ID: nht71-1.36

DATE: 04/21/71

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Lawrence R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: Department of the Air Force

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Secretary Volpe has asked me to reply to your letter of April 2. Section 108(b)(4) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 states that the "temporary importation of any motor vehicle" is permissible, and you ask "if any joint regulations have been established between the Secretary of the Treasury and your department establishing a maximum period of time or a definite period of time in which any vehicle may be imported into the United States, whether or not it meets the safety standards set forth."

Joint regulations (19 C.F.R. @ 12.80) were adopted in 1968 and I enclose a copy for your information. Obviously we have to objection to a vehicle remaining in the United States and used upon the public roads indefinitely if it meets all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. The word "temporary" within the meaning of section 108(b)(4) does, however, have differing meanings for vehicles which do not met Federal standards and which are imported under different circumstances. Section 12.80(b)(2)(iii) and (c) allow importers not otherwise exempted 90 days in which to bring a noncomplying vehicle into compliance and permit an extension of time if circumstances warrant. A non-resident of the United States is permitted by subsection (b)(2)(v) to import a noncomplying vehicle for a period of up to one year. Foreign diplomatic and military personnel are allowed by subsection (b)(2)(vi) to import their noncomplying vehicles for the duration of their stay and must declare that they will not sell their vehicles in the United States during that time. On the other hand, a noncomplying vehicle imported solely for purpose of show test, experiment, competition, or repairs, may be admitted indefinitely pursuant to subsection (b)(2)(vii) if it is not sold or licensed for use on the public roads.

These regulations do not apply to vehicles manufactured before January 1, 1963. We advise military personnel not to purchase vehicles produced after that date and manufactured for the European market as the conversion costs are prohibitive in many instances. We also advise them that vehicles which are alleged to have been converted to meet U.S. safety specifications in most instances do not. The best evidence of compliance with U.S. requirements is the certification of that fact, generally affixed by the original manufacturer to the door post on the driver's side of the vehicle. I enclose a booklet on the importation of motor vehicles for your guidance, and I will be happy to answer any further questions you may have.

ID: 77-5.4

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/12/77

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Joseph J. Levin Jr.; NHTSA

TO: Motor Coach Industries Inc.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of October 27, 1977, with respect to distribution of a service bulletin on the subject of "New Generator Control and Low Air Switch Setting." As your inconsequentiality petition is now pending (Docket No. IP77-14) you have asked whether you may "hold further actions or procedures on [the] two items [discussed] pending the outcome" of the petition.

The NHTSA does not advise manufacturers to withhold corrective action while inconsequentiality petitions are pending. That decision must be made by the manufacturer as an independent exercise of its judgment. However, a company that has filed an inconsequentiality petition is not required to notify and remedy pursuant to the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act until such time as its petition has been denied. Your service bulletin does not fulfill the requirements of 49 CFR Part 577 and if you issue it now, in the event of the denial of the petition you would be required to notify all owners of vehicles which remain uncorrected.

ID: 17331.ztv

Angela Dyer, Company Secretary
Broomstick Cars Limited
Willow Farm
Ivinghoe
Aston Leighton Buzzard
Bedfordshire LU7 9DG
England

Dear Ms Dyer:

Forgive my delay in replying to your letter of 4th February 1998, regarding the possible importation into the United States of a Jaguar XK120 replica "as a vehicle over 25 years old."

According to your letter, the car has "a new chassis and GRP body panels, but most of the parts are from the original car. These include engine, gear box, suspension, steering, transmission and axles." You have explained that the original car is a "Jaguar S type over 25 years old."

Under 49 U.S.C. 30112(b)(9), "a motor vehicle that is at least 25 years old" may be imported into the United States without having to comply with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. Although the Jaguar XK 120 replica is composed partly of parts that may be over 25 years old, the car's age is computed as of its date of its manufacture. Thus, a replica assembled in 1998 is not "a motor vehicle that is at least 25 years old" and it cannot be imported into the United States under Sec. 30112(b)(9).

