ID: aiam2321

Dear Mr. Thompson: I am writing to point out an error in an article that appeared in th May 24-31, 1976, issue of *NTDRA Dealer News* (Vol. XXXIX, No. 15). The article summarized a recent Federal Register notice (41 FR 18659, May 6, 1976, Docket No. 71-19, Notice 4) that delayed certain effective dates of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 120, *Tire Selection and Rims for Motor Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars.*; The error appears in the paragraph of the article that reads: >>>Section 5.1.1 says that rims used must be those designated by th tire manufacturer. The effective date has been changed from March 1, 1977 to September 1, 1979.<<<; One requirement of S5.1.1 is that a vehicle be equipped with rims tha have been designated by the manufacturer of the vehicle's tires as suitable for use with those tires. The effective date of this requirements was originally established as September 1, 1976, and was not delayed be Notice4. Another requirement of S5.1.1 is that a vehicle be equipped with rims that comply with the standard, i.e., with rims that are marked according to S5.2, *Rim Marking.* Only the effective date of this vehicle requirement was changed from March 1, 1977, to September 1, 1979.; A clarification of these effective dates in a forthcoming issue o *NTDRA Dealer News* would be much appreciated.; Yours truly, Stephen P. Wood, Assistant Chief Counsel

ID: aiam1891

Dear Senator Bayh: This is in response to your letter requesting information concernin correspondence from one of your constituents, Mr. Albert E. Huber, commenting on a proposed amendment to the Federal bumper standard.; On January 2, 1975, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administratio (NHTSA) issued a Federal Register notice (copy enclosed) proposing to reduce the current 5 mph bumper impact requirements to 2.5 mph until the 1979 model year. The impact requirements would have been increased to 4 mph for 1979 and later model year cars.; The proposal was based primarily on the results of two agency-sponsore studies which indicated that the cost and weight of many current production bumpers, in light of inflation and fuel shortages, made the bumpers no longer cost beneficial. Information presented at public hearings on the bumper notice and comments submitted to the docket in response to the proposal have brought to light additional data. The NHTSA has carefully examined all of this evidence and reviewed its studies in light of the new information. As a result, the agency has concluded that the 5 mph protection level should not be reduced. This decision is contained in a Federal Register notice that was published March 12, 1975, which is enclosed (Docket No. 74-11, Notice 7, Docket No. 73-19, Notice 6).; We appreciate your interest and that of Mr. Huber in this importan area of motor vehicle performance.; Sincerely, James C. Schultz, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam1600

Dear Mr. Harris: This is in reply to your letter of August 15, 1974, asking about 'thos requirements which presently exist for limited volume manufacturers.'; I enclose a copy of an information sheet that tells where you ma obtain the Federal motor vehicle safety standards and other regulations. No exceptions are automatically provided for limited volume manufacturers. Those whose total annual production is 10,000 units or less may petition for a temporary exemption from one or more standards upon the grounds that compliance would cause substantial economic hardship.; As a converter of production sedans into extended wheelbase vehicles and as a customizer of automobiles, your principal obligation is to insure that any new and previously untitled vehicle you sell and deliver to the ultimate purchaser conforms to all Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to passenger cars. This means that you should review the standards to determine whether your manufacturing operations affect conformity of any new vehicle as delivered to you that is certified by its manufacture as meeting Federal requirements. In any event, since your alterations consist of more than minor finishing operations you are required to attach the label described by Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations, Section 567.7, a copy of which I also enclose.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Acting Chief Counsel

ID: aiam2470

Dear Mr. Hollis: This responds to Carlisle Tire and Rubber Company's May 7, 1976 request for assurance that certain of its tires are in Compliance with Standard No. 119, *New Pneumatic Tires for Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars*, and your request for a meeting on the issue of reduced performance requirements for tires used on motor0driven cycles with a maximum speed capability of 30 mph or less. I regret that we have not responded sooner.; The National traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Act) (15 U.S.C S1391, *et seq.*) does not permit the assurance of compliance with Standard No. 119 that you request. The act requires 'self-certification' by the manufacturer that each of its products actually complies with all applicable standards (15 U.S.C. SS1397(a)(1)(A), 1403). The NHTSA does not issue 'approvals' for this reason.; With regard to your request for a meeting on the subject of performanc standards for tires used on low-speed motor-driven cycles, I would like to advise you that the NHTSA has decided to reduce some of the performance requirements for these tires. If you believe that a meeting would be desirable before we have issued a specific proposal, please contact Mr. Elwood Driver at the above address (tel. (202) 426-1740) to meet on the technical aspects of this issue.; Sincerely, Frank A. Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel

