ID: nht87-1.79

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 05/25/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; EriKa Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Thomas L. Long

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Mr. Thomas L. Long Vice-President R & D Think, Inc. P.O. Box 414 Smyrna, TN; 37167

Dear Mr. Long:

This is in reply to your letter of August 20, 1987, to Taylor Vinson of this office. You have enclosed a decal intended to be affixed "on the outside of the rear window of an automobile, directly in front of the high mounted stop light." You have asked about the relationship of the decal to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

Center highmounted stoplamps are required to be designed so that light outlet (candela) may be measured at 13 individual test points, at a distance of not less than 10 feet. With the decal applied to the rear

window, it is possible that the requisite minimum or maximum candela specified by Standard No. 103 could not be met at all of the test points. Further, the effective luminous area of the lamp must be not less than 4 1/2 square inches, and while the decal would not be applied to the lens, nevertheless, the lens area when viewed from behind could be effectively reduced. Because a vehicle must meet Standard No. 108 at the time of its initial sale, the vehicle could be delivered to its purchase: with the decal attached only if the vehicle continued to meet the light output and effective luminous area requirements.

Even if a vehicle could not be delivered with the decal attached, nothing in Standard No. 108 or the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act prohibits a vehicle owner from applying the decal to his own vehicle, or from taking any other action that might affect the compliance of his vehicle with any of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. The Act does forbid other persons from such actions, so that after a vehicle is sold, the dealer (or a motor vehicle repair business) could still be prohibited from applying the decal. Regulation of a vehicle in use is a matter of the laws of the States where vehicles are registered and operated. Even though Federal law does not prohibit an owner from applying the decal, a State law might. For advice on State laws, you should write the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 1201 Connecticut Ave. N.W., Washington, D.C. 20036.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Council

ID: nht87-1.8

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 01/09/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: David V. Brewer -- Lombard, Gardner, Honsowetz, Brewer and Schons

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

ATTACHMT: 3/24/80 letter from F. Berndt to Lombard, Gardner, Honsowetz and Brewer

TEXT:

David V. Brewer Esq Lombard, Gardner, Honsowetz, Brewer & Schons Attorneys at Law P.O. Box 10332 Eugene, OR 97440

This responds to your September 26, 1986, letter concerning the applicability of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No, 106, Brake Hoses to your client's coupling device. You asked us to reconfirm the statements made in a March 24, 1980 interpretation issued by former Chief Counsel Prank Berndt to Mr. Ronald Irvine that the one-piece unit coupling device in question, used to simultaneously interconnect two air lines and the electrical lines between a tractor and trailer, is not subject to Standard No . 106. We confirm that the agency's 1980 interpretation has not been superseded or revised by subsequent interpretations of the standard.

The 1980 letter to Mr. Irvine explained that we assumed from the drawings The enclosed that completed brake hose assemblies with their own end fittings attach to the coupling device. Under that assumption, NHTSA concluded that the coupling device would n ot be considered a "brake hose assembly" or a "brake hose end fitting" because the coupling device in question was not included in the standard's definitions of those terms. As a result, certification by the manufacturer to Standard No, 106 was inappropr iate.

We have not modified our interpretation of Standard No. 106 as it applies to the coupling device described by Mr. Irvine in his 1980 inquiry. If the "Ideal Coupling" not owned by your client is the sane device, it is not subject to the requirements of St andard No. 106. Of course, as discussed by the agency in its 1980 letter, your client is nevertheless responsible for any safety related defects in the coupling device under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, since it is an item of motor vehicle equipment.

I hope this information has been helpful.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

September 26, 1986

CERTIFIED MAlL RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED

Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Washington, D.C. 20590

Re: Ideal Coupling -- Ruling Request Under Motor Vehicle Safety Standard #106-74 and Related Sections

Dear Sirs:

On March 24, 1980, Ronald Irvine of our office received a letter from Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel of the U.S. Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (reference #NOA-30), in regard to a one piece coupling unit device for the connection of electrical and air brake lines on tractor-trailers. A true copy of Mr. Berndt's letter dated March 24 is attached to this letter as Exhibit "A" and by this reference incorporated herein.

