ID: nht91-4.28

DATE: June 25, 1991

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Takashi Odaira -- Chief Representative, Emission & Safety, Isuzu Technical Center of America, Inc.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 4-29-91 from Takashi Odaira to P.J. Rice (OCC 5987)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter requesting an interpretation on whether the Isuzu 2-door Coupe is subject to the rear seat requirements set forth in the final rule on Standard No. 214, Side Door Strength, published on October 30, 1990 (55 FR 45722). As noted by your letter, the rear seat requirements do not apply to passenger cars which have rear seating areas that are so small that the SID dummy cannot be accommodated according to the specified positioning procedures. The issues raised by your letter are addressed below.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, it is the responsibility of the manufacturer to ensure that its vehicles or equipment meet applicable standards. The following provides our opinion based on the facts provided in your letter.

Your letter describes the positioning of the SID as follows:

In this vehicle, when the SID dummy is seated at the rear outboard passenger position according to the specified positioning procedures, the dummy's head comes into contact with the roof and backlight glass which have steep slopes. To avoid the interference, in our test, the head was tilted forward as much as possible and, in addition, the upper torso was also tilted forward, away from the seat back. Only in this way, could we accommodate the dummy in the seating area without changing the orientation of the thorax midsagittal plane, or affecting the H-point.

You noted, however, that "(t)his condition . . . obviously does not meet the positioning procedure of paragraphs S7.1.3(a) and (b), which provides, 'The upper torso of the test dummy rests against the seat back.'" You stated that it is therefore your interpretation that the vehicle cannot accommodate the SID dummy and that the rear seat requirements are not applicable to it. You requested our views regarding your understanding.

In the preamble to the October 1990 final rule, NHTSA noted that, for some vehicles where the roof has a steep rear slope, the SID head can be tilted so as to accommodate the test dummy without changing the specified orientation of the thorax midsagittal plane or affecting the H-point (two of the specifications in the S7 positioning procedure). The agency also noted that there are some cars with rear seating areas that are so small that the SID dummy cannot be accommodated according to the specified

positioning procedures, even if the head is adjusted fore-aft.

Section S3 of Standard No. 214 provides that the rear seat requirements do not apply to "passenger cars which have rear seating areas that are so small that the (SID) dummies cannot be accommodated according to the positioning procedure specified in S7." Thus, if any aspect of the positioning procedure, including the specification that the upper torso rests against the seat back, cannot be met, the vehicle is not required to meet the rear seat requirements of Standard No. 214.

With regard to whether the Isuzu 2-door Coupe is subject to Standard No. 214's rear seat requirements, NHTSA cannot make a determination that the rear seat requirements do not apply to a vehicle based solely on a description and photographs of that test procedure. If the agency should conduct a compliance test for the vehicle, it would attempt to position the SID dummies in the rear seat according to the specified seating procedure. If NHTSA were unable to position SID dummies in the rear of the vehicle according to the specified procedure, it would conclude that the rear seat requirements do not apply to that particular vehicle.

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

ID: nht91-4.29

DATE: June 25, 1991

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Debby Funk

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 6-4-91 from Debby Funk to The United States Department of Transportation (OCC 6130)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of June 4, 1991, to the Department requesting information regarding regulations on the display of lighted signs in vehicles. If they are not prohibited, you are interested in regulations governing size, placement, color, luminosity, and power source "(i.e. batteries, wire connections to either brake lights or cigarette lighter)."

There are no Federal regulations or restrictions that directly prohibit the use of lighted signs in vehicles. However, there may be State and local laws that do. We are not in a position to advise you as to these laws, but you may write the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators for an opinion. The address is 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Va. 22203.

If you are contemplating a commercial venture in supplying lighted signs for use in motor vehicles, there are somewhat different considerations. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, once a vehicle has been sold and in use, a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business may not modify it in any way that would create a noncompliance with any Federal motor vehicle safety standard with which the vehicle originally complied. Thus, installation of a lighted sign by any of the foregoing persons could affect compliance with Standard No. 111, Rearview Mirrors and Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment. If the size of the sign interferes with the field of view in the interior mirror, a mirror must be provided on the exterior of the passenger side (most new cars today come equipped with these mirrors). If the sign is wired to the stop lamps, it must not result in a diminution of power that reduces the light from the lamp below the minimum levels specified in the standard. However, if the device is intended for owner installation, the foregoing discussion does not apply, as the Vehicle Safety Act does not prohibit owners from modifying their vehicles in any manner they choose, even if the modification creates a noncompliance.