ID: 86-4.44

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/18/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Wayne D. Buhler -- Director of Engineering, Onspot, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Wayne D. Buhler Director of Engineering Onspot, Inc. 1424 E. 800 N. Orem, UT 84057

Dear Mr. Buhler:

This responds to your letter requesting a review of your "Onspot Safety Chain," an automatic snowchain, for compliance with existing regulations. according to your letter, the current units are being installed both as original equipment and in the aftermarket on 1/2 ton and larger vehicles, although prototypes are being developed for passenger cars. The device is activated by pulling a dash mounted electrical switch which activates an electric solenoid valve, allowing air to pass from an air tank or the Onspot air chambers. For the future, you are considering using a push pull air switch mounted at the dash which would get air supply from the tank or a manifold, thus eliminating the solenoid valve. On vehicles with air-mechanical brakes, air is generally used from the secondary air reservoir, or the primary reservoir if that is all that is available. On vehicles with hydraulic brakes, an auxiliary air system is provided. I regret the delay in responding to your letter.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, it is the responsibility of the manufacturer to ensure that its vehicles or equipment comply with applicable safety standards. The following represents our opinion based on the facts provided in your letter.

NHTSA does not have any regulations covering automatic snowchains. However, it is possible that installation of the Onspot Safety Chain could affect a vehicle's compliance with other safety standards. We note in particular that since the device may be tied into a vehicle's air brake system, it could affect a vehicle's compliance with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems.

If your device is installed as original equipment on a new vehicle, the vehicle manufacturer is required to certify that, with the device installed, the vehicle satisfies the requirements of all applicable safety standards. If the device is added to a previously certified new motor vehicle prior to its first sale, the person who modifies the vehicle would be an alterer of a previously certified motor vehicle and would be required to certify that, as altered, the vehicle continues to comply with all of the safety standards affected by the alteration.

If the device is installed on a used vehicle by a business such as a garage, the installer would not be required to attach a certification label. However, it would have to make sure that it did not knowingly render inoperative the compliance of the vehicle with any safety standard. This is required by section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act.

Enclosed is an information sheet which identifies relevant Federal statutes and NHTSA standards and regulations affecting motor vehicle and motor vehicle equipment manufacturers. I note that the Vehicle Safety Act's provisions requiring manufacturers to notify purchasers of safety-related defects and to remedy such defects without charge apply regardless of whether an item of motor vehicle equipment is covered by a safety standard.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Enclosure

Erika Jones March 24, 1986 Chief Council N.H.T.S.A. Washington, DC 20590

Ms. Jones:

I am writing to officially request a review of our product for compliance with existing codes. Enclosed is a copy of our patents and a description of the installation of the product. This should prove helpful in your evaluation.

The Onspot Safety Chain is relatively new to the United States as it has only been marketed since 1984. The product is currently being imported from Sweden, where it was invented. There are approximately 10,000 units in operation worldwide with 1000 of these in operation in the U.S. Customers include the U.S. Postal Service and the U.S.A.F.

The current units have been installed on 1/2 ton and larger vehicles, though prototypes are being developed for passenger cars. Installations are made both at the O.E.M. level and the aftermarket.

Onspot safety chains have been approved in the National Standards for School Bus Body on May 22, 1985. California Senate bill No. 2186 also allows the chains is equivalent to a single set of standard chains. The state of Washington granted a certificate of approval for the device in 1981. This approval has been transferred to our company since November 25, 1984. You will find copies of these approvals enclosed.

Currently the device is activated by pulling a dash mounted electrical switch which activates an electric solenoid valve, allowing air to pass from in air tank to the Onspot air chambers. In the future we may use a push pull air switch mounted at the dash which would get air supply from the tank or a manifold, thus eliminating the solenoid valve (see Figure 1).

On vehicles with air-mechanical brakes, it is common to use air from the secondary air reservoir, or primary if that is all that is available. On vehicles with hydraulic brakes we provide an auxiliary air system which consists of a Delco compressor, an air reservoir, and a limit switch to keep the pressure between 85 and 110 psi (See Figure 2).

