ID: AmericanSweeperltr

Mr. Ranger Kidwell-Ross
Editor, American Sweeper Magazine
2778 Barrel Springs Road
Bow, WA 98232





Dear Mr. Kidwell-Ross:

This responds to your letter regarding small parking area sweepers.

You describe the process by which certain companies in the sweeper industry remove the beds of small pickup trucks manufactured by Dodge, Toyota, GM, Ford, and other manufacturers and mount, in their place, sweeper machinery. You ask whether any of this agency's safety requirements apply to such altered or modified vehicles. The answer is yes, but the particular requirements that apply depend on whether the company adding the sweeper machinery is considered an alterer of a vehicle prior to its first sale or a modifier of a used vehicle.

By way of background information, pursuant to the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, as amended, 49 U.S.C. 30101 et seq. (Safety Act), the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has the authority to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. Under the Safety Act, manufacturers of vehicles and equipment have the duty to ensure that their vehicles and equipment meet all applicable standards and to certify them accordingly.

You indicate that the vehicles on which the sweeper machinery is being mounted are "completed vehicles." We assume, therefore, that prior to the sweeper machinery being mounted, these vehicles have been certified by their manufacturers as complying with all applicable FMVSS. You further indicate that the sweeper machinery is mounted to the vehicles either prior to being sold to consumers or after the vehicles are sold to consumers.

In the case of the vehicles upon which sweeper machinery is mounted prior to the first purchase in good faith of the vehicles for purposes other than resale, those companies would be considered "alterers." Persons are considered alterers if (1) they alter the vehicle in any manner "other than by the addition, substitution, or removal of readily attachable components . . . or minor finishing operations," or (2) they alter "the vehicle in such a manner that its stated weight ratings are no longer valid." 49 CFR 567.7. Since the conditions you describe involve the addition of equipment that is not readily attachable, the companies adding the sweeper machinery would be considered alterers.

As alterers, the companies would be subject to the certification requirements of 49 CFR 567.7. These requirements include provisions that the alterer supplement the existing manufacturer certification label, which must remain on the vehicle, by affixing an additional label. The label must state that the vehicle as altered conforms to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. The label must also identify the alterer and the month and the year in which the alterations were completed.

In the case of the vehicles upon which sweeper machinery is mounted after the first purchase in good faith of the vehicles for purposes other than resale, those companies would be considered modifiers of used vehicles. Unlike alterers, modifiers of used vehicles are not required to affix a label stating that the vehicle, as modified, continues to conform to all applicable FMVSS. The only provision in Federal law that affects the vehicle's continuing compliance with applicable safety standards is set forth at 49 U.S.C. 30122, which states, in part, that a "manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business may not knowingly make inoperative . . . any part of a device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable motor vehicle safety standard." Any person who will accept compensation to repair a vehicle is a motor vehicle repair business.

In general, this "make inoperative" provision would require any of these named entities to ensure that any additional equipment installed in a vehicle would not negatively affect the compliance of any component or design on the vehicle with applicable safety standards. Violations of 49 U.S.C. 30122 are punishable by civil penalties up to $5,000 per violation. The prohibition of Section 30122 does not apply to individual owners who install equipment in their own vehicles, but does apply to any person paid to do so. While it may not be a violation of law for individual owners to install themselves any item of motor vehicle equipment regardless of its effect on compliance with Federal motor vehicle safety standards, NHTSA encourages consumers not to degrade the safety of their vehicles or equipment.

Finally, you inquired as to the effect that the alteration or modification of these vehicles might have on the warranties supplied by the original vehicle manufacturers. Vehicle warranties do not fall within the purview of NHTSA; you may wish to contact the Federal Trade Commission, whose jurisdiction does include new vehicle warranties. You may also wish to contact individual States to determine whether there are any State requirements applicable to the alteration, modification, and warranty concerns you raised.

