ID: nht95-5.4

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: December 15, 1995

FROM: Samuel J. Dubbin -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Hai Tee Young

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: 8/14/95 letter from Hai Tee Young to Secretary of Transportation

TEXT: This responds to your August 14, 1995, letter to the Secretary of Transportation asking whether there are any Federal regulations prohibiting your sunshade invention. The Secretary referred your letter to me because the National Highway Traffic Safety A dministration (NHTSA) is the Department of Transportation agency that issues Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS's) for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. From the patent application materials and drawings you enclose d with your letter, your invention appears to be venetian blind-type slats for use as a sunshade device on all windows of a motor vehicle, especially the windshield.

In a September 6, 1995 phone conversation with Paul Atelsek of my staff, you stated that you were not concerned about confidentiality of this public letter, even though your patent application has not been made. You also indicated that you wanted us to supplement your letter with additional drawings and letters. We received those materials by facsimile on September 18, 1995.

Let me briefly review the important points of your letter. The blinds for side windows are depicted as being attached to hooks above and below the windows. For the windshield, they are attached to the existing sunvisor and the dashboard. In these drawi ngs, blind deployment appears to be manual and require two hands. However, you state that you could also design the slats to be installed between two layers of glass and have them adjusted either manually or by electric automatic control. You believe t hat in a crash the blinds would cushion unbelted vehicle occupants before they hit the glass.

The short answer to your question is that, while there are no regulations that directly prohibit your invention, there are Federal requirements that it must satisfy. We also have some safety concerns regarding this invention.

The FMVSS most relevant to your blinds is Standard No. 205, Glazing materials. Among other things, this standard requires the glazing to permit 70 percent of the incident

(Page 2 is missing.)

The manufacturer of these blinds, which are motor vehicle equipment, would be subject to the requirements in sections 30118-30122 of Title 49 of the U.S. Code concerning the recall and remedy of products with defects related to motor vehicle safety. In the event that a manufacturer or NHTSA 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.

Other legal requirements could apply depending on how your product is marketed. If your product were installed by a vehicle manufacturer as original equipment, i.e., on a new vehicle, the vehicle manufacturer would have to certify that the vehicle with t he blinds installed complies with all FMVSS's, including the standards discussed above. In addition, if your invention were installed by motor vehicle manufacturers, distributors, dealers or repair businesses, those commercial enterprises would have to take care not violate section 30122(b) of Title 49, which prohibits them from "knowingly mak[ing] inoperative any part of a device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle . . . in compliance with an applicable. Federal motor vehicle safe ty standard . . ." For instance, compliance with Standard No. 201 might be degraded if the blinds were mounted in front of the driver. Any violation of this "make inoperative" prohibition would subject the violator to a potential civil penalty of up to $ 1,000 for each violation.

The "make inoperative" prohibition does not apply to modifications that vehicle owners make to their own vehicles. Thus, Federal law would not apply to individual vehicle owners who install your blinds in their own vehicles, even if the installation wer e to result in the vehicle no longer complying with the safety standards. However, NHTSA encourages vehicle owners not to degrade any safety device or system installed in their vehicles. In addition, since individual States have the authority to regula te modifications that individual vehicle owners may make to their vehicles, you might wish to consult State regulations to see whether your device would be permitted.

I hope this information is helpful. I am also enclosing a copy of a fact sheet titled "Information for New Manufacturers of Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Equipment." If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Paul Atelsek of my st aff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht95-7.61

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: December 15, 1995

FROM: Samuel J. Dubbin -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Hai Tee Young

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: 8/14/95 letter from Hai Tee Young to Secretary of Transportation

TEXT: This responds to your August 14, 1995, letter to the Secretary of Transportation asking whether there are any Federal regulations prohibiting your sunshade invention. The Secretary referred your letter to me because the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is the Department of Transportation agency that issues Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS's) for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. From the patent application materials and drawings you enclosed with your letter, your invention appears to be venetian blind-type slats for use as a sunshade device on all windows of a motor vehicle, especially the windshield.

