ID: nht95-3.26

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: June 26, 1995

FROM: Jerel M. Sachs -- General Manager, Automotive Glass, Import Products Glass

TO: Clarke Harper

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 8/4/95 LETTER FROM JOHN WOMACK TO JEREL M. SACHS (A43; REDBOOK 2; STD. 205); ALSO ATTACHED TO 8/4/86 LETTER FROM ERIKA Z. JONES TO HENRY A. GORRY; ALSO ATTACHED TO 6/10/87 LETTER FROM ERIKA Z. JONES TO DAVID C. MAROON; ALSO ATTACHED TO 6/14/90 LETTER FROM PAUL JACKSON RICE TO NORMAND LAURENDEAU

TEXT: Dear Clark:

Thank you for returning my telephone call today. Pursuant to our telephone conversation I would like to state that Import Products Company is a prime glazing manufacturer and distributor. Our new address as of August 1st, 1995 will be; 55 Stockland Blv d., Bridgewater, MA 02324.

We intend to engage in the manufacture and/or contract manufacture of automotive safety glass in the United States and overseas. We are in the process of negotiations for the tooling and machinery of Lin's Glass Company who currently hold DOT # 396 and manufacture under the brand name of Sunmat. Part of the negotiation is acquiring the Sunmat brand name and corresponding DOT # 396.

I will contact you as soon as I know more about the release of the DOT # 396/ Sunmat name. In the meantime, please confirm acceptance of this letter but hold off assigning us a DOT number. Thank you for your help.

Enclosure (follow up letter)

July 13, 1995

Paul Atelsek Chief Council's Office 400 7 Street SW Washington, DC 20590

Dear Paul:

Per our telephone conversation yesterday 1 am faxing you a copy of the letter I sent to Clark Harper on June 26, 1995. As discussed, I see great merit for both NHTSA and our company in holding a D.O.T. number since we will be doing contract manufacturin g with a supplier who is also supplying other customers. This will help us monitor quality control and track our product in the marketplace.

Import Products Company has been in business for over 28 years and has been involved in the importing, contract manufacturing and distribution of automotive parts for use in the United States and export. We are experienced in doing voluntary recalls for quality control problems of automotive products that are unrelated to safety. I am sure that you must agree that NHTSA would have a much better chance working with IPG to implement a recall as compared to a company overseas in Taiwan, Malaysia or China through an Agent for Service of Process, which in many cases is a family relative or friend of somebody who works in the factory. Overall, I see this as a win-win combination for all of us and I hope you agree.

I look forward to hearing from you soon. Thank you.

Sincerely,

Jerel M. Sachs General Manager Automotive Glass, IMPORT PRODUCTS GLASS

cc: Clark Harper

ID: 9677

Lawrence A. Beyer, Esq.
674 Lake Road
Webster, NY 14580

Dear Mr. Beyer:

This is in reply to your FAX of February 14, 1994, to Taylor Vinson of this Office, relating to a policy of the Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance (OVSC) regarding importation of vehicles from Canada.

Under this policy, and because of the close congruence of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards of both the U.S. and Canada, OVSC has, in essence, waived the requirement for bond and entry through the registered importer process if the Canadian vehicle is accompanied by a letter from the vehicle manufacturer stating that the vehicle was manufactured to comply with the U.S. standards, except for minor labelling variations. You state that this policy has been restricted to personally owned vehicles and does not allow "importations of vehicles by corporations for their corporation's personal use." Instead, these vehicles must be entered under bond and conformance verified or achieved by a registered importer. You state that you do not understand the distinction OVSC makes between individual personal use and corporate personal use.

Under the Imported Vehicle Safety Compliance Act of 1988, as a general matter, a noncomplying vehicle may enter the United States permanently only if it is imported by a registered importer who brings it into compliance. However, an exception is made by 15 U.S.C. 1397(f)(1)(B) which allows importation by a person other than a registered importer if that person has a conformance contract with a registered importer and if the vehicle is imported "for personal use, and not for purposes of resale, by any individual (other than an individual described in subsections (g) and (h)). . . ." The term "individual" refers to a human being and not a corporate person. Therefore, the Act distinguishes both as to whether an importation is for personal use and whether the importer is an individual or a corporation.

