ID: 2913yy

DS America, Inc.
5110 Tollview Drive
Rolling Meadows, IL 60008
Attn: Messrs. Riani and Mitchell

Gentlemen:

This responds to your letter of March 6, "l990" with respect to your interest in importing for resale Volkswagen Beetles manufactured in Mexico. You've asked for information on "all relevant requirements for cars being imported to the United States."

A motor vehicle must conform with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) in order to be imported permanently into the United States. The authority for this requirement is The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of l966, as amended by the Imported Vehicle Safety Compliance Act of l988, which became effective January 31, l990. I enclose a copy of the l966 Act for your information; the amendments effectuated by the l988 Act are found at section l08 [1397], subsections (c) through (j).

In brief, a nonconforming motor vehicle may not be imported into the United States unless the Admininstrator of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has determined that the vehicle complies or is capable of conformance to the FMVSS. Determinations are made pursuant to petitions received from manufacturers or registered importers. A "registered importer" is one that NHTSA has officially recognized as capable of performing the conformance work. After an affirmative determination, the vehicle may be imported by the registered importer, or by any other person who has a contract with the registered importer to perform the conversion work. Certain performance bonds and fees payable to the government have been established. I enclose a copy of the most current list of registered importers. For the text of the FMVSS and other agency regulations, you may contact the outlet of the Government Printing Office closest to you, and obtain "Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations Parts 400-999 Effective October 1, l990". NHTSA regulations are parts 501-594 inclusive. You will be particularly interested in Parts 571 (the FMVSS), 591 (import regulation), 592 (registered importer requirements), 593 (vehicle eligibility determinations), and 594 (fees). The Administrator has made no determination with respect to the conformance capability of Mexican Beetles with the FMVSS. If you wish to petition for such a determination, you must either become a registered importer or contract with one to act in your behalf. NHTSA would be especially concerned about the capability of Beetles manufactured on and after September 1, l989, to be conformed to meet the automatic restraint requirements of FMVSS No. 208 (49 CFR 571.208), Occupant Restraint Systems.

You have asked for any information the Department may have about conformance problems. During the mid-l980s, Mexican Beetles were imported for resale by commercial enterprises in Texas and California. The Texas enterprise was able to satisfy the importation requirements that were effective before the stringent amendments of the l988 Act. The California enterprise was unable to meet our requirements. We do not view the Texas experience in conversion of vehicles as particularly relevant today in light of the extensive changes made by the l988 Act.

Finally, you have asked whether "documentation by Volkswagon of Mexico certifying these crash requirements can replace a crash tested vehicle or vehicles." Under our regulations, the registered importer must certify that the converted vehicle conforms to all applicable FMVSS, and, with the initial vehicle, provide NHTSA with documents in substantation. Certainly, if Volkswagen de Mexico had conducted successful barrier impact tests exactly in the manner set forth in the FMVSS, the test results would appear to afford a basis upon which the registered importer could certify compliance. But because conformance modifications could alter vehicle structure or weight, and hence potentially affect the test results previously obtained, your question cannot be answered simply yes or no. However, a registered importer is not legally obliged to conduct a crash test to demonstrate conformance, but could verify that the converted Mexican Beetles continue to conform with the Mexican test results through the use of computer simulations, engineering studies, or mathematical calculations.

If you have further questions, we shall be pleased to consider them.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

Enclosures

/Ref. 59l d:4/l/9l

ID: nht80-2.24

DATE: 04/30/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: WOW--Corporation

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

APR 30 1980 NOA-30

Mr. Robert Fondiller, President WOW! Corporation 200 West 58th Street New York, New York 10019

Dear Mr. Fondiller:

This responds to your March 18, 1980, letter to this agency in which you posed some questions about a 3-wheeled vehicle your company plans to produce. First, you wanted to know if a 3-wheeled vehicle would be classified as a car, a motorcycle, or some other vehicle. Second, you asked if the vehicle could be licensed for street and/or highway use. Third, you asked if replacing the single rear wheel with a double rear wheel would result in the vehicle being classified as a 3-wheel or 4-wheel vehicle, and what effect, if any, classification as a 4-wheel vehicle would have on the answers given to the first two questions.