In a September 6, 1995 phone conversation with Paul Atelsek of my staff, you stated that you were not concerned about confidentiality of this public letter, even though your patent application has not been made. You also indicated that you wanted us to supplement your letter with additional drawings and letters. We received those materials by facsimile on September 18, 1995.

Let me briefly review the important points of your letter. The blinds for side windows are depicted as being attached to hooks above and below the windows. For the windshield, they are attached to the existing sunvisor and the dashboard. In these drawings, blind deployment appears to be manual and require two hands. However, you state that you could also design the slats to be installed between two layers of glass and have them adjusted either manually or by electric automatic control. You believe that in a crash the blinds would cushion unbelted vehicle occupants before they hit the glass.

The short answer to your question is that, while there are no regulations that directly prohibit your invention, there are Federal requirements that it must satisfy. We also have some safety concerns regarding this invention.

The FMVSS most relevant to your blinds is Standard No. 205, Glazing materials. Among other things, this standard requires the glazing to permit 70 percent of the incident

(Page 2 is missing.)

The manufacturer of these blinds, which are motor vehicle equipment, would be subject to the requirements in sections 30118-30122 of Title 49 of the U.S. Code concerning the recall and remedy of products with defects related to motor vehicle safety. In the event that a manufacturer or NHTSA 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.

Other legal requirements could apply depending on how your product is marketed. If your product were installed by a vehicle manufacturer as original equipment, i.e., on a new vehicle, the vehicle manufacturer would have to certify that the vehicle with the blinds installed complies with all FMVSS's, including the standards discussed above. In addition, if your invention were installed by motor vehicle manufacturers, distributors, dealers or repair businesses, those commercial enterprises would have to take care not violate section 30122(b) of Title 49, which prohibits them from "knowingly mak[ing] inoperative any part of a device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle . . . in compliance with an applicable. Federal motor vehicle safety standard . . ." For instance, compliance with Standard No. 201 might be degraded if the blinds were mounted in front of the driver. Any violation of this "make inoperative" prohibition would subject the violator to a potential civil penalty of up to $ 1,000 for each violation.

The "make inoperative" prohibition does not apply to modifications that vehicle owners make to their own vehicles. Thus, Federal law would not apply to individual vehicle owners who install your blinds in their own vehicles, even if the installation were to result in the vehicle no longer complying with the safety standards. However, NHTSA encourages vehicle owners not to degrade any safety device or system installed in their vehicles. In addition, since individual States have the authority to regulate modifications that individual vehicle owners may make to their vehicles, you might wish to consult State regulations to see whether your device would be permitted.

I hope this information is helpful. I am also enclosing a copy of a fact sheet titled "Information for New Manufacturers of Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Equipment." If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Paul Atelsek of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

ID: aiam2608

Dear Mr. Barecki: This responds to your March 24, 1977, letter asking for a interpretation of the requirements for knee contact area in Standard No. 222, *School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection*, which state that, when impacted, 'the resisting force of the impacted material shall not exceed 600 pounds and the contact area on the knee form surface shall not be less than 3 square inches.' You ask whether this requirement can be interpreted as meaning that, when impacted, the resisting force of the impacted material shall not exceed 200 pounds per square inch rather than 600 pounds over 3 square inches.; The 600 pound maximum force and the 3 square inch minimum contact are are two distinct requirements. The first specifies an upper bound on the load that will be applied to the upper leg while the latter specifies a lower bound on the knee area over which an impact load must be distributed. To combine the two requirements, as you suggest, tends to relax the contact area requirement for a load which is less than 600 pounds. Such an interpretation would not ensure the level of safety the agency demands for knee contact area. The suggested combination of the two requirements may not provide an adequate distribution of forces over the knee. Accordingly, the agency declines to accept the suggested interpretation of the standard.; Sincerely, Joseph J. Levin, Jr., Chief Counsel

ID: porschevrhs

Walter J. Lewis, Manager
Regulatory Affairs
Porsche Cars North America, Inc.
980 Hammond Drive, Suite 1000
Atlanta, GA 30328

Dear Mr. Lewis:

In your letter of September 10, 2004, you requested information concerning the proper classification of a new vehicle for purposes of the Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) program.

