ID: MIClet.2.wpd

Kathy R. Van Kleeck
Vice President, Government Relations
Motorcycle Industry Council
1235 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 600
Arlington, VA 22202-3261

Dear Ms. Van Kleeck:

This responds to your letter concerning the receipt by some of your off-road vehicle manufacturer members of notices from the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE), issued at the request of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), rescinding erroneously issued World Manufacturer Identifiers (WMIs). You requested continued availability of WMIs for your members. You stated that they face serious dilemmas from the withdrawal of WMIs, since many States impose reporting requirements on off-road vehicle manufacturers, including ones for vehicle identification numbers (VINs) that comply with NHTSAs regulations. You also stated that newly issued EPA exhaust emissions regulations for recreational vehicles call for motorcycles and ATVs to be marked with a unique identification number, and that members with WMIs would like to use them for this purpose.

Subsequently, you and other Motorcycle Industry Council (MIC) staff and members met with NHTSA officials on March 13, 2003 to discuss this issue in further detail. Our response is set forth below.

As you are aware, NHTSA regulates "motor vehicles." That term is defined by statute as "a vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power and manufactured primarily for use on public streets, roads, and highways, but does not include a vehicle operated only on a rail line." 49 U.S.C. 30102(a)(6). NHTSA does not regulate vehicles manufactured primarily for off-road use (e.g., ATVs, snowmobiles, dirt bikes). Instead, the Consumer Products Safety Commission (CPSC) has jurisdiction over the safety of such vehicles.

Our regulation governing VIN requirements, 49 CFR Part 565, is limited in applicability to motor vehicles. The regulation defines the term "VIN" as "a series of Arabic numbers and Roman letters that is assigned to a motor vehicle for identification purposes." 49 CFR 565.3(o) (emphasis added).

In implementing Part 565, NHTSA contracts with the SAE to generate and assign WMIs, that are required under the VIN regulation, to motor vehicle manufacturers. The SAE is the designated U.S. organization representing the International Standards Organization (ISO) for vehicle-related identification matters.

Approximately six months ago, NHTSAs Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance (OVSC) discovered that the SAE had been issuing WMIs to companies that were not manufacturers of motor vehicles but instead manufacturers of off-road vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, such as motorcycle frames, etc. Because these manufacturers are not motor vehicle manufacturers, they were not eligible to be issued Part 565 WMIs.

This has created a number of problems. Under the existing, ISO-compatible system, there is only a finite and rapidly diminishing number of WMIs available for assignment to motor vehicle manufacturers producing 500 or more vehicles per year. Our current count shows only 604 WMIs available for assignment, and these could be exhausted within the next several years, if current trends continue.

We have also discovered errors in agency data, in which information about off-road vehicles has become improperly comingled with information about motor vehicles. Inclusion of off-road data in on-road statistics could distort the relative importance of vehicle safety problems. Correction of such errors consumes staff time and limited agency resources.

In light of the above, OVSC directed SAE to cease issuing new WMIs to off-road vehicle manufacturers and to begin to rescind the WMIs erroneously issued to off-road vehicle manufacturers and off-road vehicle equipment manufacturers, as those errors were discovered. OVSC took this action to assure the proper functioning of the VIN system for its intended purpose.

After reviewing your letter and meeting with you, we appreciate the situation that off-road vehicle manufacturers face in complying with State requirements We also recognize that the concept of unique vehicle identification numbers is one that crosses State lines and also has international implications. We are aware of several State law provisions which require reporting of a "vehicle identification number" for off-road vehicles. Moreover, we understand from you that while State regulations generally do not reference Part 565, some States are insisting on VINs that comply with that regulation, and in some cases, manufacturers who do not have such VINs have been fined.

While we wish to be cooperative in helping to resolve this problem, NHTSA is not in a position to regulate or coordinate WMIs and VINs for off-road vehicles, since these vehicles are outside our jurisdiction. Your primary concern appears to be with State laws, and we encourage you to work with State officials. We also suggest that you consult with EPA, given your concerns about the newly-issued exhaust emissions regulations. We note that, as we discussed in our meeting, SAE may be able to provide assistance in developing an ISO-compatible system for the generation and assignment of alternate WMIs to off-road vehicle manufacturers. (A package of materials related to ISO standards in this area is enclosed.) Obviously, any system for developing WMIs and VINs for off-road vehicles should be designed so that it does not cause confusion with Part 565 WMIs and VINs.