If you have any additional questions or would like to discuss this matter further, you may contact Robert Knop of this Office at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:567
d.4/2/02

ID: amphibious_vehicle6175

Mr. Paul Larkin
Compliance and Research Services, Inc.
1701 West Front Street
Plainfield, NJ 07063




Dear Mr. Larkin:

This is in response to your letter, in which you asked if an amphibious vehicle your client is seeking to import would be classified as a "motor vehicle."  As explained below, our answer is yes.

Title 49 U.S. Code 30112 prohibits the importation of any motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment that is not certified to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards."Motor vehicle" is defined at 49 U.S.C. 30102(a)(6) as:

[A] vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power and manufactured primarily for use on the public streets, roads, and highways, but does not include a vehicle operated only on a rail line.

Vehicles equipped with tracks, agricultural equipment, and other vehicles incapable of highway travel are not motor vehicles.Certain vehicles designed and sold solely for off-road use (e.g., airport runway vehicles and underground mining vehicles) are not motor vehicles, even if they may be operationally capable of highway travel.

In your letter you stated that your client, Rodedawg International Industries, wishes to import for sale into the U.S. an amphibious vehicle.You stated that the vehicle, the Rodedawg, is designed for "off-road use only, and will be sold, advertised, and marketed as such.You also stated that the certificate of origin will include a statement noting that the vehicle is not designed for use on public roads.You listed various vehicle characteristics demonstrating the vehicles amphibious capabilities and further stated that it is equipped with a throttle stop that limits the maximum speed on roads to 25 miles per hour.

The agency has consistently stated that off-road capabilities alone do not remove a vehicle from the definition of a "motor vehicle" (See letter to Judith Jurin Semo, April 19, 1994).While relevant, vehicle distribution and declarations contained in the certificate of origin are not determinative.The statutory definition directs us to consider the vehicle as manufactured.

Aside from the amphibious nature of the vehicle, the Rodedawg as manufactured is not readily distinguishable from other motor vehicles that have off-road capabilities, e.g., sport utility vehicles.Sport utility vehicles are considered motor vehicles and are generally classified as multipurpose passenger vehicles under our regulations.

We also note that the manufacturers website advertises the Rodedawg as a sport utility vehicle (http://rodedawgsuv.com/index.html, visited July 23, 2005) and represents the vehicle as an automobile.

Based on the design of the vehicle the Rodedawg would be classified as a "motor vehicle". If you have any further questions, please contact Mr. Chris Calamita of my office at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Wood
Acting Chief Counsel

ref:571
d.1/24/06

ID: Anuvu_002304

Mr. Ed Ring
Director Strategic Planning
Anuvu Incorporated
3980 Research Drive
Sacramento, CA 95838

Dear Mr. Ring:

This responds to your e-mail inquiry and telephone discussion with Mr. Chris Calamita of my staff, regarding Federal requirements that could affect the plans of your company (Anuvu) to install fuel cell/electric hybrid systems (fuel cell systems) in new, fully-certified motor vehicles, and then to sell those altered vehicles to consumers.

You stated that installation of the fuel cell system would necessitate the removal of the vehicles engine, transmission, and fuel tank. You explained that your company would then install a fuel cell stack, electric motor, hydrogen storage tank, and battery pack. You further explained that the alteration would include installing a regenerative braking system, which would be attached to the drive train, and an electric motor that would be used to power the hydraulic brake system. You noted that no other alterations would be made to the brake system.

Motor Vehicle Certification

A manufacturer of motor vehicles must certify that its vehicles comply with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) (49 U.S.C. 30115, Certification of compliance). If any person alters a certified motor vehicle, prior to its first sale for purposes other than resale, then that person is deemed an "alterer," a type of manufacturer. As an alterer, that person must certify that the vehicle, as altered, continues to comply with all of the safety standards affected by the alteration. See 49 CFR Part 567, Certification (enclosed).

Since Anuvu plans to install the fuel cell systems in new vehicles, i.e., ones that have not yet been sold for purposes other than resale, Anuvu would be an alterer. As such, Avunu would be required to certify that the altered vehicles continue to comply with the Federal safety standards affected by the addition of the fuel cell system. The certification requirements for alterers can be found in 567.7. Additionally, at the point of first retail sale, the vehicle must comply with all standards applicable to the vehicle as altered (49 U.S.C. 30112(a)) and be certified as such.

