ID: nht91-5.10

DATE: July 31, 1991

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: John D. Hayes -- Port Brokers Inc.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 7-19-91 from John D. Hayes to Chief Council Office, NHTSA (OCC 6279)

TEXT:

This is in reply to your FAX of July 19, 1991, with respect to the prospective importation of a nonconforming DAF truck tractor and trailer.

Specifically, the vehicles will arrive "on a Carnet basis." The trailer contains a jumbo video screen "that will be used in a concert tour throughout the United States over a 30 days period of time, at the end of which, the vehicles will be exported." You wish a legal interpretation "in what is necessary for this vehicle and trailer to travel throughout the United States." It is your understanding that Form HS 7 would be used, "and box 7 would be completed."

We assume that the "carnet" to which you refer is the Carnet de passages en douane, or temporary importation papers, authorized by Article 7 Section 1 of the Customs Convention on the Temporary Importation of Private Road Vehicles. Under Article 8, a carnet is issued in the name of the vehicle owner, or "those who have the possession or control of them provided that, if the vehicle has been hired, the papers shall be made out in the name of the hirer."

If the prospective importer of the nonconforming truck tractor and trailer is a nonresident of the United States, the vehicles are eligible for entry under box 5 of the HS 7 Form, the nonresident declaration (49 CFR 591.5(d))). If the intended importer is a resident of the United States, we would be willing to allow temporary entry under box 7 (49 CFR 591.5(j)), as nonconforming vehicles entered for "demonstrations or training."

Because the United States is a signatory to the Customs Convention, a vehicle of foreign registry admitted pursuant to a carnet should encounter no difficulty in travelling through the United States under the laws of the various States and municipalities.

ID: nht95-2.71

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: May 9, 1995

FROM: Ron Hooker -- Program Administrator, Division of Weights and Measures, Missouri Department of Agriculture

TO: Mr. John Womack -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: CNG Motor Vehicle Fuel System Safety

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 6/8/95 LETTER FROM JOHN WOMACK TO RON HOOKER (A43; VSA 103(A) 303)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Womack:

In 1991 the Missouri General Assembly passed legislation mandating a Fuel Conservation Program for state vehicles. Various alternative fuels were addressed in the legislation including natural gas.

At the time the legislation was passed, there were no state regulations setting forth safety standards and/or guidelines for compressed natural gas motor vehicle fuel systems.

Because of the concern for safety and the need for specific guidelines for CNG motor vehicle fuels systems, the Highway Patrol, Public Service Commission and our agency studied the issue and a determination was made that the Missouri Department of Agricu lture should be the "lead" agency since regulations relating to LP gas motor vehicle fuels systems had been established by Agriculture in 1983.

In 1994 the General Assembly passed legislation giving the Department of Agriculture the authority to promulgate regulations relating to CNG motor vehicle fuel system safety. We are now attempting to determine what the extent of the regulations should/c an be.

Several agencies, both private and public, are involved as a rule making committee and anxious for regulations/guidelines to be established so that CNG can be utilized as an alternative motor fuel choice.

With exception of fuel container design and fuel container and system integrity, does the Department of Agriculture have the authority, under federal regulations, to implement regulations and/or adopt national standards (i.e. NFPA 52) relating to CNG mot or vehicle fuel system safety.

If the department does have authority or limited authority, could you please address those areas and communicate them to me at your earliest convenience.

I sincerely appreciate your assistance in this matter.

ID: nht92-6.11

DATE: June 11, 1992

FROM: Matthew G. Martinez -- U.S. House of Representatives

TO: Andrew Card -- Secretary, Department of Transportation

COPYEE: Phillip M. Ramos, Jr. -- Philatron International

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 7/8/92 from Andrew H. Card, Jr. to Matthew G. Martinez (A39; Std. 106)

TEXT:

I am writing on behalf of Philatron International to strongly question the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's policy procedures.

