ID: 3059yy

Erika Z. Jones, Esquire
Mayer, Brown & Platt
2000 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20006-1882

Dear Ms. Jones:

This responds to your request for an interpretation of 49 CFR Part 565, Vehicle Identification Number - Content Requirements. More specifically, you asked whether NHTSA's regulations would prohibit or otherwise affect the ability of a foreign subsidiary of an American company from obtaining a special world manufacturer identifier (WMI) code from the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) in the subsidiary's name for use on vehicles to be offered for sale outside of the United States. As explained below, the answer is no.

Your letter posed the following hypothetical situation. The XYZ Company manufactures motor vehicles for sale in the United States and Europe. XYZ certifies that the motor vehicles offered for sale in the United States comply with the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS), and accepts full responsibility as a manufacturer of the U.S. vehicles under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. XYZ has two wholly-owned subsidiaries: ABC Company, which performs "assembly and marketing functions" solely for vehicles sold in the United States for the U.S.-certified vehicles manufactured by XYZ, and the DEF Corporation, which performs "assembly and marketing functions" solely for vehicles sold outside the United States.

Your first question was whether "there would be any implications under NHTSA rules" if wholly-owned subsidiary DEF were to obtain a WMI from the SAE in its own name, for use solely on vehicles assembled and sold outside of the United States. The WMI, which serves to uniquely identify the vehicle manufacturer, consists of the first three digits of the vehicle identification number assigned to the vehicle in accordance with Standard No. 115 and Part 565.

To answer your question, we must consider the scope of NHTSA's authority. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, NHTSA administers Federal regulations, including Part 565, relating to the manufacture, sale, introduction into interstate commerce, and/or importation of motor vehicles into the United States. In your hypothetical, wholly-owned subsidiary DEF is not engaged in any activities with respect to vehicles offered for sale in the United States. In that case, the Federal regulations administered by NHTSA would not apply to the activities of wholly-owned subsidiary DEF.

As you may be aware, NHTSA has entered into a contract with SAE under which SAE coordinates the assignment of WMI's pursuant to 49 CFR 565.5. NHTSA's contract with SAE is naturally limited by NHTSA's statutory authority. That is, NHTSA's contract with SAE relates to coordinating the assignment of WMI's to manufacturers that manufacture motor vehicles sold or offered for sale in the United States. SAE has no contractual obligation to NHTSA with respect to the assignment of WMI's to manufacturers whose vehicles are not offered for sale in the United States. So long as such assignments do not confuse or obscure the meaning of the WMI's assigned for vehicles offered for sale in the United States, SAE is free to exercise its judgment as to the appropriateness of any such assignments.

Your second question was whether NHTSA would object if XYZ were to ask the SAE to include in its next directory of WMI's a simple notation indicating that XYZ had authorized its subsidiary, ABC, to use one of XYZ's world manufacturer identification codes on vehicles assembled or marketed by ABC. The purpose of the WMI is to ensure that the vehicle manufacturer is uniquely identified. So long as the parent corporation agrees to be treated as the "manufacturer," for the purposes of the Safety Act, for the vehicles produced by its wholly-owned subsidiary, nothing in Part 565 prohibits the wholly-owned subsidiary from identifying the vehicles with a WMI assigned to the parent corporation.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions or need additional information on this subject, please contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

/ref:565 d:7/8/9l

ID: nht94-7.21

DATE: March 25, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Thomas D. Turner -- Manager, Engineering Services, Blue Bird Body Company

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 11/15/93 from Thomas D. Turner to John Womack

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of November 15, 1993, in which you requested an interpretation of the final rule issued by this agency on January 15, 1993, 58 FR 4586, which amended Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 222, School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection to include requirements for wheelchair securement devices and occupant restraint systems.

You referred to the second sentence in S5.4.3.2 of the standard which provides in pertinent part: "When more than one wheelchair occupant restraint shares a common anchorage, the anchorage shall be capable of withstanding a force of 13,344 Newtons multiplied by the number of occupant restraints sharing that anchorage." You stated that you believe that this language is intended to address the situation where restraints from two different wheelchair occupant restraint systems share a common anchorage, and is not intended to address the situation "where the lower end of an upper torso restraint joins the pelvic restraint and goes to one of the rear floor anchorages of a single occupant's restraint system." You stated that if the latter, the floor anchorage would be required to withstand a force of 13,344 Newtons each for the upper torso restraint and the pelvic restraint; and if the wheelchair was also secured to that floor anchorage, the anchorage would be required to withstand 3 x 13,344 Newtons.