I hope that this answers your question. Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel ref:591#592 d:4/11/94

ID: nht94-2.63

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: April 29, 1994

FROM: William L. Blake

TO: United States Department Of Transportation

TITLE: Re: 1985 Mercedes Benz, Model 280SL, Seriel NO. WDB1070421A026883

ATTACHMT: Attached To Letter Dated 6/9/94 From John Womack to William L. Blake (A42; PART 581; 591; CSA 5106) And Letter Dated 5/11/94 From William Blake To U.S. DOT

TEXT: Gentlemen:

Please be advised that I represent the owner of the foregoing vehicle. I am advised that this vehicle was manufactured and assembled in Europe and shipped to the United States, modified slightly, and then sold. Modification did not include removal o f, or modification of, bumpers to conform to United States crash standards.

The bumper of this vehicle has now been damaged. My client placed a claim with his insurance company, and the insurance company insists that the vehicle can be repaired with parts which were allegedly illegally imported. The reputable body shop to w hich my client took the vehicle indicates that it is illegal to import bumper parts which do not conform to United States crash standards and that accordingly the entire bumper must be replaced in order to conform to United States safety standards.

Please advise as to the following:

1. As to whether it is or is not illegal to import European bumper parts for these so-called gray model vehicles.

2. As to whether it is or is not illegal for an owner to participate in the installation of bumper parts which do not conform to United States standards.

2

Please refer me to the appropriate statutes and/or regulations relative to the foregoing.

Thank you very much for your cooperation.

Yours very truly,

ID: 21069.ogm

Mr. Mac Yousry
Global Vehicle Services, Corp.
1238 West Grove Avenue
Orange, CA 92865

Dear Mr. Yousry:

This responds to your request for information whether a vehicle that is capable of operating on water as well as land may be classified as a "multipurpose passenger vehicle."

Please note that under the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's (NHTSA's) statutory authority (49 U.S.C. Chapter 301, Motor Vehicle Safety) the vehicle's manufacturer is responsible in the first instance for classifying a particular vehicle. NHTSA does not approve or endorse any vehicle classification before the manufacturer itself has classified a particular vehicle. NHTSA may reexamine the manufacturer's classification during the course of an enforcement action.

"Multipurpose passenger vehicle" (MPV) is defined in our regulations at 49 CFR 571.3 as "a motor vehicle with motive power, except a trailer, designed to carry 10 persons or less which is constructed either on a truck chassis or with special features for occasional off-road operation."

Your letter indicates that the vehicle in question is intended to be used on the water forty to sixty percent of the time. You ask if a vehicle which is intended primarily to operate on public highways but also has the capability to operate on water, has special features for occasional off-road operation.

It is not clear from your description if the vehicle is designed to carry fewer than 10 persons or is constructed on a truck chassis. As your inquiry requests the agency's view on whether the vehicle may be properly said to be capable of occasional off-road operation, we will assume that it is not built on a truck chassis and is designed to carry 10 persons or fewer.

Part of the "multipurpose passenger vehicle" definition is that the subject vehicle has "special features for occasional off-road operation." We note that you describe the vehicle as "amphibious," i.e., having the capability to operate independently on land and in the water. The amphibious capability of such a vehicle indicates that it would possess special features for off-road operation. Therefore, based on the information you have provided, it appears that the vehicle in question would, for the purpose of classifying the vehicle for application of Federal motor vehicle safety standards, qualify as a multipurpose passenger vehicle.

For further information, please feel free to contact Otto Matheke of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-5253.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
ref.571
d.2/11/2000

ID: nht95-1.30

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: January 17, 1995

FROM: Nick Smith -- Member of Congress, U.S. House Of Representatives

TO: Regina Sulliven -- Director, Congressional Affairs, U.S. Department of Transportation

TITLE: Federal Regulations for public schools and home schools transporting students by van

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 2/27/95 LETTER FROM PHILIP R. RECHT TO NICK SMITH (REDBOOK (2)); PART 571.3)

TEXT: Dave Globig from Spring Arbor College in my district contacted my office regarding his concerns with regulations affecting the transportation of students in vans as opposed to buses.

It is his understanding that federal law will not allow certification of any vans made after 1995 and after, 1997, will not allow any vans to be certified. I would appreciate it if you could advise me as to what federal regulations pertain to this iss ue.

Obviously, Mr. Globig is concerned with the prospect of schools purchasing expensive vehicles and then, later, finding out that they can not be certified.

Thank you for your attention to this matter. Please direct any questions or correspondence to my Charlotte district office at the address and phone number listed below.