This agency classifies all 3-wheeled motor vehicles as motorcycles, pursuant to the definition of "motorcycle" given in 49 CFR S 571.3. The pertinent part of that section reads:

"Motorcycle" means a motor vehicle with motive power having a seat or saddle for the use of the rider and designed to travel on not more than three wheels in contact with the ground.

We determine the number of wheels on a vehicle simply by counting those wheels. Hence, if you were to replace the single rear wheel with a double rear wheel, the vehicle would then be a 4-wheeler vehicle and could not be classified as a motorcycle. Such a vehicle would be classified as a passenger car.

The classification of a vehicle is important since it affects the Federal motor vehicle safety standards with which the vehicle must comply. If a vehicle is a motorcycle, it must comply with the following safety standards: 108, 111, 112, 115, 120, 122, 123, and 127. If, on the other hand, a vehicle is a passenger car, it must comply with the following standards: 101, 103, 104, 107, 108, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 118, 124, 127, 201, 202, 203, 204, 206, 207, 208, 209, 210, 211, 212, 214, 216, 219, and 302. As you see, the requirements for passenger cars are more stringent than for motorcycles.

I have enclosed a pamphlet prepared by this agency which gives a brief summary of the requirements of each of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. However, because of the volume of these standards, we do not provide copies directly. I have also enclosed an information sheet which explains how you can obtain copies of our standards and other regulations.

This agency does not license any vehicles for street or highway use. We specify performance requirements, and any motor vehicle must be certified by its manufacturer as being in compliance with all applicable safety standards as of the date of its manufacture. If the vehicle complies with these requirements, we specify no further steps which must be taken.

If you have any further questions concerning motor vehicle safety or need further information, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

Enclosures

March 18, 1980

The Administrator National Highway Traffic Safety Administration United States Department of Transportation Washington, D.C. 20590

Re: 3-Wheeled Vehicle

1. We have designed and are completing the building of a 3-wheeled vehicle--which we plan to manufacture in 3 models: electric, gasoline, and hybrid.

2. Would such a 2-passenger, 600-lb. enclosed vehicle be classified as a car? a motorcycle? or other?

3. Could it be licensed for street use? highway use?

4. If we were to replace the single rear wheel with a double rear wheel, would our vehicle be considered a 3-wheel or 4-wheel vehicle? Would a double rear wheel affect the answers to any of the foregoing questions? Thank you for your prompt reply, as we are nearing the finish line.

Cordially,

Robert Fondiller, President

RF:rp Enc. WOW! Lit.

ID: nht80-1.20

DATE: 02/29/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Kawasaki Motors Corp. USA

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of January 24, 1980, to Mr. Schwartz of my office requesting an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 115.

I understand from your letter that Kawasaki Motors Corp., USA, intends to comply with S4.3 of Safety Standard No. 115 by placing the vehicle identification number (VIN) on the certification label of the motorcycles it manufactures. Since the standard specifies the precise placement of the VIN only for passenger cars and trucks with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less (S4.4), placing the VIN on the certification label of motorcycles is authorized.

You also wish to know whether Standard No. 115 precludes Kawasaki stamping a model designation and production sequence into the frame near the certification label. As long as the number which you stamp into the frame cannot be mistaken for the VIN because of its length or other factors, this would not be prohibited.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

Research & Development Center

January 24, 1980

Frederic Schwartz -- Office of Chief Counsel, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Re: Interpretation of FMVSS 115 V.I.N. Requirements

Dear Mr. Schwartz:

This letter requests your confirmation that Kawasaki's interpretation of, and action to be taken under, the requirements of 49 CFR 571.115 is correct.