As can be seen from the drawings, the device is pneumatically actuated, and then powered by the tire of the vehicle. As the velocity of the vehicle increases the angular velocity of the chainwheel increases. The device is not warrantied if engaged above 25 mph, and when engaged the top speed of operation is 45 mph. The chains may be disengaged at any speed within the operating envelope. Please note the Operating Instructions and Recommendations enclosed.

Also enclosed is a summary of test results which have been selected from several independent tests on the product. These tests will be available for your review at your request. Please call me If you have any questions or for additional material.

Sincerely,

Wayne D. Buhler Director of Engineering Onspot, Inc.

cc: Dr. Carl Clark Inventor Contaxct code NRD-12

Enclosures Omitted.

ID: 77-3.34

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/25/77

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

TO: Daido Kohyo Co. Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your April 30, 1977, comments concerning Standard No. 120, Tire Selection and Rims for Motor Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars. Your comments question the advisability of requiring the rim size designation to be stated in the order of diameter by width. This designation would be the reverse of existing Japanese and European practices.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) examined this issue in its response to petitions for reconsideration of Standard No. 120 (42 FR 7140). The agency determined that the rim size designation should be expressed on the label in the manner proposed in the standard (diameter by width) to avoid confusion with the tire size designation which is measured in terms of width by diameter. Since publication of our response to petitions for reconsideration (which included your petition), we have received no information presenting new reasons to alter the chosen format. Therefore, the NHTSA will continue to implement the standard as published in the February 7 Notice.

In a second question, you ask whether the NHTSA requires that the information specified in S5.2 of the standard be listed in any particular order. Although the agency has not specified the order in which the information required in S5.2 should be listed, the NHTSA expects that for purposes of clarity the information in paragraphs (a), (b), and (c) would be grouped together as would the information in paragraphs (d) and (e).

Finally, you note that the symbol "JIS" must be marked on the rim in accordance with requirements of the Japanese Industrial Standard while NHTSA requires only the letter "J." For purposes of uniformity the agency will continue to require the letter "J" even though this may result in the double marking situation to which you refer.

I trust that this responds fully to your comments.

SINCERELY,

DAIDO KOGYO CO. LTD.

April 30, 1977

ATT: THE DOCKET ROOM, NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION

SUBJECT: Written Comment as for Rim Size Designation defined in (Docket No. 71-19: Notice 06: Docket No. 75-32: Notice 02) Part 572.

Reference is made to the above mentioned FMVSS as to Tire Selection and Rims for Motor Vehicle other than Passenger Cars.

The rim size designation is defined to mean the rim diameter and width, and this designation order, a diameter designation followed by a width designation, is to distinguish rim designation from tire designation. However, this order of designation is hardly agreeable for us to follow. And we have also a couple of questions to which we would like to obtain your prompt reply.

(1). ISO/TC31/SC10 has been holding meetings four times during the period from June, 1974 to February, 1977, and we, DAIDO, has been taking part in these meetings as representative from Japan and making every endeavor to ISO-rize motorcycle rims.

But it has been never down for discussion that a width designation followed by a diameter designation had better be changed to a diameter designation followed by a width designation. whereas the former designation has been conventionally used in Japan and European countries.

We write here in addition that Mr. Hollis, the representative from U.S.A., has never brought this matter forward at ISO meeting in the past.

(2). There is a danger that the one effort change of conventional rim size designation will create many troubles and confusion, which must be, we feel, more serious as compared with the confusion with tire designation.

For instance, a rim designated as 1.6 x 13 by conventional designation should be changed to 18 x 1.6 in accordance with FMVSS. At this, most of people who have been familiar with conventional designation may regard this rim as 18" width and 16" diameter unintentionally.

We would like to point out the fact that catalogues or brochures of most motorcycle distributors and dealers in U.S.A. list rim size designation as (width) x (diameter). This means that most people concerned in motorcycle trade are already familiar with the said rim designation.

(3). We understand that tire designation is (width) - (diameter) and conventional rim designation is (width) x (diameter). Here is, we can see, distinctive difference of designation, which is "-" and "x" located between width designation and diameter designation.

Even though the order of width designation and diameter designation is same between tire and rim, we feel confident that if you appeal further to a large public such rim designation will not create any troubles and confusion as ever.