Further, 49 U.S.C. 30122 prohibits manufacturers, distributors, dealers, or motor vehicle repair businesses from knowingly making inoperative any part of a device or element of design installed on or in a new or used motor vehicle in compliance with an applicable FMVSS. Although Anuvu intends to remove fuel systems certified as complying with FMVSS No. 301, it is likely that this "make inoperative" provision would not be violated with respect to that standard.

This is because FMVSS No. 301 applies to vehicles that are equipped with fuel systems that use a fuel with a boiling point above zero degrees Celsius. The standard does not require vehicles to be equipped with such a fuel system. The vehicles as altered by Anuvu would be equipped with fuel systems that rely on hydrogen, a fuel with a boiling point below zero degrees Celsius. Since FMVSS No. 301 would not apply to the vehicles as altered, the make inoperative provision would not be violated by the removal of the FMVSS No. 301 fuel system. However, the make inoperative provision would prohibit Anuvu from rendering inoperative any device or element of design installed in compliance with any FMVSS that applied to the vehicle as altered, and subsequent to alteration (i.e., technology upgrades, retrofits).

Applicable FMVSSs

In order to determine how the installation of your fuel cell system would affect vehicle compliance with applicable Federal safety standards, you should carefully review each standard in 49 CFR Part 571. However, there are certain standards (discussed below) of which you should be particularly aware.

First, I would draw your attention to FMVSS No. 305, Electric-powered vehicles: electrolyte spillage and electric shock protection. This standard would apply to your vehicle if it used more than 48 nominal volts of electricity as propulsion power, had an attainable speed in 1.6 km on a paved level surface of more than 40 km/h, and had a gross vehicle weight rating of 4536 kilograms or less. FMVSS No. 305 specifies the requirements for limitation of electrolyte spillage, retention of propulsion batteries during a crash, and electrical isolation of the chassis from the high-voltage system.

Section 3 of FMVSS No. 135, Passenger car brake system, defines "electric vehicle" as a motor vehicle that is powered by an electric motor drawing current from rechargeable batteries or a fuel cell. Therefore, the addition of the fuel cell system would also change your vehicles classification to an electric vehicle for the purposes of FMVSS No. 135. Accordingly, if FMVSS No. 135 continued to apply to your vehicle, the vehicle would be required to comply with the brake performance requirements applicable to electric vehicles.

Although there is not currently any FMVSS applicable to hydrogen fuel systems or hydrogen fuel tanks, any application of fuel cell technologies to motor vehicles should include reasonable precautions to ensure the safety of the motoring public. In the absence of Federal regulations, Anuvu should consult voluntary standards and recommended practices developed by groups such as the Society of Automotive Engineers, American National Standards Institute, and International Standards Organization.

I note that in your correspondence with Mr. Calamita, you discussed ways in which you have considered the safety of the converted vehicles. I strongly encourage you to ensure that your company takes appropriate and sufficient precautions concerning your companys current and projected applications of fuel cell technologies, and that your company will follow, and where necessary establish, appropriate internal evaluation and design protocols to address every potential safety concern.

Additionally as an alterer, your company would be subject to the requirements of Chapter 301 concerning the recall and remedy of safety related defects. If our agency or Anuvu were to determine that an altered vehicle contained a safety-related defect, Anuvu would be responsible for notifying purchasers of the defect and remedying the problem free of charge (49 U.S.C. 30118-30121).

Exemption from an FMVSS

In your telephone conversation with Mr. Calamita, you inquired into the possibility of applying for an exemption from the FMVSSs impacted by the alteration. 49 CFR Part 555, Temporary Exemption from Motor Vehicle Safety and Bumper Standards, establishes requirements for the temporary exemption of certain motor vehicles from compliance with one or more FMVSS in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 30113. Under 555.6(c), a manufacturer may ask for an exemption of up to two years, for a maximum of 2,500 vehicles per year, on the basis that an exemption would make the development of a low-emission vehicle easier and would not unreasonably lower the safety of the vehicle. See 49 CFR Part 555 (enclosed) for the information required to demonstrate that safety would not be unreasonably degraded and the specifications regarding application for an exemption.