The Vehicle Identification Number (VIN) regulations promulgated by NHTSA at 49 CFR 571.115 (FMVSS 115) require vehicle manufacturers to assign to each motor vehicle a unique vehicle identification number, consisting of 17 digits (16 plus check). This VIN is to be used in defect recall and information retrieval efforts where accuracy will benefit the goal of motor vehicle safety. As required by 571.115 S4.3:

"The vehicle identification number and check digit of each vehicle shall appear clearly and indelibly upon either a part of the vehicle other than the glazing that is not designed to be removed except for repair or upon a separate plate or label which is permanently affixed to such part." Standard 115 is silent as to the specific location of the VIN. However, 49 CFR 567, Certification, specifies content and location of the required label certifying compliance with applicable NHTSA requirements. In addressing content, @ 567.4 (g) (6) requires the label to contain the vehicle identification number, while @ 567.4 (e) specifies the location of the label on motorcycles. Finally, @ 567.4 (b) requires that "(t)he label shall, unless riveted, be permanently affixed in such a manner that it cannot be removed without destroying or defacing it."

Our current VIN appears on a non-removable, per @ 567 (b), label located on the portion of the main frame through which the steering assembly pivots, meeting the applicable location requirements of @ 567(e). To accommodate the 17 digit VIN of @ 571.115, we shall simply modify the labels with the new VIN format.

At the present time, we also stamp our model designation and production sequence into the frame near the certification label, although this stamped number is more difficult to see than the VIN as it does not contrast with its background. In order to facilitate our production control we wish to continue stamping this information into the frame, while placing the new VIN on the label in the location it currently occupies. We believe the visual prominence of the VIN and its recognizable format will prevent confusion of the VIN with our internal control system identifier.

We do not interpret Standard 115 as prohibiting placement of other forms of information in a location near the VIN. We ask if you concur with this interpretation.

We are in the process of designing our VIN system and integrating the VIN into our other information control systems. Your timely response to this letter would thus be greatly appreciated.

Please contact the undersigned if more information is required.

Sincerely, KAWASAKI MOTORS CORP., U.S.A.;

Roger Hagie -- Government Relations Manager

CC: L. Yurikusa; N. Murakami

ID: nht88-1.65

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/07/88

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Phoenix Transit System

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Mr. Robert W. Hocken General Manager Phoenix Transit System P.O. Box 4275 Phoenix, AZ 85030

Dear Mr. Hocken:

This is in reply to your letter of December 16, 1987 to Mr. Vinson of this office requesting an interpretation of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. You have received a "Service Information Safety Related letter" from Flxible Corporation stating that deceleration warning lights installed on your buses do not comply with Standard No. 108. You have also asked how you may file for "Special Exception" if your buses are not in compliance.

This will confirm that Flxible Corporation, pursuant to applicable Federal regulations, has determined that certain buses produced by it, including the 67 units furnished Phoenix, do not comply with Standard No. 108, and has initiated a notification and remedy campaign (Campaign 87V-089). The basis of this determination was the manufacturer's conclusion that flashing amber deceleration warning lamps could create confusion when activated simultaneously with the red steady burning stop lamps. The company has advised you of the corrective action to be taken, that is, to remove the deceleration flasher. Although the agency encourages owners of campaigned vehicles to remedy noncompliances, the decision whether to do so rests with the vehicle owner. There is no Federal requirement that an owner correct a noncompliance that exists in his vehicle, and no penalty for his failure to do so. Thus, no "Special Exception" is either needed or available for an owner who wishes to continue operating a vehicle in a non compliant state.

We are interested in your comment that you experienced a 44 percent reduction in accidents in 1985, the first full year that the system was installed on all your buses, compared with 1984. This report compares favorably with the accident reduction experi enced in our test fleets of passenger cars equipped with center highmounted stop lamps, which has the basis for eventual adoption of that requirement. The agency is engaged in research pertaining to the conspicuity of large vehicles, and would find it he lpful to have a copy of the data upon which you based your comment. It should be sent to Michael Finkelstein, Associate Administrator for Research and Development, NHTSA, 400 Seventh Street, s.w., Washington, D.C. 20590. We appreciate your interest in sa fety.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

December 16, 1987 Taylor Vinson, Legal Counsel Rm 5219 NATHA U S Department of Transportation 400 7th St SW Washington DC 20590

Dear Mr. Vinson:

We request an official interpretation of rule FMVSS 108. We have received a Service Information Safety Related letter from the Flxible Corporation that states that our deceleration lights do not comply with the requirements of FMVSS 108, "lamps, reflecti ve devices and associated equipment."