(4). S5.2 "Rim marking" requires that each rim or wheel disc in case of singlepiece wheel be marked with informations listed in paragraph (a) through (e). Our question is whether these informations should be marked correspondingly to the order of (a) through (e), or random arrangement of each paragraph is acceptable.

(5). We understand that there is no restriction in marking any other informations than the requirements of FMVSS specified in S5.2. We, Japanese manufacturer, must put JIS marking in accordance with the requirement of Japanese Industrial Standard if the product is approved and authorized by JIS Authority, while it is requested to put "J" mark by order of FMVSS. This means that we are under an obligation to mark both "J" and "JIS".

We have been preparing for the enforcement date of FMVSS based on our own understanding to rim marking requirement, until the receipt of revised NHTSA notice which was issued on January 23, 1977.

We are now facing serious troubles and worrying about if our motorcycle rims can meet with the requirements of FMVSS and with the effective date, August 1st, 1977.

We would appreciate receiving your prompt comments and reply in the above mentioned regards.

Thank you very much and we remain.

(p.s.: We will write to Mr. Malinverni, chairman of ISO/TC31/SC10, to ask his opinions and the future course of ISO. After this we will possibly submit our comments again to you.)

Takeo Shimoguchi General Manager

ID: nht79-4.36

DATE: 11/01/79 EST

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Volkswagen of America Inc.

COPYEE: KENNETH ADAMS

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of September 25, 1979, requesting an interpretation of the term "restraint system type" as contained in Table I of S4.5.2 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 115. In addition, this is in confirmation of Volkswagen's statement of the conclusions reached in the meeting with Messrs. Carson, Parker and Schwartz of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.

The agency has carefully considered your request that "restraint system type" not be interpreted to require a distinction between active and passive belt systems. The agency must deny your request. As the introduction of mandatory passive restraints approaches, information concerning restraint system type is of exceptional importance to the agency. It is important not only to evaluate the overall effectiveness of passive restraints, but also to determine the effectiveness of the various types of passive restraint system types. Consequently, it is necessary that passive belt systems be differentiated from other restraint system types by decoding the vehicle identification number (VIN).

The agency has also considered the alternative Volkswagen suggested which is to submit this information separately to the agency on a magnetic tape. Motor vehicle safety research is carried out by many organizations aside from the NHTSA, however, and Standard No. 115 is intended to make information available to these other researchers as well. Consequently, the agency can not accept the alternative you suggest.

As regards to other questions raised in the meeting with NHTSA staff, this is to confirm that paragraphs 2 through 4 of our November 20, 1978, letter remain the position of the agency despite the changes in Standard No. 115 since that time. A copy of that letter is enclosed. Likewise, the agency can confirm that the World Manufacturer Identifiers assigned to Volkswagen by the Society of Automotive engineers fulfill the requirements of S6.1 of Standard No. 115.

As requested, the agency has reviewed the VIN format Volkswagen intends to utilize (attachments 2-4 of this letter) and has determined that it meets the requirements of the standard. As explained at the meeting, specific details concerning an engine need not be encoded so long as the information is available from the manufacturer and different engine types can be differentiated by means of the VIN (S4.5.2).

Volkswagen also pointed out to the agency at the meeting that the first eight characters of the VIN for a particular model might remain the same for several model years, although the characteristics of the vehicle which they codify might change from model year to model year. For example, a 1981 Dasher might have a different engine than a 1982 Dasher, yet that part of the VIN which contains this information would remain the same. This is authorized by Standard No. 115, so long as the correct information for each model year is submitted to the agency.

Volkswagen also asked at the meeting what the correct procedure would be for submitting information to the agency concerning vehicles whose line is not subdivided into several series. In this instance, indicate that the line and series are the same. However, even if the series is not divided into more than one body type, this body type must be reported to the agency (S4.5.2). The engine displacement may be indicated in cubic centimeters, and the horsepower in H.P. SAE net (3). If only one engine make is used, this information must be submitted to the agency, but need not be directly reflected in the VIN (S6.3).

Volkswagen has also asked when information concerning vehicles imported into the United States must be submitted to the agency. Manufacturers of imported vehicles are required to report VIN codes 60 days before the vehicles are imported into the United States to comply with S6.2.