Please note that Part 555 requires the agency to publish a notice in the Federal Register seeking public comment on each exemption petition before a decision can be made on such a request, and then publish a second notice either granting or denying the petition. This process normally takes three to four months from the date of submittal.

If you have further questions, please feel free to contact Mr. Calamita at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

Enclosures
ref:567
d.5/20/04

ID: aorc3.ogm

Mr. Steven R. Fredin
Chairman
Automotive Occupant Restraints Council
c/o Autoliv N.A., Inc.
1320 Pacific Drive
Auburn Hills, MI 48326

Dear Mr. Fredin:

This responds to your recent letter to Clarke Harper of our Office of Crashworthiness Standards regarding certain provisions of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies, and the compliance test procedures adopted by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) with respect to that standard.

Sections S4.3(j)(1) and S5.2(j) of Standard No. 209 provide that an emergency-locking retractor must lock before the webbing extends 25 mm (1 in.) when the webbing is subjected to an acceleration of 7 m/s² (0.7 g) within a period of 50 milliseconds (ms). You ask if the 0.7 g acceleration must be constant, if there is an allowable tolerance for the acceleration, if the 0.7 g must be maintained over a certain duration of time, and whether the acceleration trace is allowed to have a certain level of decay or declining acceleration during the test.

After providing background information with respect to the requirements applicable to manufacturers of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment and NHTSA's testing of those items, I will respond to your specific question about the test conditions and procedures applicable to the retractor requirements of Standard No. 209.

Congress has authorized the NHTSA to issue FMVSSs applicable to new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment (49 U.S.C.  30111). NHTSA, however, does not approve or endorse motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Instead, the statute establishes a "self-certification" process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards (49 U.S.C.  30112, 30115). NHTSA then conducts compliance tests of selected products to determine whether the products, in fact, comply with applicable requirements, usually utilizing test facilities under contract to the agency.

Each FMVSS specifies performance requirements for the vehicles or equipment to which the standard applies. In addition to the test conditions and procedures set forth in the FMVSSs themselves, NHTSA provides instructions, known as "compliance test procedures" or "laboratory test procedures" (TP), for use by the test facilities with which the agency enters into contracts to conduct compliance tests. One purpose of the TP is to provide a standardized testing and data recording format among the various contractors that perform testing on behalf of the agency, so that the test results will reflect the performance characteristics of the product being tested, rather than differences between testing facilities.

The TP, of course, must not be inconsistent with the test procedures and conditions that are set forth in the relevant safety standard. However, the TP generally provides additional detail beyond what is set forth in the relevant FMVSS. In some cases, the TP does not refer to all of the performance requirements established by a standard, and in other cases it may direct the test facility to conduct a test at a lesser stringency than that set out in the standard. Nevertheless, the agency has repeatedly advised both manufacturers and the public that a TP does not limit the requirements of an applicable FMVSS, and each TP reiterates that principle.

While manufacturers are not required to conduct certification tests in any particular manner, any manufacturer that wishes to base its certification of compliance on a test procedure that is different from that included in the standard must necessarily assess whether the results of the alternative test procedure are good predictors of the results of the test procedure specified in the standard.

In the instant case, the agency believes that the provisions of S4.3(j)(1) and S5.2(j) are very clear. Under these sections, an emergency-locking retractor must, when the retractor is subjected to an acceleration of 0.7 g within a period of 50 ms, lock before the webbing extends more than 25 mm (1 in.). Nothing in the standard purports to require a constant acceleration (or a constant rate of increase of acceleration), to establish a specific period during which the acceleration must be maintained, or to prohibit any "decay" after the 0.7 g level is reached. Therefore, each retractor must be able to meet the locking requirements of the standard regardless of the rate of acceleration, the duration of the acceleration, or the extent of any subsequent "decay."