To provide time for MIC to resolve these issues, we will instruct the SAE to stay the rescission of WMIs previously issued to off-road vehicle manufacturers until January 1, 2005. This should provide sufficient time for the off-road manufacturer community to coordinate with appropriate State officials, and, as necessary, develop a new system for WMIs issued to off-road vehicle manufacturers. However, we will also instruct SAE not to issue any new Part 565 WMIs to off-road vehicle manufacturers, so as to not exacerbate the existing problem.

We are sending a copy of this letter to the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators to alert it to this issue. We are also sending copies to the California Air Resources Board (CARB), CPSC, and EPA.

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

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

Enclosure
ref:565
d.5/21/03

ID: nht76-2.40

DATE: 10/22/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; C. A. Baker for E. T. Driver; NHTSA

TO: ACUTEK

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of October 13, 1976, to Mr. Lewis C. Owen, Safety Standards Engineer, concerning an interpretation of the words "optically combined" as they apply to your Acutek 301 combination rear lamp.

In the Acutek lamp, the data you submitted indicate that when the taillamp bulb is activated independently from the clearance lamp bulb, and vice versa, there is no appreciable amount of incidental light emitted from the lens of the clearance lamp. The amount of light "spill" appears to be so small that it would not be interpreted (by a driver following the vehicle on which it is installed) as illuminating the lens of the taillamp when operated in the clearance lamp mode, and vice versa.

Accordingly, the Acutek 301 combination rear lamp appears to meet the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, "Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment."

SINCERELY,

Acutek

October 13, 1976

Louis C. Owen

NHTSA

Subject: Acutek 301 light

Since our telephone conversation in which you stated that in the opinion of your office you feel the Acutek 301 tailight and clearance light is optically combined therefore it is not in strict compliance with standards.

I have had time now to consider Acutek's position and feel the design of the lamp does not conflict with S4.4.1 of MVSS 108 which states: "two or more lamp, reflective devices or items of associated equipment may be combined if the requirements for each lamp, reflective device and item of associated equipment are met except that no clearance lamp may be COMBINED OPTICALLY with any tail light or identification lamp.

I think the key words are "COMBINED OPTICALLY". It would seem to me that in order for a lamp to be combined optically you would either have to use the tail light lens or the 2 candlepower filament of the bulb for tail light or both to have a lamp that is optically combined tail and clearance. In reviewing the engineering and the Acutek light I find that we are not using either the tail light filament for the tail light lens to accomplish the clearance function. In fact the clearance function is combined with the side marker lens and uses the side marker bulb to accomplish the clearance function. The lamp will not pass for clearance side marker using only the tail light filament also it will not pass for a tail light using only the side marker bulb. In my opinion the Acutek 301 light does not conflict with S 4.4.1 as the clearance light is not optically combined with the tail light and in fact is completely separated from the tail light by a section of reflex reflector.

It is true there is some very small amount of bleed over light from one section of the lamp to the other. This feature does not in any way decrease the effectiveness of the lamp, but rather is an added safety feature.

For some reason there has been an unusually large amount of controversy concerning this lamp design and feel it is unwarranted. Frankly the controversy has been a deterrent to the sales program and I would like to resolve the question of whether or not the light does in fact comply with MVSS108.

I would like for your office to reexamine the Acutek 301 tail light, keeping in mind that to be optically combined the lamp would use the tail lamp section to accomplish the clearance requirement. Since the lamp does not do this there is not doubt in my mind upon re-evaluation you will agree the lamp does meet requirements and will be in aposition to send me a letter so stating.

At the Chicago Boat Show I had the opportunity to look at the new Truck Lite combination lamp, in my opinion this light does not meet MVSS 108 as they are using the tail light lens to accomplish the clearance function.

Enclosed with this letter is the ETL test reprt which indicates the Acutek 301 rear lamp does comply with all requirements for tail, stop, turn, rear reflex, side marker and reflex, clearance and license illuminator including photometric, lens warpage, color, corrosion, vibration, moisture, dust and bulb socket.

