ID: aiam0749

Dear Mr. Forbes: This is in reply to your letter of June 9, 1972, raising certai questions concerning the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, and the Defect Reports regulations (49 CFR Part 573).; You ask whether the amendments made by sections 4(a) and (c) of Publi Law 91-265 took effect on November 28, 1970 or later. Section 4(d) of that law specified, as you note, that these sections take effect 180 days after the enactment of the Act, unless the Secretary of Transportation determined that a later date was in the public interest. No such determination was made, and the sections took effect 180 days after the Act's enactment. However, our computation shows that 180 days after May 22 is November 18, not November 28.; You ask if Owners Lists (49 CFR 573.6), including vehicl identification numbers, can be obtained by NHTSA and transmitted to your organization. The NHTSA would not consider it appropriate to require manufacturers to submit owner's (sic) lists to it for purposes not involved in the enforcement of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. We would not consider the study you wish to perform to be within this purpose.; You also ask if we can furnish you copies of Quarterly Reports (49 CF 573.5) at least as they relate to cars sold in Puerto Rico. Quarterly reports submitted by manufacturers, except for the production figures submitted pursuant to section 573.5(b), are considered to be public documents and are available for public inspection. Due to the large number of reports we receive, however, we can furnish copies only if the precise reports desired are specified. The reports do not disclose the geographical location of the vehicles involved.; With reference to your request for the latest version of the leaflet 'Motor Vehicle Safety Defect Recall Campaigns,' I have enclosed the volume which provides information for the complete year 1971, and a new volume dealing with January-March 1972.; Sincerely, Lawrence R. Schneider, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam2276

Dear Mr. Latta: Thank you for your March 23, 1976, request for consideration of th views of a constituent that provision of air cushion restraint systems in passenger cars would be too costly, and that motor vehicle regulation should concentrate on used vehicles because they are equipped with fewer safety and emission features.; As you are aware, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Ac (the Act) (15 U.S.C. S 1391 *et seq*.) directs the Secretary of Transportation to issue motor vehicle standards that will reduce the number of accidents and deaths, and the severity of injuries, that occur on our nation's highways. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) of the Department of Transportation evaluates the available means to meet this goal. Restraining vehicle occupants to protect them against impact with the vehicle interior in a crash offers one of the greatest opportunities for improving motor vehicle safety. Reliance on existing seatbelt systems has prevented only a small portion of the death and injuries that occur from impact with the vehicle interior. For this reason, other means of providing restraint are under consideration. I can assure you that the issues of purchase cost, replacement cost, and the alternatives to air cushions are being included in this consideration.; The safe operation of motor vehicles has traditionally been regulate by the individual States and not the Federal Government. While the Act does not authorize the retrofit of safety devices to vehicles in use, the NHTSA has issued a highway safety program standard for State periodic motor vehicle inspection programs (23 CFR S 1204.4). Part 570, *Vehicle in Use Standards* (49 CFR Part 570), sets forth a procedure for inspection of older vehicles for use by the States in implementing the program standard. Also, the NHTSA has established demonstration diagnostic inspection projects that include emission as well as safety inspection of vehicles in use.; I have no basis for comment on the reported decision by Allstat Insurance Company not to consider the effects of bumper modification in establishing its premium structure.; I trust that this response will answer your constituent's questions. Sincerely, William T. Coleman, Jr.