In the spring of 1982, we began an experiment with 10 buses with DAS (Deceleration Alert System) to see if we could reduce our rear end accidents. The 18 months with the DAS was so successful that we had our entire fleet fitted with the lights. The year of 1985 was the first full year that lights were installed on all our buses. There was a 44 percent reduction in accidents over the previous year (1984).

You can see why we need an official interpretation. If we are not in compliance with FMVSS 108, we need to know how we can file for "Special Exception."

We will need the required forms; who we need to contact; and to whom the forms need to be sent to in order to achieve this Special Exception.

Thank you.

Sincerely,

Robert W. Hocken General Manager

pk

ID: nht94-3.37

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: June 13, 1994

FROM: Mary B. Falls -- Sherrard and Roe, Nashville, TN

TO: Office of General Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: Re: Vehicle Identification Numbers

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 09/08/94 from John Womack to Mary B. Falls (A42; STD. 115)

TEXT: Our firm represents Nissan Motor Manufacturing Corporation USA, who manufactures cars and light trucks in Smyrna, Tennessee. We have been advised that, from time to time, leased Nissan automobiles are stolen for the purpose of removing the plate contain ing the vehicle identification number ("VIN") from the dashboard of the leased car. In most cases, the leased vehicle is recovered with very little damage other than damage associated with the removal of the VIN plate. NMMC has asked us to determine ho w replacement VIN plates can be obtained for these stolen vehicles and what additional steps, if any, must Nissan or the vehicle lessee take to satisfy state and federal laws with respect to the issuance of a new VIN plate. While Tennessee statutes clea rly contemplate the issuance of replacement VIN plates, we have found no federal statute or regulation which addresses this particular issue. Among the various federal regulations we have reviewed are the following: 49 C.F.R. 565 and 49 C.F.R. 571.115. In addition to researching the federal statutes and regulations. we have contacted Peggy Proctor at the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration. This letter is submitted to you at the request of Ms. Proctor.

The issue we submit to you is as follows: If Nissan complies with the requirements prescribed by the State of Tennessee for the issuance of replacement VIN plates, will Nissan also be in full compliance with applicable federal statutes and regulations pertaining to vehicle identification numbers? If not, what additional steps must Nissan take to ensure full compliance with federal laws and regulations? For your convenience, the balance of this letter describes the process pursuant to which the State of Tennessee will issue replacement VIN plates to Nissan.

Section 55-5-111 of Tennessee Code Annotated provides that it is a Class C misdemeanor for any person to buy, sell, offer for sale, or possess a motor vehicle from which the manufacturer's serial, engine, or transmission number or other distinguishing number or identification mark or number has been removed, defaced, covered, altered, or destroyed. In addition, @ 55-5-112 provides that the owner of an original engine, serial, transmission, or "other number or mark" may restore such number or mark pu rsuant to a permit issued by the Criminal Investigation Unit of the Tennessee Department of Safety.

Upon written request by the owner of a stolen VIN plate, the Criminal Investigation Unit will issue one (1) replacement VIN plate. Because the vehicles in question are leased, Nissan (as owner) would be the party making the request for the replacemen t plate. In addition to requesting a replacement VIN plate, the written request must include a copy of the certificate of title for the automobile in question (thus verifying the original VIN for that automobile), a copy of the theft recovery report for the automobile in question, and a check in the amount of $ 10.00. Once Nissan receives the replacement VIN plate, the plate is affixed to the door jamb of the vehicle. We have been advised that the replacement VIN plate contains a "control number" whi ch indicates that it is a replacement plate issued by the Tennessee Department of Safety. Apparently this control number permits the vehicle to be tracked and differentiates it from the vehicle bearing the stolen VIN plate. Because the replacement VIN plate bears the same VIN as the original VIN plate, the certificate of title for the automobile, the VIN stamped on other parts of the automobile, and the manufacturer's label affixed to the door of the car do not need to be changed.

Because these leased vehicles cannot be operated without replacement VIN plates, a prompt response would be greatly appreciated. Of course, if you have any questions, we would be pleased to provide any additional information that you desire.