ID: nht91-3.49

DATE: May 10, 1991

FROM: Rosemary Dunlap -- President, Motor Voters

TO: Jack Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 6-10-91 from Paul Jackson Rice to Rosemary Dunlap (A38; VSA 103D)

TEXT:

As you know, some states are considering disclosure bills concerning safety features in LTVs and bumper strength.

There is considerable debate over the question of states' rights to require disclosure. Opponents of the bills argue there is a federal preemption. Proponents disagree, and cite various legal opinions.

To counter those opinions, opponents have represented that a NHTSA spokesperson indicated that states are federally preempted in this area. However, we have been unable to ascertain the identify of this spokes- person, or the exact nature of what may have been said.

To clarify matters solely with regard to NHTSA, would your office please state for the record whether or not NHTSA has an official opinion regarding federal preemption and disclosure, and if it does, what that opinion is?

I certainly appreciate your kind assistance with this matter.

ID: nht94-4.99

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: December 7, 1994

FROM: Philip R. Recht -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: John Sheppard -- Sales and Marketing Manager, Reflexite Canada, Inc.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 11/2/94 FROM JOHN SHEPPARD TO CHIEF COUNCIL, NHTSA (OCC 10473)

TEXT: We have received your letter of November 2, 1994, asking whether certain conspicuity material could be used on trailers required to meet S5.7 of U.S. Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. You have enclosed samples of the material.

The material alternates red and white stripes "oriented at a 45 degree angle to the edge of the roll." Rolls are either 6 or 8 inches in width and "will not have DOT-C2 marking." In addition, we note that the horizontal length of the red segments is 5 1/ 2 inches (and presume an equal length for the white segments). Specifically, you have asked whether this material could "be applied to the lower edge of the vehicle's rear doors as a compliant substitute for the 2" 'block pattern' material currently bein g used?"

Paragraph S5.7's specifications for conspicuity material are intended to ensure uniformity of treatment in order to enhance the ability of drivers of other vehicles to detect large objects in the roadway under conditions when headlamps are used. While S 5.7 does not require that the red and white color segments be rectangular, it does establish requirements for their length and width. Under S5.7.1.3(b), each segment shall have a length of 300 mm +/- 150 mm. The color segment separation of 5 1/2 inches on your sample is approximately 140 mm, and thus below the minimum permitted by the standard. Although currently, under S5.7.1.3(d), three widths of retroreflective material are permissible: 50 mm (DOT-C2), 75 mm (DOT-C3), and 100 mm (DOT-C4) and your widths of 6 inches (150 mm) and 8 inches (200mm) do not conform to these specifications, the agency has proposed that these be minimum minimum widths for the DOT grades indicated. We expect a final rule to be issued on this proposal in the near future.

Because the retroreflective material discussed above would not comply with Standard No. 108's requirements for color segment length (and currently width), it could not be used as a substitute for the DOT-C2 material that you currently manufacture. Furth er, geometrically and photometrically complying material would require the appropriate DOT grade identification marking for use on a trailer required to comply with Standard No. 108.

ID: nht94-6.7

DATE: April 29, 1994

FROM: William L. Blake

TO: United States Department Of Transportation

TITLE: Re: 1985 Mercedes Benz, Model 280SL, Seriel NO. WDB1070421A026883

ATTACHMT: Attached To Letter Dated 6/9/94 From John Womack to William L. Blake (A42; PART 581; 591; CSA 5106) And Letter Dated 5/11/94 From William Blake To U.S. DOT

TEXT: Gentlemen:

Please be advised that I represent the owner of the foregoing vehicle. I am advised that this vehicle was manufactured and assembled in Europe and shipped to the United States, modified slightly, and then sold. Modification did not include removal of, or modification of, bumpers to conform to United States crash standards.

The bumper of this vehicle has now been damaged. My client placed a claim with his insurance company, and the insurance company insists that the vehicle can be repaired with parts which were allegedly illegally imported. The reputable body shop to which my client took the vehicle indicates that it is illegal to import bumper parts which do not conform to United States crash standards and that accordingly the entire bumper must be replaced in order to conform to United States safety standards.

Please advise as to the following:

1. As to whether it is or is not illegal to import European bumper parts for these so-called gray model vehicles.

2. As to whether it is or is not illegal for an owner to participate in the installation of bumper parts which do not conform to United States standards.

2

Please refer me to the appropriate statutes and/or regulations relative to the foregoing.

