ID: nht94-3.86

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: August 3, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA; Stamped signature by Kenneth N. Weinstein

TO: Dean Lakhani -- President, Gem Manufacturing Corp.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 4/27/94 from Dean Lakhani to Office of Chief Counsel (OCC-9927)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Lakhani:

This responds to your letter requesting our "unequivocal opinion on the issue of whether the attachment of a bumper guard to the front bumper of a vehicle will interfere with" an air bag. Your company is a manufacturer of bumper guards. Recently your cu stomers have indicated that auto manufacturers have stated that installation of a bumper guard in front of a bumper will interfere with the air bag and could void the warranty. This letter will address the effect under Federal laws of the installation o f a bumper guard; however, our agency cannot comment on the effect on a manufacturer's warranty.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized under 49 U.S.C. @ 30101 et seq. to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards that apply to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles and ne w items of motor vehicle equipment. Federal law 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, each manufacturer is responsible for "self-certifying" that its products meet all applicable safety s tandards.

NHTSA has exercised its authority to establish Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection (49 CFR @ 571.208). Among other things, Standard No. 208 requires that cars be equipped with automatic crash protection. "Automatic crash protection" means that a vehicle is equipped with occupant restraints that require no action by vehicle occupants. The performance of automatic crash protection is dynamically tested, that is, the automatic systems are required to comply with certain injury reduction criteria as measured by test dummies in a barrier crash test at speeds up to 30 mph. The two types of automatic crash protection currently offered on new passenger cars are automatic safety belts (which help to assure belt use) and air bags (which supplement sa fety

2

belts and offer some protection even when safety belts are not used). A new Federal statutory requirement will make air bags mandatory in all cars and light trucks by the late 1990's.

Standard No. 208 applies to new vehicles; therefore, if a bumper guard is installed before the vehicle's first purchase for purposes other than resale, the vehicle manufacturer would have to certify that the vehicle complied with all applicable standards , including Standard No. 208, with the bumper guard installed.

After the first purchase of a vehicle for purposes other than resale, the only provision in Federal law that affects the vehicle's continuing compliance with an applicable safety standard is set forth in 49 U.S.C. @ 30122. That section provides that:

A manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business may not knowingly make inoperative any part of a device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable motor vehicl e safety standard.

Any violation of this provision would subject the violator to a potential civil penalty of up to $ 1,000 for each violation. This provision would prohibit a commercial business from installing a bumper guard on a vehicle equipped with an air bag in a ma nner that would negatively affect the vehicle's compliance with Standard No. 208 or any other safety standard.

Please note that this provision would apply to a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair business installing your product, and not to your company as the manufacturer of the product. Also note that this provision does not apply to modifications veh icle owners make to their own vehicles. Thus, Federal law would not apply in situations where individual vehicle owners install a bumper guard on their own vehicles, even if the installation were to result in the vehicle no longer complying with the saf ety standards. However, States have the authority to regulate modifications that individual vehicle owners may make to their own vehicles.

You should also note that a bumper guard would be considered "motor vehicle equipment" under Federal law. Therefore, if it contained a defect (either in manufacture, design, or performance) that relates to motor vehicle safety, you would be required to conduct a recall campaign to notify owners and to remedy the defect free of charge.

It is not possible for NHTSA to provide an "unequivocal opinion on the issue of whether the attachment of a bumper guard to the front bumper of a vehicle will interfere with" an air bag. This

3

is because the answer to the question would depend on the designs of the bumper guard, the air bag, and the vehicle as a whole. The discussion which follows illustrates possible problems, identified by our technical staff, which bumper guards could caus e with respect to air bags.

First, a bumper guard attached to the bumper could possibly induce unwarranted air bag deployments if the guard extended vertically below the car bumper. Such a bumper guard could snag on travel surface irregularities, sharp inclines, or sharp incline d eparture angles which might otherwise not engage the vehicle structure. The potential impulsive nature of bumper guard snag might cause air bag deployment to occur at conditions differing from the crash severity for which the original manufacturer desig ned the air bag.

Second, if a bumper guard were attached to the vehicle structure, rather than the bumper, it too could possibly produce deployments that are not intended. Such a system might impose direct loading into the vehicle frame without the energy absorption of t he bumper moderating the impulse experienced by the crash sensor system which is calibrated to measure crash severity.

Third, if a bumper guard were added to the front bumper of a vehicle in such a manner as to change the load path through the bumper to the car structure behind the bumper, it is possible that the crash impulse arriving at the crash sensor location might be altered from that of the original bumper, causing air bag deployment to occur either above or below the original manufacturer's deployment threshold.

We cannot provide an opinion of whether, or under what circumstances, your bumper guard might cause these or other problems. We suggest that you consult with vehicle manufacturers and air bag manufacturers concerning how, and whether, your bumper guard can be installed on air bag-equipped vehicles in a manner that does not create problems.