Mr. Berndt's letter was based upon a request by our client Ideal Welding and Machine Company. The coupler product is now the property of our client Nipac, Ltd., a corporation organized under the laws of the State of Oregon, having its principal office at 120 Monroe Street, Eugene, Oregon. The undersigned respectfully requests that the rulings requested herein, which are simply an updating of the request for rulings made in 1980, be issued on behalf of the above-mentioned party regarding the applicabilit y of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard #106-74 or any related standards dealing with air brake systems.

Nipac, Ltd., which commenced business in 1980, is currently engaged in the business of marketing products for industrial use. The company owns the rights to the coupling device to be attached to the electrical and air brake hoses of a truck and trailer w hich provide a simplified one piece unit for the connection of the electrical and air brake lines. Clarion Shoji Company, Ltd. of Tokyo, Japan, has already manufactured several thousand units of this device, on the strength of the March, 1980 ruling from your office.

Because the device involves the connection of air brake hoses, clarification as to the certification, labeling and testing requirements under the Motor Vehicle Safety Standard #106-74 and any related sections is desired prior to the further sale of the d evice in the United States. Since your certification has not been updated in six years, the purpose of this letter is simply to update that certification.

Based on the foregoing, it is respectfully requested that the following ruling be issued:

1. The Ideal Coupling (now owned by Nipac, Ltd.) does not constitute an air brake hose, end fitting or assembly that requires labeling or certification under Motor Vehicle Safety Standard #106-74 or any related standard.

If your agency should find that some sort of certification, labeling or testing is required for the coupling device, please advise as to the following:

1. What form, of label, certification, or testing is required;

2. Who is required to perform the above, i.e., the manufacturer, or may our client provide the label, certification, or testing in the United States?

If any further information is necessary, please contact the undersigned. Your prompt consideration of this matter is greatly appreciated.

Very truly yours,

LOMBARD, GARDNER, HONSOWETZ, BREWER & SCHONS

DAVID V. BREWER Ideal Coupling - Motor Vehicle Safety Standard #106-74 Under penalties of perjury, we have examined this ruling request, and to the best of our knowledge and belief, the information presented in support of the requested ruling herein is true, correct and complete.

NIPAC, LTD.

By JACK DEAN, President

By LLOYD WETZIG

DB/lav Enclosures: U.S. Patent #4,183,599 issued January 15, 1980 Letter; Reference #NOA-30 cc: Jack Dean

(See 2/24/80 letter from F. Berndt to Lombard, Gardner, Honsowetz and Brewer)

ID: nht87-1.80

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 05/27/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Paul Miller

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Paul Miller Arizona Bus Sales, Inc. P.O. Box 21226 Phoenix, AZ 85036 Dear Mr. Miller:

This responds to your April 14, 1987 letter to us asking about Federal requirements applicable to the sale of new school buses. You enclosed a copy of a bid from a school bus dealer offering to sell a 48-passenger activity bus to a school district. The b id describes options for changing the school bus paint and deleting "school options." You ask whether a bid with "an option to modify paint, and delete school bus options" accords with our school bus regulations.

The answer to your question depends on the nature of the "school options" which the bid makes nonobligatory. It is unclear from the bid whether the reference is to the school bus performance requirements mandated by our federal motor vehicle safety stand ards, or to the way the school bus is painted and marked. If the "school options" are the features required by Federal school bus safety standards, the answer to your question is no--i.e., the dealer may not sell a new school bus that fails to comply wit h those standards. On the other hand, Federal law does not prohibit school districts from changing the color or markings of their school buses. Instead, requirements for the identification of school buses are set by each State.

Our agency has two sets of regulations for school buses. The first set, issued under the authority of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, applies to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles and includes our motor vehicle safety stand ards for school buses. Those standards set performance requirements that all new school buses must meet, including standards for passenger crash protection, emergency exits, rollover protection and fuel systems. The Safety Act requires manufacturers of s chool buses to certify that their vehicles comply with all applicable Federal school bus safety standards. The Act also requires school bus dealers to ensure that only complying school buses are sold. These requirements, set by federal law, apply to each school bus manufacturer and seller. A school bus dealer cannot elect whether to comply with those requirements and choose to sell a new activity bus that does not comply with our school bus safety standards.