In order to reactivate the sales program, I need a letter form you indicating compliance or what needs to be done to the lamp to bring it into compliance. It is important that this be done as soon as possible for the manufacturers of boat trailers are now placing orders for next years requirements and if there is much more delay on my part then my competitors will have succeded in keeping me out of the market. I do not intend to let this happen.

Upon your re-evaluation of the Acutek 301 lamp I am sure you will agree the clearance lamp is not optically combined with the tail lamp but is combined withthe side marker lens and bulb.

I thank you for your consideration.

Kenneth C. Ploeger President

Report Electrical Testing Laboratories, Inc.

Order No. 97552-L

Date August 30, 1976

REPORT NO. 436523 "*ACUTEK 301 DOT SAE A.I.S.T 76" COMBINATION REAR LAMP (WITH OR WITHOUT LICENSE PLATE ILLUMINATOR) AND COMBINED WITH "ACUTEK 201 DOT SAE APC - 76" LENS - CLEARANCE, SIDE MARKER LAMP AND REFLEX REFLECTOR

RENDERED TO

ACUTEK INC.

INTRODUCTION

This report contains the results of examination and test of the above device to demonstrate compliance with the applicable test requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 108, effective January 1, 1976 and current indicated SAE Standards as requested by the client. Marks of identification comply with the requirements of CAC, Title 13, California Highway Patrol.

[Report Omitted]

ID: nht81-3.17

DATE: 09/08/81

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Paul Hingtgen

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your recent inquiry to Joseph F. Zemaitis Motor Vehicle Program Director, Region IX, regarding the applicability of Safety Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials, to auxiliary wind deflectors. You state that this office informed you last October that your auxiliary wind deflector must comply with Standard No. 205. However, G. & C. Mills Plastics, Inc., the manufacturer of the "Weathershield," has shown you correspondence from NHTSA and the Department of Commerce implying that the Federal motor vehicle safety standards do not apply to auxiliary wind deflectors. You consider this disparate treatment to be unfair, and you ask for an explanation.

Our position on the applicability of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards to your auxiliary wind deflector was stated in our October 8, 1980, letter (copy enclosed) and it remains unchanged. In that letter, we stated that on the basis of the information you provided in your letter of August 13, 1980, we find your wind deflector to be subject to Standard No. 205. This is because paragraphs S1 and S3 of Standard No. 205 provide that the regulation applies to all glazing materials used in motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. Section 102(4) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, as amended in 1974 (the Act), defines "motor vehicle equipment" to include any "accessory or addition to the motor vehicle." Since an auxiliary wind deflector is an accessory to the motor vehicle, it is an item of motor vehicle equipment, and the glazing used in the deflector must comply with the requirements of Standard No. 205.

Mr. Zemaitis is presently in the process of obtaining from G. & C. Mills Plastics, Inc. some additional information about the nature and use of the "Weathershield." If the "Weathershield" is in fact an auxiliary wind deflector, then the glazing materials it contains must comply with Standard No. 205. The responsibilities and liabilities imposed by the Act on you as a manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment to which a safety standard applies (as discussed in our October 8, 1980, letter) would be equally applicable to G. & C. Mills Plastics, Inc.

The information that was provided to Mr. L. J. A. Mills by NHTSA and the Department of Commerce in 1979 is misleading. The July 13, 1979, letter from this agency states that "[the] NHTSA safety regulations apply to new vehicles -- they do not apply to aftermarket applications where the driver installs various devices on his car." The letter also states that "the law does not allow a dealer or manufacturer to install devices which adversely affect the original safety standards established by the NHTSA." These statements imply that the Federal motor vehicle safety standards do not apply to accessory equipment such as auxiliary wind deflectors which are designed to be installed on the vehicle by the vehicle owner, and that manufacturers of such equipment are not required to comply with any applicable regulations. This is not the case. It is true that an individual person can modify his or her own vehicle or equipment in any fashion without violating the Act. But this does not mean that the safety standards do not apply to equipment that is designed to be installed on the vehicle by the vehicle owner, or that the manufacturers or sellers of such equipment do not have to comply with applicable regulations. Section 108(a)(1)(A) of the Act prohibits any person from manufacturing for sale or selling any item of motor vehicle equipment that does not comply with all applicable safety standards in effect on the date of manufacture. The ability of an individual to install a noncomplying device on his vehicle without penalty is irrelevant to the obligation of the manufacturer or seller of that device to ensure that the device complies with all applicable safety standards. Thus, while an individual can install an auxiliary wind deflector that does not comply with Standard No. 205 on his own vehicle, you violate the Act if you manufacture or sell such a device.