ID: nht92-9.33

DATE: January 31, 1992

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: S. Suzuki -- Managing Director, Suzusho Trading Co.

TITLE: Your ref: ST-9015/91

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 10/16/91 from S. Suzuki to Director, Office of Public and Consumer Affairs, NHTSA (OCC 6611)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of October 16, 1991, to the Director, Office of Public and Consumer Affairs, with reference to the "Safety Shot" lighting device that you have developed. You have enclosed photographs illustrating three types of this device in operation.

In brief, the device consists of a center red highmounted stop lamp, immediately flanked by amber lamps that serve as supplementary turn signal/hazard warning signal lamps. Although the photos are not entirely clear, the device appears to consist of segmented compartments in a common housing, with thicker dividers separating the signal and stop functions. Type I incorporates an L.E.D. and is mounted at the top of the rear window. Type II also incorporates an L.E.D. and is mounted at the bottom of the window. Type III is located at the top of the rear window and uses conventional bulbs for its light source. You have been referred to us by Chrysler Corporation. We assume that you approached Chrysler with a view towards having your device accepted as original motor vehicle equipment. You have asked for our views on whether it is possible to use this device in the U.S. market.

In the United States, the applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard for rear lighting is Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment. Section S5.4 of Standard No. 108 does not allow a center high-mounted stop lamp to be physically combined with any other lamp or reflective device. Because Safety Shot appears to have a common housing for signalling and stopping functions, the lamps are "combined" within the meaning of the prohibition.

This means that the Safety Shot may not be used as original equipment on motor vehicles, and it may not be offered as a replacement for original equipment center highmounted stop lamps (required on each passenger car manufactured on or after September 1,1985).

If you wish to sell the Safety Shot as an accessory in the aftermarket, for passenger cars manufactured before September 1, 1985, different considerations apply. Installation of the Safety Shot by a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business is not permitted if it renders inoperative, in whole or in part, the function of any other rear lighting device.

The question, therefore, is whether the effectiveness of the function of any other rear lighting device is compromised by the Safety Shot to the extent that the other device's function is rendered, at the minimum, partially inoperative. We note that original equipment amber signal

lamps are not prohibited from flashing when the stop lamps are operating. It would not appear that the addition of the Safety Shot to a passenger car manufactured before September 1, 1985, would compromise the signals from the original turn signal and stop lamps in a manner to render them, at least, partially inoperative. However, the Safety Shot is subject to regulation by the individual States of the United States in which it is sold or used. We are unable to advise you on State laws, and suggest that you write for an opinion to American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Va. 22203.

Motor vehicles are also required to be manufactured to conform to Standard No. 111, Rearview mirrors. Under this standard, if installation of the Safety Shot prevents the vehicle from meeting the rearview mirror field of view requirements specified, the manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business installing the Safety Shot must install a rear view mirror on the passenger side of the vehicle (as a practical matter, most vehicles in the U.S. are manufactured with this additional mirror).

ID: nht93-4.5

DATE: May 20, 1993

FROM: Karl-Heinz Ziwica -- General Manager, Environmental Engineering, BMW of North America, Inc.

TO: Stephen P. Wood -- Assistant Chief Counsel, Rulemaking, NHTSA

COPYEE: David Elias; William Fan

TITLE: Re: 49 CFR 571.206, FMVSS No. 206; Door Locks and Door Retention Components; Request for Interpretation

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 10/7/93 from John Womack to Karl-Heinz Ziwica (A41; Std. 206)

TEXT:

Recently, William Scully of my staff and our counsel, Donald M. Schwentker, met with David Elias of your staff and William Fan of Rulemaking to discuss our interpretation of 49 CFR 571.206, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard ("FMVSS") No. 206, Door locks and door retention components, with respect to a new design door latch and lock system that BMW is planning to introduce on a new car line in the United States in the near future. At that time, Mr. Scully also demonstrated the new system on a modified production BMW passenger car.

We hereby request the agency's confirmation of our interpretation that the operation of BMW's new system conforms to the applicable provisions of FMVSS 206.

FMVSS 206 REQUIREMENTS

S4.1.3 DOOR LOCKS. Each door shall be equipped with a locking mechanism with an operating means inside the vehicle.