Your letter included two figures illustrating typical wheelchair securement and occupant restraint system designs. In Figure 1, the upper torso restraint is attached to the lap belt at the buckle, and the lap belt is attached to the vehicle at the same anchorage as the rear anchorage for the wheelchair securement device. In Figure 2, the upper torso restraint is also attached to the lap belt; however, the lap belt is attached to the rear wheelchair securement device instead of the wheelchair securement anchorage. You asked for verification that the required load for the rear anchorages for both designs is 2 x 13,344 Newtons rather than 3 x 13,344 Newtons.

You are correct that the load for the rear anchorages for both these designs would be 26,688 Newtons (2 x 13,344 Newtons). The relevant section to determine this load is S5.4.3.2(e) which states:

When a wheelchair securement device and an occupant restraint share a common anchorage, including occupant restraint designs that attach the occupant restraint to the securement device or the wheelchair, the loads specified by S5.4.1.3 (13,344 Newtons) and S5.4.3.2 (13,344 Newtons) shall be applied simultaneously...

The term "wheelchair occupant restraint" includes both the pelvic and upper torso restraints (see S5.4.4). In your designs, each rear floor anchorage would be required by S5.4.3.2(e) to withstand a combined force of 26,688 Newtons, which includes the load specified for the wheelchair occupant restraint and the load specified for the wheelchair securement device.

The second sentence of S5.4.3.2, which you quoted in your letter, addresses the situation where the wheelchair occupant restraints for more than one wheelchair, e.g. two wheelchairs, are secured to the same floor anchorage. This requirement parallels a requirement in S5.4.1.3 which addresses the situation where the wheelchair securement devices for more than one wheelchair are secured to the same floor anchorage. Thus, for example, if either of your designs were installed in a bus such that the right rear anchorage was shared with another identical wheelchair securement and occupant restraint system (functioning as the left rear anchorage for the second system), that floor anchorage must be capable of withstanding a force of 13,344 Newtons for each occupant restraint system and 13,344 Newtons for each wheelchair securement system, for a total force of 4 x 13,344 Newtons, such force to be applied simultaneously as required by S5.4.3.2(e).

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

ID: nht93-6.13

DATE: August 16, 1993

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Han Dinh -- Project Manager, United States Postal Service

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 6/17/93 from Han Dinh to Steven P. Wood (OCC 8783)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter requesting information about the conversion of postal vehicles to operate on compressed natural gas (CNG). You explained that you are deciding which specifications to apply to the CNG pressure vessels on the converted vehicles. You ask whether we would recommend the American Gas Association's voluntary standard, NGV-2, or the Department of Transportation standard for cylinders which transport CNG.

By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. S1381 et seq.; Safety Act) to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA does not approve or certify any vehicles or items of equipment. 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. NHTSA also investigates safety- related defects in motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment.

At present, NHTSA has not issued any standard applicable to CNG cylinders or vehicles using CNG as a fuel. However, as you know, NHTSA has undertaken rulemaking on a safety standard for CNG tanks and vehicles. (58 FR 5323, January 21, 1993.) In response to our January 1993 proposal, the agency received over 55 comments, which we are currently analyzing. We expect our next regulatory decision in early 1994. Given that this rulemaking has not been completed, NHTSA is unable to recommend to you a particular course of action with respect to the NGV-2 and DOT standards at this time.

If NHTSA were to issue a safety standard for CNG cylinders and vehicles, the standard would apply to new products, and have applicability to vehicle conversions as follows.

The cylinder regulation would be an equipment standard. Thus, all cylinders manufactured after the effective date of the standard would be required to comply with its requirements, whether they are placed on new vehicles or on vehicles converted to CNG fuel.

The fuel system regulation would apply to new vehicles as manufactured by original equipment manufacturers or as converted prior to the first sale of the vehicle. Once the vehicle is sold, if the vehicle is converted by a commercial converter, the CNG fuel system regulation would apply if the vehicle was manufactured after the effective date of the standard and thus would have been regulated if it had originally been a CNG vehicle. With this in mind, I have enclosed a discussion that sets forth the implications under Federal law of converting gasoline-powered vehicles to use propane or other gas (such as CNG). That discussion addresses S108 (a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act, which prohibits

vehicle manufacturers, distributors, dealers and repair businesses from "knowingly rendering inoperative, in whole or in part, any device or element of design installed . . . in compliance" with any FMVSS.

