ID: 17494.ztv

Mr. Keith Reichow
26409 148th Ave. S.E.
Kent, WA 98042-8142

Dear Mr. Reichow:

This is in reply to your letter of March 5, 1998, with respect to your planned importation of an automobile body. You have asked for a "letter that can be presented to U.S. Customs that would assist in clearing this hardware."

We are pleased to provide an interpretation to you. You intend to import "the frame with axles and suspension attached." In addition, "the aluminum body skin and fenders would be in place and the dashboard would be equipped with some instruments. The radiator, brake, clutch and gas pedals would also be mounted."

None of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards apply to any of these items of equipment. Accordingly, it is permissible for you to import the body by completing the box titled "Description Of Merchandise If Motor Vehicle Equipment" on the HS-7 Declaration Form which you may be required to execute, and, under it, checking Box 1 which states in pertinent part that "the equipment item was manufactured on a date when no applicable Federal Motor Vehicle Safety or Theft Prevention Standard was in effect." You may attach a copy of this letter to the form to facilitate entry.

Even though the assembled vehicle will be a replica of an early 1960s Lotus 7, it must comply upon manufacture with all Federal motor vehicle safety standards of 49 CFR Part 571 that apply to passenger cars manufactured in 1998, even if they are not necessarily compatible with a 35-year old design. The vehicle would have to meet the bumper standard as well (49 CFR Part 581).

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

Sincerely,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
ref:591
d.5/22/98

ID: 12089.MLS

Mr. William Shapiro
Manager, Regulatory Compliance
Volvo Cars of North America, Inc.
15 Volvo Drive
Rockleigh, NJ 07647

Dear Mr. Shapiro:

This responds to your inquiry about the labeling requirements in S5.2.2.2 of Standard No. 116, Motor Vehicle Brake Fluid (49 CFR §571.116). You ask whether the wet boiling point marked on a package of DOT 4 brake fluid should be "the minimum wet boiling point of the DOT brake fluid in the container," or the minimum wet boiling point that DOT 4 brake fluid must meet under the standard, i.e., 311 degrees F. The answer is the former.

Section S5.2 of Standard 116 sets forth packaging and labeling requirements for brake fluid containers. Section S5.2.2.2(f) requires each container to be marked with "The minimum wet boiling point in Fahrenheit of the DOT brake fluid in the container." (Emphasis added). Under S5.1.2, the wet equilibrium reflux boiling point ("wet boiling point") of DOT 4 brake fluid must not be less than 311 degrees F.

Because section S5.2.2.2(f) specifically requires the labeling to be of the wet boiling point of the DOT brake fluid "in the container," the value for the brake fluid in the container is marked on the label. This interpretation is consistent with a February 7, 1975 letter to Mr. Paul Utans in which the agency concluded that a label that specified a wet boiling point of 320 degrees F. "meets our requirements."

I hope this information is helpful. If you have further questions, please contact Mr. Marvin Shaw of this office at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Samuel J. Dubbin
Chief Counsel

ref:116
d:7/24/96

ID: 16054.ztv

Mr. Bill Cox
Monte Carlo Minis
Box 369
Earl, NC 28038

Dear Mr. Cox:

This is in reply to your faxes of September 22, 1997, and October 1, 1997, to Taylor Vinson of this Office.

With your fax of September 22, you attached an article distributed by the Knight-Ridder newspapers on the arrival of the first Chinese truck or sport utility vehicle at a Michigan dealership. This article contains the statement that "since it's considered a low-volume vehicle, it needn't comply with U.S. safety standards. It doesn't have air bags and it doesn't meet U.S. crash standards." You have asked how they are allowed to do this.

The article is incorrect. All low-volume motor vehicles must comply with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards in order to be imported and sold in the United States, unless it has filed for and received an exemption from the standards. As Mr. Vinson informed you in his call to you on October 1, no exemption has been granted this Chinese vehicle.

In your fax of October 1, you state that new Volkswagen Beetles are being imported under an exemption from NHTSA "allowing small volume importers to import 10 cars or less not to comply." You ask why you weren't told about this exemption. As with the Chinese Jeep, the Volkswagen Beetle does not have a small volume importer exemption. However, this vehicle could be imported as one that has been refurbished from an original vehicle that is more than 25 years old. If this is the case, then the vehicle is not required to comply upon admission to the United States.

We are providing copies of your correspondence to our compliance office. Thank you for informing us of these matters.

Sincerely,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
ref:591
d.10/9/97

ID: 14246.drn

Mr. Robert Elzey
Customer Service Manager
Beck Imports
141 E. Independence Blvd.
Charlotte, NC 28212

Dear Mr. Elzey:

This responds to your letter asking about a dealer's rights and responsibilities under Federal law when asked by a customer to disconnect an air bag. I apologize for the delay in this response.

As you may be aware, air bags are installed in cars and light trucks in conformity with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard that requires automatic protection for front seat occupants. Under Federal law, dealers and motor vehicle repair businesses normally are prohibited from deactivating components that have been installed to comply with such safety standards. NHTSA has a policy of allowing air bag deactivation for certain medical conditions, or if there is a special need for children to be in the front seat. In response to written requests, NHTSA has been issuing, on a case by case basis, letters to vehicle owners that would allow their dealer or repair business to disconnect one or both air bags without facing Federal civil penalties from this agency.