Our second set of school bus "regulations," issued under the Highway Safety Act, include recommendations for identifying school buses. These recommendations are set forth in Highway Safety Program Standard No. 17, Pupil Transportation Safety (copy enclos ed). While the "standard" recommends that activity buses should be painted yellow and marked "School Bus," the decision to adopt its recommendations is made by each State. Therefore, questions you might have about activity bus identification should be ad dressed to your State officials.

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

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel Enclosure National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, S.W.

Washington,DC 20590 Attn: Erika Z. Jones

Ms. Jones:

Enclosed is a copy of a bid from an Arizona school Bus dealer offering a new bus for sale to a school district, with an option to modify paint, and delete school bus options.

In the past we have declined such invitations believing that such a sale would be in violation of federal law pertaining to the sale of school buses.

I would very much appreciate your opinion in this matter.

Sincerely ,

Paul Miller Sales Manager PM/md

Parker Unified District No. 27 P.O. Box 1089 Parker, Arizona 85344 Attn: Mr. Art Fox

April 10, 1987 Quotation No. B-748 Subject: Activity Bus

One Blue Bird All American Rear Engine 48 Passenger Activity Bus including all standard equipment and the following options:

Caterpillar 3208 Turbocharged 225 H.P. Diesel Engine with 5 Year/150,000 Mile Extended Warranty.

Allison MT643 4-speed Automatic Transmission with 3 Year/Unlimited Mileage Warranty.

Stemco front wheel seals

Rockwell 6" front and 8" rear brakes

Engine hour meter

Transmission temperature gauge

120 gallon fuel tank

11R x 22.5 Michelin Radial Tubeless Tires, including spare

Push-thru luggage compartment, 116 cu. ft. with locks

vandal locks on all doors

High headroom

Two 6" defroster fans

12,000 BTU driver's heater, 80,000 BTU center heater, 80,000 BTU rear heater Eight light warning system

AM/PM/Cassett/PA/Stereo Radio

12 rows of Blue Bird Activity Seats meeting FMVSS

Full width mud flaps Front and rear rubber fenders

5 lb. fire extinguisher

16 Unit first Aid Kit

Triangles and flares

Tan floor with plywood sub-floor

Interior parcel racks

Intermittent wipers

Tinted windows

Trans/Air Air Conditioning Model TA99 Dual System with two 15.6 compressors

full length luggage rack ducts with adjustable louvers, two 3-fan roof mounted condensors for a total of 106,000 BTU/hr

Price including transportation with tax to be added:

Option: Two-tone paint with school options deleted as required, Add:

MAKE YEAR MODEL W B. CA

THIS QUOTATION IS SUBJECT TO ACCEPTANCE WITHIN 30 DAYS FROM IT'S DATE.

ID: nht87-1.81

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 05/28/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Nobuyoshi Takechi

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Nobuyoshi Takechi Technical Manager MMC Services, Inc. 3000 Town Center Suite 1960 Southfield, MI 48075

Dear Mr. Takechi:

This responds to your letter requesting an interpretation of Standard No. 101, Controls and Displays. Your questions are responded to 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 manufac turer to ensure that its motor vehicles or equipment comply with applicable safety standards. The following represents our opinion based on the facts provided in your letter.

Your first question concerns the identification requirements for a master lighting switch. You stated your belief that if the headlamps and tail lamps are controlled by the master lighting switch, the switch is not required to be marked with any symbol o ther than that specified in Standard No. 101 for the master lighting switch. You also stated your belief that the manufacturer had an option to use other symbols in addition to that symbol. As discussed below, your understanding is correct.

Section S5.2.1(a) states:

Except as specified in S5.2.1(b), any hand-operated control listed in column 1 of Table 1 that has a symbol designated for it in column 3 of that table shall be identified by either the symbol designated in column 3 (or symbol substantially similar in fo rm to that shown in column 3) or the word or abbreviation shown in column 2 of that table. . . . Words or symbols in addition to the required symbol, word or abbreviation may be used at the manufacturer's discretion for the purpose of clarity. . . .

Column 3 of Table 1 designates the symbol shown In your letter for the master lighting switch. Also, footnote 2 of the table states that separate identification is not required for headlamps and tail lamps if they are controlled by a master lighting swit ch. Thus, the master lighting switch symbol is sufficient identification under Standard No. 101 for the control identified in your letter.

A drawing provided with your letter shows various positions of the master lighting switch Identified by a word or symbols, which are provided in addition to the master lighting switch symbol. As indicated in the above-quoted text, section S5.2. 1(a) perm its words or symbols in addition to the required symbol or word, for purposes of clarity.

