ID: nht76-1.4

DATE: 07/09/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Honorable Bob Sikes

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your May 10, 1976, communication enclosing a letter from Mr. John C. Richardson concerning the importation of passenger cars with "metric instrumentation." Your communication was forwarded to this agency by the National Bureau of Standards for reply.

Mr. Richardson has encountered difficulty in importing a 1976 model 911 Porsche with metric instrumentation. He has received a letter from Volkswagen of America, Inc., suggesting that "such instrumentation would be illegal and not certified with the appropriate U.S. Government agencies." While the precise meaning of "metric instrumentation" is not clear from either letter, I assume that Mr. Richardson is referring to the marking of the speedometer (in kilometers per hour) and the calibration of the odometer (in kilometers traveled).

The Federal motor vehicle safety standards administered by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration do not presently require any particular form of marking for speedometers or odometers. While we are considering the establishment of a requirement that English units be used, such a rule would permit metric units as an optional addition. Furthermore, such a rule would only be applied prospectively.

SINCERELY,

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Bureau of Standards

May 26, 1976

Honorable Bob Sikes House of Representatives

This is in reply to your letter of May 1 requesting information on behalf of Mr. John C. Richardson, concerning the legality of metric instrumentation on imported cars.

Since the responsibility for instrumentation panels on automobiles lies with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, we are forwarding your letter and attachments to Mr. Robert Aubuchon, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Office of Standards Enforcement, 400 7th Street, SW., Washington, D.C. 20590, 202-426-1693.

Jeffrey V. Odom Chief, Metric Information Office

cc: ROBERT AUBUCHON Congress of the United States House of Representatives

May 10, 1976

Mr. Jeff Odom, Chief Metric Information Office National Bureau of Standards

The attached communication is sent for your consideration. Please investigate the statements contained therein and forward me the necessary information for reply, returning the enclosed correspondence with your answer.

Bob Sikes M.C.

May 1, 1976

Dear Congressman Sikes,

Congress has initiated the change from the English measuring system to the metric system. Already some of the American cars are appearing with dual instrumentation. However, when I tried to order a car from Porsche, a subsidiary of Volkswagon, I was told that metric instruments were illegal. See attached letter from Volkswagon of America.

Could you please find out why this is illegal on imported cars on not on American made cars? As an engineer I am firmly committed to the change to the metric system and looking forward to your clearing this matter.

Thank-you for your help.

John C. Richardson

VOLKSWAGEN OF AMERICA, INC.

April 22, 1976

John Richardson

Please be advised that we have checked the feasibility of delivering to you a 1976, 911 Porsche with metric instrumentation.

We have checked with our National Headquarters in Englewood Cliffs, which in turn checked with Germany. Unfortunately, we have to inform you that such instrumentation would be illegal and not certified with the appropriate U. S. Government agencies.

Dual instrumentation, unfortunately, also is not available.

We very much regret our inability to be of assistance.

G. E. Magnus Customer Assistance Supervisor

ID: 04-005893drn1

Mr. S. Y. Hong
Dae Kwang Special Glass Ltd.
25-1, Palyong-Dong, Changwon-si
Kyeong-Nam
South Korea

Dear Mr. Hong:

This responds to your request for an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 205, Glazing Materials.You inform us that on April 13, 1998, your company was assigned DOT glazing code mark number 660. You ask three sets of questions about the assignment of the DOT code mark number.

First Set of Questions

As background, you state that over the past 6 years, Dae Kwang Special Glass Ltd. (Dae Kwang) has not yet used its DOT code mark number. Therefore, you ask:

1. Does Dae Kwang need to apply to be assigned a DOT code mark number again?
2. Is there an expiration date for the DOT code mark number?

The answers are that Dae Kwang does not need to apply again for a DOT code mark number, and that there is no expiration date for the DOT code mark number.

3. Does Dae Kwang need to provide sample tests and test results to NHTSA in order to update "DOT code 660?"

The answer is no. Unlike the practice in many European and Asian countries, in the United States, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Instead, before selling or offering to sell motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment to the public, manufacturers are required to self-certify that their vehicles or equipment meet applicable standards. The self-certification procedures for glazing manufacturers are specified in FMVSS No. 205 at S6, Certification and marking.