The Department of Commerce states in its letter of August 8, 1979, that "the Department of Transportation does not have to approve your accessory item unless it involves the safe operation of an automobile, such as brakes, lights, etc." This statement implies that the Department of Transportation "approves" those items of motor vehicle equipment that are "safety-related." This is not true. NHTSA is empowered under the Act to establish Federal motor vehicle safety standards regarding motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. All motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment must comply with all applicable Federal safety standards in effect on the date of manufacture. NHTSA does not grant approval of vehicles or equipment prior to their sale. Rather, the Act provides that it is the manufacturer's responsibility to determine whether its vehicles or equipment are in compliance with all applicable safety standards and to certify its vehicles or equipment in accordance with that determination. The certification requirements for a manufacturer of auxiliary wind deflectors are discussed on page 2 of our letter of October 8, 1980. A manufacturer or seller of a vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment that does not comply with all applicable Federal safety standards in effect on the date of its manufacture or that does not properly certify its products violates Section 108(a)(1)(A) of the Act. This is discussed on page 2 of our October 8, 1980, letter. The Department of Commerce is not empowered or authorized to make statements or issue interpretations regarding the authority or regulations of the Department of Transportation or NHTSA. Therefore, the August 8, 1979, letter from Commerce may not be relied upon.

We intend to contact G. & C. Mills, Inc. and inform them that the "Weathershield" must comply with Standard No. 205 if it is an auxiliary wind deflector. We hope this letter satisfies your concerns. Please contact Ms. Joan Griffin of my staff (202-426-9511) if you have further questions.

ENC.

ID: nht95-5.25

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: July 15, 1995

FROM: Charles Holmes

TO: Office of Chief Council -- NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 9/25/95 LETTER FROM JOHN WOMACK TO CHARLES HOLMES (A43; REDBOOK 2; STD. 206)

TEXT: Letter of Interpation:

On May 24, 1995 my minor son Justin Holmes, Fell out of a Ford 1 ton truck. This was an 1989 Ford 1 ton with a gross weight of 33,000 lbs. Upon entering the truck, Justin was placed in a seat belt, and I locked the door. Some where along the ride he unhooked the belt, I was in a curve when the door opened, I looked up and Justin was falling out the truck.

When Justin was asked what happen he stated, I had my hand over the door handle when daddy started going around, I was tring to hold on and the door came open.

Ryder trucks are Rental trucks, Which rents to Families. I had no warning the look was not a safety lock.

Ryder said they are not in any way responsible, and Ford has not answered. I would like to know what Regulations you have on a truck that carries the gross weight of 33,000 lbs, the safety regulations which governs door locks and handle? By this being a Rental Vehicle would the regulations fall under passenger vehicles? What Federal Case Laws Reverse or OverRules your Regeulations? And a list of people ever injured in a simular accidents. That is there Names and Addresses.

ID: nht92-8.37

DATE: March 2, 1992

FROM: Nathan W. Randall

TO: Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 5/21/92 from Paul J. Rice to Nathan W. Randall (A39; Part 571)

TEXT:

I am planning to start a business assembling classic automobile replicas for individual collectors. My intention is to construct approximately four-to-eight vehicles annually. Each vehicle will be constructed around a new, previously unused, NASCAR-style tubular-steel spaceframe chassis. This chassis features a safety engineered cockpit surrounded by designed crush zones to absorb impact energy, heavy steel inner door frames, roll bar, and a safety fuel cell located to minimize the possibility of rupture.

