ID: 1930y

Mr. Ted Aston
3218 Sheffield Place
Concord, CA 94518

Dear Mr. Aston:

This is in reply to your letter with respect to your wish to import motor vehicle parts from England, to be used in the construction of a kit car for your own use. I regret the delay in responding.

You have informed us that you are not importing parts controlled by the Federal motor vehicle safety standards, such as "lights, tires, brake hoses, glazing materials," or "the engine, transmission, wheels, instruments, and miscellaneous items that are readily available here". Instead, you will be importing "body parts, frame parts, suspension and some steering parts, some electrical parts and the gas tank."

From your description, we believe that your intention is to import motor vehicle equipment and not a motor vehicle. The only items of motor vehicle equipment which are covered by the Federal motor vehicle safety standards, and hence must comply or be brought into compliance with those standards are: brake hoses, brake fluid, lighting and reflective devices, passenger car tires, retreaded tires, tires and rims for vehicles other than passenger cars, wheel covers, warning devices, glazing, seat belt assemblies, and child seating systems. If the motor vehicle equipment you are importing includes none of these items, then the equipment may be entered without the necessity of giving a bond for the production of a statement that it has been brought into compliance.

I hope that this letter is helpful to you.

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel

ref:VSA d:8/7/89

ID: 1982-2.20

DATE: 07/21/82

FROM: Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Arnold P. Fuchs

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This letter is to confirm your view, expressed in a telephone call with Edward Glancy of this office, that the requirements of Standard No. 206, Door Locks and Door Retention Components, are not applicable to a replacement latch for a truck built in l969.

The requirements of Standard No. 206 are applicable to passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles and trucks. See S2 of that Standard. However, its requirements are not applicable to replacement parts for installation in used vehicles of these types.

Further, the "render inoperative" provisions of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act are not relevant to the installation of such a latch. Under section 108(a)(2)(A) of that Act, a business such as a garage must make sure that it does not knowingly render inoperative the compliance of a vehicle with any applicable safety standard. With respect to a 1969 truck and Standard No. 206, there is no compliance which could be rendered inoperative since the Standard was never applicable to that truck. That Standard applies only to trucks manufactured on or after January 1, 1972.

I would note that even in the absence of an applicable safety standard, the defect provisions of the Act may be applicable. Sections 151 et seq. of the Act provide that manufacturers of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment must notify owners of vehicles and equipment with safety-related defects and remedy those defects free of charge.

ID: nht76-1.36

DATE: 02/26/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; R. B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: E.T.R.T.O.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of January 26, 1976, which inquired about the status of the E.T.R.T.O. petition for an amendment of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 119, New Pneumatic Tires for Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars, concerning tires for low-power motorcycles with restricted speed capability.

We expect to issue a Federal Register notice on this subject in the near future.

Yours truly,

ATTACH.

The Director -- National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation

JANUARY 26, 1976

ETRTO SUBMISSION No. 6/119

TYRES FOR LOW-POWER MOTORCYCLES WITH RESTRICTED SPEED CAPABILITY

Dear Sir,

The above Submission was made in ETRTO letter ref. RD/MS 048/75 dated February 5, 1975 and in a letter dated March 4, 1975, ref. N40-30 MS, signed by Mr. R.B. DYSON, Assistant Chief Counsel, receipt of the Submission was acknowledged with the advice that it was under consideration. Since then, as far as is known, there has been no further communication from NHTSA and no notice referring to the Submission has appeared in the Federal Register.

News of the current status of this Submission would be greatly appreciated.

Yours faithfully,

J. TRIMBLE Secretary General

cc: R.P. Monier, Chairman of the ETRTO Road Safety Sub-Committee.

ID: 2860yy

Mr. Billy S. Peterson
President
Automotive Safety Testing, Inc.
at TRC of Ohio, Bldg. 20
Rd. 152 & SR 33
East Liberty, OH 43319

Dear Mr. Peterson:

This is in reply to your letter of February 7, l99l, to the Office of Chief Counsel asking for a clarification of allowable mounting locations and photometric output requirements for tail/stop lamps on passenger cars.