In addition, please be aware that manufacturers of CNG tanks and vehicles are subject to the requirements in sections 151-159 of the Safety Act concerning the recall and remedy of products with defects related to motor vehicle safety. In the event that NHTSA or the manufacturer of the tank or vehicle determines that the product contains a safety-related defect, the manufacturer would be responsible for notifying purchasers of the defective equipment and remedying the problem free of charge.

Our sister agency in the Department, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), has operational and equipment requirements for commercial vehicles used in interstate commerce. For further information about FHWA requirements, you can contact that agency's Chief Counsel's office at (202) 366-0650.

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

ID: nht93-7.11

DATE: October 6, 1993

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Bernhard Peer -- President, Peer Enterprises, Inc.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 8/5/93 from Bernhard Peer to John Womack (OCC 8968)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter in which you request "Federal approval and certification" for the "TWIP," the product you plan to import into the United States. You state that this product is a battery driven, two-wheeled electric scooter with a maximum top speed of about 9 miles per hour. In a telephone conversation with Marvin Shaw of my staff, you stated that the TWIP will be used in warehouses and for recreational purposes. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our regulations to you.

NHTSA has the authority under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. S1397(a)(2)(A); Safety Act) to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. Section 102(3) of the Safety Act defines "motor vehicle" as:

(A)ny vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power manufactured primarily for use on the public streets, roads, and highways, except any vehicle operated exclusively on a rail or rails.

Based on statements in your letter and in your telephone conversation that the TWIP would be used in warehouses and for off-road recreational purposes, it appears that the TWIP is manufactured primarily for off-road purposes rather than for use on the public streets. Therefore, your product would not be a motor vehicle and thus would not be subject to any of this agency's safety standards.

Even if your product is manufactured for on-road use a substantial amount of the time, it appears that the TWIP would still not be a motor vehicle under this agency's statutory definitions. This is because NHTSA has stated in many previous interpretations that vehicles that regularly use the public roads will not be considered "motor vehicles" if such vehicles have a maximum attainable speed of 20 miles per hour or less and have an abnormal configuration that readily distinguishes them from other vehicles. These criteria are met by the TWIP. In your letter, you stated that the TWIP has a top speed of approximately 9 miles per hour. The sales material you enclosed show that the TWIP's steering mechanism and driver's seat are attached to elongated bars that fold down apparently to make the scooter more portable. This configuration readily distinguishes it from motorcycles and, other two-wheeled vehicles.

I wish to clarify this agency's authority to provide "federal approval and certification." As noted above, under the Safety Act, NHTSA is authorized to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. However, NHTSA does not approve or certify any vehicles or items of equipment. Instead, the Safety Act establishes a "self-certification" process under which each

manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. Therefore, even if the TWIP had been found to be a motor vehicle, the agency would not have approved or certified it. Rather, you, as its manufacturer, would be responsible for certification.

Because your vehicle is not a "motor vehicle," under the Safety Act, none of this agency's standards or regulations applies to it. You may wish to contact the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission to learn if they have any Federal safety regulations that would apply. Their address is:

Office of Chief Counsel 5401 Westbard Avenue Bethesda, MD 20207 Telephone: (301) 504-0980

You may also wish to consider the possible application of State laws to your product. For additional information on State laws, you may contact the American Association of motor Vehicle Administrators at:

4200 Wilson Blvd., Suite 600 Arlington, VA 22203 Telephone: (703) 522-4200

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

ID: nht94-3.68

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: July 14, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: James H. Shuff -- President, Freedom Trailers

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 2/9/94 from James H. Shuff to NHTSA Chief Counsel (OCC-9666)

TEXT: This responds to your letter asking whether tires and wheel rims used with your "park model travel trailers" are subject to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 120, Tire selection and rims for motor vehicles other than passenger cars. As ex plained below, the answer is no, because your travel trailers are not motor vehicles.

