the lighting equipment required by Standard No. 108, in this instance, the headlamps. In the absence of a clearly erroneous determination, NHTSA will accept the manufacturer's judgement on impairment. Trucks that are subject to Table II need not be equipped with a center high-mounted stop lamp or parking lamps, if that is the purpose of the front marker lamp.

We hope that these comments will be helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Mr. Taylor Vinson of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Philip R. Recht -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

ID: 16430.ztv

Mr. Lawrence J. Fetter
Athey Products Corporation
1839 South Main
Wake Forest, NC 27587

Dear Mr. Fetter:

This is in reply to your fax of November 10, 1997, to Taylor Vinson of this Office. You have asked how your Mobile Street Sweeper with speed capability of 25 mph or less is treated under both our current regulations and interpretations, and under the Federal motor vehicle safety standard that has been proposed for low-speed vehicles.

I am sorry that we have taken so long to reply. This delay was occasioned in part by your description of the street sweeper as one with three wheels, and in part by our desire to answer your question in terms of the final rule on low-speed vehicles, rather than on the basis of the proposal. The Administrator issued the final rule on June 9, 1998, and we are able to respond. We understand from your telephone conversation with Taylor Vinson of this Office in April that your sweeper in fact has four wheels, with two small ones twelve inches apart. We understand, also, that the maximum speed of the Sweeper is between 20 and 25 miles per hour.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration regulates "motor vehicles." A "motor vehicle" is defined in part as one which is "manufactured primarily for use on the public streets, roads, and highways." Thus, a street sweeper is a "motor vehicle" under this definition because it is manufactured for the purpose of cleaning city streets and its entire functional life is spent on the public streets.

Having determined that a street sweeper is a "motor vehicle," the next question to be answered is the manner in which NHTSA has classified it for purposes of compliance with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. All three-wheeled vehicles, regardless of their nature, are "motorcycles" as that term is defined under 49 CFR 571.3(b). A "truck" is defined as a "motor vehicle . . . designed primarily for the transportation of property or special purpose equipment." We consider the brushes to be "special purpose equipment." This means that your Mobile Street Sweeper with a speed capability of 20 to 25 miles per hour has been considered a "truck" for Federal motor vehicle safety regulatory purposes before and during the rulemaking on low-speed vehicles.

The proposal has been finalized as Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 500 Low-speed vehicles. Under the final rule, a low-speed vehicle is defined as a "4-wheeled motor vehicle, other than a truck," whose maximum speed is between 20 and 25 miles per hour. This represents the agency's decision to continue to regulate non-passenger carrying vehicles as trucks, even if their maximum speed capability is low. This means that the final rule makes no change in the previous classification of your Mobile Street Sweeper as a truck.

If you have further questions you may refer them to Taylor Vinson (202-366-5263).

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
Enclosures
ref:571
d.6/24/98

ID: nht75-5.38

DATE: 11/18/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank A. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Georgia Automobile Dealers Association

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of September 19, 1975, inquiring as to the disclosure responsibilities of an individual who sells a vehicle with a nonoperational odometer.

You describe a situation in which a dealer executed an odometer disclosure statement indicating that the actual odometer mileage was unknown where the odometer was nonfunctional. Apparently, the purchaser now claims sale of the vehicle with such an odometer inaccuracy constitutes misrepresentation by the dealer.

Based upon the facts of the case as you have presented them, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not consider that a violation of the odometer requirements of the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act (Pub. L. 92-513) has occurred. If the dealer in question executed an odometer disclosure statement, at the time of sale, that complies with the Federal disclosure requirements (49 CFR Part 580, Odometer Disclosure Requirements), and states that the mileage indicated on the odometer differs from the true mileage for reasons other than calibration error he satisfied his responsibilities under the law. The buyer was informed that the odometer mileage was incorrect and therefore should not be relied upon as an indication of the vehicle's condition.

As long as a seller informs his buyer as to the validity of the odometer mileage, he has no additional responsibility to repair an apparently nonfunctional odometer.

SINCERELY,

GEORGIA AUTOMOBILE DEALERS Association

September 19, 1975

Karen Kreshover, Esq. Office of Chief Counsel NHTSA

Mr. Dave Hunt, of the National Automobile Dealers Association, has requested that I write to you on behalf of one of our members. His problem concerns whether the odometer has to be in working condition at the time of a retail sale on a used car.

I have received the following narrative from the dealer concerning his difficulty.

Customer traded in a car and signed an Odometer Disclosure Form that the mileage was correct. The car was later retailed, and upon finding the odometer was not working due to the fact that the odometer reading at the time of the retail was still the same as it was at the time it was traded in -- the dealer's Disclosure Statement showed the mileage unknown -- the odometer was not working at the time of retail sale. A rubber stamp, with large letters, was used showing "as is", with the customer initialing under the wording "as is". The dealer does this on all his sales as part of the information on his bill of sales, along with the motor number, serial number and description of the car. He includes a line that shows mileage. The dealer has always displayed mileage, even before there was an Odometer Disclosure Law. On the Bill of Sale, where the dealer had written in the mileage, it was also marked (non certified). Some time later, within about 30 days, the customer complained of a problem in the transmission and wanted the dealer to repair it. The dealer refused because the vehicle was sold as an "as is" sale. The customer had the transmission repaired elsewhere, at his own expense. Now, the customer wants the dealer to reimburse him for the cost of the repairs because it is obvious that the mileage that appears on the odometer is lower than the actual mileage. The customer is basing his claim on misrepresentation at the time the car was purchased, even though he was made aware that the odometer could not be certified and the odometer was not working at the time of purchase.

Please inform me of your decision as soon as possible.

William F. Morie

Executive Vice President

H. Calvin Stovall, Jr. President

CC: DAVE HUNT

ID: 23947.ztv

Mr. Raymond Campanile
President/GM
Motorrad of North America
771 Fentress Blvd., Unit 22
Daytona Beach, FL 32114





Dear Mr. Campanile:

Thank you for your letter of January 21, 2002, responding to ours of January 10, asking for clarification of the relationship between Motorrad of Germany, Motorrad of North America, and CPI of Taiwan, as it affects the Moskito 125 for which you have filed a petition for temporary exemption.

As we now understand it, Motorrad of Germany has contracted with CPI to manufacture the Moskito, and the German company has tested the design for compliance with the U.S. Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS). Motorrad of Germany's certification of compliance with the FMVSS would be affixed by CPI and the vehicles shipped directly to Motorrad of North America.

Under 49 CFR 555.9 Temporary exemption labels, the certification label applied to an exempted vehicle "shall meet all applicable requirements of part 567 of this chapter" (Sec. 555.9(c)). Part 567 is the vehicle certification regulation. Section 567.4(g)(1) requires the certification label to state the name of the manufacturer of the vehicle, which is the name of the "actual assembler" of the vehicle. The actual assembler of the Moskito 125 is CPI, not Motorrad of Germany. Thus, under our regulations, CPI appears to be the entity that should petition for a temporary exemption of the Moskito 125 and certify its compliance with the FMVSS. Further, as the "manufacturer," CPI would share with the importer for resale, Motorrad of North America, the obligation to notify and remedy noncompliances and safety related defects that might occur in the Moskito 125. However, were the Moskito 125 to be shipped to the United States in complete but unassembled form and, after importation, assembled by Motorrad of North America, your company would be the "actual assembler" which, as the certifying manufacturer, could petition for a temporary exemption as you originally did.

There is another possibility. If CPI is controlled by Motorrad of Germany or Motorrad of North America, and the controlling company assumes responsibility for conformity with the FMVSS, the name of the controlling company may be used as the manufacturer on the certification label (Sec. 567.4(g)(1)(i)). In any event, we cannot proceed further with your petition until we have had your response to this letter.

We appreciate your providing a copy of Motorrad of Germany's designation of agent for service of process, dated May 1, 1997. Our Assistant Chief Counsel for General Law, Heidi Coleman, will write you shortly about its acceptability.

Sincerely,

John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
ref:555#567

ID: nht94-8.46

DATE: January 21, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Terry Karas -- T. K. Auto Inc.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 11/5/93 from Terry Karas to John Womack

TEXT:

This responds to your FAX of November 5, 1993.

You have asked whether a Canadian car that was accompanied by a Canadian manufacturer's letter stating that the vehicle complies with U.S. safety standards can be imported as a conforming vehicle under Box 2.

Box 2 on the HS-7 importation form is the importer's declaration under 49 CFR 591.5(b) that the motor vehicle to be imported complies with all applicable U.S. Federal motor vehicle safety standards, and bears a certification label or tag to that effect, affixed by the original manufacturer of the vehicle. Because some Canadian vehicles may be virtually identical to those manufactured in the United States, and hence may comply with U.S. safety standards even if not bearing a specific certification to U.S. safety standards, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has accepted, in lieu of specific certification to U.S. safety standards, a letter from the Canadian manufacturer stating that the vehicle to be imported was manufactured to comply with the U.S. safety standards.

If a manufacturer's compliance letter accompanies a vehicle manufactured for sale in Canada at the time such vehicle is offered for importation into the United States, the vehicle may be entered under Box 2 as a conforming vehicle, without the intervention of a registered importer or the issuance of a bond. However, the manufacturer's compliance letter must contain the VIN of the specific vehicle that is to be imported, and an unqualified statement that the vehicle, as manufactured, complied with all applicable U.S. Federal motor vehicle safety standards.

Customs will then forward the HS-7 form and manufacturer's letter to this agency. However, if customs wishes us to review the manufacturer's letter, it is the prerogative of Customs to defer entry of the vehicle until it has received our views as to whether entry under Box 2 is appropriate.

You have also asked whether it makes "a difference if it is being imported for commercial or private purposes." Any Canadian vehicle that is accompanied by an acceptable manufacturer's letter of compliance is eligible for entry as a conforming vehicle under Box 2, regardless of whether the intent of importation is the commercial sale of the vehicle, or the retention of the vehicle for private use. However, if the letter is not an acceptable statement of compliance and the importation is for commercial purposes, the vehicle may only be imported under bond by a registered importer who must satisfy NHTSA that the vehicle complies, or has been brought into compliance, with the U.S. safety standards. Even though the registered importer's compliance work may be minimal, it is important to remember that the registered importer is also the person

responsible by statute for implementing notification and remedy campaigns in the event that noncompliances of the original manufacturer or safety related defects are discovered in the Canadian vehicle.

ID: nht72-1.5

DATE: 04/05/72

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; E. T. Driver; NHTSA

TO: U.S. Technical Research Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: The questions asked by your letter of March 18, 1972, have been compared with the applicable paragraphs of the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 164 and the Society of Automotive Engineers Recommended Practice J942.

1. The purpose of paragraphs 2.11 and 4.42b of J942 is to allow the testing of both manual and automatic systems seeing the same procedures. The (Illegible Word) of 4.42b attempts to equalise the usual cleaning cycle of each type of system. It is apparent that the manual system allowed for by 4.42b is one in which a single actuation, if held long enough, would put 15 cc of fluid through the nozzle. The systems you described is not of this type, nor is it the automatic system. You must therefore comply with the intent of the test, which would be to operate your system for 8,000 washer cycles, as stated in paragraph 3.4. Each washer cycle is that which puts approximately 15 cc of fluid through the nozzle. Since your system is not the usual system implied in the standard, the three-record rule would not apply. Time limitation would be dictated by the "Mo./min" column of Table 1 of J942, i.e. two washer cycles per minute.

Therefore, the pump and central switch you described, along with the other parts of the systems, if they meet all other prescribed (Illegible Word), would comply with Federal Motor Vehicles Safety Standard No. 104.

2. An automatic pump cycling device would not be limited by the three-second rule. It would be requested to meet the "Mo./min" column of Table 1 of J942, 1.2., two washer cycles per minute.

3. Paragraph 3.1 does not specify the duration of water spray, member of water sprays, or start time of wiper action. No standard wiper blade, windshield, or mechanism is specified. These are the items which, in conjunction with the washer, must produce an effective wips/wash system.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration is concerned that the entire system provide good washing and wiping, and is not concerned with compliance of individual components.

4. "Repeatedly," as used in paragraphs 4.2.2a and b, means the repeated application of the control device (push button, usually) which is designed to cause the water to squirt out of the nozzles. Practically, this reproduces a driver's attempts to activate the system on a cold day, not knowing if it is frozen or plugged. Upon warming up, the systems must not have been damaged, and must still function after removal of the ice or plug. Without this safeguard, many systems would be rendered inoperative on the first cold day by an impatient driver.

5. To our knowledge, there is no reservoir size stated by Federal or State regulations.

Please ask for further information, if needed.