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

ID: NCC-240821-001 Letter_WMI for Foreign Built Vehicles-Ford-565_Final

September 11, 2024

Ms. Emily Frascaroli 

Ford Motor Company 

330 Town Center Drive 

Dearborn, MI 48126-2738 

Dear Ms. Frascaroli:

This responds to your August 9, 2022 letter asking about the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration’s (NHTSA’s) requirements regarding the characters in vehicle identification numbers (VINs) that identify the manufacturer. These characters are commonly referred to as the World Manufacturer Identifier (WMI). You ask whether Ford Motor Company (Ford) may use one of its U.S.-assigned WMIs in the VINs of vehicles Ford manufacturers outside of the United States for importation into and sale in the United States. The answer is yes. 

For the benefit of the public and to clarify NHTSA’s position on WMI requirements more generally, this letter also rescinds a previous interpretation on a similar issue. In a November 3, 2000 letter to Mr. Karl-Heinz Ziwica of BMW of North America, NHTSA addressed the use of a German-issued WMI in the VIN of a vehicle assembled in the United States. Because we believe the two issues are related, this letter also includes a discussion of that letter and NHTSA’s decision to rescind it. 

In responding to this request, NHTSA notes that the contents of this letter do not have the force and effect of law and are not meant to bind the public in any way. This letter is only intended to provide clarity regarding existing requirements under the law at the time of signature.

Facts Presented 

In your letter, you explain that Ford was evaluating plans to manufacture vehicles in another country (“Country X”) that will be sold in the United States. Your letter states that this manufacturing would be done through a 50/50 joint venture. The vehicles, you state, would be classified as multipurpose passenger vehicles (MPVs) under 49 CFR § 571.3. As you explain, Country X has assigned Ford a WMI for passenger cars and a WMI for light trucks. However, because Country X’s regulations do not recognize the classification of a vehicle as an MPV, you state that it will not assign Ford a WMI for this type of vehicle. Instead, the WMI-issuing authority in Country X has suggested that Ford use the WMI it issued to Ford for “passenger car” types.1 You explain that this solution could complicate VIN assignment in the future if Ford later decides to also manufacture passenger cars in Country X for sale in the United States. Specifically, because NHTSA requires a WMI to uniquely identify both manufacturer and vehicle type, Ford cannot use a single WMI for both MPVs and passenger cars. See 49 CFR§ 565.15(a). To avoid this possible complication, you ask whether Ford may use a U.S.-assigned WMI that identifies Ford as the manufacturer and MPV as the vehicle type for the MPVs manufactured in Country X for the U.S. market. You state that this approach would not obscure that the vehicle was manufactured in Country X because the manufacturing location in Country X will be noted in position eleven (11) of the VIN. 

Background and Relevant Provisions 

The VIN is the cornerstone of NHTSA’s safety defect and standard noncompliance recall program.2 NHTSA’s VIN requirements must ensure effective identification of vehicles and vehicle manufacturers. To this end, NHTSA established a 17-character VIN system, whose requirements are found at 49 CFR Part 565. This system requires manufacturers to assign VINs that meet certain formatting requirements and have certain information encoded into them.
NHTSA also requires manufacturers to submit deciphering information that allows the agency to decode the information in the VINs.3 

NHTSA’s VIN regulation requires that “[e]ach vehicle manufactured in one stage shall have a VIN that is assigned by the manufacturer.”4 For large-volume manufacturers, the first three characters of a VIN serve as the manufacturer identifier, which is commonly referred to as the WMI.5 The manufacturer identifier uniquely identifies the manufacturer and the type of motor vehicle.6 These characters are assigned in accordance with section 565.16(a) of the VIN regulation, which states that NHTSA “has contracted with SAE International to coordinate the assignment of manufacturer identifiers to manufacturers in the United States.” Section 565.16(a), however, does not address the assignment of WMIs to manufacturers located outside of the United States. Instead, those WMIs are typically issued by WMI-issuing entities in the country in which the manufacturer is located.

The WMI system depends on international cooperation, which is facilitated by SAE International and the use of ISO 3780, an international standard that sets forth general specifications for WMIs and explains how the issuance of WMIs will be coordinated at the international level. This international cooperation is necessary to ensure that two countries do not issue the same WMI. In addition to serving as NHTSA’s contractor for the purpose of issuing WMIs to U.S. manufacturers, SAE International also coordinates WMIs on an international level, by

1 According to your letter, the vehicles at issue would be considered “passenger cars” in Country X.
2 Final rule amending NHTSA’s VIN requirements, 44 FR 17489, 17490 (Mar. 22, 1979).
3 See 49 CFR § 565.16(c).
4 49 CFR § 565.13(a).
5 If the manufacturer is a low-volume manufacturer, the manufacturer identifier is six characters. 49 CFR § 565.15(a).
6 See 49 CFR § 565.15(a).

coordinating the assignment of ranges of WMIs to countries, as well as by keeping a repository of assigned WMIs. Ranges of WMIs are assigned based on the first and second characters of a WMI, with the first character generally identifying a particular geographic area, and the second character identifying a particular country within the geographic area (e.g., a WMI with the first character of S through Z indicates Europe, and WMIs beginning with ZA to ZU are assigned to Italy). The WMI-issuing authorities in each country then assign WMIs to individual manufacturers. 