Your second question concerns identification requirements for an upper beam control. You stated that you believe no symbol is required for the upper beam control if it is on the turn signal lever, and that it is at the manufacturer's option to use a symb ol.

Standard No. 101 does not specify any identification requirements for an upper beam control , regardless of whether it is on the turn signal lever. Thus, the manufacturer has the option of deciding whether to identify the control and, If so, how to ident ify it. We note that the symbol you plan to use for future models is the same as that designated in Standard No. 101 for the highbeam (upper beam) tell tale. Thus, your planned approach appears desirable in minimizing the number of symbols drivers must f amiliarize themselves with for the same function.

Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Ms. Erika Jones, Chief Counsel NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, DC 20530

Dear Ms. Jones:

This letter serves to request an interpretation or FMVSS 101; Controls and displays.

We believe, (1) if the head lamps and tail lamps are controlled by master lighting switch, this is not required to be marked with any symbol , other than and it is the manufacturer's option to use other symbols in addition to the, as desired.

(2) When using the turn signal lever for the upper beam control, no symbol is required, and it is at the manufacturer's option to use symbol as desired.

Shown by current models in Attachment 1 are the symbols we have been using. In future models, we plan to change the symbols to those shown by future models in Attachment 1.

Please inform us in a timely manner if these symbols are acceptable and whether our interpretation is correct. If you have any questions, please contact me at (515) 353-5444.

Sincerely, Nobuyoshi Takechi Technical Manager NT/sg MMC SERVICES, INC. Attachment

ID: nht87-1.83

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/03/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Ms. Sadako Vargas

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Ms. Sadako Vargas, MA, OTR Children's Specialized Hospital New Providence Road Mountainside, NJ 07091

Dear Ms. Vargas:

Thank you for your recent letter to Steve Kratzke of my staff, requesting approval to adapt a car seat for use by patients that are Siamese twins. You explained that these patients are connected at the waist, and have two trunks, two sets of arms, and on e pair of legs. You would like to modify an existing car seat by adding another harness and perhaps adding extra foam cushions to support their heads and offer added comfort. hope the following explanation of our statute and regulatory requirements will be helpful to you.

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.) authorizes this agency to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards that establish performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. We have used this authority to issue Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 213, Child Restraint Systems (49 CFR S571.213. Manufacturers of child restraint systems must certify that each new child restraint they produce conforms to Standard No. 213 before th e child restraint is offered for sale.

However, the Safety Act provide; that child restraint systems are only required to comply with Standard No. 213 until "after the first purchase of it in good faith for purposes other than resale;" 15 U.S.C. 1397(b)(1). When your hospital purchases child restraint systems, that is the first purchase in good faith for purposes other than resale. Once your hospital has made such a purchase, the Safety Act does not require that the child restraint system continue to conform with Standard No. 213.

The only restriction the Safety Act imposes on child restraint systems after the first purchase in good faith for purposes other than resale is that no manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business can "render inoperative" any devic e or element of design installed on or in the child restraint system in compliance with Standard No. 213; 15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(1)(A). Note that there is no statutory prohibition against the owner of the child restraint system rendering inoperative a device or element of design installed on the child restraint in compliance with Standard No. 213. We conclude that a hospital modifying child restraints for use by physically handicapped children is not a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repa ir business. This conclusion means there is no statutory restriction on the type or modifications your hospital can make to child restraints it has acquired. Accordingly, the hospital does not need any approval from this agency to modify child restraint systems to accommodate the particular needs of physically handicapped children.

You also asked for our advice as to what kind of car seat your hospital can provide these siamese twins when they outgrow the commercially available car seat you are proposing to modify for them. I doubt that there are commercially available child restra int systems that, without modification, can accommodate the Siamese twins. If you are asking which child restraint you should select for modification or are seeking advice on how to best perform any modifications, I recommend that you contact Ms. Kathlee n Weber, who is associated with the Transportation Research Institute of the University of Michigan. She has experience in testing child restraints designed specifically for use by physically handicapped children and could provide you with information ab out such testing. Her telephone number is (313) 764-4722.