Specifically, you are interested in whether the agency concurs with your opinion that "an SUV [sport utility vehicle] equipped with a driver-controllable variable ride height suspension system that may not satisfy 523.5 (a) but does satisfy the four out of five criteria of 523.5 (b) (2) when the vehicle is in the off-road ride height position" should be classified as a "light truck". Your view is that the vehicle "does not need to satisfy the four-out-of-five criteria at all suspension heights in order to be deemed capable of off-highway operation". We agree that 523.5(b)(2) does not require a vehicle to meet four of the five criteria at all ride heights; however, a vehicle must meet four out of the five criteria in at least one ride height.

By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not "approve" the classification of a motor vehicle. Under the statutes administered by NHTSA, it is the responsibility of the manufacturer, in the first instance, to make any necessary classifications of vehicles and to ensure that the vehicle complies with all applicable regulatory requirements. For purposes of CAFE compliance, each manufacturer must classify its vehicles consistent with the definitions contained in 49 CFR Part 523. You are interested in knowing whether a vehicle, as described above, is properly classified as a light truck for CAFE purposes. This letter provides the agency's opinion based on the facts stated above.

Section 32901(a)(16) of Chapter 329 of Title 49 of the United States Code defines the term "passenger automobile" for CAFE purposes. The term "passenger automobile" does not include "an automobile capable of off-highway operation" that the agency decides by regulation has a significant feature (except 4-wheel drive) designed for off-highway operation and "is a 4-wheel drive vehicle or is rated at more than 6,000 pounds gross vehicle weight". In the agencys implementing regulations for vehicle classification for CAFE purposes, the definition of light truck (49 CFR Part 523.5) provides, in relevant part:

1. A light truck is an automobile other than a passenger automobile which is either designed for off-highway operation, as described in paragraph (b) of this section, . . .
2. An automobile capable of off-highway operation is an automobile
1.               
1. That has 4-wheel drive; or
2. Is rated at more than 6,000 pounds gross vehicle weight; and
2. That has at least four of the following characteristics . . .
1. Approach angle of not less than 28 degrees.
2. Breakover angle of not less than 14 degrees.
3. Departure angle of not less than 20 degrees.
4. Running clearance of not less than 20 centimeters.
5. Front and rear axle clearances of not less than 18 centimeters each.

Based on the information you have provided, we conclude that the vehicle in question may be classified as a light truck on the basis of its off-highway capabilities, provided that it either has 4-wheel drive or is rated at more than 6,000 pounds gross vehicle weight. We have determined that it is appropriate, for the limited purpose of classifying the vehicle for CAFE purposes, to measure the vehicles running clearance with the vehicles adjustable suspension placed in the position(s) intended for off-road operation under real-world conditions.

We note that this conclusion does not constitute or imply an opinion as to whether the vehicle would be classified as a passenger car, multipurpose passenger vehicle or truck for purposes of the safety standards. Definitions for classification purposes under the safety standards may be found in 571.3 of 49 CFR.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:523
d.10/21/04

ID: nht75-4.22

DATE: 04/03/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; J. C. Schultz; NHTSA

TO: Ventline, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of February 27, 1975, regarding the use of rubber-modified polypropylene plastic in a roof ventilator which you manufacture. You enclose a sample of the material.

A plastic material used in the roof ventilator of a motor home must meet the requirements of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205 (49 CFR @ 571.205). Our conclusion is based on the fact that ANS Standard Z26.1-1966, which is incorporated into the Federal standard, includes ventilators and openings in the roof of motor vehicles as locations in which glazing materials meeting the requirements of the standard are directed to be used. Any of the materials specified in ANS Z26, and the plastic materials added to the standard (items 12 and 13) on November 11, 1972, may be used in a roof ventilator of a motor home. We would consider such a ventilator to be a "window" of the motor home.

