ID: nht92-3.28

DATE: 10/05/92

FROM: ROBERT F. GAYER -- EQUIPMENT COORDINATOR, TRANSPORTATION SERVICES, SALT RIVER PROJECT

TO: CHIEF COUNSEL -- NHTSA

COPYEE: TOM LANGENFELD -- GREAT DANE TRAILER

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 12-14-92 FROM PAUL J. RICE TO ROBERT F. GAYER (A40; STD. 121)

TEXT: Salt River Project, Transportation Services requests an interpretation of FMVSS 121 in regard to compliance of the brake systems on four (4) semi-trailers owned and operated on public streets and highways by Salt River Project. The manufacturer of the four trailers, Great Dane Trailer of Savannah Georgia has stated to Salt River Project that these trailers do not need to comply with "121", because they are "Heavy Haul Trailers". Salt River Project does not agree with Great Dane Trailer, and thus the request for the interpretation. All four (4) trailers are as follows:

Semi Trailer, flatbed, extendable - 40 feet to 65 feet.

GVWR - 68,000 lb.

Length - 45 to 65 feet

Width - 96 inches

Deck Height - 59 inches

Overall Height - 119 inches at Headboard

Axles - 20,000 lb. Rockwell, two (2) each

Service Brakes - Full Air, S-cam, with one Bendix No.

RE-6 Relay Emergency Valve only.

Note: There is no trailer spring brake valve installed on these trailers, of any kind; and only one (1) air reservoir.

Parking Brakes - MGM Spring Applied, Air Released

Trailer Serial Nos: 1GRDM8025KM013401

1GRDM8027KM013402

1GRDM8029KM013403

1GRDM8020KM013404

Attached is a copy of the SRP Vehicle Data Record for one of the trailers, and a "line set" sheet supplied by Great Dane Trailer for one of the trailers.

These four trailers are identically equipped.

Specifically, SRP is concerned that these trailers do not comply with the law, and leaves SRP open to litigation should an accident and resulting lawsuit arise, because of noncompliance in the area of S5.2.1.1 that trailers must have a reservoir that "is capable, when pressurized to 90 p.s.i., of releasing the vehicle's parking brakes at least once and that is unaffected by loss of air pressure in the service brake system"; and S5.2.1.5 that states "be protected against loss of air pressure due to failure or leakage in the system between the service reservoir and its source of air pressure by check valves or equivalent devices". We are aware of Docket 90-3 Notice 2 (corrected to Notice 3 by Notice 4) which revises a portion of FMVSS 121, but do not know the affect it will have on our concerns.

Attachments: SRP Vehicle Data Record

Great Dane Line Set Sheet (TEXT AND PHOTOS OMITTED)

ID: 193761-2.pja

The Honorable Bob Graham
Member, United States Senate
2252 Killearn Center Boulevard, Third Floor
Tallahassee, FL 32308

Re: Mr. Gary Issod

Dear Senator Graham:

This responds to your letter on behalf of Mr. Gary Issod of Reading, Pennsylvania, regarding Federal regulations on window tinting and how they relate to the law in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. You letter has been referred to my office for reply, because the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) administers the Federal requirements for window tinting.

Mr. Issod objects to a Pennsylvania law requiring automobile windows to transmit at least 70 percent of the incident light. Mr. Issod believes that the State law is based on an erroneous interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205, which regulates automotive glazing materials (windows). As explained below, Pennsylvania correctly interprets Standard No. 205, and we have determined that the State law is not preempted.

By way of background, NHTSA has the authority, under 49 U.S.C. 30111, to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. Pursuant to this statute, we issued Safety Standard No. 205, which specifies performance requirements for vehicle glazing. The standard includes a requirement that all windows "requisite for driving visibility" (including all windows in passenger cars) have a light transmittance of at least 70 percent. Although the standard does not apply to vehicles once the vehicle has been sold to a consumer, 49 U.S.C. 30122(b) of our statute prohibits a vehicle manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair business from "mak[ing] inoperative any part of a device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable motor vehicle safety standard . . . ." Therefore, the act of tinting any car window to transmittance levels darker than 70 percent is a violation of section 30122(b), if it is performed by one of the regulated businesses listed above.

We do not regulate or limit owners tinting their vehicle windows, although NHTSA does not encourage tinting darker than that allowed by Standard No. 205 for new vehicles. Moreover,

NHTSA does not regulate the use of vehicles. Instead, the operation or use of vehicles is under the jurisdiction of the States.