We note that this interpretation of S4.3 and S5.2 is consistent with the purpose of those requirements, which is to ensure that retractors will lock in the event of severe vehicle deceleration, such as that which is experienced in a crash. In the event of an actual crash, it is unlikely that a retractor will be subjected to a constant rate of acceleration. It is also unlikely that the acceleration will occur within a narrow corridor for a specific duration. Moreover, the acceleration experienced by the retractor may decay during emergency events. Nonetheless, in all instances, the retractor must lock if the seat belt is to properly restrain an occupant.

With respect to your inquiry about tolerances, the TP provides that the retractor should be subjected to an acceleration of 0.72 g to ensure that, even if the test facility's instrumentation is slightly inaccurate, the retractor will be subjected to at least 0.7 g. This, in effect, provides a tolerance for the test facility. However, this does not create a tolerance for the manufacturer. As noted above, NHTSA often directs its test facilities to test in a less stringent manner than that set forth in a standard (in this case, at a slightly higher acceleration, which tends to facilitate retractor lock-up) to assure that a test will not have to be repeated in the event of a slight error. However, notwithstanding the TP, each manufacturer must assure that its retractors will lock when tested at the 0.7 g level provided in the standard; a retractor that did not lock until it experienced 0.72 g would be deemed noncompliant.

I hope this information is helpful. Please let me know if you have any further questions or need additional information on this subject.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
ref:209
d.2/4/2000

ID: armor23160

Mr. Charlie Cao
Armor USA, Inc.
611 Forest Hill Drive
Coppell, TX 75019





Dear Mr. Cao:

This responds to your letter received on May 22, 2001 asking for information about the application of glazing marking requirements. More specifically, you ask whether it is optional or mandatory to have a DOT number for bullet-resistant glass to be used for the windshield of armored vehicles. As discussed below, a DOT number is required for the bullet-resistant glass to be used for the windshield of all vehicles, including armored vehicles.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has the statutory authority to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA, however, does not approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment or pass on the compliance of a vehicle or item of equipment outside the context of an actual enforcement proceeding. Instead, Federal law establishes a self-certification system under which motor vehicle and equipment manufacturers themselves certify that their products comply with all applicable standards.

FMVSS No. 205, Glazing materials (49 CFR 571.205), specifies requirements for glazing in each new motor vehicle. The standard permits bullet-resistant glazing to be used anywhere in a motor vehicle, provided such glazing meets specified performance, location, marking, and certification requirements. Therefore, the glazing to be used for the windshield of armored vehicles, whether bullet-resistant or not, must be marked in accordance with the marking requirements of FMVSS No. 205, as discussed below.

S6 of Standard No. 205 establishes marking and certification requirements for manufacturers and distributors of glazing materials. S6.1 requires every Aprime glazing material manufacturer@ (defined in S6.1 of Standard No. 205 as Aone who fabricates, laminates, or tempers the glazing material@) to mark all glazing materials it manufactures in accordance with section 6 of American National Standard ASafety Code for Safety Glazing Materials for Glazing Motor Vehicles Operating on Land Highways@ Z-26.1-1977, January 26, 1977, as supplemented by Z26.1a, July 3, 1980 (AANS Z26"). S6.3 requires each prime glazing manufacturer to certify each piece of glazing designed to be cut into components for use in motor vehicles pursuant to the requirements of our statute at 49 U.S.C. ' 30115.

Each manufacturer or distributor who would not be considered a Aprime glazing material manufacturer,@ but who cuts a section of glazing material to which Standard No. 205 applies, must comply with the requirements set forth in S6.4 and S6.5 of Standard No. 205. For sections of glazing that are cut by the manufacturer or distributor, the manufacturer or distributor must mark it in accordance with section 6 of ANS Z26 (S6.4) and certify it in accordance with 49 U.S.C. ' 30115.