S4.1.3.1 SIDE FRONT DOOR LOCKS. When the locking mechanism is engaged, the outside door handle or other outside latch release control shall be inoperative. S4-1.3.2 SIDE REAR DOOR LOCKS. In passenger cars and multipurpose passenger vehicles, when the locking mechanism is engaged, both the outside and inside door handles or other latch releases controls shall be inoperative.

DESCRIPTION OF THE OPERATION OF THE BMW SYSTEM

The inside door handle operates as a door lock release AND SUBSEQUENTLY as a door latch release. The first complete activation of the recessed handle (a pulling motion) releases the door locking mechanism. The second activation (another pulling motion) operates the door latch release control.

WHY THE BMW DOOR LOCK SYSTEM COMPLIES WITH FMVSS 206

-- When the rear door locking mechanism is engaged, the door handles ARE INOPERATIVE.

-- After the door locking mechanism is disengaged (by activating the common door lock/door latch release handle), the door handle BECOMES OPERATIVE.

OCCUPANT PROTECTION INTENDED BY FMVSS 206, AND HOW BMW'S DOOR LOCK SYSTEM PROVIDES SUCH PROTECTION

-- Ejection

* BMW's system affords even more protection against inadvertent opening of doors than that required by FMVSS 206 for front doors.

-- Inadvertent Opening by Children

* All BMW products are fitted with rear door child locks (which deactivate operation of the inside door handles) as standard equipment, and when such child locks are engaged, the rear doors CANNOT BE OPENED FROM THE INSIDE.

* Restrained children cannot reach the rear door handle.

* Two separate actions are required to open the rear doors (when the child locks are not engaged), just as in a conventional door lock and door latch release system.

* The door lock release of most current conventional systems is placed immediately adjacent to the door latch release.

OTHER ADVANTAGES OF BMW'S DOOR LOCK SYSTEM

In addition to the convenience provided to the vehicle occupants, BMW's door lock system affords easier exit after a crash, and is less vulnerable to damage during side impact.

For these reasons, BMW believes its new system fully complies with the applicable provisions of FMVSS 206, while providing distinct advantages to its customers.

If you have any questions about this request or the operation of the new BMW door locking system, please contact Mr. William Scully at (201) 573-2069.

ID: nht74-2.29

DATE: 05/01/74

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Robert E. Langdon III

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of April 12, 1974, asking whether retreaded tires are required by Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 117 to have either a ribbed tread pattern or treadwear indicators.

Standard No. 117 does not have requirements for tread pattern design, and thus retreaded tires need not have a ribbed tread design. Each retreaded tire must, however, in accordance with S5.1.1(b) of Standard No. 117, incorporate a treadwear indicator that will provide a visual indication that the tire has worn to a tread depth of 1/16 inch.

YOURS TRULY,

April 12, 1974

Office of the Chief Counsel -- Attn: Lawrence Schneider, N.H.T.S.A.

Dear Mr. Schneider:

I have talked with Mr. Zemaitas of the San Francisco office of the N.H.T.S.A. several times about the D.O.T. standards for retreaded pneumatic tires. He was able, after calling the enforcement section of N.H.T.S.A. in Washington, to answer the question I had. When I asked if he could send the information to me in writing, he told me that I would have to write to the legal section in Washington in order to receive a written reply, and he was kind enough to give me your address.

I am a member of the Code Committee of the Southern California Council of Sports Car Clubs. Our Council sanctions slaloms, which are non-racing time and maneuverability events for automobiles. These slaloms are normally held on privately owned parking lots. Many of the cars are towed or trailered to the events since, under the provisions of the California Motor Vehicle Code, they may not legally be driven on streets or highways.

My questions stems from the fact that our slalom code has a rule in reference to tires which states, "Tires must be listed . . . in the manufacturer's printed catalog, and/or have a D.O.T. marking." This rule applies to retreaded tires as well as to new tires.