Each of NHTSAs safety standards specifies the test conditions and procedures that NHTSA will use to evaluate the performance of the vehicle or equipment being tested for compliance with the particular safety standard. NHTSA follows these specified test procedures and conditions when conducting its compliance testing. In the case of FMVSS No. 205, NHTSA will follow specified test procedures established for AS-1 or AS-2 glazing (depending on how your company certifies the glazing) when it tests the glazing for compliance with FMVSS No. 205.

To provide a basis for its certification of compliance, when self-certifying glazing material, a manufacturer may choose any valid means of evaluating its products to determine whether the glazing complies with FMVSS No. 205. However, NHTSA may require a manufacturer to provide its data in determining whether the glazing meets FMVSS No. 205 requirements.

Second Set of Questions

You state that Dae Kwang is presently manufacturing glazing materials for off-road vehicles, but in the future, would like to manufacture glazing materials for passenger cars or other motor vehicles that use highways. Therefore, you ask:

1. When Dae Kwang was assigned DOT code mark number 660, was the assignment of the code mark number only for off-road vehicles?

The answer is no. NHTSA assigned the DOT code mark number so that Dae Kwang can use this code mark number to mark glazing manufactured for "motor vehicles". "Motor vehicle" is defined in NHTSAs statute as: "a vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power and manufactured primarily for use on public streets, roads and highways "(Title 49 United States Code Section 30102(a)(6)).

2. What is the procedure to be assigned a DOT code for passenger cars and other motor vehicles using the highways?

The answer is that DOT code mark number 660 was assigned so that Dae Kwang could mark glazing that will be used in passenger cars or other motor vehicles using the highways.

Third Question

You state that Dae Kwang manufactures laminated glazing (AS-1) and tempered glazing (AS-2) for your customers. You therefore ask:

1. Does our "DOT code 660" include both items?

The answer is yes. Whenever Dae Kwang manufactures glazing for use in passenger cars or other motor vehicles using the highways, it must mark the glazing with:

1. the glazing type (i.e. , AS-1, AS-2 or whatever the glazing type is),
2. the symbol "DOT," and
3. Dae Kwangs code mark, "660".

These three marks mean that Dae Kwang is certifying that the glazing it manufactures meets NHTSAs requirements for that glazing type (at FMVSS No. 205, Glazing materials (49 CFR 571.205)).

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at this address. Our office fax number is:(202) 366-3820.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:205
d.10/21/04

ID: GF004581

Chris Tinto, Director
Technical & Regulatory Affairs
Toyota Motor North America, Inc.
1850 M Street, NW, Suite 600
Washington, DC 20036

Dear Mr. Tinto:

This responds to your June 25, 2004, letter regarding this agencys Federal motor vehicle theft prevention standard (49 CFR Part 541), as amended by a final rule published on April 6, 2004 (69 FR 17960, Docket 12231; corrected on June 22, 2004 69 FR 34612).

You ask about the amendments made by the April 6, 2004, final rule to the standards parts marking requirements for light duty trucks (LDTs) with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of 6,000 pounds or less. For many years the standard required vehicle manufacturers to mark the major parts (parts listed in 49 CFR 541.5(a)) of "high theft" lines of passenger motor vehicles. (A high theft vehicle had or was likely to have had a theft rate greater than the median theft rate for a specified period for all new vehicles.) On April 6, 2004, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration amended the standard to apply the parts marking requirement to: p assenger cars and Multipurpose Passenger Vehicles (MPVs) with theft rates lower than the median theft rate ("below-median theft rate"); and to LDTs with below-median theft rates that "have a majority of major parts interchangeable with those of" passenger cars and of MPVs with a GVWR of 6,000 pounds or less (49 CFR 541.3(a)(3))

.

You ask three questions concerning the provision about LDTs. We have restated those below, followed by our answers.

Question 1. Is our interpretation correct that parts marking is only required on LDTs if a "majority" of parts listed in [Section] 541.5(a) are interchangeable with passenger cars and/or MPVs? In cases where the LDT does have a "majority" of interchangeable [Section] 541.5(a) parts, all of the parts on the LDT listed in [Section] 541.5(a) are required to be marked, regardless as to whether the parts are one of the interchangeable parts.