For your further information, I am enclosing a fact sheet we prepared entitled Information for New Manufacturers of Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Equipment, and Where to Obtain NHTSA=

s Safety Standards and Regulations.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any questions or need additional information, feel free to contact Nancy Bell of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosure
Ref:205
d.8/1/01

ID: arschin

Arthur N. Arschin, Esq.
450 Seventh Avenue, Suite 2803
New York, NY 10123

Dear Mr. Arschin:

This responds to your letter to this agency asking whether the manufacturer identification numbers assigned to the Vee Rubber Company, Ltd. and the Vee Rubber International Company, Ltd. remain valid. The short answer is yes, if the plants remain in production.

49 CFR 574.5 requires each new or newly retreaded tire sold in the United States to have a tire identification number (TIN) labeled by the manufacturer on one sidewall of the tire. The TIN is intended to assist NHTSA to identify the production source of a tire in the event of a defect or noncompliance. The TIN must include a manufacturer identification mark (MIM) issued by NHTSA in accordance with 49 CFR 574.6. NHTSA issues a separate MIM for each plant that currently produces or retreads tires, and a plant can only have one MIM.

Once NHTSA issues a MIM, the mark remains in effect as long as the plant to which it applies remains in production. In the event the plant ceases production, the mark assigned to that plant may not be further assigned or otherwise used by the manufacturer or anyone else. If the plant ceases production, NHTSA should be promptly notified so that the mark can be cancelled.

With regard to your client rubber companies, the MIMs assigned to Vee Rubber Company, Ltd., YRU for Plant No. 1 and YRV for Plant No. 2, remain in effect if those plants are still in production. The MIMs assigned to Vee Rubber International Company, Ltd., 4A for Plant No. 1 and 5A for Plant No. 2 remain in effect if those plants are still in production.

I hope this information is helpful to you. Should you have any questions or need additional information, feel free to contact Walter Myers of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel ref:574 d:10/20/95

ID: avi.ztv

Mr. John M. Dowd
Mr. James C. Osborne, Jr.
Ms. Elizabeth C. Peterson
Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer & Feld, L.L.P.
1333 New Hampshire Avenue, N.W.
Suite 400
Washington, DC 20036

Re: American Vehicle Importers, Inc.

Dear Messrs. Dowd and Osborne, and Ms. Peterson:

We are replying to your letter of December 23, 1999, addressed to myself, and to Messrs. Guerci, Vinson, and Entwistle of this agency submitting a proposal to resolve the matters discussed at your meeting with us on December 21. This meeting concerned the practices of your client, American Vehicle Importers, Inc. ("AVI") with respect to statutes and regulations enforced by the Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance ("OVSC").

I will address the items in your letter in the order you have raised them. Your initial remark ascribes to us the acknowledgment that "the current regulations do not prohibit a Registered Importer ('RI') from moving an imported vehicle to an auction lot prior to receipt of a Bond Release for a vehicle." This is coupled with your realization that we may need to know the location of the vehicle during the period before the bond is released in order to be able to inspect it for conformance, and you state that AVI will inform OVSC of the location where the vehicles may be inspected. We agree that the current regulations do not specifically prohibit a RI from placing bonded vehicles on an auction lot, and that AVI's informing us of the location of bonded vehicles should facilitate our ability to inspect them. However, AVI must also ensure that we have unfettered access to these vehicles on an auction lot in the same manner as we would were they retained on AVI's property, at all times until receipt of the bond release. That is to say, we must be admitted to inspect bonded vehicles stored on an auction lot during all business hours. We will require the same information location from all RIs that do not store bonded vehicles on the lots identified in their registration application.

You contend "that the regulation, which prohibits an RI from licensing or registering the vehicle or 'releas[ing] custody of the vehicle to any person for license or registration for use on public streets . . .' prior to receipt of a Bond Release, do not preclude the vehicle's sale at a wholesale auction prior to receipt of the Bond Release." We disagree with you on this point. One of the conditions of the bond is that the vehicle it covers be exported or abandoned to the United States in the event that an insufficient showing of conformity is made and the bond and the vehicle are not released (49 U.S.C. 30141(d)(1) as implemented by 49 CFR 591.8(e) and Appendices A and B, and 49 CFR 592.6(a)). If a bonded vehicle has been sold at auction, wholesale or otherwise, before the bond has been released, we could not be certain that the RI could fulfill its duty to export or abandon the nonconforming vehicle because it would no longer own the vehicle. In that instance, NHTSA's sole remedy would be to foreclose on the bond. This is insufficient to fulfill the safety purpose of the statute and the bond, which is to ensure that imported noncomplying vehicles be brought into compliance before being licensed for use, and used, on the public roads. We note, however, your statement that "AVI will agree to await receipt of a Bond Release before selling its imported vehicles at a wholesale auction," and your opinion that all RI s should be preluded from selling their vehicles before receiving a bond release. To address your concern, we do intend to enforce the law equally, and we have informed RIs that they must not sell bonded vehicles while the bond is in effect, whether at auctions, to dealers, or to individuals.