Our regulations do prohibit combining the center highmounted stop lamp with any other lamp or device such as a lighted display sign. However, there is no Federal prohibition governing manufacture and sale of these devices. If you have further questions, we shall be pleased to respond.

ID: nht91-4.3

DATE: May 22, 1991

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: George D. Powley -- Project Engineer, Truck-Lite Co., Inc.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 4-29-91 from George D. Powley to Paul Jackson Rice (OCC 6011)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of April 29, 1991, with respect to the orientation of electrical contact blades on sealed beam headlamps.

Truck-Lite would like to produce both a large rectangular Type 2B1 sealed beam headlamp and a small rectangular Type 2A1 headlamp using the same blade orientation. Specifically, you would like to use the 2B1 orientation on the 2A1 unit. You do not feel that this would affect adversely the lamp's "ability to interchange with existing lamps in motor vehicles presently in the field."

The basic dimensional requirements for sealed beam headlamps are set forth in SAE Standard J1383 APR85 Performance Requirements for Sealed Beam Headlamps, incorporated by reference in Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. However, in reference to the Figures of J1383 which set forth the dimensions, "only those dimensions marked 'I' for interchangeability are applicable." (Section S7.3 of Standard No. 108). Our examination of the Figures indicate that the electrical contact blade orientation dimensions for Type 2A headlamps are marked "I", and thus must be met by Type 2A headlamps designed to comply with Standard No. 108. On the other hand, the contact blade orientation dimensions for Type 2B headlamps do not appear to be marked "I", and the manufacturer may depart from the ones indicated without violating Standard No. 108.

This means that you could not use a Type 2B1 blade orientation on a Type 2A1 headlamp as you wish. On the other hand, you could use the Type 2A orientation on the Type 2B, if you find it feasible to do so.

You also indicated that Koito is currently selling Type 2A1 headlamp with a non-standard contact blade orientation. I have forward a copy of this letter to our Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance for appropriate action. Thank you for calling this matter to our attention.

ID: nht91-4.30

DATE: June 26, 1991

FROM: Y. Endo -- Technical Manager, Hose Team, Meiji Rubber & Chemical Co., Ltd.

TO: Office of Chief Council -- NHTSA

TITLE: Re Inquiry for our Hydraulic brake hose assembly

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 9-12-91 from Paul Jackson Rice to Y. Endo (A38; Std. 106)

TEXT:

Recently, we manufacture peculiar type of hose assemblies by our customer's request.

These hose assemblies are consisted of 2 or 3 pieces of cut hoses swaged permanetly with both ends fittings and intermediate metal fitting(s) which swaged and connected 2 pieces of cut hose at its both sides.

Please refer enclosed drawing and illustration. These assemblies are long in the whole length, but each cut hose is not loose in actual application, it is fixed by metal fitting to body side of vehicle. Please refer the illustration, the ones which be marked by red line is actually equipped example.

Concerning to the testing for these hose assemblies, there are diverse opinions in our company. FMVSS 106 specifies in its S 5.3.4 that "Tensile strength. A hydraulic brake hose assembly shall withstand a pull of 325 pound without separation of hose from its end fittings". While "Brake hose assembly" is specified that a brake hose, with or without armour, equipped with end fittings for use in a brake system". Brake hose end fitting means a coupler, other than a clump, designed for attachment to the end of a brake hose. SAE J 1401 also specifies, Brake Hose End Fitting - A coupling designed for permanent attachment to the ends of a brake hose by crimping or swaging.

Therefore, Imyself consider, Brake hose assembly shall be each one piece of hose with both ends fittings which be swaged permanently, that is 3 pieces hose multiple assembly shall be 3 Brake hose assembly.

In the Tensile strength test, multiple 3 pieces hose assembly shall be devided at each intermediate metal fitting, otherwise the test result comes to far from the real value, so I insist.

On the contrary, some one says, as far as 3 pieces hoses are connected as one assembly, the Tensile strength test shall be done as it is, only the both ends shall be fixed to the tester and pulled.

Imyself still insist, the Tensile strength test shall be done at each permanently swaged portion at the stand point of faithful interpretation to FMVSS and SAE specifications and to get accurate test result.

We can say, actual test operation is easy enough even the test of 3 devided tensile test.