Discussion

Your situation presents a new issue for NHTSA to consider. To respond to your request, we will address two issues: (1) whether Ford is the manufacturer of the vehicles at issue for the purposes of being identified by the WMI in the VIN of the vehicles at issue; and (2) whether NHTSA requires the WMI to indicate the country of manufacture, either by being issued in the country of manufacture or by otherwise identifying the country of manufacture. 

Manufacturer Identified by the WMI 

We will first consider whether Ford may be identified as the manufacturer of the vehicles produced by the 50/50 joint venture in Country X, or whether the company that actually builds the vehicles must be identified as the manufacturer in the WMI. Although your letter did not ask this question, it is a threshold question for your inquiry. One of the key requirements for the WMI, found at section 565.15(a) of the VIN regulation, is that it must uniquely identify the manufacturer. Therefore, we will first address whether one of Ford’s WMIs may be used in the VINs of the subject vehicles. While Ford may not be the assembler of the vehicles,7 NHTSA believes that the 50/50 joint venture may still allow Ford to “control” production of the vehicles sufficiently to be designated as the manufacturer for WMI purposes.8 

For purposes of assigning VINs, NHTSA interprets the requirement for the WMI to identify the manufacturer to mean that the WMI must identify the manufacturer that certifies the vehicle under 49 CFR Part 567, NHTSA’s certification regulation. The VIN’s primary purpose is to facilitate the identification of vehicles and the manufacturers responsible for those vehicles. Therefore, it would be inconsistent to allow different entities to be identified on the certification 

7 As Ford explained, the vehicles will be manufactured by the 50/50 joint venture.
8 Additionally, Ford could not be considered the “manufacturer” for WMI purposes based on its being the vehicle’s importer because 49 CFR § 565.14(a) states that importers must use the VIN “assigned by the original manufacturer of the motor vehicle.” Accordingly, even though 49 CFR § 565.12(b) defines a manufacturer as including a person “importing motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment for resale,” consistent with the Safety Act’s definition of “manufacturer” at 49 U.S.C. § 30102(a)(6), NHTSA does not consider importers to be manufacturers for purposes of VIN assignment. Rather, NHTSA only considers entities that are “manufacturing or assembling motor vehicles,” id. § 30102(a)(6)(A), to be manufacturers for purposes of the WMI.

label and in the VIN.9 This reading is consistent with ISO 3780,10 and with a past NHTSA interpretation in which Volkswagen asked which WMI should be used when vehicle assembly is carried out by one company on behalf of another.11 In that interpretation, NHTSA stated that the WMI of the company under whose authority the assembly is carried out and which maintains responsibility for the vehicle’s compliance with safety standards should be used.12 NHTSA continues to believe this is the most appropriate reading of the regulation. 

The next question is which manufacturer in a joint venture would certify the vehicle, which would also determine which manufacturer’s WMI should be used in the VIN. Typically, under 49 CFR § 567, the name of the actual assembler must appear on the certification label. This requirement reflects that the purpose of the manufacturer’s designation in the certification regulations is to identify the entity that has “primary technical responsibility for conformity of the design and quality control of the assembly.”13 

However, NHTSA also explicitly permits other entities to assume responsibility for motor vehicles’ compliance and to make certifications to that effect. Accordingly, if a vehicle is assembled by a corporation that is controlled by another corporation that assumes responsibility for conformity with the standards, the name of that controlling corporation may be used on the certification label.14 

In a 1981 letter to Paccar Inc. (Paccar), NHTSA considered how this certification standard would apply where an entity owned a partial percent interest in a motor vehicle assembler.15 We believe the analysis in that letter is relevant to determining whether Ford is in “control” of the assembler of the vehicles at issue. In the Paccar letter, NHTSA concluded that Paccar could be identified as the manufacturer on the certification label for vehicles assembled by Kenworth Mexicana, a Mexican affiliate. NHTSA observed that even though Paccar owned only a 49