Sincerely,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
ref:591
d.5/13/98

ID: 1984-4.1

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/10/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Allen Manufacturing Systems, Inc. -- Gene W. Campbell

TEXT:

Mr. Gene W. Campbell Allen Manufacturing Systems, Inc. 100 East Broadway Roscoe, TX 79545

This is in response to your letter concerning a Vehicle Identification Number (VIN) for the Tow Dolly manufactured by your company.

The Tow Dolly is required to have a VIN because it is considered a trailer. A trailer is defined under our regulations as any motor vehicle with or without motive power, designed for carrying persons or property and for being drawn by another vehicle.

Copies of Standard No. 115, Vehicle Identification Number - Basic Requirements, 49 CFR 565 - Vehicle Identification Number, Content Requirements, 49 CFR 566 - Manufacturer Identification, and 49 CFR Part 567 - Certification are enclosed.Section 567.4 describes the contents of the required certification label.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel Enclosures

ALLEN MANUFACTURING SYSTEMS, INC. November 7, 1984

Frank Burndt Chief Council NHTSA Room 5219 400 7th Street S. W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Sir:

At the request of Betsy Harrison, I am sending this picture of the Tow Dolly we will be manufacturing. In our telephone conversation, she has indicated that the unit will need to have a V. I. N. Please inform me as to what we need to do in order to establish this number.

Any assistance you can give will be greatly appreciated.

Yours Truly,

Gene W. Campbell

GWC/jt

ID: nht95-2.90

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: May 19, 1995

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Donnell W. Morrison

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 4/25/95 LETTER FROM DONNELL W. MORRISON TO PHILIP R. RECHT

TEXT: Dear Mr. Morrison:

This is in reply to your letter of April 25, 1995, asking for a clarification of the letter of April 10 to you from the former Chief Counsel, Philip Recht. He explained Standard No. 108's requirements for the location of rear lighting on wide vehicles.

As the letter stated, identification lamps are to be mounted "as close to the top of the vehicle as practicable." You speak of having seen "semitrailers on the highway with all the rear lights at bed level" including clearance and identification lamps. As the letter also stated, the determination of practicability is initially that of the manufacturer, to be made in its certification that the vehicle meets all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. NHTSA will not question that determinatio n unless it appears clearly erroneous.

Without further information on the semitrailers you saw, we cannot judge whether mounting the clearance and identification lamps at bed level was a clearly erroneous determination by the trailer's manufacturer. There are some configurations where there is no header on which to mount lamps and the top of the doors approaches the top of the vehicle. In those configurations, we would not contest the manufacturer's determination that mounting the lamps at bed level was "as close to the top of the vehicle as practicable." On the other hand, the semitrailers you saw might have failed to conform to Standard No. 108.

I hope that this clarifies the matter for you. If you have any further questions you may call Taylor Vinson of this Office (202-366-5263).

ID: nht76-1.21

DATE: 12/14/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Universal Imports

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your November 5, 1976, letter concerning antique tires. You have asked whether it is permissible to import 6.70 x 15 tires, an original equipment size on several classic Mercedes-Benz, that are not marked in accordance with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 109, New Pneumatic Tires.

Standard No. 109 applies to "new pneumatic tires for use on passenger cars manufactured after 1948" (S2). The 6.70 x 15 tire size designation appears in Table I-A of Appendix A of the standard. While this tire may have been original equipment on several classic cars, it is also for use on passenger cars manufactured since 1948. As such, it is subject to all the requirements of Standard No. 109. Therefore, a 6.70 x 15 tire that is not marked according to the standard may not be imported into the United States.