The NHTSA has in the past amended Standard No. 205 to permit the use of new materials in vehicle locations following a manufacturer's petition for such an amendment. It appears from your letter that the use of polypropylene in roof ventilators would not create a safety hazard. However, in order for us to consider a change in the standard it will be necessary for you to provide us with information on the performance of this material. One way that manufacturers have provided us this information in the past is to have the material tested to the least restrictive requirements of the standard for any material which the standard permits to be used in the location desired.

I have enclosed a copy of NHTSA procedural rules (49 CFR Part 523) containing information on submitting a petition for rulemaking. Such a petition should contain the information I have referred to regarding the performance of polypropylene.

In your letter you ask for a code number should we determine that the material must conform to Standard No. 205. A code number, however, is issued only to a prime glazing material manufacturer, who is one who either fabricates, laminates, or tempers the glazing material. The request for such a code number must be made directly by the prime glazing material manufacturer.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

February 27, 1975

Chief Counsel -- National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Ref: F.M.V.S.S. 205

Gentlemen:

Ventline, Inc. is a manufacturer of roof ventilators for motor homes and campers. We are trying to determine if F.M.V.S.S. #205 applies to our product. (literature enclosed.)

The purpose of this standard mentions, (1) injuries from impact with glazing surfaces, (2) ensurance of driver visibility in motor vehicle windows, (3) minimize possibility of occupants being thrown through windows in collisions.

(1 & 3) As far as injuries from impact go, the possibility of contact with the dome in a collision is very remote since the opening in the unit is only 12 inches square and that area is blocked by a heavy gage steel bar across the opening which makes it most difficult to come into direct contact with the plastic dome.

(2) The concern of transparency and driver visibility is completely unrelated to the intent of the vent. It is installed in the roof of the vehicle, not one of the adjacent sides to areas occupied by persons, and is used primarily for ventilation. It also allows a limited amount of light through the "TRANSLUCENT" not transparent dome. It's intent was not to provide visibility through the roof.

The material used in this dome is a rubber modified polypropylene plastic which has superior impact resistance. As you can see by the small sample I have enclosed, it also has a good degree of flexibility to resist breakage.

To the best of our knowledge, there isn't any glazing being done with polypropylene because of the difficulty of obtaining good transparency, so it doesn't seem to us that our dome should be considered glazing material and shouldn't have to comply with F.M.V.S.S. #205.

If in your opinion, after considering these points, you feel that we must comply with #205, please consider this our application for a manufacturers code mark.

We are eagerly awaiting your decision on this matter.

Sincerely,

VENTLINE, INC. -- Dave Bickel, Product Engineering

enclosure

cc: Harry Hunt; Ernie Baker

ID: aiam2195

Dear Mr. Eckhold:#This is in response to your February 3, 1976, lette pointing out an error in the publication of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 101, *Control Location, Identification, and Illumination*, in Supplement 109 to the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards and Regulations.#While the Federal Register is, of course, the official source of the law, we share your concern for the accuracy of the supplements. The error in Table 1 of Standard No. 101 was discovered immediately upon its publication and steps were taken to correct it. We expect the correction to appear in the supplement to be mailed on February 25, 1976.#Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel;

ID: nht94-1.27

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: January 25, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Lawrence F. Henneberger -- Arent Fox Kintner Plotkin & Kahn

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 9/20/93 from Lawrence F. Henneberger to John G. Womack (OCC 9115)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter in which you request an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) 105, Hydraulic Brake Systems, on behalf of your client, MICO, Inc. I apologize for the delay in our response. You ask that the agency g ive you an interpretation that FMVSS 105 does not preclude the installation of MICO's product, an auxiliary hydraulic brake lock, under the circumstances you have described.