I hope this information is helpful for you. If you have any further questions on this topic, please feel free to contact Mr. Kratzke at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Mr. Steve Kratzki Advisor to Chief Council National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street S.W. - Room 5219 Washington, D. C. 20590 April 6, 1987

Dear Mr. Kratzki:

This is to request approval for the use of an adapted car seat for particular patients, in regard to the phone conversation you had with Dr. Elena Zarafu, Medical Director of Children's Specialized Hospital.

The patients in question are siamese twins, 2, months old at the present time. They are connected from the waist up, have two separate trucks, two sets of arms, and one pair of legs. Their approximate weight is 6.6. lbs. and the height is presently. 45 i nches.

We are considering adapting a Britan care seat. The upper parts of the existing harness passes over the inner shoulders of both twins. The lower part of the existing harness secures the twins' hips. An extra harness will be attached across the chests of both the harness. The harness will be about 2 inches wide, padded with soft foam, and wrapped around the back of the car seat (secured to the back of the car seat with velcro). Extra foam cushions or pillows may be necessary to support their heads and ad d comfort.

The twins, at present, fit in the Britan car seat together. However, there is no other car seat large enough to accommodate them when they grow more. I would appreciate your advice as to what kind of the seat we can provide them when they no longer fit i n the commercially available care seat.

Thank you very much. Sadako Vargas, MA, OTR SV/bp

ID: nht87-1.84

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/03/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Leon Steenbock -- Administrative Manager, Engineering, FWD Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

ATTACHMT: 8/13/80 letter from F. Berndt to FWD Corporation (Std. 206)

TEXT: Mr. Leon Steenbock Administrative Manager, Engineering FWD Corporation Clintonville, WI 54929-1590

This responds to you; April 10, 1981, letter to my office asking about the applicability of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 206, Door Locks and Door Retention Components, to door locks on fire trucks. You enclosed a copy of an August 13, 1980, letter to you from former Chief Counsel Frank Berndt and asked whether Mr. Berndt's opinion concerning fire truck door locks is current. The answer is yes.

In 1985, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration amended Standard No. 206 to exempt doors equipped with wheelchair lifts from the requirements of the standard. However, since that amendment has no bearing on door locks for fire trucks and beca use we have made no changes to the standard that would affect fire trucks, we confirm that the agency's 1980 interpretation his not been superseded or revised by subsequent interpretations of or amendments to the standard.

For your information, I have enclosed a current copy of Standard No. 206 and information on how you can obtain copies of our motor vehicle safety Standards and other regulations.

Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel Enclosures

April 10, 1987

U. S. Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventy Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Attn: Erika Jones - Chief Counsel

Subject: FMVSS 206 Door Lock; and Door Retention Components

Reference my phone conversation with Deirdie Hom on April 9, 1987 regarding door locks on fire trucks. Find attached a copy of the letter from NHTSA of August 13,1980 which addressed this subject. I asked if opinion given in this letter would still be cu rrent or had there been modifications to the standard that would change this opinion exempting fire trucks from this standards requirements.

As, we plan to discuss this subject at a Dealers Sales meeting the week of April 27, 1987 I would appreciate your earliest consideration of this request.

Sincerely, FWD CORPORATION Leon Steenbock Administrative Manager, Engineering enc: LS/llm PxHONE: 715-823-2141 TELEX:26-3424

(See 8/13/80 letter from F. Berndt to FWD Corporation

ID: nht87-1.85

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/03/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Gabriel J. Ferber -- Nesper, McElvein, Ferber and Digiacomo

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

This responds to your letter to Mr. George Shifflett of our Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, in which you sought an interpretation of 49 CFT Part 541, Federal Motor Vehicle Theft Prevention Standard. You asked whether Part 541 markings must be inscri bed on certain Canadian vehicles not originally manufactured for sale in this country. More specifically, you referred to @541.5(a), which provides, "In the case of passenger cars not originally manufactured to comply with U.S. vehicle safety and number standards, each such car subject to this standard must have an identifying number inscribed in a manner which ..." (Emphases added). You stated that your client is a direct importer of Canadian vehicles subject to the theft prevention standard. You state d that these vehicles have identification numbers affixed to the required major parts by their original manufacturer. While these Canadian vehicles are not certified as complying with the U.S. vehicle and bumper standards, you asserted that they are orig inally manufactured to comply with U.S. vehicle safety and bumper standards. Accordingly, you believe that Part 544 does not require these vehicles to have the identification number inscribed on the parts, but instead requires the identification number t o be inscribed or affixed. Since the original manufacturer has already affixed identification numbers on these vehicles, you believe your client is not required to add any identification number markings to these vehicles before certifying that they compl y with Part 541.