ID: aiam1129

Dear Senator Magnuson: You wrote shortly after Mr. Toms' briefing on passive restrain technology to request my views on the implementation of Standard 208. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has taken a number of steps to lay the groundwork for sound decisions on this subject. I want to outline those steps for you and describe our policy regarding interim restraint systems.; As a result of the decision in *Chrysler* v. *Department o Transportation*, the principal focus of NHTSA has been on the test dummy used in Standard 208. Work has now progressed to the point of proposing a new test dummy specification, on which NHTSA is requesting comments. The court in *Chrysler* instructed NHTSA to delay the effective date for the implementation of passive restraints until a reasonable time after test dummy specifications are issued. Thus, NHTSA is obliged to consider the comments it receives on the dummy in forming its judgment as to when passive restraints should be required.; In order to enable a large scale passive restraint evaluation to b conducted, the agency has proposed to adopt the new dummy proposal as part of the optional passive restraint systems allowed after August 1973. This step will allow a manufacturer such as General Motors, which has plans for building up to 100,000 air bag equipped cars in model year 1974, to proceed with its plans.; During the period in which active and passive restraint options ar available to manufacturers, NHTSA will continue its efforts to increase seat belt usage. Standard 208 now requires seat belt interlock systems as the alternative to passive systems. In a decision announced on April 20, the agency rejected petitions from several manufacturers to delete the interlock system and reaffirmed its position that the interlock is an appropriate means of increasing belt usage.; The Department is making every effort to increase seat belt use, bot through the encouragement of mandatory usage laws and through the provision of devices such as the interlock. We expect that such measures will contribute to a reduction in the rate of death and injury on our highways.; Sincerely, Claude S. Brinegar

ID: nht90-3.33

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: July 27, 1990

FROM: Thomas R. Mounteer -- Esquire, Stovall & Spradlin

TO: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: Re Heritage Motor Cars, Inc./VIN for Legacy Passenger Vehicles (NEF-31KNU IR 831-836)

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 2-1-91 from Paul Jackson Rice to Thomas R. Mounteer (A37; Std. 115)

TEXT:

This firm has been retained to assist Heritage Motor Cars, Inc. ("Heritage") in complying with the Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance's certification review program. We are coordinating those efforts through Karen Nuschler in that office.

As part of its compliance efforts, Heritage will ensure that it has fully satisfied Part 567's certification requirements. Our purpose in writing this letter is to ensure that VINs are properly assigned to Legacy vehicles under Part 565. I discussed th is matter with Ms. Dot Nacoma of your office, and she requested that I write to request an interpretation from the agency.

Ms. Nacoma explained that Heritage's method of manufacturing the Legacy complicates the assignment of VINs. As I explained to Ms. Nacoma, Heritage builds its Legacy on the frame of used Chevrolet Camaros. I have enclosed photocopies of Heritage's broch ure for its Legacy assembly kits by way of illustration. You should be aware, however, that in its finished Legacies, Heritage uses new engines and transmissions purchased from GM's Parts Division. With that caveat, the diagrams on page two of the encl osure illustrate what portion of the donor car remains.

My preliminary thought was that the Heritage Legacy would need an entirely unique VIN for purposes of Part 567 certification. However, I recognize that the donor car's VIN is retained for so-called "altered vehicles," although Heritage manufacturing pro cess does not constitute vehicle alteration. Nevertheless, Ms. Nacoma pointed out that a discrepancy between the confidential VIN which GM stamps on the Camaro frame (a number not regulated by NHTSA) and the VIN used for purposes of Part 567 certificati on might thwart theft prevention efforts.

Your interpretation of the proper approach for assigning VINs for Heritage's Legacy vehicles would be very much appreciated. I would be pleased to provide any additional information which might be required in this regard.

Attachment

Heritage Motor Cars brochure for Legacy assembly kits (Text and graphics omitted)

ID: nht75-5.44

DATE: 08/25/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Harney, Bambic & Moore

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Please forgive the delay in responding to your letter of April 5, 1975, requesting an interpretation of Section 202 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966.

Section 202 does not directly require any motor vehicle to be equipped with appropriate tires. It instructs this agency to establish, by regulation, motor vehicle safety standards which will in turn require vehicles to be so equipped. Standard No. 110, Tire selection and rims -- passenger cars, implements this instruction with respect to passenger cars. A three-quarter-ton pick-up truck, however, would be subject instead to proposed Standard No. 120, Tire selection and rims for motor vehicles other than passenger cars (copy enclosed). The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration expects to act on that proposal in the near future.