One of your clients wishes to mount "two-part" stop/tail lamps "so that one lamp is mounted on the fixed quarter panel and a duplicate lamp is mounted on the trunk lid." Each part of the two-part lamp is a combination tail/stop lamp. You have asked whether the minimum photometric requirements must be met by "the lamp mounted to the quarter panel or may the portion mounted on the trunk lid count toward the photometric requirements."

Your "two-part lamp" would be treated as two separate lamps. For purposes of compliance, only one of these two adjacent lamps must be designed to conform to Standard No. l08, and this conformance must be independent of any "contribution" by the adjacent lamp. Although Standard No. l08 permits either the deck or the body mounted lamp to be the complying lamp, it would be our preference that the body mounted lamp be the one that complies, so that the benefit of a conforming stop/tail lamp would be realized during those occasions when the lid may be raised.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

/ref:l08 d:3/8/9l

ID: 1983-3.27

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 11/23/83

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Eddie Wayne

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

NOA-30

Mr. Eddie Wayne 4306 Emmet Drive Erie, Pennsylvania 16511

Dear Mr. Wayne:

Thank you for your recent note asking if motorcycle headlamps could not be required to have a blue or green lens across the top portion, so that cycles could be distinguished from a four-wheeled motor vehicle with only one headlamp.

This is an interesting suggestion. However, we would not wish to impose a requirement that would interfere with the effectiveness of the single headlamp with which most motorcycles are equipped. The other side of the coin is marking the four-wheeled vehicle so that it is distinguishable from a motorcycle when one of its headlamps is out. We currently require passenger cars, light trucks, and others, to have amber or white parking lamps and amber front side marker lamps that are illuminated when the headlamps are on. While these lights may not be as readily visible from greater distances as a headlamp, nevertheless their presence on a vehicle does help to distinguish that vehicle from a motorcycle at night, when a headlamp is missing.

Thank you for your interest in safety.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

ID: nht79-4.22

DATE: 02/07/79

FROM: JOSEPH J. LEVIN -- CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA; SIGNATURE BY STEPHEN P. WOOD

TO: Leon Conner

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: We understand that a question has arisen concerning the testing of "P-type" tires under the traction grading procedures of the Uniform Tire Quality Grading (UTQG) Standards (49 CFR 575.104(f)(2)). Under the terms of the regulation, candidate tires are to be inflated to 24 psi prior to the traction test (49 CFR 575.104(f)(2)(i)(B) and (D), and (f)(2)(viii)), and are to be loaded to 85 percent of the load specified in Appendix A of FMVSS No. 109 (49 CFR 571.109), for the tires' size designation, at a cold inflation pressure of 24 psi (49 CFR 575.104(f)(2)(viii)). However, Appendix A lists cold inflation pressures for "P-type" tires in kilopascals, with no stated inflation pressure corresponding precisely to 24 psi.

NHTSA chose 24 psi as the stated inflation pressure for UTQG traction testing since it represents the recommended tire inflation pressure for most passenger cars. In the situation where no cold inflation pressure exactly equivalent to the specified pressure of 24 psi is stated in Appendix A of FMVSS No. 109 for a tire size designation, the tires to be tested are inflated to the pressure, listed for the tire size designation in Appendix A, which is nearest to 24 psi, i.e., 180 kPa for tires with inflation pressures measured in kilopascals. The tires are then loaded to 85 percent of the load specified in Appendix A for the inflation pressure thus determined. The agency plans to issue an interpretive amendment to the regulation clarifying this point.

ID: nht78-3.42

DATE: 11/14/78

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; John Womack; NHTSA

TO: McClintock Donovan Carson & Roach

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of September 1, 1978, requesting information on the Federal odometer disclosure requirements. You specifically asked what a lessor's responsibility is with regard to the certifications on the disclosure statement. The lessor, as transferor of a vehicle, is required to certify, to the best of his knowledge, as to the accuracy of the vehicle's odometer. A lessor should assume that an odometer is accurate unless he has reason to believe otherwise. Any reasonable belief that the odometer is wrong should be reflected on the disclosure statement by checking, in the first set of certifications, either box 2 or 3, as appropriate. In situations where the lessor has no knowledge as to the accuracy of the odometer reading, he should not state that the mileage is in error because to the best of his knowledge it is correct.