Each vehicle will utilize a new and previously unused body, and new unused components for braking, steering, suspension, cooling, fuel delivery, etc. In compliance with EPA emission requirements for rebuilt vehicles, these vehicles will incorporate previously used engine/transmission/drive axle/gearing combinations from previously certified configurations.

These vehicles will be fully compliant with EPA regulations for rebuilt automobiles and the Colorado State Motor Vehicle code.

My situation appears to be analogous to that of the Porsche replica builder in the "copy" interpretation letter (see attachment) provided by the NHTSA Compliance Office. As I understand the "copy" interpretation letter, your agency would tend to view my automobile as "used", even though its body and chassis are previously unused, because its running gear is not new. Also, due to the safety design incorporated into the vehicle, plus the low level of production, you would not consider my vehicles to contribute to any overall degradation of traffic safety.

I understand that I will be viewed as a "manufacturer" of used motor vehicles and will be responsible for notification and remedy of any safety related defects occurring in my product.

Please review the above facts and tell me if I have correctly applied the "copy" interpretation letter to my situation.

If I can answer any further questions you may have, please call me at (719) 593-5533.

Attachment

This is in reply to your letter of March 30, 1980, asking about the applicability of Federal regulations to the Porsche replica which you plan to build.

You have explained that the vehicle will be constructed from new parts except for the front suspension and axles, engines, and transmissions which will be taken from Volkswagens of the mid-1960's. Your present intention is to construct a total of 200 vehicles on an annual basis of 24 units.

As Mr. Vinson discussed with you on the telephone, you will be a "manufacturer" of motor vehicles because you are the assembler of the machine. The regulation of vehicles assembled from both old and new parts is a complex subject. Because such vehicles appear to comprise an infinitesimal portion of motor vehicle production, we have not developed a comprehensive set of regulations specifically designed for them. Each case is treated individually on the basis of the facts as we understand them. For example, the combination of a new body and the chassis of a vehicle previously in use has been considered a "used" vehicle to which Federal motor vehicle safety standards (which cover only new vehicles and equipment) do not apply. Similarly, the agency has again that even where a new frame is involved, if the vehicle is to be assembled by the ultimate owner who has a choice of new or used components (such as suspension, engine, radiator and tires and wheels) compliance appeared impossible and common sense required that it be treated as "used."

We have taken a more formal position in situations that are somewhat analogous: combining new and used components in refabricating trucks (glider kits) and in trailer manufacturer, fact situations covered by Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations 571.7(c) and 7(f). Where a new cab is installed, the resultant vehicle will be considered "used" if the engine, transmission, and drive axles (as a minimum) are not new and at least two of these components were taken from the same vehicle. Similarly, a reconditioned trailer is "used" if, at a minimum, the running gear assembly (axles, wheels, braking and suspension) is not new, and (1) was taken from an existing trailer whose identity is continued in the reassembled vehicle with respect to its Vehicle Identification Number and (2) that is owned or leased by the user of the reassembled vehicles.

You will see from the above that the agency tends to view as "used" a motor vehicle whose running gear is not new even though its body and chassis may be previously unused. We therefore would consider your vehicle as one that is "used." The list of safety related designs you intend to incorporate in your vehicle, plus the low level of production, indicates that it should not contribute to any overall degradation of traffic safety. As a "manufacturer" of a motor vehicle, however, new or used, you would be responsible for notification and remedy of any safety related defects occurring in your product.

There is one final possibility. If your vehicle is intended primarily for competition purposes with special features such that it cannot be licensed for on-road use, it would no longer be a "motor vehicle subject to our jurisdiction.

If you have any further questions, we shall be happy to answer them.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

ID: nht70-1.42

DATE: 02/10/70

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Lawrence R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: Christopoher W. Norton

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: The Chief Counsel of the Federal Highway Administration has asked me to reply to your letter of February 3 regarding importation of a Lotus Super 7, either(Illegible Word) form or already(Illegible Word). Since you state that the car "does not conform to current safety . . . regulations", you may be best advise(Illegible Words) Importation of a lot of individual motor vehicle equipment items is permissible, but if brake hoses, tires, brake fluid, glazing materials, seat belt assemblies, or wheel covers are provided, each must get the applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard. The vehicle as assembled from kit items must meet other Federal standards applicable to the vehicle itself. You, as(Illegible Words) in the United States, would be regarded as the manufacturer and responsible for compliance with these standards, and subject to the(Illegible Word) or a civil penalty upon any(Illegible Words). I enclose for your information a copy of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1968 and a booklet which describes the Federal standards. The full text of the standards is available, upon a yearly subscription basis of(Illegible Word) from the U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 20402.