As you note in your letter, NHTSA does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, it is the responsibility of the manufacturer to ensure that its vehicles or equipment com ply with applicable safety standards. The following represents our opinion based on the facts provided in your letter.

According to your letter, MICO's auxiliary hydraulic brake lock operates as follows. The device permits hydraulic system fluid to pass from the master cylinder to the brakes when the brake pedal is applied, thereby increasing hydraulic brake pressure. The device then blocks the return of the hydraulic fluid to the master cylinder when pressure is removed from the brake pedal. The device is not designed to be used when the vehicle is in motion, but only when the vehicle has been brought to a full stop, and the mechanical parking brake applied. At that point, the vehicle operator activates the auxiliary brake lock by means of a separate control switch. The device is deactivated prior to moving the vehicle.

FMVSS 105 specifies requirements for hydraulic brake service brake and associated parking brake systems. The standard applies to vehicles with hydraulic service brake systems. In the case of an auxiliary hydraulic brake lock, there is no applicable sta ndard for it as a separate item of motor vehicle equipment. However, since installation of the device requires cutting into a vehicle's braking system, it may affect a vehicle's compliance with safety standards.

If MICO's auxiliary brake lock is installed as original equipment on new vehicles, the vehicle manufacturer would be required to certify that the entire brake system satisfies the requirements of FMVSS 105. If the device is added to a new motor vehicle prior to its first sale, the person who modifies the vehicle would be an alterer of a previously certified motor vehicle and would be required to certify that, as altered, the vehicle continues to comply with all of the safety standards affected by the a lteration. In particular, the vehicle would need to continue to comply with FMVSS 105.

MICO, as the manufacturer of the device, would have no certification responsibilities. However, a vehicle manufacturer or alterer might require

information from MICO in order to make its necessary certification. Much of the information that you provided to us in your request for an interpretation might be useful in this regard.

Should the auxiliary brake lock be installed on a used vehicle by a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business, the installer would not have to attach a certification label. However, it would have to make sure that it did not kn owingly render inoperative the compliance of the vehicle with any safety standard.

I note that while we do not have any opinion about the safety of MICO's product, it is our understanding that certain vehicle manufacturers have stated that hydraulic brake locking devices should not be used on their vehicles. I enclose an example from a GMC service bulletin. MICO may wish to consult with these manufacturers concerning whether the use of its product in these vehicles would raise any safety concerns.

Enclosed is an information sheet which identifies Federal statues and NHTSA standards and regulations affecting motor vehicle and motor vehicle equipment manufacturers. I note that the Safety Acts's provisions concerning defects are applicable to motor vehicle equipment manufacturers even if their equipment is not covered by a safety standard.

I hope this information has been helpful. If you have any further questions, please contact David Elias of my office at the above address or at (202) 366- 2992.

ID: nht94-8.43

DATE: January 25, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Lawrence F. Henneberger -- Arent Fox Kintner Plotkin & Kahn

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 9/20/93 from Lawrence F. Henneberger to John G. Womack (OCC 9115)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter in which you request an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) 105, Hydraulic Brake Systems, on behalf of your client, MICO, Inc. I apologize for the delay in our response. You ask that the agency give you an interpretation that FMVSS 105 does not preclude the installation of MICO's product, an auxiliary hydraulic brake lock, under the circumstances you have described.

As you note in your letter, NHTSA does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, it is the responsibility of the manufacturer to ensure that its vehicles or equipment comply with applicable safety standards. The following represents our opinion based on the facts provided in your letter.

According to your letter, MICO's auxiliary hydraulic brake lock operates as follows. The device permits hydraulic system fluid to pass from the master cylinder to the brakes when the brake pedal is applied, thereby increasing hydraulic brake pressure. The device then blocks the return of the hydraulic fluid to the master cylinder when pressure is removed from the brake pedal. The device is not designed to be used when the vehicle is in motion, but only when the vehicle has been brought to a full stop, and the mechanical parking brake applied. At that point, the vehicle operator activates the auxiliary brake lock by means of a separate control switch. The device is deactivated prior to moving the vehicle.