Your final concern regards titling of bonded vehicles. You assert that we acknowledged that "the current regulations do not prohibit the titling of an imported vehicle prior to release of the bond on the vehicle." You refer to the letter of November 11, 1999, by Philip Trupiano, the president of Auto Enterprises, Inc. (and a principal of AVI), requesting an interpretation whether a RI may obtain a title for re-sale purposes before this agency has released the applicable performance bond. I enclose a copy of the Chief Counsel's recent response to Mr. Trupiano. As he advised Mr. Trupiano, we do not interpret 49 U.S.C. 30146(a)(1) as precluding a RI from obtaining a title to a bonded vehicle in its own name before the bond is released. However, for the reasons explained in that letter, we have concluded that a RI may not have a vehicle retitled to another entity pending bond release.

With respect to other issues, you ask that OVSC commit to release the bond on a vehicle no more than seven days after receipt of conformance certification. While OVSC will not make such a "commitment," which, in any event, would not be enforceable, our policy has been, and will be, to process conformance certification packages expeditiously and in the order in which they are received. During the past three months, the average period between receipt of a RI's conformance package and bond release has been reduced to five days.

You also ask that OVSC engage in further discussions regarding implementation of a software program presented to OVSC by AVI and Avalon Risk Management. OVSC is willing to consider any software program, provided that the developer of the program agrees to waive all proprietary rights if the program is implemented. With regard to AVI's proposal to work with OVSC "to develop a procedure by which Vehicle Identification Numbers are inspected and verified prior to entry into the U.S," we believe that the U.S. Customs Service would be a more appropriate Federal agency to work with, particularly regarding procedures intended to identify stolen vehicles before their entry into the U.S.

Finally, we agree with you that fundamental fairness requires us to interpret and enforce the law equally against all RIs. To assure that RIs understand their duties and responsibilities, we will discuss these matters in Newsletter No. 16, currently being prepared to be sent to the RI community.

Sincerely,
Kenneth N. Weinstein
Associate Administrator
for Safety Assurance
Enclosure
ref:592
d.4/19/2000

ID: AviationUpgradeTechnologies.1

Mr. Torbjrn Lundqvist
Chief Executive Officer
Aviation Upgrade Technologies
6550 So. Pecos Road, #142
Las Vegas, NV 89120

Dear Mr. Lundqvist:

This responds to your letter of October 10, 2002, regarding the National Highway Traffic Safety Administrations (NHTSAs) final rule establishing Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 138, "Tire Pressure Monitoring Systems (TPMS)", (67 FR 38704, June 5, 2002).You are concerned about a requirement in the final rule that a lighted indicator on the dashboard must be used to alert the vehicle operator when a tire is significantly under-inflated.You wish to meet with agency representatives to discuss the issue with them in further detail.

We understand that on July 17, 2002, you filed a petition for reconsideration of the TPMS rule, in which you provide a detailed discussion of the alternative TPMS system manufactured by your company whose indicator is external to the vehicle (i.e., the Air Alert Valve Cap System).We also understand that you have contacted NHTSA staff via phone, personal meetings, and written correspondence to discuss your tire pressure monitoring system.If you have new information not currently contained within your petition for reconsideration, we invite you to supplement your earlier submission to the agency. However, we do not believe that a meeting is necessary at this time.Please be assured that all issues raised in your petition will be carefully considered and addressed in our rulemaking response to all petitions for reconsideration received by the agency.