Perhaps, these specifications are established without prediction of such multiple construction assembly at that time.

Then, we would like to ask your favour, please inform us your opinion or interpretation as soon as possible. This is suggested by Mr. George E. Walton, Director Safety Equipment Services of AAMVA , Arlington VA.

Thanking in advance and remain,

Attached to drawings of 2 and 3 piece hose assembly. (Graphics omitted)

ID: nht91-4.31

DATE: June 28, 1991

FROM: Dwayne R. Szot

TO: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 7-5-91 from Paul Jackson Rice to Dwayne R. Szot (A38; Part 591)

TEXT:

I am writing to explain my situation regarding the importation of a Polish car, a Syrena, and to ask for special permission for this car to enter the United States. I am Dwayne R. Szot, a sculptor. I received my MFA from Cranbrook Arts Academy in 1989. The central theme of my work is the use of machinery as an expressive tool and a physical extension of ones'self. From October to June I was in Gdansk, Poland, working as an assistant sculpture instructor at the State Higher School of Fine Arts. It was during this time that I began the project known as "Kapsula Czasu" or "Capsule of Time." The capsule is the 10 year old Syrena that I mentioned. This car was painted red and white to resemble the Polish flag. It traveled throughout Poland collecting information and artifacts about peoples' hopes and dreams for the future, and their feelings about the past and the present. The car has been signed by hundreds of Poles. The objects placed within the car are, for the most part, private and will not be examined until the car is opened. These objects were, of necessity, shipped separately from the car, but will rejoin the car when it arrives. Objects within the car come from Solidarity, universities, school children, hospitals and politicians, the same people who signed or drew on the car. It was my original intention to entomb the car and leave it in Gdansk for 25 years, however, obtaining materials like the plexiglass necessary to encase the car, was impossible. It also became increasingly clear to me that the safety of the car could not be guaranteed. For example the present mayor of Gdansk could promise a safe place for the time capsule, but this promise would not be binding for the next mayor. This is a serious work. To have left the capsule in Poland would have been to risk its disappearance or destruction. I must say though, that the news of the cars' July 2 arrival came as a complete shock to my wife and myself. We had expected the car to be shipped in late August or early September, not June, and so we thought we had more time to prepare for its arrival.

Now, to outline my plans for the car in the U.S.. When the car arrives in New York, I will remove the engine to meet EPA approval. I view the car as being like an Egyptian sarcophagus in that it is not a car any more but a container, richly and artistically decorated. The car is not intended to be a mode of transportation on any highway or street, but to symbolize a journey through time. As a time traveler, it doesn't need an engine. There are practical considerations regarding this engine as well. This car can only go about 100 miles until it breaks down. Parts are difficult to get in Poland and would be impossible to get here and Syrena mechanics live a half a world away.

I would like to continue to collect information for the capsule from Poles living in the U.S.. This will be accomplished by transporting the car to Polish communities for scheduled showings. The car with its contents will then, be sealed in a plexiglass box marking the anniversary of Polands' first democratic election in November. The car will then be displayed at museums and art institutes but not removed from its box. Finally, after 25 years, the car will be returned to Poland and opened. In this way, the time capsule takes on international significance. I cannot claim to have a list of scheduled showings for the car yet, but I have begun contacting Polish-American organizations and various museums. I hope that I've convinced you that this car, Kapsula Czasu, is an art object and will not be driven or used for transportation. I realize that you would be allowing a very great exception by permiting the car to enter the U.S.. I have asked for professional letters of recommendation to be sent to you, knowing that you probably are not familiar with my work. I am also sending a copy of a newsletter put together by the children of one of the schools Kapsula Czasu visited. While you probably can't read this, and I don't know how well it will fax, you may still be interested in seeing it. My wife had a pleasant conversation with Mr. Taylor Vincent thursday about this matter, and we are hopeful. Thank you for your time and consideration.

Attachment A

Polish newspaper article regarding Kapsula Czasu (text and graphics omitted)

Attachment B

CRANBROOK ACADEMY OF ART

June 28, 1991

Chief Consul Paul Jackson Rice NHTSA Room 5219 400 7th Street, SW Washington, DC 20590

Dear Sir:

Dwayne Szot studied for two years at Cranbrook Academy of Art within the Sculpture Department and receive his Master of Fine Arts degree in May 1989.

During his two years at the Academy, I came to know Dwayne and his work well through student reviews and conversations that I had with him. He proved himself to be a hardworking and conscientious student. His work was imaginative and innovative.