We have dealt with several retreaders that have been retreading D.O.T. marked carcasses with rubber of a low Shore hardness for increased traction. These tires have met the D.O.T. standards and have always had a tread groove pattern. Consequently the retreaders have marked them with their D.O.T. marks in addition to the original manufacturer's D.O.T. mark already on the carcass. The reason our rule is written specifying a D.O.T. mark is that the safety and strength of tires used in our sport is very important to us. We feel that the retreaders will continue to supply us with high quality, safe tires if we require them to meet the D.O.T. standards for retreaded tires.

My question to Mr. Zemaitas which he referred to the enforcement section (Illegible Words) retreaded tire which meets the standards for retreaded pneumatic tires (Code of Federal REgulations, Title 49, Chapter V, Paragraph 571.117) be legally marked with the D.O.T. mark if (1) there is no groove or rib pattern in the tread, and (2) there are wear indicators in the tread.

The enforcement section indicated to Mr. Zemaitas that this can be done, as there is no requirement for a tread groove or rib pattern, but only for tread wear indicators.

What I would like from you is written verification that, as long as a retreaded tire has tread wear indicators, it does not need to have a tread groove or tread rib pattern in order to be legally marked with the D.O.T. mark. This letter will be shown to other members of the Southern California Council of Sports Car Clubs to verify to them that such a retreaded tire complies with D.O.T. standards and therefore can be legally marked with a D.O.T. mark.

I would appreciate a reply from you as soon as possible. If you have any questions, I am normally available from 10 am. to 3 pm. (PST) at the telephone number shown above.

Sincerely,

Robert E. Langdon III

ID: nht95-3.16

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: June 15, 1995

FROM: Shih-Chiang Chen -- President, Top World Traffic Equipments Co. Ltd.

TO: Minister, DOT.

TITLE: Re our product: Brake Condition Warning Sensor

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 7/10/95 LETTER FROM RICARDO MARTINEZ TO SHIH - CHIANG CHEN (A43; REDBOOK 2; STD. 108)

TEXT:

Dear Sirs,

I invented the "Brake Condition Warning Sensor" and applied for the patent right of 17 countries, including my country and your country. (For instance, the patent registration number in your country is 5059947)

The special properties of this patented product distinguishes itself from the similar products available on the market. It helps the third brake lamp to generate flashes of various levels due to the different speeds of stepping the brake when drivers me et various situations happened during the automobile travel in order to warn the drivers behind. Thus the drivers behind could make proper preparations and responses to prevent accident.

It has to been emphasized that the period of flashing from the third brake lamp by using this product is very short. Besides, it will act only when the driver must step down the brake. When the automobile completely stops, the light will automatically stops flashing, but still remain lit. This feature provides drivers with great convenience and safety. Therefore, this product is very popular with automobile industries since it became available on the market.

Although many people from your country take great interests in this product, they question about the "Flashing from the Third brake lamp". They think this product is not applicable and is arguable to the relevant communication codes in your countries.

The questions presented by people in your country are not unreasonable when they are first heard. However, after strict analysis, it is a total misunderstanding to the application range of flashing action. This product only generates the flashing actio n only on the third brake lamp, not relevant to the two tail lamps.

In other words, only the third brake lamp will flash by this device when drivers step the brake to respond to the road situation. The two tail lamps remain their normal function, lit but not flashing. It will not cause confusion to drivers' judgment. Instead, it warn the drivers behind to take proper approaches.

With regard to this point, the automobile industries in my country also questioned about the legal applicability at the very beginning. I requested the ministry of Communications for a proper explanation. The result showed that it is not in contraventi on of the regulation that "The Brake Lamp is Forbidden to Flash After Automobile Stops Completely." (See the attachment for a copy of letter from the Ministry of Communications.) The argument is ceased accordingly. Therefore, this product is legally appr oved and has gained a lot of good reputations.

Because I do not completely understand the relevant communication codes in your country, I will need your assistance to have a better understanding. Your reply will be highly appreciated.

Best regards!

P.S. An instruction is enclosed.

THE MINISTRY OF COMMUNICATIONS

LETTER

[Illegible Words] Received By: Mr. CHEN, SHIH-CHIANG [Illegible Word] To: Mr. CHEN, SHIH-CHIANG

Insurance Date: November 10, 1993 File No.: Lu-Tai-(1983)-Chien-Tzu No. 10182

1. Thanks for your letter dated November 14, 1993.

2. Regarding you pointed out our improper regulation: "The third brake light cannot shine when the car stays still." We have checked the regulation of inspecting the third brake light. The regulation requests new small cars should have the third light device and other items necessary for inspecting when the current highway registration & inspection offices proceed all light inspection.