Standards issued pursuant to Section 202 do not apply to vehicles after they have been purchased for the purpose of being rented or leased to the general public; they are applicable only to vehicles up to the point of first purchase.

SINCERELY,

HARNEY, BAMBIC & MOORE

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

April 5, 1975

Department of Transportation

I have a specific question with regard to the applicability of Section 202 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966. Does Section 202 apply to three-quarter ton pick-up trucks? If so, does the Act, pursuant to regulations promulgated under the Act, require that a vehicle such as a three-quarter ton pick-up truck be equipped with tires which, according to regulations (perhaps the Tire and Rim Association), are capable of carrying the gross vehicle weight as that gross vehicle weight is identified by the truck manufacturer (such as General Motors Corporation)?

My next question is whether or not Section 202 is meant to apply to companies or businesses which engage in the renting or leasing of such types of trucks to the general public.

I would very much appreciate any assistance you can give me with regard to the interpretation of Section 202 as outlined above.

Thank you very much for your courtesy and cooperation.

William S. Hart

ID: nht73-5.23

DATE: 09/20/73

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Auto Safety Research Center

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of June 27, 1973, which requests information on the requirements of Standard 206, Door Locks and Door Retention Components, and suggests that door locking mechanisms should prevent operation of the inside and outside handles latch release controls) of both front and rear doors.

The standard presently requires that engagement of the front-door locking mechanism on passenger cars, multi-purpose passenger vehicles, and trucks render the outside door handle (latch release control) inoperative. On passenger cars and multipurpose passenger vehicles, engagement of the rear-door locking mechanism must render both inside and outside handles inoperative. Your suggestion that inside front door handles also be rendered inoperative was proposed in 1967 as an initial standard, but it was determined at that time that ease of escape in the event of accident made one-step operation of the door more desirable. It was concluded that the vehicle operator would have sufficient control over children in the front seat to permit such override operation.

We are still interested in the best arrangement of locking mechanisms and override at the various seating positions. At the moment, available accident data does not justify further rulemaking. Your comments will be fully considered in the event we decide to take further action.

AUTO SAFETY RESEARCH CENTER

June 27, 1973

U.S. Department of Transportation

Dear Sir;

We were under the impression that, since about 1968, an automobile door, once locked, could not be opened from either the outside or inside, unless it was subsequently unlocked, and that there were Federal regulations to this effect. However, at least on some 1973 cars, the doors can be opened from the inside, even while locked, and a number of people have come to us both surprised and concerned that children and others can open a supposedly locked door.

Please advise us if there is indeed a Federal regulation concerning door lock operation. If there is no regulation to the effect that the door handles, both inside and outside, are rendered inoperative when the door is locked, then may we suggest that, from a safety standpoint, such a regulation should be adopted as soon as possible.

Sincerely,

Delbert A. Russell, Jr. Director

ID: nht76-1.45

DATE: 06/21/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; T. W. Herlihy for S. P. Wood; NHTSA

TO: NTDRA Dealer News

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: I am writing to point out an error in an article that appeared in the May 24-31, 1976, issue of NTDRA Dealer News (Vol. XXXIX, No. 15). The article summarized a recent Federal Register notice (41 FR 18659; May 6, 1976; Docket No. 71-19; Notice 4) that delayed certain effective dates of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 120, Tire Selection and Rims for Motor Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars.

The error appears in the paragraph of the article that reads:

Section 5.1.1 says that rims used must be those designated by the tire manufacturer. The effective date has been changed from March 1, 1977 to September 1, 1979.

One requirement of S5.1.1 is that a vehicle be equipped with rims that have been designated by the manufacturer of the vehicle's tires as suitable for use with those tires. The effective date of this requirement was originally established as September 1, 1976, and was not delayed by Notice 4. Another requirement of S5.1.1 is that a vehicle be equipped with rims that comply with the standard, i.e., with rims that are marked according to S5.2, Rim Marking. Only the effective date of this vehicle requirement was changed from March 1, 1977, to September 1, 1979.