The agency is considering the petitions of a number of manufacturers to establish engine horsepower groupings for reporting purposes and to establish a flexible effective date for vehicles whose model year begins between September 1, 1980 and December 31, 1980. We expect to respond shortly to the petitions.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

SEPTEMBER 25, 1979

Frank Berndt -- Chief Counsel, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Mr. Berndt:

On September 8, 1978 representatives of Volkswagen of America, Inc. and Volkswagenwerk AG met with Messrs. Carson, Erickson, Parker and Schwartz of the NHTSA to discuss Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 115, Vehicle Identification Number (VIN). In that meeting an interpretation of "restraint system type" was brought up. It was suggested by Mr. Schwartz that Volkswagen submit a formal request for interpretation. Accordingly, this letter is a formal request for interpretation of the term "restraint system type" contained in paragraph S4.5.2, Table I of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 115, (VIN).

VW is currently in the process of finalizing the VW system of coding the VDS section of the VIN. The concern is that additional expense would be involved at Volkswagen of America if the term "restraint system type" were interpreted as requiring a distinction between active and passive belt systems.

As you may be aware, the VW passive belt system is currently offered as standard equipment on the Deluxe version of the Rabbit. Accordingly, the designation of Deluxe Rabbit in the VIN will automatically identify the majority of VW vehicles equipped with passive belts. In addition, the passive belt system is offered as an option on the Custom model of the Rabbit. In this case the option information is difficult to access by the computer. This effort will require an additional 10 hours/month computer time to determine if the Rabbit Custom is equipped with the passive belt system.

A more efficient way is available to identify VW vehicles equipped with the passive belt system. VW is proposing that in lieu of identifying the passive belt system in the VIN, a computer tape be submitted to the NHTSA on a semi-annual basis with all pertinent information pertaining to all VW vehicles sold within the United States that are equipped with the passive system. Supplying this type of information would be more efficient and more convenient for the NHTSA than coding the passive belt option in the VIN.

We request your interpretation and opinion on this proposal as soon as possible since finalizing the VIN coding is nearing completion. For any additional details on this request, please contact Mr. Charles A. Preuss at (313) 588-5505.

Best regards,

VOLKSWAGEN OF AMERICA, INC.;

Dietmar K. Haenchen -- Administrator, Vehicle Regulations

ID: nht89-3.29

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 11/01/89

FROM: STEPHEN P. WOOD -- NHTSA ACTING CHIEF COUNSEL

TO: ROBERT N. LEVIN -- HUDOCK & LEVIN

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 06/06/89 FROM ROBERT N. LEVIN -- HUDOCK AND LEVIN TO NHTSA, RE SUN ROOFS; OCC 3625

TEXT: Dear Mr. Levin:

This responds to your letter on behalf of one of your clients, seeking information on how our law and agency regulations might affect the installation of sun roofs in vehicles. You stated that your client is an automobile repair facility. According to your letter, you recently discovered this agency's regulation (49 CFR @ 567.7) requiring vehicle alterers to affix to the vehicles they alter a label certifying that the vehicle as altered continues to comply with all applicable safety standards. You as ked whether such certification labels must be affixed by your client to those vehicles on which it installs a sun roof. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain the requirements of our laws and regulations for you.

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.) authorizes this agency to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. Two of those safety standards could be relevant to a r epair shop's installation of sun roofs on motor vehicles. Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials, (49 CFR @ 571.205) sets performance requirements for glazing materials installed in new motor vehicles and for new glazing materials for use in motor vehicles . Any glazing incorporated in a vehicle's sun roof would have to conform to the applicable performance requirements set forth in Standard No. 205. In addition, installation of a sun roof could affect a vehicle's compliance with Standard No. 216, Roof C rush Resistance - Passenger Cars, (49 CFR 571.216), which sets forth strength requirements for roofs of passenger cars.

Section 108(a)(1)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(1)(A)) specifies that, "No person shall manufacture for sale, sell, offer for sale, or introduce or deliver for introduction in interstate commerce, or import into the United States, any motor veh icle or item of motor vehicle equipment manufactured on or after the date any applicable Federal motor

vehicle safety standard takes effect under this title unless it is in conformity with such standard . . ." Because of this statutory requirement, any person or business that installs sun roofs in new motor vehicles must certify that the vehicle continues to comply with the requirements of all applicable safety standards, including Standards No. 205 and 216.