9 We note that for vehicles built in more than one stage, the VIN must be assigned by the incomplete vehicle manufacturer and the incomplete vehicle manufacturer, any intermediate vehicle manufacturers, and the final stage manufacturer each have certification responsibilities.
10 In its 2008 final rule amending its VIN regulations, NHTSA stated that when issuing identifiers to U.S. manufacturers, SAE also ensures that the identifiers comply with the specifications in ISO Standard 3780. See 73 FR 23367, 23369 (Apr. 30, 2008). In specifying requirements for WMIs, ISO 3780:2009 references the definition of “manufacturer” found in ISO Standard 3779. Section 3.5 of ISO Standard 3779:2009 in turn defines manufacturer as the “person, firm, or corporation that issues the certificate of conformity or that demonstrates compliance and assumes product liability for a vehicle ready for operation, independent of the location of the assembly plant.”
11 See Letter to Volkswagen of America Inc. (November 20, 1978), available at https://www.nhtsa.gov/interpretations/aiam2885.
12 While this 1978 interpretation has been superseded in part, NHTSA has not reconsidered its conclusion that the WMI should identify the certifying manufacturer.
13 See Letter to Kawasaki Motors Corporation (August 15, 1969), available at https://www.nhtsa.gov/interpretations/nht69-228.
14 See 49 CFR § 567.4(g)(1)(i). As NHTSA explained in its 1969 final rule on Part 567, this exception was adopted in recognition of the fact that, “particularly in some foreign countries, assembly of a vehicle may be performed by a subsidiary corporation controlled by a parent that is the generally known ‘nameplate company.’” The agency determined that in such a situation, “no important purpose is served by requiring the name of a lesser-known subsidiary corporation on the label.” 34 FR 11360 (Jul. 9, 1969).
15 The letter is available at https://www.nhtsa.gov/interpretations/nht81-326.

percent interest in Kenworth Mexicana, it was responsible for the design of the vehicles produced in Mexico and exercised control over all matters relating to their compliance with safety standards. In this circumstance, the letter concluded that Paccar’s name could appear on the certification label and noted that allowing Paccar to be identified as the manufacturer was consistent with the reasons the agency had adopted the controlling corporation exception to the requirement that the vehicle assembler’s name must appear on the certification label.16 

The reasoning in the Paccar letter applies to joint ventures as well. We believe that the ownership interest and the entity’s involvement in the vehicles’ design, production, and compliance—not the particular corporate structure—are the most relevant factors for determining “control.” Accordingly, we conclude that a partner owning 50 percent of a joint venture that is also responsible for a vehicle’s design and exercises control over all matters relating to its compliance with safety standards may be identified as the manufacturer for purposes of Part 567. Therefore, if Ford meets these requirements, Ford may be identified as the manufacturer on the certification labels of the subject vehicles even though Ford is not the actual assembler of the vehicles. Moreover, if Ford is the manufacturer on the certification labels, then Ford may also be the manufacturer for purposes of the VIN’s WMI. 

Thus, based on the facts presented, and assuming that Ford would be permitted to certify the vehicles pursuant to Part 567, NHTSA would conclude that the vehicles produced through Ford’s joint venture in Country X may have VINs that are assigned by Ford and contain a WMI assigned to Ford. 

Country of Manufacture 

The second part of the analysis considers whether the WMI must indicate the country of manufacture either by (1) being issued by the country in which the vehicle was manufactured or (2) otherwise identifying the country of manufacture. We find that the answer is no: Part 565 does not require this.

NHTSA’s VIN regulation is silent as to whether the WMI must indicate the country of manufacture. Since NHTSA regulations do not prohibit the use of a U.S.-assigned WMI in VINs of vehicles manufactured in Country X for sale in the United States, such practice is permissible under the circumstances described in this letter.17

16 Relatedly, other NHTSA interpretations have held that vehicles manufactured under contract may not be certified by the entity that assumes responsibility for the compliance of those vehicles unless that entity has an ownership interest in the assembler. See Letter to Howard A. Silverman (November 11, 2000), available at https://www.nhtsa.gov/interpretations/gm3crs; Letter to Mr. Larry Smith (January 15, 2002), available at https://www.nhtsa.gov/interpretations/londontaxi2.
17 We also note that in the 2008 final rule that amended Part 565, we stated that, to comply with ISO 3780, the first three digits of a VIN “must also indicate the country in which the vehicle was manufactured.” 73 FR 23367, 23369 (Apr. 30, 2008). However, ISO 3780 has always specified that WMIs are assigned by the WMI-issuing entity in the country in which the manufacturer is headquartered, not that WMIs must indicate the country in which the vehicle was manufactured. Similarly, the BMW interpretation letter discussed below, which we are now rescinding, indicated in a footnote that German-issued WMIs did not conform to SAE’s WMI format for U.S.-manufactured

Based on the information you provided, and assuming that Ford would be permitted to certify the vehicles and in fact does so, NHTSA’s regulations would not prohibit Ford from using one of its U.S.-assigned WMIs for vehicles produced in Country X through Ford’s 50/50 joint venture.
However, as explained above, if Ford did not certify the vehicles, NHTSA would not consider it appropriate for a Ford WMI to be used. 