3. Please bring your attention.

Department of Land Administration Ministry of Communication

(Affixed with the official seal)

(Brochure and patent information omitted.)

ID: maxzonenew

Mr. Galen Chen
Marketing Department
Maxzone Vehicle Lighting Corp.
5100 Walnut Grove Avenue
San Gabriel, CA 91776

Dear Mr. Chen:

This is in reply to your email (copy enclosed) concerning replacement lighting equipment. We apologize for the delay in our response.

You reported that your company is developing "a new headlamp" for 1998-2001 model Honda Accord passenger cars (we shall refer to this as the "Maxzone headlamp"). You informed us that the original equipment (OE) headlamp for these vehicles consists of "High Beam (9005 bulb), Low Beam (9006 bulb), Park Signal and reflector. No fog lamp function." (We would also note that the OE headlamp on this model Honda Accord appears to incorporate the required front turn signal and side marker lamp as well.) The Maxzone headlamp consists of "High Beam (H1 bulb), Low Beam (H3 bulb), Park Signal and weve added Fog Lamp (H3 bulb) to this headlamp assembly. It also comes with reflector." You informed us "the numbers of different functions after tests all pass SAE/DOT requirements." You asked whether the Maxzone headlamp could be certified and sold as legal replacements for the 1998-2001 Honda Accord models. As discussed below, the answer to this question is no.

Under S5.8, Replacement equipment, of Standard No. 108, "Each lamp . . . manufactured to replace any lamp . . . on any vehicle to which this standard applies, shall be designed to conform to this standard." (S5.8.1)

S7.1 of Standard No. 108 requires a motor vehicle, other than a motorcycle, to "be equipped with a headlighting system designed to conform to the requirements of S7.3, S7.4, S7.5, or S7.6." Maxzone stated that the OE headlighting system on the 1998-2001

Honda Accord consists of headlamps with HB3 (9005) and HB4 (9006) replaceable light sources. Thus, a replacement headlamp for this vehicle must be evaluated according to the requirements of S7.5, Replaceable bulb headlamp systems.

S7.5(b) requires that each headlamp in the system be designed to conform to the photometrics as specified in S7.5(c) through (e) using any light source of the type intended for use in such system.Considering that this particular vehicle incorporates HB3 and HB4 replaceable light sources in its OE headlighting system, we view S5.8.1 and S7.5(b) as requiring each replacement headlamp for this vehicle to be designed to conform to the specified photometry when using HB3 and HB4 replaceable light sources. Because replaceable light sources are, by regulation, designed to be non-interchangeable, it would not be possible for the Maxzone replacement headlamp to comply with the applicable photometry using HB3 and HB4 replaceable light sources when the Maxzone headlamp is designed to use replaceable light sources other than HB3 and HB4. Therefore, the Maxzone headlamp could not be certified and sold as a replacement for a 1998-2001 Honda Accord headlamp. This also means that a headlamp dealer or motor vehicle repair business could not remove the original headlamp and install the Maxzone headlamp as a replacement without violating 49 U.S.C. 30122. This section prohibits manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and motor vehicle repair businesses from making inoperative equipment installed in accordance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard.

You also informed us that the Maxzone headlamp "comes with reflector." We are unsure of your meaning. We interpret S5.8.1 as requiring replacement lighting equipment designed for specific motor vehicles to incorporate, at a minimum, the same required functionality as included on the original equipment lamp it is intended to replace. If the original Accord headlamp incorporated an amber side reflex reflector in compliance with Standard No. 108, each replacement headlamp for that Accord must also incorporate an amber side reflex reflector if we are to regard it being "designed to conform to this standard" within the meaning of S5.8.1.

I hope that this information is useful to you. If you have any questions, you may call Taylor Vinson of this Office (202-366-5263).

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

Enclosure
ref:108
d.3/13/03