A clarification of these effective dates in a forthcoming issue of NTDRA Dealer News would be much appreciated.

Yours truly,

ATTACH.

Federal Register Lists Changes In Standard #120

WASHINGTON, D C -- The Department of Transportation has announced several changes in Standard #120. The Selection and Rims for Motor Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars.

The changes are

Section 5.1.1 says that rims used must be those designated by the (Illegible Word) manufacturer. The effective date has been changed from March 1, 1977 to September 1, 1979.

Section 5.2 concerned with rim markings will be made effective August 1, 1977 rather than August 1, 1976

Section 5.3 concerning the certification label will apply to vehicles made on or after September 1, 1977 rather than 1976 When the Standard was issued on January 23, 1976, DOT told passenger car manufacturers that descriptive labels placed on new cars must make reference to the weight to be carried and to specify the tire size to be used and at what air pressure. The notice to new car makers had an effective date of September 1, 1976. It has been changed to September 1, 1977.

ID: nht75-2.9

DATE: 11/19/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; William T. Coleman, Jr.; NHTSA

TO: Hon. J. L. Whitten - H.O.R.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in further reply to your letter of October 3, 1975, for Mr. Charles Russell of WJLJ, regarding tire failures on ambulances in Tupelo, Mississippi.

Pursuant to the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, the Department's National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has issued Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 109, 49 CFR 571.109, which specifies performance and labeling requirements for new tires for use on passenger cars. Among the labeling requirements is that such tires must have their load ratings molded into or onto both sidewalls. Standard No. 119, 49 CFR 571.119, establishes similar requirements for new tires for use on trucks, buses, trailers, motorcycles, and multipurpose passenger vehicles (MPV's). The choice of standard applicable to a given tire depends on that tire's primary intended use. These standards apply to tires, and not to vehicles.

To ensure that new vehicles are equipped with proper tires, the NHTSA has also issued Standard No. 110 for passenger cars and a proposed new Standard No. 120 that would apply to vehicles other than passenger cars. Briefly, Standard No. 110 requires each new passenger car to be equipped with tires which meet Standard No. 109 and which are of sufficient load carrying capacity, as evidenced by the load ratings found on the sidewalls. As proposed, Standard No. 120 would require MPV's (including ambulances) to be equipped with tires which meet either Standard No. 109 or No. 119, and which are of sufficient load carrying capacity. In the case of Standard 119 tires, sufficiency of load carrying capacity would be calculated directly from the tires' load ratings. In the case of Standard 109 (passenger car) tires mounted on an MPV, sufficiency would be determined by dividing the tire load ratings by a 110 percent correction factor before comparing these ratings with the vehicle's weight ratings. The use of passenger car tires on new ambulances would thus not be prohibited by the new standard, provided this load rating correction factor is applied. This provision would recognize an established practice which has not been found to preserve a safety hazard. Passenger car tires generally provide a softer, more comfortable ride than truck tires, because the latter operate at higher inflation pressures, and thus may even be more desirable on ambulances, provided they are of adequate load carrying capacity. The NHTSA expects to issue Standard No. 120 in the near future.

For your convenience, I am enclosing copies of Standards Nos. 109, 110, 119, and the proposed Standard No. 120.

ID: nht87-1.55

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/30/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Jack H. Whitney

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Jack H. Whitney 80 Hammersmith Bridge Road London W6 9DB England

This is in reply to your letter of November 14, 1986, with reference to the Asquith van that you wish to import into the United States from England and sell commercially.