SINCERELY,

Universal Imports

Office of Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Association

Attention: Frank Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel

November 5, 1976

LETTER #7998

To date we are still anxiously awaiting reply to our letter No. 7725 dated September 13, regarding the sale of non-D.O.T. marked tires for off-road use. Since that time we have also come across a new problem regarding non-D.O.T. marked tires and this specifically is in regard to antique tires. We have recently had made available to use a line of Dunlop antique tires from their Vintage line. One particular tire, a 670 x 15 is of special interest to us as it is the original equipment size on several classic Mercedes. Regarding this problem, we have the following questions:

1. Can we legally import these tires at all?

2. Is there any provision for bringing in antique tires without D.O.T. marks for use on antique cars that are specifically for show, parades, etc.?

3. If there is no provision regarding the importation and sale of the above tires, what are our requirements as a vendor concerning the sale of these tires from both a retail and wholesale standpoint?

Should you require any additional information or clarification, please contact me at the above address or telephone number. Looking forward to your early reply, we remain

William G. Mathews, III Vice President

ID: 9460a

Mr. Winston Sharples
President
Cantab Motors, Ltd.
RR1, Box 537
Round Hill, VA 22141

Dear Mr. Sharples

We have received the application of Cantab Motors for temporary exemption from Motor Vehicle Safety Standards Nos. 208 and 214. The application meets our procedural requirements, and a Federal Register notice requesting comment is being prepared for publication.

We shall inform you when the Administrator has reached a decision on this matter, which we estimate will be between the middle of September and the middle of October.

Cantab's previous exemption from Standard No. 208 expired on May 1, 1993. Accordingly, Cantab may be in violation of 49 U.S.C. 30112(a) if it has manufactured for sale and sold vehicles manufactured after that date. Its application states that "[i]n the preceding twelve months, Cantab has manufactured nine Morgans for sale in the United States." Within 30 days of your receipt of this letter, please furnish the total number of Morgans that Cantab has manufactured for sale after May 1, 1993, and sold in the United States, between May 1, 1993, and the date of your response. Cantab should be aware that any sales of nonconforming vehicles before a grant of its application may be in violation of 49 U.S.C. 30112(a). If Cantab determines that it has manufactured and sold noncomplying vehicles, then it is required to notify and remedy the noncompliance according to statute. Alternatively, it may file an application for a determination pursuant to 49 CFR Part 556 that its noncompliance is inconsequential to safety. If this application is granted, Cantab would be excused from the statutory requirement to notify and remedy.

As a final matter, the application indicates Cantab's belief that it would be exempt from the phase-in requirements of Standard No. 214 for 1995 since only .75 car would be subject to the requirement. Although .75 car is less than one

vehicle, the agency rounds up from .50 vehicle in its calculations of compliance. For the same reason, the 1.87 vehicle estimated for 1996 compliance would be two vehicles, not one. The application is sufficient to cover both years.

If you have any questions on this matter, you may discuss them with Taylor Vinson of this Office (202- 366-5263).

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

ref: 214

ID: 0880

Mr. Donnell W. Morrison
1005 Drinnon Drive
Morristown, TN 37814

Dear Mr. Morrison:

This is in reply to your letter of April 25, 1995, asking for a clarification of the letter of April 10 to you from the former Chief Counsel, Philip Recht. He explained Standard No. 108's requirements for the location of rear lighting on wide vehicles.

As the letter stated, identification lamps are to be mounted "as close to the top of the vehicle as practicable." You speak of having seen "semitrailers on the highway with all the rear lights at bed level" including clearance and identification lamps. As the letter also stated, the determination of practicability is initially that of the manufacturer, to be made in its certification that the vehicle meets all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. NHTSA will not question that determination unless it appears clearly erroneous.

Without further information on the semitrailers you saw, we cannot judge whether mounting the clearance and identification lamps at bed level was a clearly erroneous determination by the trailer's manufacturer. There are some configurations where there is no header on which to mount lamps and the top of the doors approaches the top of the vehicle. In those configurations, we would not contest the manufacturer's determination that mounting the lamps at bed level was "as close to the top of the vehicle as practicable." On the other hand, the semitrailers you saw might have failed to conform to Standard No. 108.