Your letter provided the following information about your "trailers." The trailers are intended for recreational use, rather than for year round living. Each unit is a maximum of 400 sq. ft., and may be as wide as 12 feet. You state that after your trai lers are constructed, they "will be towed to their campsite and set up," where they may be used for "winter camping in the year round parks." Once your trailers are set up, you would reuse the tires and rims.

By way of background, 49 U.S.C. @ 30101 et seq. authorizes NHTSA to regulate new motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment, including tires and rims. Standard No. 120, and all of our safety standards, apply only to vehicles that are "motor vehicles," w ithin the meaning of the statute. The term "motor vehicle" is defined at 49 U.S.C. @ 30102(a)(6) as:

"motor, vehicle" means 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.

We have determined that your "trailers" are not motor vehicles based on two examinations. First, while the characteristics of your trailers are not entirely clear in your letter (our repeated attempts to reach you by telephone have been unsuccessful), i t appears that your trailers could be considered "mobile homes." Mobile homes are regulated by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), and

2

are not "motor vehicles" subject to regulation by NHTSA. Accordingly, tire and rim selection for mobile homes is not subject to Standard No. 120 or any other NHTSA regulation. For information about mobile homes, you can contact the Assistant Secretary for Housing-Federal Housing Commissioner, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th St., SW, Washington, DC 20410.

Second, even if your "trailer" is not a mobile home, it does not meet the Safety Act definition of a "motor vehicle." We have interpreted the definition as follows. Vehicles designed and sold solely for off-road use are not considered motor vehicles, ev en though they may be operationally capable of highway travel. Vehicles, such as mobile construction equipment, that use the public roads only to travel between job sites and which typically spend extended periods of time at a single job site, are not c onsidered motor vehicles. In such cases, the use of the public roads is incidental, not the primary purpose for which the vehicle was manufactured.

On the other hand, if a vehicle is readily usable on the public roads and is in fact used on the public roads by a substantial number of owners, NHTSA has found the vehicle to be a motor vehicle. This finding was made with respect to dune buggies and re gardless of the manufacturer's stated intent regarding the terrain on which the vehicles were to be operated.

Based on your description, it appears that, analogous to mobile construction equipment, the on-road use of your travel trailers appears to be incidental and not the primary purpose for which they are manufactured. Therefore, your trailers are not subjec t to Standard No. 120's requirements for tire selection and rims. Please note that this conclusion is based solely on the facts presented in your letter. We may reexamine this conclusion if additional information becomes available that would warrant a reexamination.

I hope that this information is helpful. If you have any questions, please contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht94-4.10

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: August 26, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Irene M. Thomas (Aurora, CO)

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 6/20/94 from Irene M. Thomas to Dee Fujita (OCC 10151)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter asking about safety regulations for a device you call a "CarMobile." The CarMobile is a type of strap to which three rings are sewn. The CarMobile attaches by "velcro" straps to the handrails located at the top of the inter ior rear car doors. You state that "Toys would be hung from the rings, so that babies and toddlers can play with them as they dangle in front of their carseats."

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has the authority to issue safety standards for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA does not, however, approve or certify any veh icles or items of equipment. Instead, each manufacturer is responsible for "self-certifying" that its products meet all applicable safety standards. The agency periodically tests vehicles and items of equipment for compliance with the standards.

In response to your question, there is currently no Federal motor vehicle safety standard (FMVSS) that directly applies to the product you wish to manufacture. However, your product is considered to be an item of motor vehicle equipment. As a manufactu rer of motor vehicle equipment, you are subject to the requirements of 49 U.S.C. SS30118-30121 concerning the recall and remedy of products with safety related defects. I have enclosed an information sheet that briefly describes those responsibilities. (1) In the event you or NHTSA determines that your product contains a safety-related defect, you would be responsible for notifying purchasers of the defective equipment and remedying the problem free of charge.

In addition, while it is unlikely that the CarMobile would be installed by a motor vehicle manufacturer, distributor, dealer or repair business, 49 U.S.C. S30122 prohibits those businesses from installing the device if the installation "makes inoperative " compliance with any safety standard. NHTSA's safety standard for built-in child restraint systems (Standard 213) specifies requirements that ensure that the area surrounding a child in a built-in restraint is free from objects that could injure a chil d's head in a crash. If the CarMobile's cord and rings cause the vehicle with the built-in restraint to no longer comply with Standard 213, any of the aforementioned parties installing the CarMobile may have violated S30122.