FMVSS 105 specifies requirements for hydraulic brake service brake and associated parking brake systems. The standard applies to vehicles with hydraulic service brake systems. In the case of an auxiliary hydraulic brake lock, there is no applicable standard for it as a separate item of motor vehicle equipment. However, since installation of the device requires cutting into a vehicle's braking system, it may affect a vehicle's compliance with safety standards.

If MICO's auxiliary brake lock is installed as original equipment on new vehicles, the vehicle manufacturer would be required to certify that the entire brake system satisfies the requirements of FMVSS 105. If the device is added to a new motor vehicle prior to its first sale, the person who modifies the vehicle would be an alterer of a previously certified motor vehicle and would be required to certify that, as altered, the vehicle continues to comply with all of the safety standards affected by the alteration. In particular, the vehicle would need to continue to comply with FMVSS 105.

MICO, as the manufacturer of the device, would have no certification responsibilities. However, a vehicle manufacturer or alterer might require

information from MICO in order to make its necessary certification. Much of the information that you provided to us in your request for an interpretation might be useful in this regard.

Should the auxiliary brake lock be installed on a used vehicle by a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business, the installer would not have to attach a certification label. However, it would have to make sure that it did not knowingly render inoperative the compliance of the vehicle with any safety standard.

I note that while we do not have any opinion about the safety of MICO's product, it is our understanding that certain vehicle manufacturers have stated that hydraulic brake locking devices should not be used on their vehicles. I enclose an example from a GMC service bulletin. MICO may wish to consult with these manufacturers concerning whether the use of its product in these vehicles would raise any safety concerns.

Enclosed is an information sheet which identifies Federal statues and NHTSA standards and regulations affecting motor vehicle and motor vehicle equipment manufacturers. I note that the Safety Acts's provisions concerning defects are applicable to motor vehicle equipment manufacturers even if their equipment is not covered by a safety standard.

I hope this information has been helpful. If you have any further questions, please contact David Elias of my office at the above address or at (202) 366- 2992.

ID: 17843.wkm

Mr. Martin Fluss
International Import Export M.E.F., Inc.
7402 Kildare Road
Montreal, Quebec
Canada H4W-1C3

Dear Mr. Fluss:

This responds to your letter to Mr. John Womack of my staff and refers to your telephone conversation of May 6, 1998 with Walter Myers of my staff regarding your "Flat Tire Emergency Helper" (FTEH). You asked for a letter from us indicating that FTEH is an accessory to a vehicle. From your description of the item in your letter and the picture you sent in response to Mr. Myers' May 6 telephone call, the FTEH is an accessory to a vehicle.

By of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has the authority under U. S. law to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. The law establishes a self-certification system in which vehicle and equipment manufacturers certify that their products comply with all applicable FMVSSs. NHTSA enforces the FMVSSs by purchasing vehicles and equipment and testing them for compliance with applicable standards. NHTSA also investigates defects relating to motor vehicle safety. If a manufacturer or NHTSA determines that a noncompliance or a safety-related defect exists, the manufacturer must notify purchasers of that product and remedy the problem free of charge. Any manufacturer that fails to provide notification of or remedy for a noncompliance or defect may be subject to a civil penalty of up to $1,100 per violation. In view of the self-certification system described above, NHTSA neither approves, disapproves, endorses, nor grants clearances for motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment.

Turning now to the FTEH, we would classify it as an item of motor vehicle equipment, which is defined in 49 U.S. Code (U.S.C.), 30102(a)(7) (A) and (B) as:

(A). any system, part, or component of a motor vehicle as originally manufactured; [or]

(B). any similar part or component manufactured or sold for replacement or improvement of a system, part, or component, or as an accessory or addition to a motor vehicle; . . .