Since leaving the Academy, I have kept in contact with Dwayne and followed the progress of his work. He has matured and has become a serious and dedicated artist.

Dwayne has spent the last nine months as a visiting artist in Poland. I look forward to seeing the work that he produced there.

Sincerely,

Roy Slade President

ID: nht91-4.32

DATE: June 28, 1991

FROM: Dale R. Thompson -- Executive Director, Anderson County Board for the Mentally Retarded and Developmentally Disabled

TO: Mary Versailles -- NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 8-7-91 from Paul Jackson Rice to Dale R. Thompson (A38; Part 571.3)

TEXT:

Per our recent phone conversation, I am contacting your office requesting FHTSA rulings on several transportation issues confronting my agency and the public school districts of Anderson County. These issues involve the transportation of handicapped children ages 3 and 4 that are officially classified as public school children under recent implementation of Public Law 99-457. Public Law 99-457 requires that public schools provide educational and related services. (including transportation) to eligible handicapped children. Prior to the implementation of this law, our agency has transported this population to and from our center based program for developmental and custodial care. We were not subject to FEDERAL or state PUBLIC SCHOOL TRANSPORTATION guidelines as these children were not, prior to implementation of Public Law 99-457, classified as public school children. As the fiscal demands of Public Law 99-457 are forcing a combined effort between my agency and the local public schools, we are evaluating the possibility of utilizing my agency's transportation vehicles to provide total or partial transportation assistance as a collaborative effort. However, prior to making such decisions all agencies and Boards involved feel a federal and state analysis for legal compliance are needed. I would appreciate your guidance or rulings on the following: (Note: The vehicles for proposed use are 15 passenger Dodge/ Chevy/Ford/GMC body types). 1. The vehicles our agency has previously purchased to transport this population prior to their public school age classification does not meet FMVSS/FHTSA standards as a "school bus". As we are proposing to utilize these vehicles to transport this population TO and FROM a public school facility for both education and custodial care, are our vehicles subject to any current, or proposed FHTSA requirements? Note 1. Each child will receive approximately 2 hours of educational services from the school system and 3-4 hours of custodial care per day at the same location.

2. Would these vehicles be subject to FHTSA/FMVSS requirements if they were only used to transport this population FROM the educational/ custodial location each afternoon (From school to home only). Note 2. After mid-morning public school services are completed, our agency will be providing afternoon custodial care prior to the return trip home.

3. What safety features are required of a "bus" in order to comply with FHTSA/FMVSS standards.

As I mentioned to you over the phone, I would appreciate as prompt a response as possible gives the onset of a new school year.

If you need additional information or clarification to assist your determination process, let me know.

ID: nht91-4.33

DATE: July 1, 1991

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Richard E. Wright -- Richard E. Wright Associates

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 5-3-91 from Richard E. Wright to Chief Counsel, NHTSA (OCC 6005)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of May 3, 1991 concerning the possible applicability of the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards to tempered glass products in travel trailers and motor homes. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain the situation to you.

Some background information may be useful. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has authority under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A), the Safety Act) to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. Glazing, as an "addition to the motor vehicle," is considered to be an item of motor vehicle equipment (Section 102(4) of the Safety Act). New glazing material for use in motor vehicles is subject to the requirements of Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials (49 CFR S571.205). Standard No. 205 incorporates by reference "ANS Z26," American National Standards Institute's Safety Code for Safety Glazing Materials for Glazing Motor Vehicles Operating on Land Highways.

The agency has previously stated that Standard No. 205 does not apply to trailers, which our regulations define as "a motor vehicle with or without motive power, designed for carrying persons or property and for being drawn by another motor vehicle." Thus, the standard would not apply to travel trailers.

NHTSA covers motor homes under Standard No. 205. Standard No. 205 specifies performance requirements for glazing material for use in specified locations in motor vehicles, including motor homes. The agency has previously stated that the standard establishes requirements for glazing used in windows and interior partitions in motor vehicles. Glazing used in locations other than windows and interior partitions would not be subject to the requirements of the standard.

I hope that this information is useful to you. If you have further questions, please contact John Rigby of this office at 202-366-2992.