Further, while NHTSA still believes that knowing the vehicle’s location of manufacture is important for NHTSA’s enforcement purposes, the WMI alone is not necessary to serve this function. NHTSA requires manufacturers to code information about plant of manufacture into position 11 of the VIN, thus providing more detailed information about where the vehicle was produced.18 

BMW Interpretation 

As mentioned above, your letter presented a new issue to consider. However, in considering that issue, we identified prior guidance that now requires updating. In an interpretation dated November 3, 2000, that we issued to Mr. Karl-Heinz Ziwica of BMW of North America, we addressed the use of a German-issued WMI on a motor vehicle assembled in the United States. BMW had been using German-issued WMIs on vehicles manufactured at its plant in Greer, South Carolina. We concluded that the VINs of vehicles produced at the Greer plant must bear WMIs assigned or approved by NHTSA or its contractor. We now rescind that interpretation to ensure consistent guidance. 

The BMW letter relied on an earlier version of what is now section 565.16(a) of the VIN regulation. The previous version was found at 49 CFR § 565.7(a) and was similar though not identical to the current rule. The BMW letter interpreted the provision then-section 565.7(a) as requiring the vehicles at issue, which had been manufactured in the United States, to have VINs with WMIs that had been assigned or approved by NHTSA. However, Part 565 was subsequently updated in 2008. The updated, recodified version of what is now section 565.16(a) clarified that the provision simply provides an explanation of a process and does not itself create any substantive requirements. The rule does not provide that NHTSA must assign or approve WMIs; rather, it simply observes that NHTSA contracts with SAE to assign WMIs. 

If we were to consider BMW’s request today, we would find that there is no requirement in Part 565 that prohibits the use of non-U.S. WMIs on vehicles produced in the United States. As discussed above, the WMI must uniquely identify the certifying manufacturer and the vehicle type. Kraftfahrt Bundesamt is the WMI-issuing authority for Germany and fulfills a similar role 

vehicles because the WMIs in the subject VINs did not fall within the range that would indicate that the WMI had been assigned by the United States. See Letter to Mr. Karl-Heinz Ziwica (November 3, 2000), available at https://www.nhtsa.gov/interpretations/21915drn. With this interpretation and the rescission of the BMW letter, NHTSA’s requirements for WMIs will be more consistent with ISO 3780. Nonetheless, we also note that NHTSA’s requirements are still not in complete alignment with ISO 3780 because NHTSA does not require WMIs to be issued in the country in which the manufacturer is headquartered.
18 49 CFR § 565.15(d)(2).

to the one SAE International fulfills under its contract with NHTSA to assign WMIs to U.S. manufacturers. Because NHTSA does not require vehicles manufactured in the United States to have VINs that include a U.S.-assigned WMI, NHTSA now concludes that it would be permissible for BMW to use German-issued WMIs on vehicles produced in the United States by a BMW subsidiary that are certified by the BMW parent company headquartered in Germany. 

Conclusion 

As discussed above, NHTSA’s regulations do not prohibit the use of a U.S.-issued WMI in the VINs of vehicles manufactured outside of the United States for importation into and sale in the United States. Accordingly, assuming Ford may be identified as the manufacturer on the certification labels of the subject vehicles manufactured in Country X, we believe it would be permissible for Ford’s U.S.-issued WMI for MPVs to be incorporated into the VINs affixed to those vehicles. Moreover, with the rescission of the BMW interpretation and the issuance of this interpretation, we now conclude that vehicles manufactured in the United States that are certified by controlling companies may have VINs that incorporate the controlling company’s WMI, regardless of whether the controlling company has a U.S.-issued WMI. 

NHTSA would like to note, however, that there are still restrictions on who can be identified as the manufacturer in the WMI. As explained above, the WMI must identify the certifying manufacturer. Additionally, out of concern for the dwindling supply of WMIs, NHTSA will direct its contractor not to issue new U.S. WMIs specifically for vehicles produced outside of the United States, even when the manufacturer is a U.S-headquartered company.19 That is, manufacturers that are headquartered in the United States may use existing WMIs on vehicles they produce in other countries, but they will not be able to obtain new WMIs for that purpose.20 Because Ford is headquartered in the U.S. and has been issued U.S. WMIs, NHTSA regulation would not prohibit Ford from using its U.S.-issued WMIs on vehicles it manufactures in Country X for sale in the United States. 

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

Sincerely,
ADAM RAVIV
Adam Raviv Chief Counsel

Dated: 9/11/24
Ref: Part 565

19 This decision to deviate from ISO 3780, which specifies that WMIs are issued by the WMI-issuing authority in the country in which it is headquartered, ensures that U.S. WMIs are not issued to entities lacking a substantial presence in the United States.
20 When requesting a new U.S. WMI for a particular vehicle type, manufacturers will need to provide information substantiating that they will be producing that vehicle type in the United States.