You have asked the following questions:

"1. Does U.K. laminated glass meet D.O.T. regulations:"

Since the U.S. and U.K. glazing standards are not identical, U.K. laminated glass does not necessarily meet the U.S. Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS). Some glass manufactured in U.K. does meet our standard. It bears the required "AS" symbol and numerical designation (e.g., "AS-1" for windshields) and is incorporated in such British cars as Rolls-Royce and jaguar that their makers certify as complying with the FMVSS. Glazing manufactured in England without the AS symbol and numerical design ator presumptively does not comply.

"2. Can I carry passengers?"

"3. Can I haul goods in the back?"

Federal safety standards do not regulate your use of the vehicle; thus, as far as our standards are concerned, you are free to decide whether to carry passengers, haul cargo, or both. However, certain design aspects of the vehicle may affect the category of the vehicle for purposes of compliance with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. We define a truck as a vehicle "designed primarily for the transportation of property or special purpose equipment." Load-carrying vehicles are generally certifie d as "trucks" and comply with safety standards applicable to that category. A multipurpose passenger vehicle" is one that is "designed to carry 10 persons or less and which is constructed either on a truck chassis or with special features for occasional off-road operation. Many vans in the U.S. are certified as "multipurpose passenger vehicles." If a vehicle is neither constructed on a truck chassis nor has features for off-road use, but is designed for carrying 10 passengers or less it is a "passenger or less it is a "passenger car."

4. Once the van passes all D.O.T. and E.P.A. regulations, can it still be used on the road like any other vehicle?

Whether a vehicle nay be used on the public roads is a matter determinable under State law -- specifically the laws of any State where it will be licensed or driven. Generally, when a vehicle complies with D.O.T. and E.P.A. regulations, there should be n o problem in registering and operating it. However, we are not familiar with State laws covering replica vehicles like the Asquith.

"5. Without the engine assembly is my van considered a van, kit car or what?"

For purposes of importation into the United States, a vehicle without an engine is considered an assemblage of items of motor vehicle equipment. Any items in the assemblage that are directly covered by a Federal motor vehicle safety standard (i.e., brake hoses, brake fluid, lighting equipment, tires, glazing, seat belt assemblies, and wheel covers) must meet, and be certified as meeting, the applicable U.S. standard.

In reply to your final request, there are no printed forms for petitions for exemptions from the Federal safety standards. An applicant is expected to provide the information specified in 49 C.F.R. Part 555, in the order given. This regulation is contain ed in the volume referenced in our correspondence with Mr. Reed of May 2, 1986.

The following is a listing of those requirements that must be completed before shipments begin. You must:

1. Appoint an agent for service of process in accordance with Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 551 (49 CFR 551).*

2. Assign a vehicle identification number to your vehicles as required by 49 CFR 565 and Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 115.*

3. Provide information as specified in 49 CFR 566, "Manufacturer Identification."*

4. Certify conformity by adding a label meeting the form, order, and location requirements of 49 CFR 567.

5. Maintain a list of first purchasers for purposes other than resale of your vehicles (section 158(b) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, 15 USC 1418(b)).

6. Build to conform to applicable Federal Motor Vehicle Safety and Bumper Standards. Passenger cars must also meet theft prevention standards, if applicable.

7. Maintain a record of tires on your vehicles (49 CFR 574)."*

8. Provide consumer information (49 CFR 575), if applicable.

9. File a form HS-7 with the U.S. Customs Service at the port of entry. Only one form with each shipment is required.

10. Provide "Automotive Fuel Economy Reports" (49 CFR 537 ), if applicable.

If you determine in good faith that any vehicle manufactured by you does not conform with an applicable FMVSS or contains a safety-related defect, section 151 (15 USC 1411) of the Act requires that you furnish notification to the Secretary and to owners in accordance with section 153 (15 USC 1413) and to remedy without cost the failure to conform or defect in accordance with 154 (15 USC 1414). Details are contained in 49 CFR 573, 576 and 579.

We do not have "application forms." Those regulations requiring information from your company are identified by an asterisk.

