ID: nht94-1.66

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: February 22, 1994

FROM: Blair Abraham -- Biomedical Manager, Mersco Medical

TO: Public Affairs Office, NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 6/30/94 from John Womack to Blair Abraham (A42; Part 567)

TEXT: I am looking for the steps to take to certify a vehicle for a higher weight rating than what is issued by the manufacturer. We modified the suspension to enable the vehicle to handle an additional 1000 pounds. The GVWR is stamped at 5600 pounds. With our new suspension kit, we would like to certify the vehicle for 6600 pounds.

If we cannot increase the GVWR, are we liable for non-compliance of a DOT regulation if we exceed the GVWR?

Please send me the information required for increasing the GVWR and coded regulation of compliance.

ID: nht94-1.67

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: February 25, 1994

FROM: J L Steffy -- Triumph

TO: Dave Elias -- Office Of Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached To Letter Dated 6/9/94 From John Womack To Jerry Steffy (A42; Part 567)

TEXT: MESSAGE:

DEAR DAVE --

LUKE LOY IN COMPLIANCE SUGGESTED THAT I CONTACT YOUR OFFICE WITH A QUERY.

I WANT TO KNOW IF THE NHTSA CERTIFICATION LABEL THAT IS REQUIRED TO APPEAR ON MOTORCYCLES CAN BE POSITIONED IN AREAS OTHER THAN THE HEADSTOCK AREA?

I SINCERELY APPRECIATE YOUR ASSISTANCE WITH THIS MATTER.

BEST REGARDS,

ID: nht94-1.68

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: March 7, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Lawrence A. Beyer

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 2/14/94 from Lawrence A. Beyer to Z. Taylor Vinson (OCC-9662)

TEXT:

This responds to your FAX of February 14, 1994, to Taylor Vinson of this Office regarding the "re-importation" of used certified motorcycles into the United States after modifications have been performed abroad. These modifications would not involve a " knowingly rendering inoperative" of equipment related to the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. You have asked whether our interpretation of November 16, 1992, "regarding this matter" remains operative.

We assume the letter to which you refer is the one addressed to Wolfgang Klamp of Blaine, Washington. Mr. Klamp's wife crossed the border daily in her Canadian-manufactured Ford Tempo to her Canadian place of employment. Because the vehicle was not cert ified as meeting U.S. safety standards, the U.S. Customs Service had informed her the car would not be admitted in the future without going through the formal entry process for conversion to the U.S. standards. We verified that the Customs Service was a cting in accordance with the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, and provided several suggestions.

This letter remains our position. However, we fail to understand its relevance to the fact situation you present regarding importation of motorcycles that are certified as meeting the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. We can only surmise that ind ividual Customs officials may be questioning whether the modified motorcycles comply with all applicable U.S. Federal motor vehicle safety standards at the time of entry, notwithstanding the fact that they are certified as complying as of their manufactu re. As you know, a motor vehicle offered for importation must comply with the U.S. safety standards at the time of importation (or be converted to those standards after entry), regardless of its state of compliance at the time of its manufacture.

We have no regulations under which a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business may state that it has not knowingly rendered inoperative any device or element of design installed in accordance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard. However, we would recommend that Customs accept such a statement accompanying an HS-7 Form's declaration of vehicle compliance if it also contained the statement that in the modifier's opinion the vehicle remained in compliance upon completion of the modifications.

Alternatively, and relevant to modifications that relate to a safety standard which may not have had to be met initially (i.e. installation of glazing on a motorcycle that was not originally manufactured with a windshield), we suggest that the modifier p rovide a statement, in writing

or on a label affixed to the vehicle, of the kind required of an alterer of a new vehicle, as set forth in 49 CFR 567.7. This statement attests to the continuing compliance of a motor vehicle after modification. Our willingness to accept such a stateme nt should enable Customs to enter the modified motorcycles as conforming vehicles.

ID: nht94-1.69

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: March 7, 1994

FROM: J. Roberts -- John H. Roberts Well Drilling Co.

TO: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, U.S. Department of Transportation

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 4/12/94 from John Womack to J. Roberts (A42; Part 571)

TEXT:

I received your letter of the 28th and thank you for your response.

Although I understand your department's position regarding the H.M.M.V.E., I would request your further assistance on clarification. Could you provide me with the list of the specific objections your department based its recommendation on.

Thank you in advance for your help.

ID: nht94-1.7

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: January 3, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA; Signature by Kenneth Weinstein

TO: Thomas D. Price -- President, Strait-Stop, ABAS Marketing, Inc.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 10/8/93 from Thomas D. Price to Marvin Shaw (OCC 9197)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter concerning this agency's notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to require medium and heavy vehicles to be equipped with an antilock braking system (58 FR 50739, September 28, 1993). You noted that the proposed definition for "antilock brake system" incorporates the terminology "rate of angular wheel rotation," and requested a definition of this terminology. You also suggested that there is ambiguity as to the precise meaning of the word "performance," apparently with respec t to the way that word is used in the preamble. Accordingly, you requested a definition of that word as well.