I hope that this clarifies the matter for you. If you have any further questions you may call Taylor Vinson of this Office (202-366-5263).

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel Ref:108 d:5/19/95

ID: nht76-5.21

DATE: 07/08/76

FROM: JOHN WOMACK FOR FRANK BERNDT -- NHTSA

TO: Kentucky Manufacturing Company

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to Kentucky Manufacturing Company's June 17, 1976, question whether the replacement of the frame of a converter dolly constitutes the manufacture of a new vehicle subject to applicable motor vehicle safety standards when the running gear (the axles, wheels, suspension, and related components sometimes known as a bogie) and the fifth wheel of the damaged converter dolly are reused. This office received clarification from you by telephone that the fifth wheel would be reused, although this was not stated in your letter.

The replacement of the frame is considered a repair by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration and not the manufacture of a new vehicle. Thus the operation you describe would not constitute the manufacture of a new trailer that would require certification of compliance with safety standards such as Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems.

I have enclosed a copy of a recent amendment of NHTSA regulations that permits the rebuilding of trailers without certification in some cases when it was previously prohibited. The details of the conditions under which such rebuilding is allowed are discussed in the preamble of the document.

Yours truly,

Enclosure

ATTACH.

KENTUCKY MANUFACTURING COMPANY

June 17, 1976

Frank A. Berndt -- National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Mr. Berndt:

Would the installation of a new frame on a converter dolly require certification to FMVSS-121 if the axle, air brake equipment, wheels & tires are used from the old, damaged unit? The dolly would still carry the old identification, serial number, etc.

Very truly yours,

Glenn W. Dobrick -- Chief Engineer

ID: nht76-3.32

DATE: 04/02/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank A. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Hackney & Sons Inc.

COPYEE: BUREAU OF MOTOR CARRIER SAFETY

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of December 2, 1975, concerning the duties of a manufacturer of a beverage trailer that, when fully loaded, would overload a light-duty truck by which it might be towed.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not directly regulate the use of motor vehicles. Instead, it regulates their manufacture, with a view towards their expected and intended uses. If a trailer manufacturer knows that his product is likely to be towed by a vehicle of insufficient load-carrying capacity, the NHTSA expects him to take reasonalbe steps, short of refraining from production, to minimize the likelihood of such misuse. Otherwise, the trailer would be considered to contain a defect relating to motor vehicle safety.

In the first hypothetical situation presented in your letter, there would be no violation of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards or regulations. In Situation 2, we are not prepared to state categorically whether or not the trailer manufacturer could be obliged to assume defect responsibility. Such responsibility might be minimized assuming that the written warning to which you refer clearly indicates (i) what load ratings are necessary as a minimum for the towing vehicle and (ii) that the trailer must not be towed by a vehicle without such load ratings. Nevertheless, the lines of responsibility between two such parties are not that clear-cut, especially where the trailer manufacturer knowingly delivers for introduction into interstate commerce a vehicle which immediately results in a serious overload situation.

In Situation 3, the trailer would probably contain a safety-related defect, because its advertising would promote its misuse in a way that would create a safety hazard. In Situation 4, the trailer would probably also be considered to contain a safety-related defect, because the total payload capacity could be calculated, and the warnings to limit the actual load to the limits of the towing vehicle could not reasonably be expected to be observed.

You have also asked more generally for a description of the circumstances under which trailers of this type might be considered to contain safety-related defects. The NHTSA cannot define in advance all such possible circumstances. Among them, however, would be those in which the owner's manual lacked the warning described above for Situation 2 and those in which the trailer's advertising promoted its misuse.

I have forwarded a copy of your letter to the Federal Highway Administration's Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety for examination of the possibility that the user of a mismatched combination of vehicles, if he is an interstate carrier, would be in violation of their regulations. There may also be State laws prohibiting local carriers from making such combinations.

Thank you for your concern for safety on the highways. We especially appreciate your realization that a manufacturer can have ethical duties that go beyond his legal duties.