The crux of your argument is that those vehicles can be shown to be originally manufactured to comply with U.S. vehicle safety and bumper standards, even though they are not certified as being so. We agree that this is possible, but it would take some ve ry convincing proof to establish this point. The Canadian safety standards are very similar to, but not identical with, the U.S. safety standards. Hence, the fact that a vehicle is certified as complying with Canadian safety standards does not establish that the vehicle was originally manufactured to comply with U.S. vehicle safety standards.

Your letter stated that "compliance with U.S. safety and bumper standards is shown by reliance on the 'V73' designation or some other method." The V73 designation to which you refer is an internal billing code used by General Motors on the sales receipts for some vehicles. While you assert that this billing code designation means that the vehicle complies with U.S. vehicle standards, we have no confirmation from General Motors of this point. Further, vehicle manufacturers assign whatever meanings they c hoose to their billing code designations, and are free to change the assigned meanings whenever they wish. Because of this, we conclude that you have not established that these vehicles were originally manufactured to comply with U.S. vehicle safety and bumper standards simply because they show a V73 designation in their billing code. Absent a more convincing showing that these vehicles were originally manufactured to comply with U.S. vehicle safety and bumper standards, S541.5(a) requires your client t o inscribe the identifying number on the various covered major parts.

I would also like to point out that your client could not certify compliance with the theft prevention standard by relying on the presence of the GM labels, even if your client were allowed to affix identifying markings. Please note that @541.5(d)(l)(vii i) requires, "The logo or some other unique identifier of the vehicle manufacturer must be placed in the material of the label in a manner such that alteration or removal of the logo visibly alters the appearance of the label." In this case, your client is considered the manufacturer, since it seeks to directly import these Canadian vehicles. The affixed GM labels presumably do not show the logo or some other unique identifier of your client, the direct importer. Accordingly, the GM labels would not sat isfy the requirements of @541.5(d)(1) for those vehicles for which your client is a direct importer.

NHTSA explained at length in the final rule establishing the theft prevention standard why it was necessary to have all required markings inscribed on directly imported vehicles subject to the theft prevention standard. See 50 FR 43166, at 43184-85: Octo ber 24, 1985. The agency also explained why it was necessary that affixed labels have the logo or some other unique identifier of the manufacturer in the labels. Ibid., at 43174-75. I have enclosed a copy of this rule for your information.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Enclosure

Mr. George Shifflett Department of Transportation NHTSA Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance NEF 32 400 - 7th Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Mr. Shifflett:

I would like to offer the following for your consideration in determining whether the VID numbers must be inscribed on GM vehicles which already bear labels with such numbers affixed by the manufacturer.

Section 541.5 requires inscription in the case of passenger cars not originally manufactured to comply with U. S. vehicle safety and bumper standards. Our client only brings in vehicles which do comply with such standards. This is true notwithstanding th e fact that the manufacturers certifying label may have been modified to state that the vehicle complies with Canadian safety, bumper and anti-theft standards. In such case, compliance with U. S. safety and bumper standards is shown by reliance on the 'V 73' designation or some other method. In such case, we then comply with the certification requirements under Section 567.4.

The certification requirement under Section 567.4 is, of course, separate from the inscription requirement under Section 541.5. The inscription requirement is not triggered by a manufacturer's failure to certify compliance, it is triggered by the failure of the vehicle to be manufacturered to comply with U. S. vehicle safety and bumper standards. Since the vehicles in question are, in fact, manufactured to comply with U. S. vehicle safety and bumper standards, albeit not certified as such, it is submitt ed that there is no requirement that such vehicles be inscribed and the manufacturer's label should suffice.

Thank you for your consideration of this submission. Please let me know whether you agree.

Yours truly,

NESPER, McELVEIN, FERBER & DiGIACOMO

By Gabriel J. Ferber

GJF/gw

cc: Steven Kratzke, Esq. Superior Auto Sales, Inc.