Thank you very much for your cooperation.

Yours very truly,

ID: 0473

Mr. John Sheppard
Sales and Marketing Manager
Reflexite Canada, Inc.
6790 Kitimat Road, Unit 18
Mississauga
Ontario L5N 5L9
Canada

Dear Mr. Sheppard:

We have received your letter of November 2, 1994, asking whether certain conspicuity material could be used on trailers required to meet S5.7 of U.S. Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. You have enclosed samples of the material.

The material alternates red and white stripes "oriented at a 45 degree angle to the edge of the roll." Rolls are either 6 or 8 inches in width and "will not have DOT-C2 marking." In addition, we note that the horizontal length of the red segments is 5 1/2 inches (and presume an equal length for the white segments). Specifically, you have asked whether this material could "be applied to the lower edge of the vehicle's rear doors as a compliant substitute for the 2" 'block pattern' material currently being used?"

Paragraph S5.7's specifications for conspicuity material are intended to ensure uniformity of treatment in order to enhance the ability of drivers of other vehicles to detect large objects in the roadway under conditions when headlamps are used. While S5.7 does not require that the red and white color segments be rectangular, it does establish requirements for their length and width. Under S5.7.1.3(b), each segment shall have a length of 300 mm +/- 150 mm. The color segment separation of 5 1/2 inches on your sample is approximately 140 mm, and thus below the minimum permitted by the standard. Although currently, under S5.7.1.3(d), three widths of retroreflective material are permissible: 50 mm (DOT-C2), 75 mm (DOT-C3), and 100 mm (DOT-C4) and your widths of 6 inches (150 mm) and 8 inches (200mm) do not conform to these specifications, the agency has proposed that these be minimum minimum widths for the DOT grades indicated. We expect a final rule to be issued on this proposal in the near future.

Because the retroreflective material discussed above would not comply with Standard No. 108's requirements for color segment length (and currently width), it could not be used as a substitute for the DOT-C2 material that you currently manufacture. Further, geometrically and photometrically complying material would require the appropriate DOT grade identification marking for use on a trailer required to comply with Standard No. 108.

Sincerely,

Philip R. Recht Chief Counsel ref:108 d:12/7/94

ID: nht93-1.32

DATE: 02/11/93

FROM: JOHN WOMACK -- ACTING CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TO: FRANK E. TIMMONS -- RUBBER MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION

COPYEE: UNDER SECRETARY -- KUWAIT MINISTRY OF COMMERCE

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 12-2-92 FROM FRANK E. TIMMONS TO PAUL JACKSON RICE (OCC 8088); ALSO ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 11-13-92 FROM PAUL JACKSON RICE TO UNDER SECRETARY, KUWAIT MINISTRY OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY; ALSO ATTACHED TO LETTER (DATE ILLEGIBLE) FROM UNDER SECRETARY, KUWAIT MINISTRY OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY, TO PAUL J. RICE

TEXT: This responds to your letter about our November 1992 letter to the Under Secretary, Kuwait Ministry of Commerce. In that letter, NHTSA discussed Federal requirements for tires sold in the United States for passenger cars and other "motor vehicles." You wish to ensure that the Under Secretary understands that the term "motor vehicles" only refers to vehicles "manufactured primarily for use on highways."

We are glad to clarify the meaning of the term "motor vehicle." "Motor vehicle" is defined in @ 102(3) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act as "any vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power manufactured primarily for use on the public streets, roads, and highways, except any vehicle operated exclusively on a rail or rails." (Emphasis added.) Thus, a motor vehicle is a vehicle that the manufacturer expects will use public highways as part of its intended function.

This agency has issued many interpretations of what is and what is not a "motor vehicle." In general, vehicles that are equipped with tracks or are otherwise incapable of highway travel are not motor vehicles. Likewise, vehicles that are designed and sold solely for off-road use (e.g., airport runway vehicles and underground mining vehicles) are not motor vehicles even if operationally capable of highway travel. They manufacturer knew that a substantial proportion of its customers actually would use them on the highway.

Vehicles that use the public highways on a necessary and recurring basis are considered motor vehicles. Furthermore, even if the majority of a vehicle's use will be off-road but it will spend a substantial amount of time on-road, this agency has interpreted that to be a motor vehicle.

We appreciate your interest in this matter and will provide the Under Secretary with a copy of this letter. Please contact us if we can be of further assistance.