In a letter to Philatron from NHTSA, dated April 10, 1992, NHTSA granted Philatron regulatory relief from the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 106 by deleting the oil resistance test standard for air brake tubing. Clearly, this action by NHTSA demonstrated that Philatron's brake hose products posed no safety threat whatsoever. This outdated regulation is still on the books and continues to be administered by NHTSA today even though current truck and brake technology has eliminated air brake exposure to oil. This is the kind of scenario that the Vice President's Council on Competitiveness is working to eliminate.

Although NHTSA has agreed to initiate rulemaking procedures to change the regulation in the future, in the interim, Philatron is unable to continue to market their superior product and endures severe economic distress -- resulting in the firing of a large percentage of its employees. Before this regulatory nightmare, they sold 45,411 assemblies with no reported failures or complaints from any of its customers. The only objections came from Philatron's larger competitors.

I criticize NHTSA's decision not to allow Philatron to sell its brake hoses while their extremely time-consuming rulemaking process in ongoing. This misapplied regulation is unfair and economically crippling to this small business. Further, the longer this matter is left unresolved, the longer Philatron continues to experience serious economic hardship.

I request that you allow production of this product to continue and put those who were unfairly laid off, back to work. Thank you for your courtesy and any consideration that you could give this matter. I look forward to your response.

ID: nht95-2.68

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: May 4, 1995

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Valter Sforca

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 4/20/95 LETTER FROM VALTER SFORCA TO PHILIPE RECHT (OCC 10866)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Sforca:

This is in reply to your letter of April 20, 1995, asking if there is a regulation that applies to the importation of an "air equalizer for tire pressure."

Although you have not described your device, there are no Federal motor vehicle safety standards that apply to equipment installed in motor vehicles that regulate the air pressure of tires. If you are asked by the U.S. Customs Service to execute an HS-7 Declaration Form at the port of entry, you may check Box 1, declaring that the equipment was manufactured on a date when no applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard was in effect.

Because this device is motor vehicle equipment, and because you apparently would be its importer, you would be responsible for notifying buyers and recalling it if either you or we decided that it contained a safety related defect.

We don't understand your phrase "the system have a safety valve for the air brakes the truck, for a properly stop". However, if the "air equalizer" is installed by a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business, that person must n ot knowingly make inoperative any part of a truck's air brake system by installing the air equalizer. I am enclosing a copy of a letter concerning what appears to be a similar device, which will explain this more fully.

If you have any further questions, you may refer them to Taylor Vinson of this Office, with whom you spoke previously (202-366-5263).

ID: 11476DRN

Lawrence F. Henneberger, Esq.
Arent Fox Kintner Plotkin & Kahn
1050 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D. C. 20036-5339

Dear Mr. Henneberger:

This responds to your request for an interpretation of the production sequence numbering requirements in 49 CFR Part 565, Vehicle Identification Number - Content Requirements. You asked whether a manufacturer must begin at 000001 when assigning production sequence numbers to vehicles in a given model year (MY). The answer is no. The production sequence numbering may begin at any six-digit number. However, when the manufacturer decides on a beginning number for a model year, it must assign numbers to the vehicles in sequence following that beginning number.

You stated in your letter that you believe that Section 565.4(d)(3) does not preclude a manufacturer from beginning, in any model year, its numbering sequence at any number, provided that the numbers assigned following the beginning number are sequential for the whole model year. You provided a hypothetical example of a manufacturer wishing, for a particular model year, to begin its production sequence numbering with 300001, and to continue to assign numbers sequentially (after 300001) for the rest of that model year.