States have the authority to regulate how vehicles are operated or used, as long as the State law is not preempted by Federal law. State operational restrictions addressing an aspect of performance regulated by the Federal standard would be preempted by Federal law only to the extent that they prohibit the use of vehicles that comply with Federal regulations.

Examining Pennsylvania's law, as outlined in the letter you forwarded from Assistant Counsel Sanders, we find that the Pennsylvania law is not preempted by NHTSA's regulations. Pennsylvania's law does not prohibit the use of vehicles with windows allowing 70 percent light transmittance. It requires the identical level of light transmittance as the Federal standard. There appears to be no conflict between the State and Federal glazing standards, with regard to the light transmittance issue.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact me.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
ref:205
d.2/11/99

ID: GF001071

Mr. David Regan
Trecan Combustion Limited
4049 St Margarets Bay Road
Hubley, Nova Scotia B3Z1C2
Canada

Dear Mr. Regan:

This responds to your February 10, 2004, letter and phone conversation with George Feygin of my staff. You ask whether snow melting machines manufactured by your company would be classified as "motor vehicles." You manufacture three different machines with the primary function of melting large quantities of snow. In order to move from location to location, these machines are equipped with wheels and function much like a trailer. As explained below, based on the information you provided us, we would not consider these machines to be motor vehicles for the purposes of our regulations.

Title 49 U.S.C Chapter 301 authorizes the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to prescribe Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. Section 30102(a)(6) defines "motor vehicle" as:

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

NHTSA has issued several interpretations of this language. We have stated that vehicles equipped with tracks, agricultural equipment, and other vehicles incapable of highway travel are not motor vehicles. We have also determined that certain vehicles designed and sold solely for off-road use (e.g., airport runway vehicles and underground mining vehicles) are not motor vehicles, even if they may be operationally capable of highway travel. Finally, we have concluded that items of mobile construction equipment that use the highways only to move between job sites and that typically spend extended periods of time at a single site are not motor vehicles. However, we do consider vehicles that use the public roads on a necessary and recurring basis to be motor vehicles.

In the present case, your letter states that your snow melting machines are designed primarily for use by airports and other large facilities, such as parking garages. While these machines are capable of highways travel, you state that in all likelihood such travel will be limited to reaching permanent or semi-permanent job sites (i.e specific locations where large snow piles are continuously accumulated). Based on this information, it appears that these machines are akin to airport runway vehicles or items of mobile construction equipment that do not travel on highways on a recurring basis. Accordingly, we find that the snow melting machines described in your letter are not "motor vehicles." Because these machines are not motor vehicles, they are not subject to our regulations and requirements, including the requirement to meet all applicable FMVSSs.

We note that our finding is limited specifically to the equipment described in your letter, and is largely based on your representation of its intended use. In your correspondence, you state that some snow melting machines may be sold to large cities, but you do not elaborate further. We presume that snow melting machines purchased by large cities would also remain mostly at some single location designated for snow melting activities. However, we wish to caution that our finding does not apply to snow melting equipment that is intended to be used extensively on public roads on a recurring basis.

I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any other questions please contact Mr. George Feygin at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:571
d.3/12/04

ID: nht90-4.60

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: November 13, 1990

FROM: M. Iwase -- General Manager, Technical Administration Dept., Koito Manufacturing Company

TO: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: Re FMVSS No. 108 (Lamp, reflective devices, and associated equipment) Photometric Measurement Procedures for L.E.D. CHMSL

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 12-17-90 to M. Iwase from Paul Jackson Rice (A37; Std. 108)

TEXT:

We would hereby ask you to provide us with your kind advice concerning photometric measurement procedures for L.E.D. center high-mounted stop lamps (CHMSL).

Photometric output of L.E.D. lighting device decreases as the time passes after activation, as shown in Figure 1. This is caused by the thermal characteristic of L.E.D. discrete itself. Our question is about the timing of photometry when the photometri c output of L.E.D. CHMSL should be measured for the verification of compliance with the photometric requirements of FMVSS No. 108. It is reasonable that it shall be measured when 5 minutes has elapsed after the lamp is energized, with the following reas ons, we think;

(1) Our real-car field test has been performed to see how often and how long foot brake application (stop lamp operation) is raised during actual driving in the certain urban area. As the result of our field test, it was found that the c ontinuance is for 5 minutes at best for our brake application (refer to Figure 2).