Answer: As to the first part of your question, the standard applies to (a) high theft LDTs, and to (b) below-median theft rate LDTs if a majority of parts listed in Section 541.5(a) are interchangeable with passenger cars and/or MPVs. If a below-median theft rate LDT is subject to the standard because of the interchangeability of its major parts, all major parts must be marked, not just the interchangeable ones.

Question 2. Are we correct that LDTs with less than a "majority" of interchangeable [Section] 541.5(a) parts do not have to be parts marked? In other words, if an LDT has only one [Section] 541.5(a) part that is interchangeable with a passenger car or an MPV, then the LDT does not have to be parts marked; not even the one part that is interchangeable.

Answer: Our answer is yes, a below-median theft rate LDT that does not have a majority of major parts interchangeable with a passenger car or an MPV subject to parts marking is not subject to the parts marking requirements of the standard. Using your example, not even the one part has to be marked.

Question 3. What is the meaning of "majority," as used in the context of this rule? Websters dictionary defines "majority" as, "a number greater than half of a total." Based on this definition, Toyota believes a "majority of major parts" means that more than half of the LDTs applicable parts listed in [Section] 541.5(a) have to be interchangeable with either an MPV or a passenger car before the LDT is required to be parts marked. Thus, a manufacturer first has to count how many parts listed in [Section] 541.5(a) are present on the LDT, and would have to determine whether more than 50% of the existing [Section] 541.5(a) parts on the LDT are interchangeable to determine whether parts marking is required on the LDT.

Answer: We agree that, with respect to the requirements at issue, "majority" means a number greater than half of the total. Accordingly, a below-median theft rate LDT is subject to parts marking requirements if greater than one half of the major parts present on that vehicle are interchangeable with major parts of a passenger car or an MPV that is subject to parts marking requirements.

You used an example of an LDT that has a total of 10 parts listed in Section 541.5(a) and stated your understanding that the LDT would have to have at least 6 interchangeable parts with an MPV or passenger car before all 10 of the parts on the LDT are required to be parts marked. Your understanding is correct. You also stated, "If the [LDT] has 5 or less interchangeable parts, none of the ten parts on the [LDT] are required to be marked." That understanding is correct with regard to the LDT in this example with the 10 major parts.

I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Mr. Feygin at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:541
d.7/27/04

ID: 77-1.2

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 01/16/77 EST

FROM: LOWELL K. BRIDWELL -- FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

TO: HAROLD T. HALFPENNY -- AUTOMOTIVE SERVICE INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION

TEXT: Dear Mr. Halfpenny:

This is in reply to your letter of March 14, 1967, seeking clarification as to the effect of the recently issued Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards on theaftermarket repair automotive industry.

In your letter you have expressed the opinion that vehicle parts sold after the effective date of the standard must conform to such standards only when they are for replacement in systems which are required to conform to the standard. You have asked if this opinion is correct and specifically whether any replacement part which does not meet the new standards but which is to be used on prestandard vehicles can still be manufactured and sold.

The answer to your question, as you have correctly noted, requires an examination of section 108(a) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. This section prohibits the manufacture or sale of any". . . item of motor vehicle equipment manufactured on or after the date any applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard takes effect . . . unless it is in conformity with such standard . . ." (emphasis supplied). It should be noted that this provision of the law makes no distinction between systems, parts or components, nor does it distinguish between original equipment manufactured for replacement, improvement, or as an accessory or addition to a motor vehicle. Any such distinctions would depend in each instance upon the terms of the "applicable" standard.

The Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards, 23 CFR 255.21, each contain a paragraph designated S.2 and entitled "Application." This paragraph establishes the coverage of that particular standard by identifying the motor vehicle and/or motor vehicle equipment to which the standard applies. Where the application paragraph refers only to vehicles, the person responsible for compliance is the manufacturer of such motor vehicles. An example of this type coverage is found in Standard No.107- REFLECTING SURFACES, which provides in paragraph S.2: "This standard applies to passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks and buses. "Since this standard does

not apply to motor vehicle equipment, the manufacturers of equipment otherwise referred to in the standard,e.g., windshield wiper blades and arms, have no legal obligation to conform to the standard. This is true notwithstanding the fact that equipment manufacturers will be furnishing such equipment to vehicle manufacturers as original equipment.