The form and contents for this certification are set forth in 49 CFR Part 567, Certification. Any manufacturer that installs a sun roof on a new motor vehicle is required by @ 567.4 or @ 567.5 to certify that the vehicle conforms to the requirements of a ll applicable safety standards. Any person or business that adds a sun roof to a previously certified new motor vehicle prior to its first sale for purposes other than resale would be required to certify the vehicle's continuing compliance with all appl icable safety standards, in accordance with @ 567.7. Such a person or entity is an "alterer" for the purposes of Part 567. (Persons or entities that modify vehicles by using a "readily attachable component" or performing a "minor finishing operation" ar e not considered "alterers." Modifications involving a readily attachable component or a minor finishing operation are instead subject to the requirements of 49 CFR @ 567.6. However, NHTSA does not consider a sun roof to be a "readily attachable componen t" nor is the installation of a sun roof a "minor finishing operation." Hence, this exception is not relevant to your client's activities.).

In addition to these certification requirements, an "alterer" is considered a "manufacturer" for the purposes of the Safety Act. Among other things, this means an alterer is responsible for notification and remedy of defects related to motor vehicle saf ety and noncompliances with applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards arising from the alterations, as specified in sections 151-160 of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C 1411-1420). I have enclosed a general information sheet for new manufacturers that g enerally describes our statutory and regulatory requirements, and explains how to obtain copies of those statutes and regulations.

The certification and labeling requirements set forth in section 114 of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1403) and in Part 567 apply to vehicles only until the first sale of the vehicle for purposes other than resale. Thus, once a vehicle has been purchased by a consumer, persons that modify that vehicle for its owner (e.g., by installing a sun roof) are not required to certify or label the vehicle by this agency's statutes or regulations. A different statutory provision applies to modifications made by a re pair shop to vehicles after the first purchase. Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)) provides that, "No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or in pa rt, any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard, . . ."

To comply with the obligations imposed by this "render inoperative" provision, your client should examine the sun roofs it installs and the means of installation for those sun roofs, and compare those with the

requirements of Standards No. 205 and 216. After such an examination and comparison, your client should be able to decide if the sun roof installations it performs result in any apparent violations of the "render inoperative" provision of the Safety Act . If your client decides there is no apparent "render inoperative" violation, Federal law does not require any additional actions, such as labeling or certification, on your client's part in connection with the installation of sun roofs in vehicles afte r the first purchase of those vehicles. You should be aware that NHTSA may reexamine your client's decision and make its own determination of whether your client's sun roof installations may have violated the "render inoperative" provision in the Safety Act in the context of an enforcement proceeding.

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

ENCLOSURES

Sincerely,

ID: 77-4.42

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 11/30/77

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

TO: Akin, Gump, Hauer & Feld

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your September 26, 1977, letter asking several questions about the applicability of Standard No. 120, Tire Selection and Rims for Motor Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars, to rims modified subsequent to their initial marking by the rim manufacturer.

Standard No. 120, as it applies to rim manufacturers, requires only that the manufacturer mark the rim with the information outlined in section S5.2 of the standard. The standard does not contain substantive performance requirements for tire rims that would necessitate extensive testing to comply with the requirements.

In cases where your client modifies previously marked rims, he might have some responsibilities for compliance with the standard. For those rims where the center disc is only added or altered by your client, there would be no requirement for him to provide his own markings on the tire rim. The rim manufacturer's markings would still contain the accurate size information.

For rims that your client modifies by the insertion of a steel plate increasing the dimensions of the rim, he becomes the rim manufacturer. As a rim manufacturer, it is his responsibility to mark the rim with the information listed and in the manner prescribed in S5.2 of the standard. This information includes the DOT symbol which indicates that he has complied with the requirements of Standard No. 120. Since the rim would have been marked initially with a different size, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) would require that the first markings be removed from the rim to avoid the possibility of confusion to persons who might read the incorrect size listing. This could result in the mismatching of a tire to the modified rim.

In a conversation between Ms. Maryanne Kane of your office and Mr. Roger Tilton of my staff, it was asked whether the NHTSA Standard No. 120 requirements would be applicable to rims manufactured entirely for off-road use. The NHTSA regulates only motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. By definition a motor vehicle is a vehicle used on the roads. Accordingly, vehicles designed for off-road use do not fall within the ambit of our regulations. The same is true for equipment designed for use on those off-road vehicles. The determination of whether a vehicle is an off-road vehicle depends upon its use. I have enclosed an interpretive letter that describes the criteria for determining what vehicles are motor vehicles under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Pub. L. 89-563) (the Act).