With regard to the second set of certifications, the lessor should check box 1 unless he altered or knows that the lessee or some other person altered the odometer. Since your client is concerned about the possibility that the lessee may alter the odometer, he may find it advisable to protect himself by requiring the lessee to indemnify him in the event of liability under the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act. He may also add a statement on the disclosure form that the vehicle was subject to a lease or was otherwise outside of his control.

ID: nht78-1.24

DATE: 03/22/78

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

TO: Dorsey Trailers, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your telephone request of February 9, 1978, to Roger Tilton of my staff asking whether Standard No. 120, Tire Selection and Rims for Motor Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars, requires that you mount on your vehicles (Illegible Word) retreaded tires containing the DOT symbol.

The standard in paragraph S5.1.3 requires that after January 1, 1978, all used tires mounted on vehicles covered by the standard be manufactured in accordance with Standard No. 119 as evidenced by the symbol DOT on the sidewall. Therefore, you would not be permitted to mount used tires on your vehicles that do not contain the DOT symbol.

Retreaded tires are not used tires. Retreaded tires must comply with all applicable Federal requirements pertaining to them. In the case of retreaded nonpassenger car tires, there are no applicable Federal standards. The DOT symbol is only marked on these tires to which a Federal standard applies. Therefore, retreaded nonpassenger car tires do not need to be marked with the DOT symbol and, in fact, should not be marked with that symbol. Retreaded nonpassenger car tires without DOT symbols can be mounted on your vehicles in full compliance with Standard No. 120. If the tires in your possession have the DOT symbol on them, they can still be mounted on your vehicles. The tire retreader would be responsible for the misapplication of the DOT symbol to these tires.

ID: nht76-3.28

DATE: 11/10/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank A. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: United Recreational Products Inc.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your July 16, 1976, request for information on the requirements for a manufacturer of a light utility trailer which is designed to carry snowmobiles. I regret that we have not responded sooner.

The information you request appears in Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations, and I enclose an information sheet which explains how this material may be acquired.

Part 566, Manufacturer Identification (49 CFR Part 566), specifies identification information which must be submitted to the NHTSA by manufacturers of vehicles and equipment regulated by our standards.

Part 567, Certification (49 CFR Part 567), specifies the content and location of the certification label or tag which must be attached to motor vehicles regulated by our standards.

At this time the only Federal safety standards applicable to all trailers are Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment, and Standard No. 120, Tire and Rim Selection for Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars. The enclosed information sheet also explains how to acquire those regulations.

Standard No. 121, Air brake systems, became effective on January 1, 1975, in the case of trailers which the manufacturer has decided to equip with air brakes. Thus trailers which you manufacture on or after January 1, 1975, which utilize air brakes must meet the air brake standard.

After you have reviewed the regulations I have referred to, please contact me if you have any further questions.

ID: nht74-4.45

DATE: 01/18/74

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Lawrence R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: Rogue Racing

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Dr. Gregory asked me to respond to your January 3, 1974, letter asking whether the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration proposal to modify the definition of Multipurpose Passenger Vehicle would affect importation of The Thing.

The proposed modification would reclassify vehicles like The Thing as passenger vehicles, but it would not prohibit their importation. Volkswagen would have to incorporate several additional safety features in The Thing to meet the higher standards for passenger cars.

We have not made a final decision on the proposed redefinition. Volkswagen as the manufacturer of The Thing might be able to give you a better evaluation of The Thing's future than we have at present.

Sincerely,

January 3, 1974

Dr. James B. Gregory

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

A recent article in the January issue of Four Wheeler magazine states that NHTSA plans to modify the definition of multi-purpose vehicles to exclude the Volkswagen 181 (The Thing). As a manufacturer and wholesaler of accessories for the Thing, we are very concerned how the change in definition will effect the importation of the Thing and/or the safety specification which must be met before the Thing may be sold in this country. We would appreciate any information which is now available, and any future information concerning specification required for the Thing. Thank you.

Joshua E. Bruner