Where,however, the application paragraph refers to equipment for use in specified motor vehicles, both the manufacturer of such equipment and the manufacturer of the specified vehicles are responsible for compliance. An example of this type coverage is Standard No. 106 - HYDRAULIC BRAKE HOSES, which provides in paragraph S.2: "This standard applies to hydraulic brake hoses for use in passenger cars and multipurpose passenger equipment." All hydraulic brake hoses manufactured and sold on or after January 1,1968, must conform with this standard whether such brake hoses are manufactured as original equipment or as replacement for either prestandard or poststandard/motor vehicles.

There were six of the twenty Federal motor vehicle safety standards issued on January 31, 1967 (32 F.R. 2408) applicable to both motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment, Standards Nos. 106, 111, 205, 206, 209, and 211. Two of these standards,No. 111 - Rearview Mirrors, and No.206 - Door Latches and Door Supports,were amended on March 29,1967 (32 F.R.5498),to exclude coverage of equipment and are now applicable only to certain specified vehicles. This means that manufacturers of rearview mirrors,door latches and door supports will not be required to comply with these standards. Therefore, only the following four initial Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards are now applicable to motor vehicle equipment:

Standard No. 106 - Hydraulic Brake Hoses -- Passenger Cars and Multipurpose Passenger Vehicles.

Standard No. 205 - Glazing Materials -- Passenger Cars, Multipurpose Passenger Vehicles, Motorcycles, Trucks and Buses.

Standard No. 209 - Seat Belt Assemblies -- Passenger Cars, Multipurpose Passenger Vehicles, Trucks and Buses.

Standard No. 211 - Wheel Nuts, Wheel Discs, and Hub Caps -- Passenger Cars and Multipurpose Passenger Vehicles.

Pursuant to each of the above standards, equipment manufacturers of the specified motor vehicle equipment must manufacture such equipment in conformance with the standard whether it is to be used as original equipment on new vehicles,as a replacement part,an accessory,or an addition to the motor vehicles specified in the standard. None of the above standards exempt from coverage equipment manufactured and sold for replacement or as an accessory to prestandard vehicles.

In summary, your opinion to the effect that motor vehicle parts manufactured and sold "after the effective date of the standard must conform to such

standards when they are forreplacement in systems which are required to conform to the standard, and not otherwise" is incorrect. Your question as to "whether any replacement part which does not meet the new standards but which is to be used on prestandard vehicles can still be manufactured and sold" must be answered in the negative with regard to Standards Nos. 106, 205, 209, 211, for the reasons I have outlined above.

I trust that this response clarifies the issues you have raised in behalf of Automotive Service Industry Association. If I can be of further assistance to you or members of your association, please do not hesitate to call upon me.

Sincerely,

ID: aiam4820

Dear Mr. Mounteer: This responds to your letter on behalf of you client, Heritage Motors, that asked whether Heritage, given the nature of its manufacturing process, must assign its own Vehicle Identification Numbers (VINs). I apologize for the delay in this response. As discussed below, since Heritage considers the vehicles it manufactures to be: (l) 'new' vehicles and (2) manufactured in one stage, it must assign its own VINs to the cars. I note that this letter addresses the vehicles Heritage assembles and not the 'kits' which Heritage also sells. According to your letter, Heritage Motors makes replica Mercedes 500K passenger cars, using 1970-1981 Chevrolet Camaros as donor cars. An information brochure accompanying your letter describes the parts that are removed from the Camaros and then reused in the Mercedes replica. Since Heritage uses a new body, engine, transmission, and many other new or remanufactured parts, you have considered the completed vehicle to be a 'new' motor vehicle. Moreover, Heritage manufactures the vehicles in one stage. Under section S4.l of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. ll5, Vehicle Identification Number--Basic Requirements, each vehicle manufactured in one stage must have a VIN that is assigned by the manufacturer. Heritage must therefore assign its own VIN numbers to the cars it manufactures. I hope this information is helpful. If you have any additional questions, please feel free to contact Ms. Dorothy Nakama of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel;