You should note further that my time your client undertakes an alteration of a rim, he is performing a manufacturing function that places him within the scope of the Act. Therefore, he would be responsible for any safety-related defects resulting from his manufacturing processes.

SINCERELY,

AKIN, GUMP, HAUER & FELD

September 26, 1977

Roger Tilton Office of Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Administration

Re: Request for Interpretation

In accord with our recent conversation this letter will set forth our request for an interpretation of the application of 49 C.F.R. 571.120, Standard No. 120 (tire selection and rims for motor vehicles other than passenger cars) to certain processes used by our client, Southwest Wheel Manufacturing Company, whereby the rims and wheels of other manufacturers are altered or modified by Southwest Wheel to conform to certain customer requirements. I have enclosed a rough diagram of these changes to accompany the written explanation of each special application used by Southwest Wheel.

Special Application No. 1 (Diagram Nos. 1, 3 and 4) Diagram Nos. 1, 3 and 4 show a Goodyear rim in four different widths and three different diameters. Depending upon the application, Southwest Wheel adds the center disc to these Goodyear rims. The disc can be installed either as a formed disc manufactured by another company or a flat plate centered disc manufactured by Southwest Wheel. The disc can be located anywhere in the flat portion of the rim base. Placement of the center disc is determined by customer specifications for clearance or tracking or towing vehicles.

Special Application No. 2 (Diagram No. 2) Diagram No. 2 shows a process of splitting the rim and adding two inches to obtain additional width in the rim. This process is normally used for light vehicles, either pick-up trucks or trailers. As shown, the rims are split and Southwest Wheel adds additional rolled material to make the rim wider in order to accomodate special floatation tires used primarily in sand or in swamps. Although these are designed for off-road use, they are used on the highway in going to and from job sites. This process can also be combined with the Special Application No. 1 above, whereby the disc is added to the rims as shown in diagram numbers 1, 3 and 4.

Special Application No. 3 (Diagram No. 6) As seen from Diagram No. 6, Southwest Wheel may, on special order, cut the center disc from the rim base on lathes, move the center discs either in or out on the rim base to increase or decrease the wheel offset and then reweld to complete the process. Again, this is a special order process and done to customer specifications.

Special Application No. 4 (Diagram No. 5) Southwest Wheel purchases rims of the type shown in Diagram No. 5 from other manufacturers, and then installs the center disc to customer's hub application. Even though a wheel may be manufactured by one of the major wheel manufacturers, they do not make a wheel in either the diameter, the width, or both, that the trailer manufacturer wants to use on his equipment. Southwest Wheel then assembles the rim and the disc to its customer specifications.

Special Application No. 5 (Diagram No. 5, Pictures Nos. 10, 11, 12) Southwest Wheel manufacturers special wide-based wheels from rims shown on Diagram No. 5, such as taking two rims size 15 x 10 LBH, splitting them as shown in Picture No. 10, taking two wide sides, and welding them back together both inside and outside as shown in Picture No. 11. After this process, the center disc is then installed as illustrated in Picture No. 12. Thus, Southwest Wheel started out with two rims 10 inches wide and has coverted this product into one rim 13.75 inches wide with the center disc installed, changing the original 15 x 10 LBH rims to a wheel 15 x 13.75 LBH 8-holes 6 1/2 bolt circle.

I would be pleased to meet with you and discuss further any of the above processes and I would, of course, obtain any additional information you might require. Your earliest consideration is appreciated.

Jay D. Zeiler

ID: nht91-3.26

DATE: April 22, 1991

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Kent Morris -- President, Memory Motors

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 3-6-91 from Kent Morris to Paul Jackson Rice (OCC 5812)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of March 6, 1991, with reference to compliance of your product, the M-53 replica of the 1953-55 Corvette, with Federal regulations. You have also asked two specific questions which I shall answer first.

You report that Texas does not consider a "manufacturer" to include persons assembling vehicles with any used components, and you ask whether this is correct, and whether it matters "on a national basis". We are unable to advise you on Texas law. However, whether a person is a "manufacturer" under the laws that this agency administers is determined with reference to Federal statutory definitions and not State laws. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, a "manufacturer" is defined in pertinent part as "any person engaged in the manufacturing or assembling of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment . . . ." As no qualifier is used in the definition, a "manufacturer" is any person assembling more than one motor vehicle, whether or not the parts are new.