The prohibition of S30122 does not apply to individual owners who install equipment in their own vehicles. Thus, individual owners may install any item of motor vehicle equipment regardless of its effect on compliance with Federal motor vehicle safety s tandards. However, NHTSA encourages vehicle owners not to degrade the safety of their vehicles, and would discourage them from hanging toys or other objects in front of a seated child that could injure the child in a crash. We also wish to point out th at any kind of ribbon or line that can

wrap around the neck of a child in a crash poses a potential risk of strangulation in a crash. You should consider these and any other relevant safety concerns when designing the CarMobile and when instructing consumers how t use the device.

I hope this is helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Deirdre Fujita of my staff at this address or by phone at (202 366-2992.

---------------

(1) Please note that the "National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act" and "Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act" to which the information sheet refers have recently been recodified in Title 49 of the United States Code. This means that the citations used in the information sheet are outdated; however, the substantive requirements described in the sheet have not changed.

ID: nht93-7.40

DATE: October 25, 1993

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Greg Biba

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 9/21/93 Est. from Greg Biba to Office of Chief Council, NHTSA (OCC-9137)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter asking about safety regulations for a device you would like to sell. The device is an "infant observation mirror" that would allow parents to see their baby's face when the infant restraint is installed in the rear seat of a vehicle. The mirror is on a stand that sits under the infant restraint.

By way of background information, S103 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act ("Safety Act," 15 U.S.C. 1392) authorizes the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to issue safety standards for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA does not, however, approve or certify any vehicles or items of equipment. 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. The agency periodically tests vehicles and items of equipment for compliance with the standards.

In response to your question, there is currently no Federal motor vehicle safety standard (FMVSS) that directly applies to the product you wish to manufacture. Under the authority of the Safety Act, NHTSA has issued Standard No. 213, Child Restraint Systems, which specifies requirements for child restraint systems used in motor vehicles and aircraft. However, Standard No. 213 applies only to new child restraint systems and not to aftermarket components of a child restraint system, such as an observation mirror.

I note, however, that there are other Federal laws that indirectly affect your manufacture and sale of the device. Under the Safety Act, your product is considered to be an item of motor vehicle equipment. As a manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment, you are subject to the requirements in S151-159 of the Safety Act concerning the recall and remedy of products with safety related defects. I have enclosed an information sheet that briefly describes those responsibilities. In the event that you or NHTSA determines that your mirror contains a safety-related defect, you would be responsible for notifying purchasers of the defective equipment and remedying the problem free of charge.

In addition, manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and motor vehicle repair businesses are subject to S108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act, which states: "No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative ... any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard ...." It appears unlikely from the nature of your product that it would be placed in vehicles by

commercial businesses instead of child restraint owners. However, if your product were to be installed by persons in those categories, they should ensure that its installation does not compromise the safety protection provided by a child restraint system. The prohibition of S108(a)(2)(A) does not apply to the actions of vehicle owners in adding to or otherwise modifying their vehicles or items of motor vehicle equipment.

The "render inoperative" prohibition of S108(a)(2)(A) does not apply to the actions of vehicle owners in adding to or otherwise modifying their vehicles or items of motor vehicle equipment. However, NHTSA urges owners not to undertake modifications that would reduce the efficacy of any safety device or element of design. We note that an observation mirror could be struck by an infant in a crash, such as during the "rebound" phase of a frontal impact. In the interest of safety, we suggest you manufacture your mirror so that the risk of head injuries in a crash is minimized.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have further questions, please contact Deirdre Fujita of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht93-3.3

DATE: April 15, 1993

FROM: Howard M. Smolkin -- Acting Administrator, U.S. Department of Transportation, NHTSA

TO: David L. Boren -- United States Senator

COPYEE: Washington Office

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 3-30-93 from David L. Boren to Howard Smolkin

TEXT: Thank you for your recent letter on behalf of your constituent, Mr. Thomas D. Price of Norman, Oklahoma. Mr. Price is concerned that this agency has not tested his product as part of its research activities relative to heavy vehicle braking stability and control.