(2) Section 3.1.5.3 "Photometric Minumums" in SAE J1889 JUN88 specifies, as follows;

Photometric Minumums: For measurements to photometric minimum requiments, the test "device light output shall first be stabilized by energizing the device at laboratory ambient temperature (23 +/- 5 degrees C) until either internal he at builtup saturation has occured or 30 minutes has elapsed, whichever occurs first.

This provision is true of steady burn lamps, for example tail lamp, parking lamp, etc., however not true of stop lamp which is energized during just the period of service brake operation.

(3) S4.8 "Warpage Test on Devices with Plastic Components" and Table 1 "Cycle Time (Min)" in SAE J575 JUL83 specifies 5-on/5-off operating cycle for stop lamps.

Whether could our interpretation above-mentioned be legally accepted? Upon your kind review, your prompt reply would be highly appreciated.

Attachment

Figure 1. Photometric Output Of L.E.D. And Incandescent Bulb (Graph Omitted) Figure 2. Brake Application Period (Graph Omitted) Test Method: Three (3) vehicles (A, B and C) chosen at random were chased and measured brake application periods. Date: January 10, 1990 Location: Urban area (in Nagoya city)

Remark: Each test data of three vehicles is continuous, namely Vehicle A was measured the brake application for 72 minutes, and Vehicle B and C were measured for 24 minutes, respectively.

ID: cernosek.ztv

Larry Cernosek, Chairman
Texas Towing & Storage Association
2104 Lyons Avenue
Houston, TX 77020

Dear Mr. Cernosek:

This is in reply to your letter of March 30, 2000, to Taylor Vinson of this Office.

You describe "a light bar that is factory mounted on every tow truck manufactured." The bar incorporates "additional stop and tail lamps which are the same color and no brighter than the required ones at the rear of the vehicle." You have asked whether "these lights are legal under Federal law."

Tow trucks, and all other motor vehicles, are required to be manufactured to conform to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment. Standard No. 108 permits two types of supplemental lighting equipment. Under S5.1.3 of the standard, additional lighting equipment is permitted as long as it does not impair the effectiveness of the lighting equipment required by Standard No. 108. It need not meet any performance or location requirements.

The second type of lighting equipment is covered by S5.3.1.1. This paragraph of Standard No. 108 requires that lighting equipment be installed so that it meets the photometric and visibility specifications of the standard. But if other vehicle equipment, such as "mirrors, snow plows, wrecker booms back hoes, and winches," prevents the required lighting equipment from complying with these specifications, the vehicle manufacturer must add auxiliary equipment that meets the photometric and visibility specifications. Because S5.3.1.1. specifically refers to wrecker booms, we assume that the light bar has been installed to ensure compliance of the tow truck, with wrecker boom installed, with the stop lamp and taillamp requirements of Standard No. 108. Under these circumstances, the light bar lamps are "legal" under Federal law if the lamps in the light bar meet all requirements that apply to stop lamps and taillamps. We make no judgment as to whether the lamps do, in fact, meet these requirements, except to note that the light bar in one of the photos you enclosed appears to be mounted higher than 72 inches from the road surface, which is the maximum mounting height for taillamps allowed by Standard No. 108. Thus, a light bar installed by the manufacturer or dealer in new tow trucks, intended to fulfill the taillamp function mounted higher than 72 inches from the road surface, would not be "legal" under Federal law.

You also mention that "tow lights are also used on the rear of the vehicle being towed just as if you were towing a trailer." We are not sure whether you are also requesting an opinion as to whether these temporary lights are legal under Federal law. The laws that we administer govern the manufacture of vehicles and not their use. While a trailer must be manufactured with specified lighting equipment, there are no Federal requirements that apply to other vehicles under tow. The lighting requirements for the rear of vehicles being towed by a tow truck are established by the local laws of the place where the towing occurs.

If you have further questions, you may telephone Taylor Vinson at (202-366-5263).

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
ref:108
d.5/9/00

ID: nht92-2.25

DATE: 11/16/92

FROM: PAUL JACKSON RICE -- CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TO: FREDD SCHEYS -- PRESIDENT, S.C.C. CARAT INC.

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 10-2-92 FROM FREDD SCHEYS TO TAYLOR VINSON AND PAUL J. RICE (OCC 7842)

TEXT: This responds to your letter of October 2, 1992, asking for an explanation of how this agency's regulations would affect two types of vehicle conversions your company plans to undertake.