Your second question is whether production quantity has "any bearing on compliance with federal safety laws or emissions." We are unable to answer your question with respect to emissions, as relevant statutes and regulations are enforced by an agency outside the Department of Transportation, the Environmental Protection Agency. However, production quantity is irrelevant to the obligation to comply with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards, even if only one vehicle per month is produced (such as the turnkey version of the M-53). Nevertheless, the Safety Act permits low-volume manufacturers (those producing 10,000 or less new motor vehicles a year) to petition for a temporary exemption of up to three years from any standard where immediate compliance would create a substantial economic hardship for the manufacturer.

Kit cars, especially those manufactured from a combination of new and previously used parts, have presented problems of interpretation for the agency from the beginning. The root of the difficulty is that Congress apparently did not consider this type of manufacturing operation when it promulgated the Safety Act, and we have had to use the authority that was provided us to fashion interpretations on an ad hoc basis as varied fact situations arise.

With respect to the M-53, you state that it is sold both as a "kit" and as a "turnkey." As a kit, the M-53 is sold as a rolling unit, and you have enclosed a list of "Donor Parts Necessary to complete the M-53", the items that the kit purchaser must furnish. As both a "kit" and a "turnkey", a

new fiberglass body is mounted on "a used chassis from a 1978-85 Chevrolet Monte Carlo", but one that is shortened and given new side rails. The Memory kit retains the existing rear axle assembly and front end components. On the turnkey, Memory installs a new engine and a used (but rebuilt) automatic transmission.

Under our interpretations, the kit M-53, lacking an engine, is an assemblage of motor vehicle equipment, not a motor vehicle. None of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards apply to assemblages of this nature, or continue to apply to assemblage equipment items previously in use on the Monte Carlo that may have been refurbished for use on the M-53. Certain of the safety standards do apply to new equipment items. The standards that apply to components that appear to be used in the M-53 cover brake hoses, brake fluid, lighting equipment, tires, glazing, and seat belt assemblies. Thus, if your company is fabricating (or causing to be fabricated) any of these items for the M-53 kit, they must meet Federal standards that apply to them. In general, items manufactured in the United States for sale in the aftermarket ought to comply with these standards. However, the windshield and other glazing for the M-53 will be newly fabricated and you must ensure that they comply with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205. In addition, as the manufacturer of the assemblage, Memory is responsible for notification of owners should an item in the kit fail to comply with a Federal standard or if the assemblage contains a safety related defect, and for remedy of the noncompliance or defect. After a kit is sold, the person completing the assemblage into a motor vehicle is legally responsible for ensuring its compliance with the Federal safety standards that apply to passenger cars, if the motor vehicle appears to be "new", as subsequently discussed.

With respect to the "turnkey" vehicle, different considerations apply. The Safety Act states that Paragraph (1)(A) of subsection (a) (which establishes the requirement that motor vehicles must comply with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards) shall not apply to the sale, the offer for sale, or the introduction or delivery for introduction in interstate commerce of any motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment after the first purchase of it in good faith for purposes other than resale" (15 U.S.C. 1397(b)(1)). The basic legal question with respect to a turnkey kit car is whether it has so deviated from the original components (such as engine and chassis), and attributes (such as VIN and original registration) of a donor car that it may be considered a new vehicle, and one for which compliance with the safety standards is legally required, or whether it has retained a sufficient number of components and characteristics to be considered a vehicle which has been previously purchased. For example, a kit car consisting of a new body on a used Volkswagen chassis, and which continues the original VW registration is considered to be a used vehicle, and one not required to conform to safety standards applicable to newly manufactured vehicles.

After review of this matter, we have decided that if the chassis of a donor vehicle has been modified to such an extent that it would no longer accept the original body, the chassis will be considered "new". Under your operation, the chassis is shortened, so that the original Monte Carlo body will no longer fit. Further, the body is new, and a new engine is used. The old Monte Carlo components retained include the rear axle

assembly and front end components. On balance, we believe that the M-53 turnkey is a "new" passenger car, and one that must comply with all today's safety standards, including the requirement for automatic restraint systems.

I hope that this information is useful to you. We appreciate your efforts to determine your responsibilities.