ID: 10527

Ms. Robin R. Miller
DaRosa and Miller
208 North West Street
P.O. Box 48
Wheaton, IL 60189-0048

Dear Ms. Miller:

This responds to your letter of November 22, 1994, requesting information on what type of occupant protection systems (seat belts and/or air bags) were required in four passenger cars. The passenger cars were manufactured by Excalibur Automobile Corporation (Excalibur) between January 10, 1994, and May 6, 1994.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized under Title 49, Chapter 301 of the U.S. Code to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards that apply to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. Chapter 301 prohibits any person from manufacturing, introducing into commerce, selling, or importing any new motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment unless the vehicle or equipment item is in conformity with all applicable safety standards. NHTSA does not approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, nor do we endorse any commercial products. Instead, the Safety Act establishes a "self-certification" process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards.

One of the standards established by NHTSA, Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection (49 CFR 571.208) requires some type of occupant protection system to be installed at all designated seating positions in all passenger cars. Different installation requirements apply depending on the seating position within the vehicle and the date of manufacture.

For passenger cars manufactured on or after September 1, 1989, but before September 1, 1996, Standard No. 208 requires automatic crash protection at every front outboard seating position. Automatic crash protection systems protect their occupants by means that require no action by vehicle occupants. Compliance with the automatic crash protection requirements of Standard No. 208 is determined in a dynamic crash test. That is, a vehicle must comply with specified injury criteria, as measured on a test dummy, in a 30 mph barrier crash test. The two types of automatic crash protection currently offered are automatic safety belts (which help to assure belt use) and air bags (which supplement safety belts and offer some protection even when safety belts are not used).

In addition, for passenger cars manufactured on or after September 1, 1989, but before September 1, 1996, Standard No. 208 requires Type 2 belts at every forward facing rear outboard designated seating position, and a Type 1 or Type 2 seat belt assembly at every other seating position. Type 2 seat belt assemblies are defined in Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies, as "a combination of pelvic and upper torso restraints." Type 1 seat belt assemblies are defined in Standard No. 209 as "a lap belt for pelvic restraint."

You should be aware that Excalibur has applied for temporary exemption (49 CFR Part 555) from the automatic crash protection requirements of Standard No. 208 which would, if granted, apply to vehicles manufactured on or after the effective date of the exemption. Excalibur has also asked that it apply to those vehicles already manufactured but unsold and in dealer inventory. In addition, the manufacturer has also applied for an exemption from notification and remedy of its noncompliance with the automatic crash protection requirements on the basis that the noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety (49 CFR Part 556). If granted, this would relieve Excalibur of the obligation to notify and remedy the noncompliance in vehicles already manufactured and not covered by the safety exemption petition. Prior to acting upon either of these applications, NHTSA will publish notices in the Federal Register requesting comments.

I hope this information has been helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Mary Versailles of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Philip R. Recht Chief Counsel

ref:208 d:1/5/95

ID: nht87-2.85

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 09/01/87 EST

FROM: NHTSA

TITLE: CONSUMER INFORMATION

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO DECEMBER 19, 1988 LETTER FROM JONES TO REIZES AND APRIL 6, 1988 LETTER FROM REIZES TO STEED

TEXT: AIR BAGS

An air bag is one type of automatic crash protection equipment now available on many new cars. It is a very effective safety device that is built into the steering wheel or dashboard of a car. In a frontal crash, it inflates rapidly to cushion the o ccupant from violent impact with the hard interior surfaces of the car. An air bag should always be used in combination with safety belts to provide the best protection available in all kinds of crashes.

WHAT CAUSES THE AIR BAG TO INFLATE?

In a serious frontal crash -- equivalent to hitting a brick wall at a speed greater than 12 miles per hour -- a crash sensor activates the air bag. Within 1/25 of a second after impact, the bag is inflated to create a protective cushion between the occu pant and the vehicle interior, such as the steering wheel, dashboard and windshield. The air bag inflates and then deflates rapidly.

The sensors are switches which are activated by a crash. They discriminate between impacts intended to inflate the bag (those severe enough to cause injury) and events not intended to inflate the bag (i.e., "fender-benders" in parking lots, or panic stops).