In the first situation, a customer in California wishes to send two "U.S. spec" cars that he presently owns to Europe for a 39-inch stretch conversion. In the second situation, the customer would take delivery of a "U.S. spec car" in Europe, use it for tourist purposes, and leave it at your factory for conversion, and subsequent shipment to the United States. You also ask for "advice for the case where we have to convert a car into an armoured car." I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our laws and regulations for you.

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Safety Act) provides generally that no person shall manufacture, sell, or import into the United States any motor vehicle unless that vehicle is in conformity with all applicable U.S. motor vehicle safety standards and is covered by a manufacturer's certification to that effect. The certification requirements are set forth in 49 Code of Federal Regulations, Part 567. The certification requirements apply to persons and entities that perform some manufacturing or conversion activities to a vehicle before that vehicle's first sale for purposes other than resale. This means that the original manufacturer of a vehicle (Mercedes-Benz, for instance) must certify that each of its completed vehicles conforms to all applicable U.S. safety standard and permanently affix a label with that statement on each such vehicle. For the purposes of this letter, I am assuming that the cars you call "U.S. spec" cars are cars to which the original manufacturer has affixed its certification label.

If any party performs conversion operations on a certified vehicle before the initial purchase of the vehicle, the party would be an "alterer" and required to affix its own label identifying itself and certifying that the converted vehicle continues to conform to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. See 49 CFR 567.7. However, in the situations posited in your letter, the conversions to be performed in Europe by your company would be performed on vehicles after the first purchase of the vehicle for purposes other than resale. This agency does not require any certification to be made or certification label to be affixed by entities that perform conversions on vehicles after the first purchase of those vehicles. Thus, your company need not make its own certification nor affix its own label. Instead, your company must leave in place the original manufacturer's certification label.

The only provision in U.S. law that applies to conversion operations performed on vehicles after the first purchase in good faith for purposes other than resale is set forth in Title 15, United States Code, section 1397(b)(2). That section of the law forbids 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 in accordance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard." This means that your company must ensure that your conversion operations do not cause the converted vehicle to no longer comply with the U.S. motor vehicle safety standards. Pursuant to this responsibility, the agency would, for example, expect that, if the vehicle's weight ratings and tire inflation pressures shown on its original certification labels were no longer valid after conversion, a converter would install new labels showing the correct weight ratings and tire inflation pressures.

Assuming your company leaves the original manufacturer's certification label in place on the converted vehicles, the owner of the vehicles should not encounter any difficulties when the converted vehicles are imported into the United States. The importer would simply file a declaration stating that the vehicle conforms to the applicable safety standards and bears an original manufacturer's certification label to that effect, pursuant to 49 CFR @ 591.5(b).

For your information, I have enclosed a copy of an information sheet for new manufacturers that briefly explains our regulations and tells how to obtain copies of those regulations. I hope this information is helpful.

ID: 7842

Mr. Fredd Scheys
President
S.C.C. CARAT Inc.
109 Maple Avenue
Huntsville, AL 35801

Dear Mr. Scheys:

This responds to your letter of October 2, 1992, asking for an explanation of how this agency's regulations would affect two types of vehicle conversions your company plans to undertake.

In the first situation, a customer in California wishes to send two "U.S. spec" cars that he presently owns to Europe for a 39-inch stretch conversion. In the second situation, the customer would take delivery of a "U.S. spec car" in Europe, use it for tourist purposes, and leave it at your factory for conversion, and subsequent shipment to the United States. You also ask for "advice for the case where we have to convert a car into an armoured car." I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our laws and regulations for you.

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Safety Act) provides generally that no person shall manufacture, sell, or import into the United States any motor vehicle unless that vehicle is in conformity with all applicable U.S. motor vehicle safety standards and is covered by a manufacturer's certification to that effect. The certification requirements are set forth in 49 Code of Federal Regulations, Part 567. The certification requirements apply to persons and entities that perform some manufacturing or conversion activities to a vehicle before that vehicle's first sale for purposes other than resale. This means that the original manufacturer of a vehicle (Mercedes-Benz, for instance) must certify that each of its completed vehicles conforms to all applicable U.S. safety standard and permanently affix a label with that statement on each such vehicle. For the purposes of this letter, I am assuming that the cars you call "U.S. spec" cars are cars to which the original manufacturer has affixed its certification label.