ID: nht91-4.34

DATE: July 1, 1991

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: John Mayeda -- Marketing and Sales Coordinator, GRE America, Inc.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 6-4-87 from Erika Z. Jones to Robert J. Heath; Also attached to letter dated 9-21-89 from Stephen P. Wood to Jim Bowen; Also attached to letter dated 1-7-89 from Erika Z. Jones to Koji Tokunaga (Std. 101); Also attached to letter dated 5-6-91 from John Mayeda to the Department of Transportation, NHTSA (OCC 6034)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter asking whether there are any laws or regulations that govern car stereos. You asked this question in the context of a stereo system that you are considering developing. The stereo would include a built-in television monitor.

I note that your letter and an enclosed drawing are stamped "Proprietary Information." In a May 30, 1991 telephone conversation, Elizabeth Barbour of my staff advised you that all NHTSA interpretation letters are a matter of public record, and that all incoming requests are also made public unless confidential treatment is requested and granted. You indicated your understanding of this policy and stated that you did not wish to request that the materials you submitted be treated confidentially.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration does not have any safety standards specifically covering car stereos or television receivers. However, a car stereo or television receiver may include a source of illumination which is regulated by Standard No. 101, Controls and Displays. Further, the installation of a car stereo or television receiver could affect the compliance of a vehicle with a number of safety standards. I have enclosed copies of three letters which discuss these and a number of other issues relating to the installation of radios or television receivers in motor vehicles. They include a June 4, 1987 letter addressed to Pansonic, a January 7, 1988 letter addressed to Isuzu, and a September 21, 1989 letter addressed to Gulf Stream Coach.

I hope this information is helpful.

ID: nht91-4.35

DATE: July 1, 1991

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Cliff Chuang -- Chief Design Engineer, Prospects Corporation

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 5-1-91 from Cliff Chuang to Legal Counsel, NHTSA (OCC 6009)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter seeking clarification of recent amendments to Standard No. 118, Power-operated Window Systems (49 CFR S571.118), as published in the Federal Register on April 16, 1991. Specifically, you were interested in new requirements applicable to remote control operations of power windows. You first asked for confirmation of your interpretation of the new requirement in S5(a) that, while closing, remote control-operated power windows automatically reverse direction "when they meet a resistive force of 22 pounds or more." You also asked for an interpretation of the term "daylight opening" as it appears in S5(b) of Standard No. 118.

This agency has received several petitions for reconsideration of the recent amendments to Standard No. 118 with respect to the automatic reversal requirements. In response to the petitions, NHTSA is currently reexamining several aspects of this requirement, including those raised in your letter. The agency will publish its response to the petitions for reconsideration in the Federal Register after it has finished its reexamination of the automatic reversal requirement in the April 16 final rule. Please let us know if you have any questions about this new automatic reversal requirement after our response to the petitions for reconsideration has been published and you have had the opportunity to review it.

I hope this information is helpful to you. Please contact us if you have further questions.

ID: nht91-4.36

DATE: July 1, 1991

FROM: David R. Stepp -- Stein Shostak Shostak & O'Hara

TO: Paul Jackson Rice -- General Counsel, NHTSA

COPYEE: Greg Long -- Escargot Motor Cars, Inc.

TITLE: Escargot Motorcars, Inc. - Reimportation of Previously Imported Automobiles

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 8-12-91 from Paul Jackson Rice to David R. Stepp (A38; Part 591; VSA 108(a)(2)(A))

TEXT:

On behalf of our client, Escargot Motorcars, Inc. (Escargot) of Toronto, Canada, we hereby request written approval for the reimportation into the United States of Volkswagen Beetles previously imported into the United States in their respective years of manufacture which have been sent to Mexico for refurbishment. This processing operation is prospective in nature and Escargot will not proceed until written assurances are received from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA).

FACTS:

In the United States, Escargot intends to purchase titled Volkswagen Beetles, last available in 1979, which were previously imported into the United States by Volkswagen of America. At the time of original purchase, each automobile complied with all laws and regulations applicable to that year of manufacture.

The automobiles will be shipped to Mexico for refurbishment after having been registered by Vehicle Identification Number (VIN) at the border with the United States Customs Service by a licensed customhouse broker. In Mexico, each automobile will be completely stripped of all damaged original parts and the frames will be restored and repainted. The engine will be replaced with an original Volkswagen replacement engine of 1,600 cc displacement. The body, all sheet metal, interior, bumpers, and lights will be restored or replaced with replacement parts and will be exactly as those original to the Volkswagen Beetles for their respective years of manufacture. A catalytic converter will be installed to meet or surpass U.S. emission standards in effect for the particular vehicle's year of manufacture.