HOW RELIABLE ARE THEY?

All parts of air bag systems are sealed until used and are designed to have an effective operating life exceeding that of the vehicle in which they are installed. Air bags installed in cars ten years ago can still protect in crashes today. Once an air bag has deployed, it must be replaced.

DO AIR BAGS EVER FAIL TO INFLATE IN SERIOUS CRASHES?

A malfunction is very unlikely. Since they were introduced in 1972, air bags have inflated as designed in hundreds of serious frontal crashes.

HOW MUCH WILL AN AIR BAG COST?

The cost will depend on how many are produced. These costs are relatively high now but are expected to drop significantly as more and more cars with air bags are manufactured. Government estimates at high production levels are $ 320 for air bags for bo th the driver and passenger, and $ 220 for driver only systems. New technology could lower these amounts even more.

DO I NEED TO KNOW ANYTHING SPECIAL TO OPERATE A CAR WITH AN AIR BAG IN IT?

No. The car's owner's guide will explain the proper use of the system. The car is also equipped with an indicator that provides the driver with information about the readiness of the air bag. Labels are placed in the car to alert service personnel tha t the car has an air bag. Again, remember to wear a safety belt too so that you are protected in all types of crashes.

HOW CAN I GET AN AIR BAG?

Many manufacturers are planning to offer air bag systems over the next few years.

1987

Acura Legend Coupe BMW L7, 7-Series Ford Tempo, Topaz All Mercedes-Benz Porsche 944 Turbo Volvo 7-Series

1988

Acura BMW Ford Mercedes Porsche Volvo

Olds Delta 88 Chrysler - selected lines Saab 9000

1989

Acura BMW Ford Mercedes Porsche Volvo Delta 88 Chrysler Saab 9000

Nissan - selected lines

Toyota - selected lines

1990

Acura BMW Mercedes Porsche Volvo Chrysler Saab 9000 Nissan Toyota

1 million Fords - selected lines

500 thousand GM cars-selected lines

1991

Acura BMW Ford Mercedes Porsche Volvo Chrysler Saab 9000 Nissan Toyota GM

Subaru - selected lines

1992

Acura BMW Ford Mercedes Porsche Volvo Chrysler Saab 9000 Nissan Toyota Subaru

3 million GM cars - selected lines

ID: nht95-1.13

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: January 5, 1995

FROM: Philip R. Recht -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Ms. Robin R. Miller -- DaRosa and Miller

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: Attached to 11/22/94 letter from Robin R. Miller to Mary Versailles (OCC 10327)

TEXT: Dear Ms. Miller:

This responds to your letter of November 22, 1994, requesting information on what type of occupant protection systems (seat belts and/or air bags) were required in four passenger cars. The passenger cars were manufactured by Excalibur Automobile Corpora tion (Excalibur) between January 10, 1994, and May 6, 1994.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized under Title 49, Chapter 301 of the U.S. Code to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards that apply to the manufacture and sale of new motor ve hicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. Chapter 301 prohibits any person from manufacturing, introducing into commerce, selling, or importing any new motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment unless the vehicle or equipment item is in co nformity with all applicable safety standards. NHTSA does not approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, nor do we endorse any commercial products. Instead, the Safety Act establishes a "self-certification" process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards.

One of the standards established by NHTSA, Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection (49 CFR 571.208) requires some type of occupant protection system to be installed at all designated seating positions in all passenger cars. Different installation req uirements apply depending on the seating position within the vehicle and the date of manufacture.

For passenger cars manufactured on or after September 1, 1989, but before September 1, 1996, Standard No. 208 requires automatic crash protection at every front outboard seating position. Automatic crash protection systems protect their occupants by mea ns that require no action by vehicle occupants. Compliance with the automatic crash protection requirements of Standard No. 208 is determined in a dynamic crash test. That is, a vehicle must comply with specified injury criteria, as measured on a test d ummy, in a 30 mph barrier crash test. The two types of automatic crash protection currently offered are automatic safety belts (which help to assure belt use) and air bags (which supplement safety belts and offer some protection even when safety belts a re not used).

In addition, for passenger cars manufactured on or after September 1, 1989, but before September 1, 1996, Standard No. 208 requires Type 2 belts at every forward facing rear outboard designated seating position, and a Type 1 or Type 2 seat belt assembly at every other seating position. Type 2 seat belt assemblies are defined in Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies, as "a combination of pelvic and upper torso restraints." Type 1 seat belt assemblies are defined in Standard No. 209 as "a lap belt for p elvic restraint."

You should be aware that Excalibur has applied for temporary exemption (49 CFR Part 555) from the automatic crash protection requirements of Standard No. 208 which would, if granted, apply to vehicles manufactured on or after the effective date of the ex emption. Excalibur has also asked that it apply to those vehicles already manufactured but unsold and in dealer inventory. In addition, the manufacturer has also applied for an exemption from notification and remedy of its noncompliance with the automa tic crash protection requirements on the basis that the noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety (49 CFR Part 556). If granted, this would relieve Excalibur of the obligation to notify and remedy the noncompliance in vehicles already man ufactured and not covered by the safety exemption petition. Prior to acting upon either of these applications, NHTSA will publish notices in the Federal Register requesting comments.

I hope this information has been helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Mary Versailles of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely

ID: nht67-1.14

DATE: 05/10/67

FROM: LOWELL K. BRIDWELL -- FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATOR

TO: HAROLD T. HALFPENNY -- LEGAL COUNSEL AUTOMOTIVE SERVICE INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 05/13/87, TO WILLIAM E DANNEMEYER FROM ERIKA Z JONES, REDBOOK A30 (2), STD 211; LETTER DATED 05/08/67 TO EARL K KINTNER, FROM WILLIAM HADDON; LETTER DATED 04/10/87 TO WILLIAM E. DANNEMEYER FROM EDWARD J. BABBITT; LETTER DATED 03/30/87 TO ED BABBITT, FROM WILLIAM E DANNEMEYER; LETTER DATED 11/06/86, TO LARRY THUNDERBIRD AND MUSTANG FROM JOHN H HEINRICH AND J. MICHAEL ZEHNER

TEXT: Dear Mr. Halfpenny:

This is in reply to your letter of March 14, 1967, seeking clarification as to the effect of the recently issued Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards on the aftermarket repair automotive industry.

In your letter you have expressed the opinion that vehicle parts sold after the effective date of the standard must conform to such standards only when they are for replacement in systems which are required to conform to the standard. You have asked if this opinion is correct and specifically whether any replacement part which does not meet the new standards but which is to be used on prestandard vehicles can still be manufactured and sold.

The answer to your question, as you have correctly noted, requires an examination of section 108(a) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. This section prohibits the manufacture or sale of any "item of motor vehicle equipment manufactured on or after the date of any applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard takes effect ... unless it is in conformity with such standard ..." (emphasis supplied). It should be noted that this provision of the law makes no distinction between systems, parts or components, nor does it distinguish between original equipment manufactured for replacement, improvement, or as an accessory or addition to a motor vehicle. Any such distinctions would depend in each instances upon the terms of the "applicable" standard.

The Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards, 23 CFR 255.21, each contain a paragraph designated S.2 and entitled "Application." This paragraph establishes the coverage of that particular standard by identifying the motor vehicle and/or motor vehicle equipment to which the standard applies. Where the application paragraph refers only to vehicles, the person responsible for compliance is the manufacturer of such motor vehicles. As example of this type coverage is found in Standard No. 107 - REFLECTING SURFACES, which provides in paragraph 3.2: "This standard applies to passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks and buses." Since this standard does

not apply to motor vehicle equipment, the manufacturers of equipment otherwise referred to in the standard, e.g., windshield wiper blades and arms, have my legal obligation to conform to the standard. This is true notwithstanding the fact that equipment manufacturers will be furnishing such equipment to vehicle manufacturers as original equipment.

Where, however, the application paragraph refers to equipment for use in specified motor vehicles, both the manufacturer of such equipment and the manufacturer of the specified vehicles are responsible for compliance. An example of this type coverage is Standard No. 106 - HYDRAULIC BRAKE HOSES, which provides in paragraph S.2: "This standard applies to hydraulic brake hoses for use in passenger cars and multipurpose passenger equipment." All hydraulic brake hoses manufactured and sold on or after january 1, 1968, must conform with this standard whether such brake hoses are manufactured as original equipment or as replacement for either prestandard or poststandard motor vehicles.