In the event that the car were assembled in England by a prvite garage, it would probably regard(Illegible Words) manufacturer of the vehicle. Lotus itself would not be eligible to apply for a temporary exemption from compliance with Federal standards since it manufactures more than 500 vehicles per year. Further, under(Illegible Words) we would not consider an assembler a manufacturer eligible to apply for the exemption.

The article you have read in the(Illegible Words) is incorrect. Any vehicle manufactured on or after January 1,(Illegible Word), and imported into the United States by a private individual(Illegible Words) to applicable Federal standards at time of entry or be brought into conformance within 90 days after entry. The Department of Health, Education and Welfare is responsible for enforcing the air pollution regulations. It is my impression however, that these regulations do not apply to an individual importing a vehicle for his own use and not for resale,

(Illegible Words)

ENCLOSURES

ID: 2772y

Robert B. Roden, Esq.
Roden & Hayes
2015 First Avenue No.
Suite 400
Birmingham, AL 35203

Dear Mr. Roden:

This responds to your letter that asked whether Section 114 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1403) requires some form of certification on "every replacement item of motor vehicle equipment." The answer to this question is that manufacturers of replacement items of motor vehicle equipment that are regulated by a Federal motor vehicle safety standard must certify these items. The background for this response is provided below.

Section 114 requires manufacturers or distributors of motor vehicle equipment to furnish dealers and distributors of such equipment with a certification that the items of motor vehicle equipment conform to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. The first issue to be discussed, therefore, is whether replacement parts are encompassed within the definition of "motor vehicle equipment." "Motor vehicle equipment" is defined at Section 102(4) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1391(4)). This definition includes systems, parts and components of motor vehicles that are "manufactured or sold for replacement."

The second issue to be discussed is what items of replacement motor vehicle equipment must be certified. In an interpretation letter of June 3, 1977 to Mr. Larry Stroble, this agency stated if there are no safety standards in effect regulating particular items of motor vehicle equipment, manufacturers of the equipment would not be required to certify in accordance with Section 114 and in the regulation promulgated thereunder (49 CFR Part 567). I am, for your information, enclosing a copy of this letter. Examples of items of motor vehicle equipment that have corresponding Federal motor vehicle safety standards are: brake hoses and brake hose assemblies (Standard No. 106); lighting (Standard No. 108); brake fluid (Standard No. 116); tires (Standard No. 109 and 117); glazing (Standard No. 205); seat belt assemblies (Standard No. 209); and wheel covers (Standard No. 211). I hope this responds to your concerns. If you have any further questions or need any additional information about this topic, 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

Enclosure ref:VSAll4 d:l2/3/90

ID: 1982-1.35

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/30/82

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: British Standards Institution

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your letter of January 5, 1982, concerning Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies. You are correct that my letter of June 1, 1981, should have referred to S5.1(d) rather than S5.2(d). Likewise, I assume that where you have referred to sections 4.1(d), (e), and (f) in your letter, you mean sections 4.2(d), (e), and (f).

My letter of June 1, 1981, was not meant as a definitive statement of what specific action the agency intends to take on Standard No. 209, but rather to acknowledge that the standard's provision on abrasion needs modification. The notice of proposed rulemaking for this action will allow you and other interested parties to comment on what precise changes you think should be made to the standard. I am placing a copy of your letter with its current suggestions in the public docket.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

January 5, 1982

FRANK BERNDT -- CHIEF COUNSEL, US Department of Transportation, NHTSA

Dear Sir

With reference to your letter to us of June 1 1981, I assume that where you have referred to Clause 5.2(d) in your letter you mean 5.1(d).

You state in your letter that Clause 5.1(d) will be amended and that strength after abrasion will be compared to the breaking strength specified in Clause 4.2(b). For consistency, Clause 5.1(e) and 5.1(f) would also need to be altered.