By way of background, the heavy vehicle stability and control research of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) was undertaken in response to a court case involving a NHTSA Regulation. In 1978, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals set aside the stopping distance test requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 121 (FMVSS No. 121), which the agency had established in 1975. PACCAR, INC. V. NHTSA, 573 F.2d 632, (9th Cir. 1978). As a practical consequence, the stopping distance requirements had the effect of requiring antilock brake systems (ABS) on many heavy vehicles. The Court based its ruling, in part, on a determination that the agency had not established that reliable ABS systems were available which could meet these requirements. The court held that "more provative (sic) and convincing data evidencing the reliability and safety of vehicles that are equipped with antilock and in use must be available before the agency can enforce a standard requiring its installation." 573 F.2d at 643. This ruling effectively precluded the agency from establishing ABS requirements for heavy vehicles without first establishing such a record.

Throughout the early 1980's, the agency conducted an extensive series of tests of ABS systems at our Vehicle Research and Test Center in Ohio. We followed these tests with field tests of ABS systems, beginning in 1988. That work is nearly completed. The field tests were to evaluate the reliability, maintainability, and durability of current generation ABS systems on heavy vehicles.

In selecting the items to be tested, the agency chose the latest available versions of the types of ABS systems that had been at issue in the 1978 court decision. I note that, given our limited research budget, it is not possible for us to test every automotive safety-related piece of equipment that is introduced into the marketplace.

As we stated in our October 5, 1992, letter to Senator Nickles, who had written the agency on behalf of Mr. Price, the purpose of our research in this area is to determine the availability of reliable and practical hardware systems that enhance the stability and control of heavy vehicles while braking. A report on the tractor portion of this research, "An In-Service Evaluation of the Reliability, Maintainability, and Durability of Antilock Braking Systems (ABS) for Heavy Truck Tractors," was published in March of 1992. The report concluded that reliable and practical hardware is available to the heavy vehicle manufacturing and user industry. A report on the trailer portion of

this research is expected to be published in the late summer or early fall of this year.

As Mr. Price is aware, in June 1992, NHTSA published an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking seeking information about the stability and control performance of heavy vehicles. This notice was issued, in part, in response to a provision of the Motor Carrier Act of 1991 which directed the Secretary of Transportation to initiate rulemaking about, among other things, ABS systems on new commercial vehicles.

NHTSA is reviewing the comments to that notice, including one submitted by Mr. Price, and we expect to make a decision soon about whether to proceed to a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. Any such notice would provide an opportunity for public comment, and we would carefully consider all comments before issuing a final rule. We encourage Mr. Price to continue to follow this rulemaking and, if a notice of proposed rulemaking is published, to submit any comments that he might have on the proposed requirements.

We appreciate your continued interest in our programs.

ID: nht91-4.40

DATE: July 8, 1991

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Erika Z. Jones -- Mayer, Brown & Platt

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 5-9-91 from Erika Z. Jones to Paul Jackson Rice (OCC 6038)

TEXT:

This responds to your request for an interpretation of 49 CFR Part 565, Vehicle Identification Number - Content Requirements. More specifically, you asked whether NHTSA's regulations would prohibit or otherwise affect the ability of a foreign subsidiary of an American company from obtaining a special world manufacturer identifier (WMI) code from the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) in the subsidiary's name for use on vehicles to be offered for sale outside of the United States. As explained below, the answer is no.

Your letter posed the following hypothetical situation. The XYZ Company manufactures motor vehicles for sale in the United States and Europe. XYZ certifies that the motor vehicles offered for sale in the United States comply with the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS), and accepts full responsibility as a manufacturer of the U.S. vehicles under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. XYZ has two wholly-owned subsidiaries: ABC Company, which performs "assembly and marketing functions" solely for vehicles sold in the United States for the U.S.-certified vehicles manufactured by XYZ, and the DEF Corporation, which performs "assembly and marketing functions" solely for vehicles sold outside the United States.

Your first question was whether "there would be any implications under NHTSA rules" if wholly-owned subsidiary DEF were to obtain a WMI from the SAE in its own name, for use solely on vehicles assembled and sold outside of the United States. The WMI, which serves to uniquely identify the vehicle manufacturer, consists of the first three digits of the vehicle identification number assigned to the vehicle in accordance with Standard No. 115 and Part 565.

To answer your question, we must consider the scope of NHTSA's authority. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, NHTSA administers Federal regulations, including Part 565, relating to the manufacture, sale, introduction into interstate commerce, and/or importation of motor vehicles into the United States. In your hypothetical, wholly-owned subsidiary DEF is not engaged in any activities with respect to vehicles offered for sale in the United States. In that case, the Federal regulations administered by NHTSA would not apply to the activities of wholly-owned subsidiary DEF.