Under prior NHTSA interpretations, in order to be considered an accessory, the FTEH must meet two tests:

a. A substantial portion of its expected uses are related to the operation or maintenance of motor vehicles; and

b. It is purchased or otherwise acquired, and principally used, by ordinary users of motor vehicles.

After reviewing the information you provided regarding your product, we conclude that the FTEH is an item of motor vehicle equipment and in particular, an accessory. It was designed and is or will be marketed with the expectation that a substantial portion of its expected use will be with motor vehicles. Further, your information indicates that the FTEH is intended to be purchased and principally used by ordinary users of motor vehicles, as opposed to professional vehicle repair businesses, since its stated purpose is to provide a way to drive a vehicle with a flat tire to a place where the tire can safely be changed or repaired.

While we find that the FTEH is an item of motor vehicle equipment, NHTSA has not issued an FMVSS establishing performance standards applicable to this product. However, you as the importer are subject to the requirements of 49 U.S.C. 30118 - 30121 (copy enclosed) which set forth the notification and remedy procedures for products with defects related to motor vehicle safety. As noted above, in the event that you or NHTSA determines that the product contains a safety-related defect, you would be responsible for remedying the problem free of charge to the purchasers of the product.

One final point. Before you can market the FTEH in the United States, 49 Code of Federal Regulations, Part 551 at Subpart D (copy enclosed) requires that you appoint a permanent resident of the United States as your agent for the service of legal process, notices, orders, decisions, and other applicable requirements. The agent can be an individual, firm, or a domestic corporation.

For your additional information, I am enclosing a copy of an interpretative letter we issued to Mr. Jan Peter Kryger of Quickwheel, Inc., regarding a product similar to yours. Also enclosed are copies of information papers entitled Information for New Manufacturers of Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Equipment, and Where to Obtain NHTSA's Safety Standards and Regulations.

I hope this information is helpful to you. Should you have any questions or need additional information, feel free to contact Mr. Myers at this address or at (202) 366-2992, fax (202) 366-3820.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
Enclosures
ref:vsa
d.6/30/98

ID: aiam3407

Dear Mr. Lucas: Your letter of January 29, 1981, to Regional Administrator Hall ha been forwarded to this office for response. We are sorry for the delay in responding. In your letter you raised several questions concerning the responsibilities of lease companies under the Federal odometer laws. Based on the limited information we have concerning the transaction described in each question and the fact that many of the questions involve issues of state law, we find it impossible to answer each of the questions you have presented fully. For example, your first question refers to the following apparent changes of ownership:'When the lease company leases the vehicle to its customer, they put a bank on the title as legal owner and the customer and the lease company become the dual registered owners.' Without reviewing the documents which bring about these arrangements and without understanding their significance under state law, we are unable to determine the applicability of the Federal odometer disclosure requirements.; However, the following constant principle may be applied: The Federa odometer laws require any person who transfers his ownership in a motor vehicle to execute an odometer disclosure statement. Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act, the term transfer means to change ownership (of a vehicle) by purchase, gift, or any other means. 15 U.S.C. 1982(5). If a transaction that is characterized as a lease results in fact in a transfer of ownership under state law governing ownership, an odometer disclosure statement must be executed. Also, when a lease contract contains a purchase option clause, the lease company must make disclosure to the lease customer at the time the option is exercised. Accordingly, disclosure must be made whenever there is a transfer of ownership of a vehicle.; The owner of the vehicle is responsible for the execution of a prope odometer disclosure statement when he transfers ownership. If the actual formalities of transfer can be most conveniently made by the lessee or some other third party on behalf of the owner, there is no reason the lessor, if he is the owner, cannot make this party his agent for the puspose of exeucting the odometer disclosure requirements.; Finally, when a vehicle is sold as salvage, disclosure does not have t be made if the vehicle cannot be returned to the road. However, if the vehicle is repairable and can subsequently be used as a motor vehicle, disclosure must be made.; We suggest that you seek hte advise of legal counsel of your own choic in applying these principles to particular situations such as those you have described.; If you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to write. Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel