ID: nht95-3.87

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: August 11, 1995

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA; Signature By Stephen P. Wood

TO: Thomas A. Placey, Esq. -- Senior Assistant District Attorney, Office of the District Attorney, Cumberland County; One Courthouse Square

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 07/21/95 LETTER FROM THOMAS A. PLACEY TO OFFICE OF CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TEXT: Dear Mr. Placey:

This responds to your letter of July 20, 1995. You present the fact situation of the theft in Canada of a Canadian-owned GMC Jimmy which was then imported into the United States and delivered to a conspirator in Pennsylvania. The conspirator altered th e VIN and sold the Jimmy which was eventually seized by the Pennsylvania State Police. The Jimmy's buyer wants the vehicle back and has filed with the local state court for its return.

You write "The issue, on the federal level, is can this vehicle ever be properly registered in the United States. What are the specific federal laws or regulations that govern such situations."

We cannot answer the question whether this vehicle can be properly registered in the United States, because there are no Federal requirements that apply to the registration of privately owned vehicles. Each State establishes its own requirements. For a n overview of State laws on vehicle registration, we suggest that you write the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA 22203.

There are two Federal laws which we administer that are relevant to the situation you present. Missing from your scenario is the fact whether the Jimmy was manufactured in the United States in compliance with the U. S. Federal motor vehicle safety stand ards. If the answer is yes, then its importation by any person does not violate the Federal statues under which we operate. If it was not manufactured to conform, we note that the importation of a nonconforming vehicle is an act forbidden by 49 U.S.C. 30112(a) for which a civil penalty may be imposed under 49 U.S.C. 30165. The statute does not provide the right to seize a nonconforming vehicle. Furthermore, the statute does not forbid the sale of a used nonconforming imported vehicle.

There may be a violation of 49 U.S.C. 30122 because of the defacing of the VIN. Under this section, no manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or motor vehicle repair business may knowingly make inoperative any part of a device or element of design installed in accordance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard. The VIN was installed in accordance with 49 CFR 571.115 Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No 115 Vehicle Identification Number. We view the alteration of the VIN as a violation of this section, if t he conspirator who altered it was a manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or motor vehicle repair business as those terms are described in the statute. Violators of this section are also subject to a civil penalty under 49 U.S.C. 30165.

We are unable to advise you on the laws or regulations administered by other Federal agencies. For example, we cannot advise you whether the U.S. has entered into any treaties or other agreements with Canada concerning the treatment of property that is stolen from that country. You may write for an opinion to the United States Department of State, Office of Foreign Mission, 3507 International Place, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20008.

If you have further questions, Taylor Vinson of this Office will be able to help you with them (202-366-5263).

ID: 1063

Thomas A. Placey, Esq.
Senior Assistant District Attorney
Office of the District Attorney
Cumberland County
One Courthouse Square
Carlisle, PA 17013

Dear Mr. Placey:

This responds to your letter of July 20, 1995. You present the fact situation of the theft in Canada of a Canadian-owned GMC Jimmy which was then imported into the United States and delivered to a conspirator in Pennsylvania. The conspirator altered the VIN and sold the Jimmy which was eventually seized by the Pennsylvania State Police. The Jimmy's buyer wants the vehicle back and has filed with the local state court for its return.

You write "The issue, on the federal level, is can this vehicle ever be properly registered in the United States. What are the specific federal laws or regulations that govern such situations."

We cannot answer the question whether this vehicle can be properly registered in the United States, because there are no Federal requirements that apply to the registration of privately owned vehicles. Each State establishes its own requirements. For an overview of State laws on vehicle registration, we suggest that you write the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA 22203.

There are two Federal laws which we administer that are relevant to the situation you present. Missing from your scenario is the fact whether the Jimmy was manufactured in the United States in compliance with the U. S. Federal motor vehicle safety standards. If the answer is yes, then its importation by any person does not violate the Federal statutes under which we operate. If it was not manufactured to conform, we note that the importation of a nonconforming vehicle is an act forbidden by 49 U.S.C. 30112(a) for which a civil penalty may be imposed under 49 U.S.C. 30165. The

statute does not provide the right to seize a nonconforming vehicle. Furthermore, the statute does not forbid the sale of a used nonconforming imported vehicle.

There may be a violation of 49 U.S.C. 30122 because of the defacing of the VIN. Under this section, no manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or motor vehicle repair business may knowingly make inoperative any part of a device or element of design installed in accordance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard. The VIN was installed in accordance with 49 CFR 571.115 Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No 115 Vehicle Identification Number. We view the alteration of the VIN as a violation of this section, if the conspirator who altered it was a manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or motor vehicle repair business as those terms are described in the statute. Violators of this section are also subject to a civil penalty under 49 U.S.C. 30165.

We are unable to advise you on the laws or regulations administered by other Federal agencies. For example, we cannot advise you whether the U.S. has entered into any treaties or other agreements with Canada concerning the treatment of property that is stolen from that country. You may write for an opinion to the United States Department of State, Office of Foreign Mission, 3507 International Place, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20008.

If you have further questions, Taylor Vinson of this Office will be able to help you with them (202-366- 5263).

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

ref:591 d:8/11/95

ID: nht93-8.40

DATE: December 1, 1993

FROM: Ramin Bogzaran -- Remedquip International Manufacturing, Inc.

TO: John Womack -- Acting Chief Council, NHTSA

TITLE: Request for interpretation 102(3) - Definition of motor vehicle; Reply requested by December 14, 1993

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated January 26, 1994 from John Womack to Ramin Bogzaran (A42; VSA 102(3); Attached to fax dated 12/15/93 from Ramin Bogzaran to Marvin Shaw; Also attached to letter dated 11/15/93 from Amar Chhabra to whom it may concern; Also attached to letter dated 11/30/93 from Lynn White to Jeff Boraston

TEXT:

Further to my discussions with Mr. Vinson I am sending your offices a request for ruling on the definition of motor vehicle and section 591.5(a)(1).

We have two trailers which have specialized equipment mounted on them and were originally manufactured in Greenville, TN in 1991, to U.S. DOT standards. This equipment has been stored on one site since it was delivered to Canada and was never operated or modified. At the time of delivery the manufacturer obtained permits for the trailers to be shipped to Canada and did not place a DOT sticker on the trailers. This equipment was a special order for a now defunct Canadian company. The equipment mounted on the two trailers is a BAGHOUSE which is built for AIR POLLUTION CONTROL.

These units were BUILT TO BE PART OF A TRANSPORTABLE SOIL REMEDIATION PLANT and will be used in the same capacity once imported to the United States. The trailers do not get registered and only get moved with permits as required. The reason for not registering the trailers is that the projects are long term and the trailers hardly see the road in their lifetime.

The trailers will be inspected every time before they are moved to make sure that they are SAFE AND COMPLY WITH ALL SAFETY STANDARDS. As the trailers are in Canada we can check them here to make sure that they comply with all safety regulations in Canada and also the CVSA, Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance, which is an alliance signed between Canada and the United States to make sure that the commercial vehicles of both countries are safe and road worthy. It is our complete intention to make sure that the equipment is safe to be on the road and we feel that a favorable ruling to transport this equipment from Vancouver, Canada to our shop in San Diego, CA would be justified.

We will have the equipment checked by a United States certified technician once it has arrived to get a permit and make sure that it does comply with all federal safety regulations.

You will find enclosed a copy of the certificate of origin, pictures, a letter from the company which has had the equipment for the past two years stating that the equipment was built in the United States, and a letter from the manufacturer.

I thank you for your kind attention as our company must have this equipment at our facilities as soon as possible. I will be in contact with your office to make sure that you have all the necessary information which you may need to give us a ruling on the above.

ID: nht92-7.29

DATE: April 27, 1992

FROM: Frederick H. Grubbe -- Deputy Administrator, NHTSA

TO: Wally Herger -- Member, U.S. House of Representatives

COPYEE: Washington Office

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 3/13/92 from Wally Herger to Nancy Bruce; Also attached to letter dated 2/28/92 from Bill Gaines to Wally Herger

TEXT:

Thank you for your letter on behalf of Mr. Bill Gaines of Transfer Flow, Inc. Your letter has been referred to me for reply, since the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is responsible for regulating motor vehicle safety. NHTSA issued Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 301, Fuel System Integrity, the subject of Mr. Gaines' concern.

Mr. Gaines, a manufacturer of fuel tanks and fuel systems, requested your assistance about his company's "inability to meet" FMVSS 301. Mr. Gaines is concerned about the "inflexibility of testing and high cost of performing (the FMVSS 301) test."