ID: 23085.ztv

Paul Jackson Rice, Esq.
Arent Fox Kintner Plotkin & Kahn, PLLC
1050 Connecticut Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20036-5339





Re: Request for Interpretation





Dear Mr. Rice:

This is in reply to your letter of May 2, 2001, requesting an interpretation on behalf of your client, Feel Good Cars Inc. (FGC) of Ontario. Specifically, you would like to know whether "under Federal law and applicable NHTSA regulations the FGC Renault Dauphine would be considered a restored antique vehicle excepted under 49 U.S.C. Sec. 30112(b)(9) or a newly manufactured vehicle subject to current applicable motor vehicle safety standards."

To assist us in our reply, you enclosed a copy of a "Recommendation Report" prepared for FGC and titled "Restoration and Conversion of Renault Dauphines to the Optional 1959-1961 'Henney' Electric Propulsion Package" (the Report) dated December 4, 2000, and a copy of a letter from Transport Canada dated March 20, 2001, advising that the FGC vehicle would be an "antique vehicle" under Canadian law, and therefore outside the Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Canada).

We have no definition of "restored antique vehicle." Section 30112(b)(9), which you cite, allows importation of "a motor vehicle that is at least 25 years old" without the need to conform the vehicle to the Federal motor vehicle safety standards that may have applied to it as of the date of its manufacture. Thus, the issue is whether we can regard the FGC Renault Dauphine as a motor vehicle that is more than 25 years old.

I am enclosing a copy of our letter of September 29, 1999, to John Harland of HarLand Rover Restorations. Mr. Harland described the modifications he made to Land Rovers as "restorations." We defined a restored vehicle as one that has been returned to its "former, original, normal, or unimpaired condition." We concluded that Mr. Harland's operations were sufficiently extensive that he was not a restorer but a "manufacturer" of motor vehicles, and that "the extent of disassembly of the original vehicle, the substitution of equipment not used in the original vehicle such as the engine and frame, and reassembly with certain items of new equipment" resulted in a new vehicle, one that could not be regarded as 25 years or older.

Similarly, given the overall operations being conducted by Feel Good Cars, including but not limited to the extent of disassembly of the original vehicle, the substitution of a new and different type of power plant, and reassembly with certain items of new equipment, we do not regard these cars as 25 years or older.

You may also wish to call your client's attention to the possibility of obtaining a temporary exemption for its low-emission motor vehicle (49 CFR 555.6(b)).

If you have any questions, you may call Taylor Vinson (202-366-5263).

Sincerely,

John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel

ref:571
d.8/23/01

ID: aiam4453

"Dear Mr. Osborn: This is in reply to your letter of December 11, 1987 to the Office of Vehicle Safety Standards of this agency in which you request a 'list of vehicles which have been determined by NHTSA to be excluded as motor vehicles.' The agency does not maintain a list of this nature. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act defines a 'motor vehicle' as a vehicle, with or without motive power, manufactured primarily for use on the public streets, roads, and highways. This category includes vehicles capable of off-road use but which are nevertheless generally licensed for use on the public roads. Over the years, NHTSA has provided interpretations that the following types of vehicles are not 'motor vehicles': single seat racing cars, stock cars modified to the point that they are no longer licensable for use on the public roads, all-terrain vehicles, racing motorcycles and off-road motorcycles that are trailered over the public roads, golf carts, in-plant vehicles lacking doors and lighting devices, airport crash and rescue vehicles, and shuttle buses, snowmobiles, mobile homes, farm tractors, farm trailers whose use of the public roads is limited to crossing from one field to another, and trailers like mobile compressors which spend lengthy periods of time at an off road worksite and only infrequently travel by road to a new worksite. In addition, the agency does not consider construction cranes to be 'motor vehicles'. Finally, vehicles manufactured pursuant to military contracts, while 'motor vehicles', are nevertheless exempted from compliance with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. If you have any further questions we shall be happy to answer them, as well as furnish whatever other assistance you may require in formulating your Customs procedures. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel";

ID: aiam0109

Dear Mr. Gershon: This is in response to your letter of August 27 and your cable o September 5.; You have written me with respect to the possibility of crash-testing a Aston Martin with weight added to the 6 cylinder engine so as to approximate the weight of a V8 engine which you may introduce in the future.; I am puzzled by your opening statement 'We are arranging . . . to cras one of our DBS cars . . . on your instructions and as we previously agreed to do . . ..' A review of the correspondence between the Federal Highway Administration/National Highway Safety Bureau and Aston Martin Lagonda does not disclose either our instructing you, or you (sic) agreeing, to crash test any motor vehicle. Generally, this correspondence has concerned the limited production vehicle problem and Public Law 90-283.; Since the demonstration procedure set forth in certain of the standard involves a crash test, an actual crash test seems the best way for a manufacturer to verify conformance with these standards. The standards, however, do not *per se* require a crash test, and 23 C.F.R. S255.11 specifically states that 'As approved equivalent may be substituted for any required destructive demonstration procedure.'; With respect to your planned test for September 13, our engineers d not view the 40 pound weight differential as significant, and, assuming no further modifications to the DBS, crash testing a 6 or a V8 simulation would be sufficient to demonstrate compliance for the current 6 or projected V8 model.; I understand your concern with the 'thought of having to smash car every time there is a change in specification', but you will have to face this issue every time a new Federal standard appears with a crash demonstration procedures (sic). You may not know of newly issued Standard No. 212 (Windshield Mounting - Passenger Cars), requiring a barrier collision test, and I enclose a copy for your information.; Sincerely, Robert M. O'Mahoney, Assistant Chief Counsel for Regulations