Section 565.4(d)(3) does not specify that a manufacturer must begin its production sequence numbering from number one, but instead provides only that the numbers assigned in a given model year must be in sequence. As noted by your letter, the issue you raised was addressed in an August 17, 1978 (43 FR 36448) final rule amending Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 115, Vehicle Identification Number (which at the time, included VIN content requirements). In the preamble to the 1978 final rule, NHTSA addressed a concern raised by the Truck Trailer Manufacturers Association (TTMA) that some members might wish to keep secret the actual numbers of vehicles they manufacture annually. The agency stated, "Since a manufacturer may begin his sequence at any number . . ., so long as the order thereafter is maintained in sequence, the actual number of vehicles produced can be kept secret." (See 43 FR 36448, at 36451)

Therefore, in the hypothetical example you provide, the manufacturer may begin the production sequence numbering from 300001, as long as for the rest of the model year, the vehicles are assigned numbers in sequence following 300001.

I hope this information is helpful. If you need any further information, please contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Samuel J. Dubbin Chief Counsel

ref:565 d:3/14/96

ID: 0866

Mr. Valter Sforca
84 Thomas Street
Newark, NJ 07114

Dear Mr. Sforca:

This is in reply to your letter of April 20, 1995, asking if there is a regulation that applies to the importation of an "air equalizer for tire pressure."

Although you have not described your device, there are no Federal motor vehicle safety standards that apply to equipment installed in motor vehicles that regulate the air pressure of tires. If you are asked by the U.S. Customs Service to execute an HS-7 Declaration Form at the port of entry, you may check Box 1, declaring that the equipment was manufactured on a date when no applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard was in effect.

Because this device is motor vehicle equipment, and because you apparently would be its importer, you would be responsible for notifying buyers and recalling it if either you or we decided that it contained a safety related defect.

We don't understand your phrase "the system have a safety valve for the air brakes the truck, for a properly stop". However, if the "air equalizer" is installed by a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business, that person must not knowingly make inoperative any part of a truck's air brake system by installing the air equalizer. I am enclosing a copy of a letter concerning what appears to be a similar device, which will explain this more fully.

If you have any further questions, you may refer them to Taylor Vinson of this Office, with whom you spoke previously (202-366-5263).

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosure ref:591 d:5/4/95

ID: 1122

Mr. Bryan Couch
Systems Zone Leader
Motor Coach Industries
Door 10
475 Clarence Avenue
Winnipeg, Manitoba R3T IT5
Canada

Dear Mr. Couch:

This responds to your FAX of August 8, 1995, asking for our comments on a "preliminary drawing showing our proposed location for the front marker lamp and supplementary front marker lamp." The front marker lamp will meet all photometry requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 and, in your opinion, will be placed as far forward as practicable on the vehicle. The supplementary lamp will not meet the 45 degree rearward photometry requirement.

We have only a couple of comments. The first is that initially the determination of practicability of the location of the front side marker lamps is that of the vehicle manufacturer who certifies compliance with Standard No. 108, and NHTSA will not question that determination unless it appears clearly erroneous. In this instance, we see no reason to question your opinion.

Our second comment is that a supplementary side marker lamp need not meet any of the requirements for side marker lamps; it must not, however, as provided in paragraph S5.1.3 of Standard No. 108, impair the effectiveness of any lighting equipment installed to meet the requirements of Standard No. 108. Given the small size and candela output of side marker lamps, we do not believe that your supplementary side marker lamp would have this effect.

If you have any further questions, you may refer them to Taylor Vinson of this Office (phone: 202-366-5263).

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel ref:108 d:8/28/95

ID: nht91-1.7

DATE: January 3, 1991

FROM: Jerry Ralph Curry -- NHTSA

TO: Stephen C. Crampton -- Dow, Lohnes & Albertson; Marc J. Fink -- Dow, Lohnes & Albertson

TITLE: Re Request by John A. Rosatti to import a Porsche 959 vehicle into the U.S.

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 10-30-90 to Samuel K. Skinner from Marc J. Fink and Stephen C. Crampton; Also attached to memo dated 10-31-90 to NHTSA from Toni Fargo

TEXT:

Secretary Skinner has asked me to respond to your letters of October 30 and November 9, 1990, which requested a review of this Agency's decision not to permit the proposed importation.