Before I address Mr. Gaines' concerns, I would like to provide some background information on our regulations and safety standards. NHTSA has the authority under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act to issue motor vehicle safety standards for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. Manufacturers of new vehicles or equipment must certify that their products conform to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS). Each of the safety standards specifies test conditions and procedures that NHTSA will use to evaluate the performance of the vehicle or equipment being tested for compliance with the particular safety standard.

The purpose of FMVSS 301 is to reduce deaths and injuries occurring from fires that result from fuel spillage during and after motor vehicle crashes. It does this by limiting the amount of fuel spillage that can occur when a vehicle is subjected to specified front, rear, and lateral barrier impact tests.

FMVSS 301 has applied to passenger cars since 1968, to trucks, vans and buses with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less since 1976, and to school buses over 10,000 pounds since 1977. The standard applies to completed new motor vehicles, and not to components of fuel systems. Thus, the manufacturer of a vehicle that is equipped with Transfer Flow's fuel system must certify that the vehicle complies with Standard 301. Similarly, a person altering a new vehicle by replacing the original fuel system with a new one must certify that the vehicle continues to meet Standard 301.

With regard to Mr. Gaines' concern about flexibility, I note that the Safety Act does not require a manufacturer to test its products only in the manner specified in the relevant safety standard. A manufacturer may choose any means of evaluating its products to determine whether the vehicle or item of equipment complies with the requirements of the safety standards. Certifications may be based on, among other things, engineering analyses, computer simulations, and/or actual testing. The manufacturer need only ensure that its vehicles or equipment will meet the applicable FMVSS's when tested by

NHTSA according to the procedures specified in the Standards. We do not believe that the information provided by Mr. Gaines demonstrates any need to update FMVSS 301's requirements.

I hope this information is helpful.

ID: 77-1.49

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/21/77

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Bohmer-Reed Inc.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your February 25, 1977, letter asking whether your motor home conversions make you a manufacturer or an alterer for purposes of compliance with the regulations of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA).

In your conversion of motor homes, you install used bodies on new chassis. The NHTSA considers the mounting of a used body on a new chassis to be the manufacture of a new motor vehicle that requires certification. This makes you a manufacturer rather than an alterer. The rules for certification are found in Part 567, Certification, and Part 568, Vehicles Manufactured in Two or More Stages. I have enclosed copies of these regulations for your information.

Your second question asks whether the converted vehicle must comply with Standard No. 302, Flammability of Interior Materials, even though the original body was manufactured prior to the effective date of the standard. Vehicles must comply with all standards in effect on the date of their manufacture. For vehicles that you complete by mounting a body on a new chassis, you are permitted to treat as the date of manufacture, the date of manufacture of the incomplete vehicle (as defined in Part 568), the date of final completion of the vehicle, or a date between those two dates. Therefore, it appears that the vehicle you manufacture would be required to comply with Standard No. 302.

SINCERELY,

February 25, 1977

Chief Counsel NHTSA

Our's is a new company which was formed for the purpose of going into business converting customers 31' Airstream Trailers, from 1968 to present models, into Motorhomes.

We build the chassis and do the conversion. We do not use any of the airstream chassis or suspension.

Our chassis components have been designed by Bendix for rear suspension and brakes; Spicer Dana for the front axle; Firestone for the air suspension; Saginaw Gears for the steering system; and Ford Motors for the engine, transmission and cooling systems.

We are attempting to comply with the Federal Docket in all respects.

My first question is, are we to be considered a manufacturer or an alterer?

Second, on Airstream Trailers, 1968 through September 1, 1972, must 302 be complied with if it does not already comply?

I would appreciate any information you could furnish me on this matter.

John O. Bohmer President Bohmer - Reed, Inc. Motorhome Conversions

ID: nht92-3.43

DATE: 09/23/92

FROM: THOMAS D. PRICE -- PRESIDENT, STRAIT-STOP MANUFACTURING CO., INC.

TO: PAUL JACKSON RICE -- CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 11-25-92 FROM PAUL J. RICE TO THOMAS PRICE (A40; STD. 121)

TEXT: Strait-Stop Manufacturing Company, Inc. has developed, tested and is marketing a product line of noncomputerized antilock braking assist systems for air brake, electric brake, air over hydraulic brake and vacuum/hydraulic brake installations on trucks and trailers. We responded to the agency's questionaire on rulemaking for ABS, Docket No. 92-29; Notice 1, in August this year.