If any party performs conversion operations on a certified vehicle before the initial purchase of the vehicle, the party would be an "alterer" and required to affix its own label identifying itself and certifying that the converted vehicle continues to conform to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. See 49 CFR 567.7. However, in the situations posited in your letter, the conversions to be performed in Europe by your company would be performed on vehicles after the first purchase of the vehicle for purposes other than resale. This agency does not require any certification to be made or certification label to be affixed by entities that perform conversions on vehicles after the first purchase of those vehicles. Thus, your company need not make its own certification nor affix its own label. Instead, your company must leave in place the original manufacturer's certification label.

The only provision in U.S. law that applies to conversion operations performed on vehicles after the first purchase in good faith for purposes other than resale is set forth in Title 15, United States Code, section 1397(b)(2). That section of the law forbids 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 in accordance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard." This means that your company must ensure that your conversion operations do not cause the converted vehicle to no longer comply with the U.S. motor vehicle safety standards. Pursuant to this responsibility, the agency would, for example, expect that, if the vehicle's weight ratings and tire inflation pressures shown on its original certification labels were no longer valid after conversion, a converter would install new labels showing the correct weight ratings and tire inflation pressures.

Assuming your company leaves the original manufacturer's certification label in place on the converted vehicles, the owner of the vehicles should not encounter any difficulties when the converted vehicles are imported into the United States. The importer would simply file a declaration stating that the vehicle conforms to the applicable safety standards and bears an original manufacturer's certification label to that effect, pursuant to 49 CFR 591.5(b).

For your information, I have enclosed a copy of an information sheet for new manufacturers that briefly explains our regulations and tells how to obtain copies of those regulations. I hope this information is helpful.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

Enclosure

ref:567 d:11/16/92

ID: nht89-1.43

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/20/89

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL NHTSA

TO: THOMAS E. GUNTON -- CORPORATE COUNSEL MCCULLAGH LEASING, INC.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 12/01/88 FROM THOMAS E. GUNTON TO JUDITH KALETA RE ODOMETER DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENTS, OCC 2865

TEXT: Dear Mr. Gunton:

This is in response to your letter of December 1, 1988, concerning the Federal odometer disclosure requirements. You asked whether the Federal requirements apply to large scale sales of motor vehicles between leasing companies or whether a lease company that is transferring many vehicles to another lease company is exempt from these requirements.

Section 408 of the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act, 15 U.S.C. @ 1988, requires the Secretary of Transportation to prescribe rules and regulations requiring any transferor to give a written disclosure (1) of the cumulative mileage registere d on the odometer or (2) that the actual mileage is unknown, if the odometer reading is known to be different from the number of miles that the vehicle has actually travelled. This authority was delegated to NHTSA. NHTSA has created exemptions for tran sferors of vehicles for which the odometer is not relied upon as an indicator of vehicle mileage or condition. Currently, pursuant to 49 C.F.R. @ 580.5, transferors of the following vehicles are not required to issue an odometer disclosure statement:

(1) a vehicle with a gross vehicle weight rating of more than 16,000 pounds;

(2) a vehicle that is not self-propelled;

(3) a vehicle that is twenty-five years old or older;

(4) a vehicle sold directly by the manufacturer to any agency of the United States in conformity with contractual specifications; and

(5) a new vehicle prior to its first transfer for purposes other than resale.

Beginning April 29, 1989, a transferor of a vehicle that is ten years old or older need not disclose the mileage to the transferee in connection with the transfer of ownership. 53 FR 29464 (1988).

NHTSA has not created any other exemptions. Therefore, a transferor of vehicles must issue an individual odometer disclosure statement for each of the vehicles being transferred, regardless of the number of vehicles transferred in a single transaction. It is our opinion that this requirement may be met with a single odometer disclosure statement that could be used to disclose the mileage of several vehicles, as long as all of the information required by our regulations appears for each vehicle on the combined statement. While the parties to the transfer of numerous vehicles might not rely on the odometer reading of each vehicle to determine the total value of the transaction, subsequent purchasers are entitled to rely on the odometer reading as an a ccurate reflection of the mileage travelled by the vehicle in order to determine the condition and value of the vehicle. The odometer disclosure statement given from one leasing company to the other will be retained by both the transferor and transferee . The purchasing company will rely on this statement when issuing an odometer disclosure statement to a subsequent buyer. Furthermore, the statement between the two leasing companies will become part of the "paper trail", the evidence of mileage that ma y be checked by subsequent purchasers and law enforcement officials.