My Chief Counsel and I have carefully reviewed this matter, including the specific provisions of the 1988 statutory amendments governing vehicle importation. We have concluded that the Agency's initial decision was correct. Therefore, the decision is affirmed, for the reasons noted in the enclosed legal memorandum.

We understand your client's interest in having this vehicle available for marketing and display purposes, and we appreciate his stated commitment that it would not be driven on the highways. We also recognize that no single vehicle can have much impact on overall U.S. highway safety. Nonetheless, our decision must be based on the laws governing vehicle importation -- namely, the 1988 statute and our implementing regulations. As noted in our legal memorandum, Congress specifically limited the circumstances under which non-complying vehicles could be imported, and deleted previous authority to such vehicles for "show" purposes (unless they are more than 25 years old). Therefore, consistent with our legal responsibilities, we are unable to approve Mr. Rosatti's proposed importation.

Please contact our Chief Counsel, Mr. Paul Jackson Rice, at (202) 366-9550, for any further clarification you may need on this matter.

ID: 22843

Mr. Matz Larsson
Sales Manager
Broderna Holmbergs Fabriks AB
Box 63
SE-334 21 Anderstorp
Sweden





Dear Mr. Larsson:

This is in response to your letter of March 7, 2001, asking whether the buckle release on your child restraint system meets the area requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 213, "Child Restraint Systems." The answer is yes.

S5.4.3.5(c) of Standard No. 213 requires any buckle in a child restraint system to "[m]eet the requirements of S4.3(d)(2) of FMVSS No. 209," which reads:

A buckle designed for pushbutton application of buckle release force shall have a minimum of 452 mm with a minimum linear dimension of 10 mm for applying the release force, or a buckle designed for lever application of buckle release force shall permit the insertion of a cylinder 10 mm in diameter and 38 mm in length to at least the midpoint of the cylinder along the cylinder's entire length in the actuation portion of the buckle release. A buckle having other design for release shall have adequate access for two or more fingers to actuate release.

Since your buckle requires a sliding action to activate the buckle release, we consider your buckle release to be designed for slide application rather than pushbutton or lever application. Thus, your buckle release falls under the "other design for release" category.

Under the last sentence of S4.3(d)(2), a buckle having other design for release must have adequate access for two or more fingers to actuate release. You claim that your buckle release meets this requirement. We agree. All of our staff working on this response were able to place two fingers into your slide action release button to actuate release. Thus, we have determined that your buckle release meets the requirement of S4.3(d)(2).

If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Mr. Dion Casey of this office at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
ref:213#209
d.4/10/01

ID: 8781

Mr. Malcolm Bricklin
President
The Electric Bicycle Company
27426 Pacific Coast Highway
Malibu, CA 90265

Re: Petition for Exemption

Dear Mr. Bricklin:

We have received your letter of March 20, 1995, asking for an exemption from two provisions of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 123 on the basis that "compliance with the standards, in this instance, will constitute a greater hazard to the general public and will result in more accidents caused by operator error than the alternatives that we propose."

I am sorry to inform you that we cannot consider your request in its current form. For your guidance, I enclose a copy of our temporary exemption regulation, 49 CFR Part 555. I suggest that the appropriate basis for your petition under that regulation is section 555.6(d): that you are otherwise unable to sell a vehicle whose overall level of safety is the equivalent of, or exceeds, the overall level of safety of a nonexempted vehicle.

When you have filed a petition that provides the information required by Part 555, we shall be pleased to consider this matter further. Because of the need to afford the public an opportunity to comment, a decision is rarely reached until three to four months after a petition is received.

If you have any questions on the regulation, Taylor Vinson of this Office will be glad to answer them (202- 366-5263; FAX: 202-366-3820).

Sincerely,

Philip R. Recht Chief Counsel

Enclosure

ref:555 d:4/3/95