If the vehicle owner shows such a letter from NHTSA, the dealer or repair business would not be subject to Federal civil penalties for deactivating that air bag. However, it does not mean that the dealer or repair business is under any obligation to perform the deactivation. Further, NHTSA's letter does not shield any business from their potential civil liability to others.

I hope this information is helpful to you. If you have any further questions, please feel free to send them to us at this address or FAX them to (202) 366-3820.

Sincerely,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
ref:208
d:6/4/97

ID: nht88-4.17

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 11/26/88

FROM: M. M. YOON -- DIRECTOR, IN-ONE DEVELOPMENT CORP. SEOUL, KOREA

TO: STEVE KRATZTE -- OFFICE OF CHIEF COUNSEL NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 03/31/89 FROM ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA TO M. J. YOON, REDBOOK A33 (2), PART 571.3

TEXT: DEAR, MR. KRATZTE

WE, IN-ONE DEVELOPMENT CORP., ARE DOING AS RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT CENTER OF SSANGYONG MOTOR COMPANY, PROCEEDING TWO PROJECTS WHICH ONE OFF-ROAD VEHICLE AND ONE PASSENGER CAR AND PLANNING TO LAUNCH THE CARS IN U.S.A.

THEREFORE, WE WOULD LIKE TO KNOW THE VEHICLE CLASSIFICATIONS (PASSENGER CAR OR MULTIPURPOSE PASSENGER CAR) OF OFF-ROAD VEHICLES PLANNED TO PRODUCT IN THE END OF 1991.

FOR YOUR REFERENCE, GENERAL SPECIFICATIONS OF THE VEHICLE ARE AS FOLLOWS.

OVERALL LENGTH: 4200 approx. 4250 mm, DRIVE SYSTEM: 4 WHEEL DRIVE (PART TIME)

OVERALL WIDTH: 1716 mm, FRAME: LADDER TYPE FRAME

HEIGHT (ON GROUND): 1670 approx. 1700 mm

WINDSCREEN SLOPE ANGLE: 55 degrees

APPROACH ANGLE: 40 degrees

DEPARTUER ANGLE: 30 degrees

GROUND CLEARANCE (IN LADEN CONDITION): MINIMUM 200 mm

(THE SHAPE OF THE VEHICLE LOOKS LIKE PASSENGER CAR; AERODYNAMIC SHAPE)

AND, WE ALSO WANT TO KNOW THE CRITERIA FOR VEHICLE TYPE CLASSIFICATIONS. YOU ARE KINDLY REQUESTED TO SENT THE INFORMATIONS, IF AVAILABLE. WE ARE LOOKING FORWARD TO YOUR PROMPT RESPONSE. NOTE). OUR ADDRESS & FAX. NO ARE AS FOLLOWS.

ADDRESS: 2nd FLOOR, GUKDONG BUILDING, 3-GA CHUNGMOO-RO, JUNG-GU, SEOUL, KOREA.

FAX. NO: 02-277-5321

SINCERELY YOURS

ID: nht89-2.67

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: August 10, 1989

FROM: William Shapiro -- Manager, Regulations and Compliance, Volvo Cars of North America

TO: Stephen P. Wood -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: Re Request for Interpretation FMVSS 213 - Child Restraint Systems

ATTACHMT: Attached to drawing of child booster cushion (graphics omitted); Also attached to letter dated 9-14-90 from P.J. Rice to W. Shapiro (A36; Std. 213)

TEXT:

Volvo has designed and developed a "built-in" child booster cushion for use in a future model vehicle. It will be integrated into the center rear seat arm rest such that the arm rest will split in half to form the booster cushion. The child using this "built-in" booster cushion will utilize the center rear 3-point seat belt for their restraint.

Because the agency has stated in the preamble to the final rule, that sets forth the requirements for "built-in" child seats, that "...S5.4.3.3 allows child restraint systems other than a 5-point harness...", Volvo believes that a "built-in" booster cush ion that utilizes the adult 3-point center rear seat belt and is designed with due care to meet all the requirements of FMVSS 213, as they apply to "built-in" child seats, is in compliance with FMVSS 213. Volvo believes that by meeting all the labeling, instruction and performance requirements set forth by FMVSS 213 - Child Restraint Systems, this "built-in" booster cushion can be marketed in the U.S. We ask that the agency confirm this as soon as possible.

Some illustrative sketches are attached. If you need any additional information, or would like to see the seat, please feel free to contact me.

Drawings of child booster cushion are attached (graphics omitted).

ID: 8069

Mr. Shafi J. Keisler
President
One More Run, Inc.
3657 Wildwood Road
Maryville, TN 37804

Dear Mr. Keisler:

This responds to your letter of November 24, 1992, with respect to the manufacture of a replacement taillamp lens for the 1966-67 Dodge Charger. You ask for "all safety standards information pertinent to the manufacture of this replacement lens", and inform us that you "will use only "current DOT and SAE safety approved material to build this item."