By way of background information, the purpose of publishing NPRM's is to provide all interested persons an opportunity to comment on regulations being considered by the agency. If any interested person believes that the proposed regulatory text and/or t he agency's explanation in a preamble concerning a proposed regulation are unclear, the appropriate place to make that argument is in a comment on the NPRM. If a person believes that a portion of the proposed regulation should be clarified in a particul ar manner, that recommendation also should be included in a comment. Similarly, if a person believes the agency's explanation for the proposed rule is unclear, the person can identify in comments the portion of the explanation at issue and explain the i mplications his or her concern has on the agency's decision concerning a possible final rule.

Since the questions and views in your letter are in the nature of comments on the pending NPRM, we are placing a copy of your letter in the public docket for that NPRM. I want to assure you that your comments will be considered at the same time all the other public comments are considered. Only after considering the comments will NHTSA reach a decision on whether to issue a final rule.

NHTSA does not issue separate letters or documents responding to individual public comments in a rulemaking. Instead, after carefully considering all comments, NHTSA provides its responses in the next relevant rulemaking notice, e.g., a final rule or a notice terminating the rulemaking.

While we cannot provide specific responses to your questions, we note that pages 50742 and 50743 of the NPRM provide an extensive discussion about how the agency derived its definition for antilock braking system. This discussion explains that the defin itions were derived in large part from the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) Recommended Practice J656, "Automotive Brake Definitions and Nomenclature" (1988), and the Economic Commission for Europe's Regulation 13 (1988). We have enclosed for your information a copy of that SAE Recommended Practice, which uses the terminology "rate of angular rotation of the wheel(s)."

With respect to your question about the meaning of "performance," we note generally that each of this agency's safety standards specifies those requirements that are deemed necessary to obtain the desired safety performance from a particular vehicle syst em or item of equipment. Any design that will satisfy the requirements may be used for the system or item of equipment.

I hope this information is helpful.

ID: nht94-1.70

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: March 8, 1994

FROM: David A. Scott -- President, RKS International L.L.C.

TO: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 4/25/94 from John Womack to David A. Scott (A42; Part 591)

TEXT:

After contacting your Chicago representative, I was informed that you were the authoritative person qualified to respond to my inquiries.

RK Technologies, Inc. is a Wisconsin Corporation. We deal mostly with China. We are presently considering importing from China to the United States fiberglass kit cars. Our consideration is to import the cars either disassembled or partially assembled in China. We will then be providing and/or installing American parts in the U.S., for the major mechanical portions like engines, transmissions, suspension systems, tires,etc. The cars will be sold in the United States.

Please provide us with the information guidelines and/or restrictions that will have to be met to ensure compliance with the possible imports and with the assembling and circulation of cars in the U.S.

I would appreciate your prompt attention and response and I thank you in advance.

ID: nht94-1.71

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: March 9, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Lawrence F. Henneberger -- Arent Fox Kintner Plotkin & Kahn

TITLE: None

TEXT:

This responds to your request, in a February 3, 1994, meeting, that we provide a letter clarifying certain Federal legal requirements related to a hydraulic brake lock that is sold as aftermarket equipment. You made this request on behalf of your client , MICO, Inc.

You indicated that the device is ordinarily added to used vehicles, but sometimes might be installed by a body builder prior to a vehicle's first sale to a consumer. The hydraulic brake lock at issue supplements the mechanical parking of a motor vehicle by providing supplemental holding capacity for the vehicle. The brake lock is installed in the hydraulic brake lines between the master brake cylinder and the foundation brakes. You particularly asked us to confirm your understanding that such a device is not precluded by Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 105, Hydraulic Brake Systems.

As you know, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Safety Act) to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards that apply to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. Section 108(a)(1)(A) of the Safety Act prohibits any person from manufacturing, introducing into commerce, selling, or importing any new motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment unless the vehi cle or equipment item is in conformity with all applicable safety standards. NHTSA does not approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, nor do we endorse any commercial products. Instead, the Safety Act establishes a "self-certification" process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards. The following represents our opinion based on the facts set forth in this letter.

Nothing in Standard No. 105 precludes the inclusion of a hydraulic brake lock that provides supplemental holding capacity for a vehicle, nor does NHTSA have any other regulations specifically covering hydraulic brake locks. Therefore, MICO, as manufactu rer of the device, would not have any certification responsibilities. However, the requirements of Standard No. 105 are relevant to hydraulic brake locks. This standard applies to new motor vehicles and specifies a number of brake performance requireme nts. Since the installation of a hydraulic brake lock requires cutting into the vehicle's brake system, it is possible that such a device could be installed in a manner that affects a vehicle's compliance with Standard No. 105.