I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any questions, do not hesitate to contact us again.

Sincerely,

ID: 22539.ztv

Mr. Tomas P. Quintanilla
Fines, Fees & Forfeiture Section
Guam Customs & Quarantine Agency
Logistics & Support Division
1503 Central Ave. Tiyan
Barrigada, Guam 96913

FAX (671) 475-6219





Dear Mr. Quintanilla:

This is in reply to your fax of December 18, 2000, to this agency's "Compliance Branch" re the possible forfeiture of a vehicle that does not comply with applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS).

The vehicle in question is a 1998 Volkswagen Golf from Japan whose "front windshield and light assembly did not have the required 'DOT' markings, and therefore not enterable into Guam according to U.S.D.O.T." The owner has not brought the vehicle into compliance and is willing to forfeit the vehicle rather than pay the storage fees that have accumulated in the interim. You have asked two questions with respect to this situation:

"1. Can this vehicle be forfeited to a Government of Guam Agency and relinquished to another government agency for government use?"

First of all, we want to call to your attention that the attempted importation of this vehicle was contrary to statute. Under 49 U.S.C. 30141(a), before a nonconforming vehicle can be admitted for purposes of conformance, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration must have determined that the vehicle is capable of conversion to meet the FMVSS (See list at Appendix A, 49 CFR Part 593). We have made no such determination with respect to the 1998 Volkswagen Golf.

Further, under 49 U.S.C. 30141(d)(1), an importer of a nonconforming vehicle is required to provide a bond to ensure that the vehicle will be brought into conformance. If the vehicle covered by the bond is not brought into compliance, the bond requires the vehicle "to be exported (at no cost to the United States Government) by the Secretary of the Treasury or abandoned to the Government." We interpret this as authorizing forfeiture only to the Federal Government. If the Volkswagen in question is covered by a conformance bond, the terms of the bond require the vehicle to be exported by the Guam Customs & Quarantine Agency, or that it be abandoned to an agency of the United States Government. We prefer that the vehicle be exported to ensure that it will never be sold at auction or otherwise to a private individual for use on the public roads.

If the Volkswagen is not covered by a conformance bond, the only proper disposition of it under the laws that we administer is that it be exported to a jurisdiction outside the United States (see 49 U.S.C. 30102(a)(10)).

"2. What authority can I cite, if any, which states that a non-conforming vehicle can be utilized as long as it is not driven on public roadways?"

There is no authority that you can cite for your proposition. The 1998 Volkswagen Golf is a passenger car manufactured for use on the public roads. The vehicle in question does not comply with applicable FMVSS and cannot be imported for use on or off the public roads.

I hope that this answers your questions.

Sincerely,

John Womack,
Acting Chief Counsel,
ref:591,
d.3/8/01

ID: 1984-3.35

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 10/31/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; FRANK BERNDT; NHSTA

TO: H.K. Porter Company, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. A. F. Netzer Hose Development Manager H.K. Porter Company, Inc. 1301 W. Sandusky Avenue Bellefontaine, Ohio 43311

Dear Mr. Netzer:

This responds to your September 19, 1984 letter to Mr. Vern Bloom of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) concerning Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 106, Brake Hoses. Your letter was referred to this office for our reply.

You asked whether Standard No. 106 would permit the manufacture of an air brake hose for use with permanently attached end fittings when the size of the hose is not listed in Table III of that standard. The answer to your question is yes. Table III of Standard No. 106 specified dimensional requirements for air brake hose intended for use with reusable end fittings. The table does not limit the sizes of hoses used with permanent fittings.

He wish to emphasize that all other requirements applicable to air brake hoses which are found in Standard No. 106 would apply to your air brake hoses.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

September 19, 1984

Mr. Vern Bloom U.S. Department of Transportation NHTSA NRM11 CAD 400 7th Street, Southwest Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Sir:

We, as air brake hose manufacturers, have been requested by several customers to produce an air brake hose having an inside diameter as listed under SAE J1402 table "A" specification for permanently attached fittings. We find that the DOT 106 specification table "III" does not list a hose diameter for permanently attached fitting and would like to know if we would have any problems if we manufactured a hose with the dimensions as listed in SAE J1402 table "A".

Thank you very much, I remain

Very truly yours,

A. F. Netzer Hose Development Manager AFN/jah