We thank you for your interest in the TPMS rule, and it is our intention to respond to all issues raised in petitions for reconsideration as expediently as possible.A copy of your letter has been included in the rulemaking docket for this final rule.

I hope this information is helpful.If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Eric Stas of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

cc:Docket No. NHTSA 2000-8572
ref:138
d.11/18/02

ID: AviationUpgradeTechnologies.2rev

Mr. Torbjrn Lundqvist
Chief Executive Officer
Aviation Upgrade Technologies
6550 So. Pecos Road, #142
Las Vegas, NV 89120

Dear Mr. Lundqvist:

This responds to your letter of December 9, 2002, regarding the National Highway Traffic Safety Administrations (NHTSAs) final rule establishing Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 138, Tire Pressure Monitoring Systems (TPMS), (67 FR 38704, June 5, 2002).

You indicated in that letter, and in your earlier October 10, 2002 letter, that you believe NHTSA is interpreting section 13 of the Transportation Recall Enhancement, Accountability, and Documentation (TREAD) Act of 2000 to require, as part of the final TPMS rule, that the system indicate to the operator, "while operating" his or her vehicle, when a tire is significantly under- inflated. You ask who interpreted the law in this way, NHTSA or Congress. You also express a desire to meet with the relevant decisionmaker, in order to discuss with that person your views regarding such interpretation.

Please be advised that NHTSA, in carrying out the responsibilities Congress assigns it, makes any necessary interpretations of the statutes it administers, including this provision of the TREAD Act. Within NHTSA, the Chief Counsel is the chief legal officer, and is delegated authority to issue interpretations of these statutes. See 49 CFR 501.3(b) and 501.8(d).

As we noted in our letter to you dated November 18, 2002, we understand that on July 17, 2002, you filed a petition for reconsideration of the TPMS rule, in which you provide a detailed discussion of the alternative TPMS system manufactured by your company whose indicator is external to the vehicle (i.e., the Air Alert Valve Cap System). We stated that if you have new information not contained within your petition for reconsideration, you could supplement your earlier submission to the agency. We also stated that, in that we would be responding to your petition for reconsideration through the rulemaking process, we did not believe that a meeting is necessary at this time.

After considering your new letter, we continue to believe that a meeting is unnecessary at this time. Any legal or other issues that you believe are relevant, including ones related to how the TREAD Act should be interpreted, can be presented in writing. We thank you for your interest in the TPMS rule, and it is our intention to respond to all issues raised in petitions for reconsideration as expeditiously as possible. A copy of your letter has been included in the rulemaking docket for this final rule.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Eric Stas of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:138
d.1/13/03

ID: babcock.ztv

Mr. Robert Babcock
Manager, Corporate Affairs
Hyundai America Technical Center, Inc.
5075 Venture Drive
Ann Arbor, MI 48108

Dear Mr. Babcock:

This is in reply to your letter of January 8, 2003, asking for an opinion whether a multi-component rear reflex reflector configuration would comply with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment.

The rear reflex reflector configuration in your design consists of three separate reflex reflectors. One reflector is installed on the fender and a second reflector is located adjacent to it, on the deck lid. The third reflector is hidden by the deck lid (it is a reflex reflector located on the flange of the outer lamp housing) and it is not visible until the deck lid is raised. No single reflector fulfills the photometric requirements for a rear reflex reflector, but these requirements are met when the reflector on the fender and either of the other two reflectors are measured.

Your design is not a permissible configuration under Standard No. 108. The applicable standard incorporated by reference in Standard No. 108 is SAE J594f, "Reflex Reflectors," January 1977. The text and setup for testing set forth in SAE J594f clearly indicate that the requirements of this standard apply to a single reflex reflector, and may not be met using a combination of separate reflex reflectors. If you wish to proceed with this configuration, we recommend that the reflector located on the fender be redesigned to meet the requirements of SAE J594f. We also note that, for whatever configuration you use, Standard No. 108 requires rear reflex reflectors to be as far apart as practicable.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:108
d.5/22/03