As you may be aware, NHTSA has entered into a contract with SAE under which SAE coordinates the assignment of WMI's pursuant to 49 CFR S565.5. NHTSA's contract with SAE is naturally limited by NHTSA's statutory authority. That is, NHTSA's contract with SAE relates to coordinating the assignment of WMI's to manufacturers that manufacture motor vehicles sold

or offered for sale in the United States. SAE has no contractual obligation to NHTSA with respect to the assignment of WMI's to manufacturers whose vehicles are not offered for sale in the United States. So long as such assignments do not confuse or obscure the meaning of the WMI's assigned for vehicles offered for sale in the United States, SAE is free to exercise its judgment as to the appropriateness of any such assignments.

Your second question was whether NHTSA would object if XYZ were to ask the SAE to include in its next directory of WMI's a simple notation indicating that XYZ had authorized its subsidiary, ABC, to use one of XYZ's world manufacturer identification codes on vehicles assembled or marketed by ABC. The purpose of the WMI is to ensure that the vehicle manufacturer is uniquely identified. So long as the parent corporation agrees to be treated as the "manufacturer," for the purposes of the Safety Act, for the vehicles produced by its wholly-owned subsidiary, nothing in Part 565 prohibits the wholly-owned subsidiary from identifying the vehicles with a WMI assigned to the parent corporation.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions or need additional information on this subject, please contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

ID: 8968

Mr. Bernhard Peer
President
Peer Enterprises, Inc.
P.O. Box 580237
Houston, TX 77258-0237

Dear Mr. Peer:

This responds to your letter in which you request "Federal approval and certification" for the "TWIP," the product you plan to import into the United States. You state that this product is a battery driven, two-wheeled electric scooter with a maximum top speed of about 9 miles per hour. In a telephone conversation with Marvin Shaw of my staff, you stated that the TWIP will be used in warehouses and for recreational purposes. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our regulations to you.

NHTSA has the authority under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A); Safety Act) to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. Section 102(3) of the Safety Act defines "motor vehicle" as:

[A]ny vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power manufactured primarily for use on the public streets, roads, and highways, except any vehicle operated exclusively on a rail or rails.

Based on statements in your letter and in your telephone conversation that the TWIP would be used in warehouses and for off-road recreational purposes, it appears that the TWIP is manufactured primarily for off-road purposes rather than for use on the public streets. Therefore, your product would not be a motor vehicle and thus would not be subject to any of this agency's safety standards.

Even if your product is manufactured for on-road use a substantial amount of the time, it appears that the TWIP would still not be a motor vehicle under this agency's statutory definitions. This is because NHTSA has stated in many previous interpretations that vehicles that regularly use the public roads will not be considered "motor vehicles" if such vehicles have a maximum attainable speed of 20 miles per hour or less and have an abnormal configuration that readily distinguishes them from other vehicles. These criteria are met by the TWIP. In your letter, you stated that the TWIP has a top speed of approximately 9 miles per hour. The sales material you enclosed show that the TWIP's steering mechanism and driver's seat are attached to elongated bars that fold down apparently to make the scooter more portable. This configuration readily distinguishes it from motorcycles and other two-wheeled vehicles.

I wish to clarify this agency's authority to provide "federal approval and certification." As noted above, under the Safety Act, NHTSA is authorized to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. However, NHTSA does not approve or certify any vehicles or items of equipment. Instead, the Safety Act establishes a "self- certification" process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. Therefore, even if the TWIP had been found to be a motor vehicle, the agency would not have approved or certified it. Rather, you, as its manufacturer, would be responsible for certification.

Because your vehicle is not a "motor vehicle," under the Safety Act, none of this agency's standards or regulations applies to it. You may wish to contact the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission to learn if they have any Federal safety regulations that would apply. Their address is:

Office of Chief Counsel 5401 Westbard Avenue Bethesda, MD 20207 Telephone: (301) 504-0980

You may also wish to consider the possible application of State laws to your product. For additional information on State laws, you may contact the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators at:

4200 Wilson Blvd., Suite 600 Arlington, VA 22203 Telephone: (703) 522-4200

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

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

ref:VSA d:10/5/93