As we have proceeded on our marketing program, we have encountered some confusion and misunderstanding regarding the role of the DOT and the NHTSA with respect to the ABS products available today. The most common question we have encountered is, "Are you certified or approved by DOT or NHTSA?". We have responded that the federal regulators neither approve nor disapprove any specific ABS product. Often our response is considered in error and self-serving.

In the development of our product line we have been highly cognizant of our responsibility to avoid any adverse effect which might jeopardize any vehicle's compliance with FMVSS 121, FMVSS 106 or any other safety standards with which we are familiar.

Would you please respond to the above by specifying the NHTSA policy regarding approval, disapproval, or certification of any particular ABS product? Secondly, in view of the scope of our product line, indicated in the first paragraph, would you please provide us with a listing of the various standards and regulations with which we should be conversant? And lastly, would you please delineate the obligation of an OEM, an alterer of a previously certified new motor vehicle prior to its first sale, and an installer of an ABS device on a used or in use motor vehicle as regards its satisfaction of requirements of all applicable safety standards?

Due to the ease of installation of our products on after market vehicles, our primary market is the retrofit category. As currently indicated, the new regulations, which are yet to be formulated and proposed, will address only new vehicles manufactured after the effective date of the standards. However, it is our desire and intent that our product line will meet or exceed the prescribed performance standards. At the present time our test and performance statistics indicate that vehicles equipped with our products not only meet all performance standards, but also significantly reduce vehicle operating costs.

Please let me know how we may secure or have access to a copy of the complete Docket Number 92-29; Notice 1, including the responses submitted and made a part thereof?

ID: 20078.ztv

Mr. Jacques Gurdjian
Vice President
J & B Importers, Inc.
P.O. Box 161859
Miami, FL 33116-1859

Dear Mr. Gurdjian:

This is in reply to your letter of May 17, 1999, with respect to the Miami EV3 Sun. You describe the vehicle as "an adult three wheel cycle, that is assisted by an electric motor." You ask whether the vehicle is subject to the Federal motor vehicle safety, bumper, and theft protection standards, and, if so, to be provided with a copy of the requirements.

For purposes of compliance with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards, a "motor vehicle" is one that is driven by mechanical power and manufactured primarily for use on the public streets, roads, and highways. Because the Miami EV3 Sun does not appear to have special features for operation off the public roads, we have concluded that it is a vehicle manufactured for use on the public streets.

We interpret the phrase "driven by mechanical power" with respect to vehicles equipped with a power assist and pedals to mean that this type of vehicle is a "motor vehicle" if it is able to operate using the power assist alone, without any muscular input. However, if the vehicle will not operate in the absence of any muscular input, we do not consider it "driven by mechanical power" within the meaning of the definition, and, therefore, this type of vehicle is not a "motor vehicle."

With respect to the Miami EV3 Sun, we note that the pedals are used to propel the vehicle to a speed of 2 miles per hour when "the electric motor will engage keeping the bike moving at a maximum speed of 9 mph." Further, the product literature you enclosed indicates that the Miami EV3 Sun has a range of 15 miles per charge without pedal assist. The latter feature is sufficient to make the Miami EV3 Sun a "motor vehicle" under our interpretations.

All three-wheeled motor vehicles are defined as "motorcycles" for purposes of compliance with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. I enclose copies of our basic safety statute, 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301, and a document called "Requirements for Motorcycle Manufacturers."

The bumper and theft prevention standards apply only to "passenger motor vehicles." This category of vehicle does not include motorcycles. Therefore, bumper and theft prevention standards do not apply to the Miami EV3 Sun.

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

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
Enclosures
ref:571
d.7/1/99

ID: Webb.1

Mr. Sean P. Webb
6 Oak Hollow Drive
St. Peters, MO 63376

Dear Mr. Webb:

This responds to your May 13, 2004, letter, in which you seek clarification regarding certain provisions of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment, related to headlamps. In your letter and in a subsequent phone conversation with Mr. Michael Cole of the Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, you described perceived problems with your 2003 vehicle, which was purchased new and unmodified. Specifically, you stated that your vehicles halogen headlamps (high beams and low beams) and fog lamps periodically "flicker off and on" or change intensity when activated.