I would suggest that it is not Clause 5.1(d) that needs changing, it is 4.1(d) to bring it into line with 4.1 (e) and (f). Clauses 5.1(d)(e) and (f) need no change. Additionally I feel sure that the minimum breaking strengths listed in 4.2(b) should remain, even after abrasion, light or micro-organisms test and that clause 4.2(d) might finish . . . . shall have a breaking strength of not less than 75% of the strength before abrasion and greater than the appropriate strength listed in @@ 4.2(b). Clause 4.2(e) might read . . . . have a breaking strength of not less than 60% of the strength before exposure to the carbon arc and greater than the appropriate strength listed in Clause 4.2(b). Clause 4.2(f) might finish . . . . have a breaking strength not less than 85% of the strength before subjected to micro-organisms and greater than the appropriate strength listed in @@ 4.2(b).

Yours faithfully

J E BINGHAM -- SENIOR TEST ENGINEER, BRITISH STANDARDS INSTITUTION

ID: nht89-3.44

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 11/24/89

FROM: JAMES A. COWAN, -- DIRECTOR OF ENGINEERING CROWN COACH INC

TO: ERIKA JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION

TITLE: FMVSS 217 BUS WINDOW RETENTION AND RELEASE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 01/09/90 FROM STEPHEN P. WOOD -- NHTSA TO JAMES A. COWAN -- CROWN COACH INC; REDBOOK A35; STANDARD 217; LETTER DATED 11/29/88 FROM JAMES A. COWAN -- CROWN COACH INC; RE FMVSS 217, BUS WINDOW RETENTION AND RELEASE

TEXT: Dear Ms. Jones:

Twelve months ago, the attached letter was sent to your office requesting guidance. On March 31, 1989, we received a telephone call from Joan Tillgham of NHTSA wanting to know if we still needed the information; the answer was affirmative.

We have subsequently dropped our plans to widen the emergency door on our buses due to the lack of response from NHTSA and reverted to the design originally developed in 1977. (The new bus has recently been tested for and passed all requirements of F MVSS 217).

However, we now plan to sell the pilot bus with the door referenced in our November 29, 1988 letter. Could you please give us a response? As a last resort, we will simply remove the passenger seat at the wider door and install a restraining barrier.

Your attention to this matter would be greatly appreciated.

Respectfully,

ATTACHMENT

ID: nht94-2.59

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: April 25, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: David A. Scott -- President, RKS International L.L.C.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 3/8/94 from David A. Scott to John Womack (OCC-9783)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of March 8, 1994, asking for information about this agency's regulations regarding importation and sale of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment.

You intend to import "fiberglass kit cars." The cars may be imported "either disassembled or partially assembled." Your company "will then be providing and/or installing American parts in the U.S. for the major mechanical portions like engines, transmissions, suspension systems, tires, etc."

It appears from your letter that you intend to import, items of equipment, either individually or as part of a larger assembly, which, after entry into the United States, will have the drive train and related components installed that are necessary to complete its manufacture as a motor vehicle. For purposes of this interpretation, it is unimportant whether the equipment is imported as individual items, or assembled into a vehicle lacking a power train.

Some items of motor vehicle equipment are subject to the Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS). In order to be imported into the United States, they must comply with all applicable FMVSS. Passenger car equipment that must comply includes brake hoses, brake fluid, lamps and reflectors, tires, glazing material, and seat belt assemblies. It is mandatory that all these items (except lamps and reflectors) beat a DOT symbol in order to be imported; the symbol is the manufacturer's certification of compliance with the FMVSS. It is optional for lamps and reflectors to be marked with the DOT symbol. If they are not marked, permissible options include a certification statement attached to the equipment item or on the container in which the item is shipped.

When assembly of the vehicle is completed in the United States, its assembler must satisfy itself that it conforms to all applicable FMVSS and affix a label certifying that the vehicle complies.

I have enclosed a copy of an information sheet for new manufacturers of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. It identifies relevant Federal statutes and this agency's standards and regulations affecting motor vehicle and motor vehicle equipment manufacturers. It also explains how to obtain this agency's safety standards and regulations. If you have further questions we shall be pleased to answer them.