There were six of the twenty Federal motor vehicle safety standards issued on January 31, 1967 (32 F.R. 2408) applicable to both motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment Standards Nos. 106, 111, 205, 206, 209, and 211. Two of these standards, No. 111 - Rearview Mirrors, and No. 206 - Door Latches and Door Supports, were amended on March 29, 1967 (32 F.R. 5498), to exclude coverage of equipment and are now applicable only to certain specified vehicles. This mean that manufacturers of rearview mirrors, door latches and door supports will not be required to comply with these standards. Therefore, only the following four initial Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards are now applicable to motor vehicle equipment:

Standard No. 106 - Hydraulic Brake Hoses--Passenger Cars and Multipurpose Passenger Vehicles.

Standard No. 205 - Glazing Materials--Passenger Cars, Multipurpose Passenger Vehicles, Motorcycles, Trucks and Buses.

Standard No. 209 - Seat Belt Assemblies--Passenger Cars, Multipurpose Passenger Vehicles, Trucks and Buses.

Standard No. 211 - Wheel Nuts, Wheel Discs, and Hub Caps--Passenger Cars and Multipurpose Passenger Vehicles.

Pursuant to each of the above standards equipment manufacturers of the specified motor vehicle equipment must manufacture such equipment in conformance with the standard whether it is to be used as original equipment on new vehicles, as a replacement part, an accessory, or an addition to the motor vehicles specified in the standard. None of the above standards except from coverage equipment manufactured and sold for replacement or as an accessory to prestandard vehicles.

In summary, your opinion to the effect that motor vehicle parts manufactured and sold "after the effective date of the standard must conform to such

standards when they are for replacement in systems which are required to conform to the standard, and not otherwise" is incorrect. Your question as to "whether any replacement part which does not meet the new standards but which is to be used on prestandard vehicles can still be manufactured and sold" must be answered in the negative with regard to Standards Nos. 106, 205, 209, 211, for the reasons I have outlined above.

I trust that this response clarifies the issues you have raised in behalf of Automotive Service Industry Association. If I can be of further assistance to you or numbers of your association, please do not hesitate to call upon me.

Sincerely,

ID: nht76-1.21

DATE: 12/14/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Universal Imports

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your November 5, 1976, letter concerning antique tires. You have asked whether it is permissible to import 6.70 x 15 tires, an original equipment size on several classic Mercedes-Benz, that are not marked in accordance with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 109, New Pneumatic Tires.

Standard No. 109 applies to "new pneumatic tires for use on passenger cars manufactured after 1948" (S2). The 6.70 x 15 tire size designation appears in Table I-A of Appendix A of the standard. While this tire may have been original equipment on several classic cars, it is also for use on passenger cars manufactured since 1948. As such, it is subject to all the requirements of Standard No. 109. Therefore, a 6.70 x 15 tire that is not marked according to the standard may not be imported into the United States.

SINCERELY,

Universal Imports

Office of Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Association

Attention: Frank Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel

November 5, 1976

LETTER #7998

To date we are still anxiously awaiting reply to our letter No. 7725 dated September 13, regarding the sale of non-D.O.T. marked tires for off-road use. Since that time we have also come across a new problem regarding non-D.O.T. marked tires and this specifically is in regard to antique tires. We have recently had made available to use a line of Dunlop antique tires from their Vintage line. One particular tire, a 670 x 15 is of special interest to us as it is the original equipment size on several classic Mercedes. Regarding this problem, we have the following questions:

1. Can we legally import these tires at all?

2. Is there any provision for bringing in antique tires without D.O.T. marks for use on antique cars that are specifically for show, parades, etc.?

3. If there is no provision regarding the importation and sale of the above tires, what are our requirements as a vendor concerning the sale of these tires from both a retail and wholesale standpoint?

Should you require any additional information or clarification, please contact me at the above address or telephone number. Looking forward to your early reply, we remain

William G. Mathews, III Vice President