ID: aiam3590

Dear Mr. Braden: This responds to your recent letter requesting information concernin the type of seat belts which must be used in the driver and passenger seats of a Ford van F150. Your company is apparently converting these vehicles by adding 'plush' seats and a rear sofa.; Paragraph S4.2.2 of Safety Standard No. 208, *Occupant Cras Protection*, (49 CFR Part 571) specifies that trucks with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less shall meet the same requirements of the standard that are specified for passenger cars. This would include the Ford van to which you refer. Paragraph S4.1.2.3 of the standard specifies that passenger cars must be equipped with a Type 2 seat belt assembly (non-detachable lap and shoulder belt) at each front outboard designated seating position. At all other seating positions, either a Type 1 belt assembly (lap belt only) or a Type 2 assembly must be used. Therefore, the vans that you are converting must have Type 2 belts in the two front seating positions and must have either Type 2 or Type 1 belts in the rear seating positions. The only exception to this requirement is that a forward control van manufactured prior to September 1, 1981, was permitted to have either Type 1 or Type 2 belts in front outboard seating positions. I gather from your letter that the vans you are converting were manufactured after that date and would not qualify under this exception.; You should also note that the sofa you are installing in the rear o the van would likely qualify as having three designated seating positions and would have to have three sets of seat belts (Type 1/lap belts). I assume the sofa has three seating positions since your letter states the van is a 7-passenger vehicle.; Please contact Hugh Oates of my staff if you have any furthe questions.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam1407

Dear Mr. O'Sullivan: This is in reply to your letter of January 30, 1974, concerning th application of the Federal odometer law to certain automobile (sic) operated by the Kansas State Department of Education. The cars in question are equipped with special odometers whose use normally requires the disconnection of the original equipment odometers.; The question posed by the Department of Education is whether thi practice violates the Federal law and whether the Department must keep the special odometer in the car when selling it. Our reply is that the Department is not violating the Federal law, and that while it must make certain disclosures when it sells the cars, it need not leave the special odometers installed.; Sections 404 and 405 of the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Saving Act (15 U.S.C. 1981) (sic) make it unlawful for a person to disconnect an odometer with the intent to change the number of miles it indicates (section 404) and for a person with the intent to defraud to operate a vehicle with an inoperative odometer (section 405).; With respect to section 404, it does not appear that the Departmen will be changing the indicated mileage. With respect to section 405, it is apparent that the Department has no fraudulent intent in operating the vehicles with the standard odometers disconnected. We therefore find that the Department's practice does not violate the odometer law and may be continued.; We suggest that in executing the disclosure statement required b Section 408 of the Act, the Department should indicate that the indicated mileage is in error. Although section 408 does not require disclosure of the true mileage, we regard full disclosure to be in the public interest and therefore recommend that the Department also include the true mileage on the disclosure statement. By doing this, it will avoid any appearance of deceptive intent.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel

ID: aiam0592

Dear Berkley: This is in response to the petition for rulemaking that you filed o behalf of manufacturers of ambulances and funeral coaches, requesting that they be given relief from some of the motor vehicle safety standards applicable to passenger cars, either by reclassification or otherwise.; You have pointed out the difficulties that ambulance and funeral coac manufacturers face in meeting the Exterior Protection standard, in light of the heavy weight of the vehicles and the necessary alterations of their rear ends for functional purposes. You noted that the Roof Crush Resistance standard will be difficult to meet because of the functional roof configuration of these vehicles, and that other passenger-car standards may cause similar problems in the future.; You also described the ways in which the chassis of these vehicles ar generally strengthened to bear their weight and perform their functions. The result of these alterations is such that these chassis, although they are produced by passenger car divisions of automobile manufacturers, are not passenger car chassis in the usual sense of the word.; A 'multipurpose passenger vehicle' is described in 49 CFR S 571.3 as ' motor vehicle with motive power, except a trailer, designed to carry 10 persons or less which is constructed either on a truck chassis or with special features for occasional off-road operation.' It has been determined that the policy considerations that led to the placing of vehicles with truck chassis into a category separate from passenger cars apply equally to ambulances and funeral coaches, and that the chassis used for these vehicles may reasonably be considered truck chassis for the purposes of this classification.; Please be advised, therefore, that the NHTSA will consider vehicle designed and manufactured for use as ambulances or funeral coaches to be multipurpose passenger vehicles, as defined in, and with respect to the application of, the motor vehicle safety standards and regulations.; Sincerely, Douglas W. Toms, Administrator