You indicated that the hydraulic brake lock at issue is ordinarily added to used motor vehicles. After the first purchase of a vehicle, the only provision in Federal law that affects a vehicle's continuing compliance with an applicable safety standard i s set forth in section 108(a)(2)(A) of

the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)). That section provides:

No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or in part, any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle ... in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard.

Thus, the named commercial entities would be prohibited from installing a hydraulic brake lock only if such installation would take the vehicle out of compliance with an applicable safety standard, such as Standard No. 105. The "render inoperative" provi sion does not apply to modifications made to vehicles by their owners.

You indicated that the hydraulic brake lock at issue may sometimes be installed by a body builder prior to the first sale of the vehicle to a consumer. Such a body builder would presumably be installing the hydraulic brake lock on either a completed veh icle that had previously been certified as complying with all Federal motor vehicle safety standards, or as part of the final stage manufacture of a vehicle for which the incomplete vehicle manufacturer had installed a brake system that complied with Sta ndard No. 105. In both cases, the body builder would have certification responsibilities with respect to the vehicle's compliance with Standard No. 105, either as an alterer or as a final stage manufacturer. See 49 CFR Parts 567 and 568.

I hope this information has been helpful.

ID: nht94-1.72

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: March 9, 1994

FROM: J.L. Steffy -- Triumph Designs Ltd.

TO: Dave Elias -- Office of the Chief Counsel

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 3/29/94 from John Womack to J.L. Steffy (A42; Part 565)

TEXT:

I am writing to ask for an interpretation of CFR 565.4 with the possibility of gaining a waiver from NHTSA.

With respect to the VIN Label Table VI shows that a letter code is given for each MODEL YEAR. Currently our VIN labels have a letter code for the YEAR PRODUCED. Therefore, a 1994 model year vehicle could have letter code "P" for 1993 if it was produced in November 1993, for example. This assists us from a traceability standpoint. WE WOULD LIKE TO MAINTAIN OUR PRESENT SYSTEM IF AT ALL POSSIBLE. I believe we agree with the spirit of 565.4, which is to match a time frame to a letter code within the VI N.

As we are currently preparing all items for entry into the U.S. this fall, I would like to hear from you as soon as possible. I appreciate your assistance.

ID: nht94-1.73

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: March 9, 1994

FROM: Doug Bereuter -- U.S. House of Representatives

TO: Howard Smolkin -- Acting Administrator, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 4/12/94 from Christopher A. Hart to Doug Bereuter (A42; Part 303)

TEXT:

I am writing to convey my continuing intense interest in the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's rulemaking concerning compressed natural gas vehicle fuel systems and fuel containers. As I have made absolutely clear to you and other Departm ent of Transportation officials, ANY FURTHER DELAYS IN THE COMPLETION OF THE RULEMAKING SIMPLY WILL NOT BE TOLERATED. Every day that goes by without a final rule creates further hardship for Brunswick Corporation and its employees. CLEAR PROGRESS ON TH IS MATTER IS IMPERATIVE! Let me know the status of the rulemaking.

ID: nht94-1.74

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: March 10, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Michael J. Siris -- Attorney at Law

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 12/8/93 from Michael J. Siris to Mary Versailles (OCC-9469)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of December 8, 1993, following a phone conversation with Mary Versailles of my staff. Your letter requested "confirmation that a manufacturer's compliance with a given NHTSA standard does not necessarily exonerate the manufa cturer." You also asked whether there might be any standards other than Standard No. 114, Theft Protection, which might apply to a "1987 Ford vehicle which allowed the automatic transmission to be shifted while the key was not in the steering column."

Section 108(k) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. S1397(k)) states:

Compliance with any Federal motor vehicle safety standard issued under this title does not exempt any person from any liability under common law.

Thus, you are correct that a vehicle's compliance with all applicable safety standards does not necessarily exonerate the manufacturer from liability under other causes of action.

With regard to your second question, S4.2.1 of Standard No. 114 states that, with certain exceptions,:

the key-locking system required by S4.2 in each vehicle which has an automatic transmission with a "park" position shall prevent removal of the key unless the transmission or transmission shaft lever is locked in "park" or becomes locked in "park" as the direct result of removing the key.

However, as explained in your phone conversation with Ms. Versailles, this requirement was added to Standard No. 114 in 1991 and was effective September 1, 1992. There was no Federal standard which prohibited a 1987 vehicle from having an automatic tran smission which could be shifted when the key was removed. I am also unaware of any other standard or regulation containing such a requirement.

I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Mary Versailles of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992.