Upon reimportation into the United States, all applicable customs duties will be paid. During the refurbishment in Mexico, the original frame/chassis is preserved on each automobile. The original VIN, which is physically stamped onto the frame/chassis, is also preserved and is easily readable for Customs inspection. Some of the original Volkswagen as exported to Mexico will possess the manufacturer's certification disk on the door post which shows the year of manufacture and confirms the satisfaction of all requirements of that date. In other automobiles whose bodies are worn or damaged, the entire bodies may be replaced and/or painted and this manufacturer's certification may be damaged or removed.

For certain vehicles with extensively damaged bodies, Escargot is contemplating stripping the bodies from the chassis in the United States prior to exportation to Mexico.

Escargot will keep detailed records of all restoration processes and will take photographs to confirm the processing performed in Mexico.

LAW & DISCUSSION:

The Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) for passenger cars and equipment are applicable to automobiles manufactured on or after the dates of the various provisions (49 C.F.R. Part 571). Thus, any previously imported Volkswagen Beetle will be required to meet all FMVSS for its respective model year, i.e., a 1968 Volkswagen Beetle must satisfy FMVSS 101-107, 109-11, 116, 201, 203-11, and 301.

For automobiles where the FMVSS apply, a manufacturer's certification must be permanently affixed to the motor vehicle. Under 49 C.F.R. Sec. 567, this certification must contain the name of the manufacturer, month and year of manufacture, "Gross Vehicle Weight Rating," "Gross Axle Weight Rating," the VIN, the type classification of the vehicle, and a statement that the vehicle conforms to all applicable FMVSS in effect on the date of manufacture.

In addition, an importer must file a declaration in accordance with 49 C.F.R. 591.5. In particular, Sec. 591.5(b) provides that the declaration must state that the imported vehicle conforms with all applicable safety standards, bumper, and theft prevention standards. A certification label or tag to that effect must be permanently affixed by the original manufacturer to the vehicle. See also 19 C.F.R. Sec. 12.80(b)(1), where Customs states its procedures for implementing the NHTSA declaration requirements.

Against this background, the Volkswagen Beetles which Escargot proposes to refurbish in Mexico and reimport into the United States should be allowed reentry by NHTSA. The automobiles will be restored to a point which actually exceeds the standards necessary for the model years of the motor vehicles. For example, a Volkswagen Beetle imported in 1968 will be fitted with a catalytic convertor, a device originally not required for that model year. Where the manufacturer's certification on the doorpost is preserved after restoration in Mexico, the vehicles clearly should be allowed to enter the United States without further certification.

In addition, we maintain that further certification is also not necessary for motor vehicles which may require body restoration so extensive that the doorpost which contains the manufacturer's certification may be damaged or removed. Since the original frame and VIN is retained throughout the restoration process, the refurbished Volkswagen Beetle will be recognized as a motor vehicle by its title which was previously imported and which complied with all applicable laws and regulations. The fact that a doorpost containing the certification is replaced or repainted should not nullify the manufacturer's certification. NHTSA, through the U.S. Customs recordation of the VIN at the border, has sufficient means to insure that a vehicle which is sent from the United States to Mexico will

be the same one returned to the United States after restoration. Similarly, vehicles which are stripped of their bodies prior to shipment to Mexico should be allowed entry without further certification since the chassis will be preserved and registered.

Although not controlling in the United States, Transport Canada's enforcement position with respect to the importation of restored Volkswagen Beetles into Canada is relevant. Under the Canadian Motor Vehicle Act, vehicles manufactured or rehabilitated on used chassis or floor pans are not subject to its provisions. This position is based on the concept that the chassis is the integral part of the vehicle and is thus the only component which must be retained.

In conclusion, NHTSA should determine that Volkswagen Beetles previously imported into the United States and restored in Mexico should be allowed entry into the United States without further certification. The proposed restoration performed in mexico is no different than that which is currently done in the United States with original Volkswagen Beetles. The original chassis of each Volkswagen is retained and the VIN is preserved throughout the refurbishment operations. The registration of the vehicles by VIN at the Mexican border provides a sufficient method to insure the integrity of the automobiles upon reimportation. Accordingly, we respectfully request NHTSA's approval for the reimportation of Escargot's refurbished vehicles.

We look forward to your earliest possible response to this inquiry. Should you need any additional information or have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.