ID: nht87-1.70

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/27/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; SIGNATURE UNAVAILABLE; NHTSA

TO: Mr. James E. Campbell

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. James C. Campbell 2719 So. 29th Street Ft. Pierce, FL 33450

Dear Mr. Campbell:

This is in reply to your letter of December 17, 1986, in which you have asked the following question:

"If someone has a patent on an invention, as in the case of the turn signals, and you at the N.H.T.S.A. make it mandatory that all cars be equipped with that feature, does the inventor retain the marketing rights to that invention, or does he lose those rights once it becomes mandatory?"

The answer to your question is that rights given under a patent issued by the United States Patent Office cannot be divested by the actions of a governmental agency such as the N.H.T.S.A. Were we to require that a patented item of equipment be standard o n all passenger cars, the patent holder would retain all rights. However, it is important that you understand that the agency does not mandate the adoption of equipment of a proprietary nature. By law, the Federal motor vehicle safety standards are defin ed as minimum standards for motor vehicle performance; to the extent practicable the standards specify performance requirements to be met (e.g., no more than 5 ounces of fuel spillage in the first 5 minutes following a 30 mph frontal barrier collision), leaving the design solution to the manufacturer who may incorporate proprietary components if he chooses.

The performance requirements of our standards vary in their degree of specificity. In some instances the agency has had to develop fairly specific requirements to ensure uniformity and interchangeability of replacement equipment items such as brake hoses , tires, and lighting equipment. This can increase the likelihood of the incorporation of proprietary elements. Many of the changes which are made to the standards are made in response to petitions from manufacturers of motor vehicles or motor vehicle eq uipment. This is especially true in the area of motor vehicle lighting which is covered by Standard No. instances, a petitioner may request a change which incorporates specifications which are covered by a patent. In these cases, the agency endeavors to insure that the technology is made available on a non-exclusive royalty-free basis to all who wish to use it before amending the standard.

I hope that this answers your question.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Sir or Madam;

If someone has a patent on an invention, in the case of the turn signals, and you at the N.H.T.S.A make it mandatory that all cars be equipped with that feature, does the inventor retain the marketing rights to than invention, or does he lose those right s once it becomes mandatory?

Sincerely;

James E. Campbell

ID: 2863yy

Mr. Louis F. Wilson
Instant Traffic Lights
2580 W. Venice Boulevard
Los Angeles, CA 90019

Dear Mr. Wilson:

This is in reply to your letter of February 20, 1991, with respect to the acceptability under Federal law of your product, the "Instant Traffic Light. I regret that we do not appear to have a record of your earlier letters to the agency on this subject.

The "Instant Traffic Light" is a four-section unit intended to perform three functions, each indicated by a different color. A green light appears when the accelerator is applied, an amber light when the accelerator is released, and a red light when the brakes are applied. The lamp's shipping carton shows the unit mounted on the rear parcel shelf behind the rear window. The text on the carton says that the lamp is easy to assemble. You have asked whether the product meets Standard No. l08, whether it would be "legal" in the U.S. "and her territories", and whether the product could replace, or be an option to, the requirements of Standard No. 108 for the center high-mounted stop lamp. Finally, of the l6 States that have responded to your inquiry, an equal number (six) have indicated that the lamp is and is not acceptable to them, while the remaining four "said they will follow the Federal requirement."

Standard No. l08 does not permit the center high-mounted stop lamp to be combined with any other lamp. This means that your product could not be used as original equipment on a passenger car, whether as standard equipment or as an option, or marketed and sold as replacement equipment for a center lamp on a passenger car that was originally equipped with it. However, Standard No. l08 does not apply to the "Instant Traffic Light" if it is marketed or sold exclusively for use on passenger cars that were not originally required to be manufactured with the center stop lamp, i.e., those cars that were manufactured before September 1, l985. Under this circumstance, the question of the legality of use of the device is to be determined by the laws of the individual States. The "territories" are "States" for purposes of this discussion. Since there is no legal prohibition under Federal law for installation of your lamp only on older passenger cars, we presume that the four States that reserved their decision would permit it on pre - l985 vehicles registered and/or operating within their borders.

We are aware that, nevertheless, there may be some owner interest in replacing original equipment center stop lamps with your product. We would like to advise that such replacement would be a violation of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, if performed by a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business. There is no such restriction upon a vehicle owner who performs the replacement of the lamp himself.

I hope that this responds to your questions.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

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