ID: nht87-1.86

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/03/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Robert R. Shapro -- Vice President, Transportation Specialist, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Robert R. Shapro Vice President Transportation Specialist, Inc. 512 Cave Road Nashville, TN 37210

Dear Mr. Shapro:

This letter responds to your request for "the fact sheet concerning certification as required" by 49 CFR Parts 567 and 568. You describe your company as a "multistage manufacturer," and ask how your company can become certified "to manufacture or alter v ehicles in accordance with the code of Federal regulation." I regret the delay in responding to your request.

First, please be aware that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has authority to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and certain items of motor vehicle equipment. The NHTSA does not approve vehicles or equipment , nor do we endorse any commercial products. Instead, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act establishes a certification process under which each manufacturer must certify that its product meets agency safety standards, or other applicable sta ndards. Periodically, NHTSA tests whether vehicles or equipment comply with these standards, and may investigate alleged safety-related product defects.

As you request, I enclose a copy of 49 CFR Part 567, Certification, and Part 568, Vehicles Manufactured in Two or more Stages. Also, for your information, I enclose an information sheet that may be of interest to you if you are new to motor vehicle and m otor vehicle equipment manufacture.

Please note that there is no requirement that a company be "certified" before it can manufacture or alter vehicles. 49 CFR Part 566 does require that if a company begins to manufacture motor vehicles subject to any of the Federal safety standards, it mus t submit information identifying itself and its products to NHTSA not later than 30 days after it begins manufacture.

I hope you find this information helpful.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Enclosures CHIEF COUNCIL NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION Washington, DC 20590

December 23, 1986

Our company is a multistage manufacturer. We would like the fact sheet concerning certification as required in CFR 49 567-568. "Vendor must be certified by the NHTSA to manufacture or alter vehicles in accordance with code of Federal regulation". How do we become certified?

Please send this information to:

ROBERT R. SHAPRO Vice President Transportation Specialist, Inc. 512 Cave Road Nashville, TN 37210

Thank You

Robert Sharpo

ID: nht87-1.87

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/04/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Ms. Pam Vanderberg

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

ID: nht87-1.88

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/04/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Cameron-Nott

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Peter Cameron-Nott 90 Horace St: Stratford, CT 06497

This replies to your March 31, 1987 letter asking for a clarification of my January 16 letter to you regarding the importation of rebodied automobiles.

Specifically, you asked which Form HS-7 declaration is proper upon entry of a vehicle incorporating a 1966 chassis, upon which is mounted a new body whose individual equipment items meet current Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to them ( i.e. glazing, tires, brake hoses, lighting equipment, seat belts). The Customs officials you have contacted are unsure whether entry should be made under Box 1 or Box 3 of Form HS-7.

As we advised you earlier, a rebodied vehicle retaining its original chassis components, title, and identification number is considered to retain its original model year designation, even with a new body installed on it. Therefore, your vehicle would be considered a 1966 model. Accordingly, Box 1 would be the proper declaration: that the vehicle was manufactured on a date when no applicable safety standards were in effect. Box 3 is clearly inappropriate as there is no legal requirement for such a vehicl e to be brought into conformity with Federal safety standards. Should conformance of the individual equipment items be questioned - unlikely in our opinion -Box 2 would appear to be the appropriate declaration for these items: that they conform to all ap plicable standards and bear the manufacturer's certification to that effect (the DOT symbol on these items).

I hope that this answers your question.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Ms. Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel NHTSA 400 Seventh Street. S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Ms. Jones:

Thank you for your letter dated January 16th concerning my questions regarding rebodied cars(copy Enclosed). I do however have a point which requires clarification.

The car is a rebodied 1966 vehicle as per paragraph #1 however the windshield, tires, brake hoses, head lights and seat belts have been replaced and have the appropriate D.O.T. FMVSS markings on them as well as paid receipts for these items.

I have asked U.S. Customs in N.Y. how I should make the customs entry on form HS-7. They have suggested that I write to you for clarification because a pre 1968 car normally is entered under section #1 however because of these equipment changes they cann ot tell me whether I should file under section #1 or section #3.

In order to avoid delays and confusion upon arrival at customs I should be grateful if you would advise me under which section D.O.T. requires the entry to be made.

Your early reply would be greatly appreciated.

Sincerely,

Peter Cameron-Nott

See 1/16/87 letter from Erika Z. Jones to Peter Cameron-Nott