As Taylor Vinson explained to you, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment was amended effective January 1, 1972, to apply to replacement lighting equipment for motor vehicles manufactured on and after that date (the standard had previously applied only to original equipment on passenger cars manufactured on and after January 1, 1969). This means that replacement taillamps designed specificially for the 1966-67 Dodge Charger have never been covered by a Federal motor vehicle safety standard.

Paragraph S5.1.2 of Standard No. 108 does require that plastic materials used for optical parts such as lenses conform to SAE Recommended Practice J576c, May 1970, with certain exceptions. Although this could be construed as requiring compliance of plastics used in any replacement taillamp lens, we do not interpret this as mandating compliance of plastic materials for a lens in a replacement lamp that is itself not subject to Standard No. 108. However, S5.1.2 is the Federal requirement that you would be obliged to meet were you manufacturing new or replacement taillamp lenses for contemporary motor vehicles. I enclose a copy of S5.1.2 and J576c for your information.

We appreciate your desire to meet current safety requirements. Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel Enclosures ref:108 d.12/16/92

ID: nht80-2.21

DATE: 04/24/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: McCreary Tire & Rubber Company

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of March 7, 1980, asking whether ASTM E501 and E524 tires must be graded in accordance with the Uniform Tire Quality Grading (UTQG) Standards (49 CFR 575.104). You state that these tires are manufactured in limited quantities as standards for traction testing and are not manufactured for general highway use. It is the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's understanding that these tires are used only on a test trailer designed for use in skid testing.

The UTQG regulation applies to new pneumatic tires for use on passenger cars (49 CFR 575.104(c)(1)). Thus, ASTM E501 and E524, which are manufactured solely for use on a traction test trailer, would not fall within the application of the UTQG Standards.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

McCREARY TIRE & RUBBER COMPANY

March 7, 1980

Richard J. Hipolit -- OFFICE OF CHIEF COUNSEL, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Sir:

We are requesting an interpretation of Part 575.104 - Uniform Tire Quality Grading Standards - with reference to the ASTM E501 and E524 tires.

Since these tires are manufactured in limited quantities as standards for skid resistance testing and are not manufactured for general highway use, it is our understanding that they are not covered by the requirements of Part 575.104.

Would you please confirm this interpretation.

Sincerely,

Robert A. Eddy -- Manager, Quality Assurance

ID: nht80-4.9

DATE: 10/07/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Mr. C. Rodney Kuhns

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your letter of August 10, 1980, in which you ask whether your proposed urban transport vehicle would be classified as an automoble or a motorcycle.

The agency's definition of "motorcycle" is given in 49 CFR @ 571.3, which reads in part:

"Motorcycle" means a motor vehicle with motive power having a seat or saddle for the use of the rider and designed to travel on not more than three wheels in contact with the ground.

Based on our understanding of your drawings, your proposed vehicle has more than three wheels. If our understanding is correct, your vehicle would be classified as a passenger car rather than as a motorcycle.

The requirements for passenger cars are more stringent than for motorcycles. We have enclosed a pamphlet prepared by the agency which gives a brief summary of the requirements and applicability of each of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards (issued as of August 1978). However, because of the volume of these standards, we do not provide copies directly. We have enclosed an information sheet which explains how you can obtain up-to-date copies of our standards and other regulations.

This agency does not license any vehicles for street or highway use. Licensing is handled by the States. We specify performance requirements, and any motor vehicle must be certified by its manufacturers as being in compliance with all applicable safety standards as of the date of its manufacture. If the vehicle complies with these requirements, we specify no further steps which must be taken.

The agency will provide confidential treatment for your letter and accompanying drawings.

ID: nht92-9.19

DATE: February 7, 1992

FROM: Marc C. Gravino -- Williams & McCarthy

TO: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 3/5/92 from Paul Jackson Rice to Marc C. Gravino (A39; Std. 108)

TEXT:

I am seeking in your legal opinion as to the interpretation of Standard 108 of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Code, found at Title 49, S571.108 of the Code of Federal Regulations. In particular, I would like to obtain your opinion as to the following question: Does NHTSA Standard 108 contain any requirement that the parking lamps, tail lamps, or side marker lamps (otherwise sometimes commonly referred to "marker" lights or "delineation" lights) operate INDEPENDENTLY of the ignition or equivalent switch, so that when they are activated, they will remain activated regardless of whether or not the ignition switch is in the on or off position? If there is such a legal requirement, was it in effect for cars manufactured in 1988 and sold in the U.S.?

I have reviewed Standard 108, Subsection 5.5.3, 5.5.4, 5.5.5, and 5.5.7, a copy of which I have enclosed herewith for your reference.

I was referred to you by Mr. Gene Wright, who I understand is the Chairman of the signaling and marking devices committee of SAE. Thank you for your assistance in providing a legal opinion in this matter. If there is any further information you need from me, or if you would like any clarification, please feel free to write to me or call me at my office at 815/987-8900.

Attachment

Copy of 49 CFR Ch.V (10-1-89 Edition) regarding Section 571.108. (Text omitted)