In your letter, you asked whether FMVSS No. 108 requires headlamps to be steady-burning and whether "flickering" of the headlamps would impair the standards minimum illumination requirements. Our response to your questions follows.

The relevant section of FMVSS No. 108 reads as follows:

S5.5.10 The wiring requirements for lighting equipment in use are:

(a)     Turn signal lamps, hazard warning signal lamps, and school bus warning lamps shall be wired to flash;
(b)    Headlamps and side marker lamps may be wired to flash for signaling purposes;
(c)     A motorcycle headlamp may be wired to allow either its upper beam or its lower beam, but not both, to modulate from a higher intensity to a lower intensity in accordance with section S5.6;
(d)    All other lamps shall be wired to be steady-burning.

In short, S5.5.10(d) of FMVSS No. 108 requires that all lamps must be steady burning, unless otherwise permitted. The situation that you describe does not appear to fall within any of the exceptions to the steady-burning requirement.

We are unable to comment on the compliance of your specific vehicle with FMVSS No. 108 without conducting independent testing. We note, however, that Mr. Cole confirmed the entry of the information that you provided in the National Highway Traffic Safety Administrations consumer complaints database and provided you with a copy of 49 CFR Part 552, Petitions for Rulemaking, Defect, and Noncompliance Orders, which set forth the procedures for petitioning the agency to examine possible noncompliances or defects in motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment.

I hope you find this information useful. If you have further questions, please feel free to contact Eric Stas of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:108
d.6/28/04

ID: nht76-3.1

DATE: 11/08/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Robert L. Carter; NHTSA

TO: E. Edelman & Co.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Thank you for your letter of August 19, 1976, to Dr. James D. Gregory, requesting information on aftermarket gas caps as they relate to compliance with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS), No. 301. Your inquiry has been forwarded to this office for reply. Apparently your letter of May 26, 1976, was either lost or misdirected, as we can find no record of it in our files, and we sincerely apologize for this delay in responding to your inquiry.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration does not regulate vehicle fuel tank caps as such; however, FMVSS No. 301, Fuel System Integrity, specifies performance requirements to assure the integrity of the entire vehicle fuel system (which includes the fuel tank cap) in various crash modes.

Thus, if installation of your replacement cap is accomplished prior to the first purchase of the vehicle for purposes other than resale causing the vehicle's fuel system not to be in compliance with the applicable safety standard, the person installing the cap or offering the vehicle for sale would be in violation of S103(2)(1) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Pub. L. 89-503). That would make the installer or seller subject to civil penalties of up to $ 1,000 for each violation.

Recent amendments to the Traffic Safety Act (Pub. L. 93-492) prohibit any manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business from knowingly rendering inoperative, in whole or in part, any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable motor vehicle safety standard (S108(a)(2) (A)). Thus, it is illegal for any of the above named persons to install a fuel tank cap that he knows will cause the vehicle to be in non-compliance with the fuel system integrity standard. Federal Law does not, however, prohibit the owner of a vehicle from purchasing and installing a fuel tank cap of his choice on his own vehicle, even though he may compromise the Fuel System Integrity Standard.

We are interested in any information regarding safety problems associated with replacement gas caps as a basis for further action. If you could provide any such information, we would be most grateful.

Thank you for sharing your thoughts with us.

SINCERELY,

May 26, 1976

James B. Gregory, Administrator U.S. Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration I am writing to you for some clarification on Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 301-75 (part 571; S 301-75. This standard spells out original equipment manufacture's responsibilities for designing automobiles against fuel spillage after crash tests. This implicitely means that manufactures of gas caps for OEM customers are required to provide gas caps which conform to the roll-over requirements.

My question is, do the Federal Motor Vehicle Standards in any way impose requirements on parts manufacturers who make gas caps for after-market retail outlets to market caps which meet the OEM roll-over specifications?

For any company to volentarily follow the practice of meeting the roll-over specifications when others do not, self-imposes a severe marketing penalty because of the additional large number of caps which are needed for complete market coverage. This poses warehouse customer inventory stocking problems. Since some companies are using one cap for the OEM which meets roll-over requirements, and a different cap for the after-market at a decided competative advantage, it is imperative to us that this question of applicability of the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard be answered.

I await your early reply.

Ronald W. Cooke Engineering Manager

ID: 07-001810 Nordkil--draft (18 May 07)