We are enclosing the following pertinent publications:

1. The Act

2. 19 CFR 12.80, "Regulations for Motor Vehicle Importation"

3. "Order Form" for Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations, Parts 400-999

4. "Where to Obtain Motor Vehicle Safety Standards and Regulations"

5. 49 CFR 551, "Procedural Rules"

6. 49 CFR 573, "Defect and Noncompliance Reports"

7. 49 CFR 576, "Record Retention"

8. 49 CFR 579, "Defect and Noncompliance Responsibility"

9. Information for New Manufacturers of Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Equipment

If we may be of further assistance, please let us know.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Ms. Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel U.S. Dept. of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590 U.S.A.

Dear Ms. Jones,

Mr. Crispin Reed gave me your name. I am purchasing and importing one of their Shire'vans. Hopefully the vehicle will arrive in Florida in April of next year.

The vehicle will solely belong to me and will arrive without an engine, transmission, exhaust system, etc. I then, with the help of the Ford Motor Company, have installed, a new Ford Mustang engine assembly so I will comply with all EPA regulations.

I have been appointed an agent of the Asquith Motor Carriage Co. to sell future Shire vans to the U.S. market.

Because of the excellent quality of these vehicles and the potential sales and advertising abilities, I am now receiving help from the Florida Dept. of Commerce and the Broward Economic Development Board.

The first van will have two front seats and one large back seat. All the glass will be laminated and it will have a bulkhead separating the passenger area from the back cargo area. It will have winkers front, back and all sides. The chassis and hub and b rake assembly will be the brand new Ford Transit 100LWB.

The question I have on my van will certainly help to cut costs, time and save from doing thing incorrectly or twice, to meet current D.O.T. safety regulations: 1) Does U.K. laminated glass meet D.O.T. regulations? 2) Can I carry passengers? 3) Can I hau l goods in the back? I will be manufacturing furniture in Florida. 4) Once the van passes all D.O.T. and E.P.A. regulations, can it still be used on the road like any other vehicle? 5) Without the engine assembly is my van considered a van, kit car or what?

As for the other future vans, I would be grateful if you could send me (by air mail) the necessary forms required (exemption petitions) so the manufacturer and I can fill them out now, because of the four month waiting period mentioned in your letter dat ed May 2nd.

I want to do this thing correctly cause I would hate to be stuck with a $40,000 van that I couldn't drive.

On the other future vans, Mr. Reed has given me all of your past correspondence and the microfiches you kindly sent him. I shall be looking at them this week.

I assure you have our brochure. The van is 78" wide & 16 1/2 foot long.

*Not for hire.

Yours Sincerely,

Jack H. Whitney

ID: 11644WKM

Mr. Dennis L. O'Connor
Manager, Government & Customer Compliance
The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company
Akron, OH 44316-0001

Dear Mr. O'Connor:

This responds to your letter addressed to Walter Myers of my staff, in which you requested this agency's interpretation of what constitutes a "new" tire for purposes of applying the provisions of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 109, New pneumatic tires and No. 119, New pneumatic tires for vehicles other than passenger cars.

Your question relates to section 30112 of Title 49, United States Code, which provides, in paragraph (a), that no person may manufacture for sale, sell, offer for sale, introduce into interstate commerce, or import for sale any motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment on or after the effective date of any FMVSS that does not comply with that standard and is so certified. Section 30112(b) provides that this requirement does not apply, however, to a vehicle or item of equipment after the first purchase of that product in good faith other than for resale. Section 30112(a) applies, therefore, to the sale of Anew@ motor vehicles and Anew@ items of motor vehicle equipment, as opposed to used vehicles and equipment items.

FMVSS Nos. 109 and 119 specify performance and labeling requirements applicable to new pneumatic tires for use on passenger cars and motor vehicles other than passenger cars, respectively. Standard Nos. 110 and 120 require that new motor vehicles be equipped with tires that meet either FMVSS No. 109 or FMVSS No. 119.

Turning now to the question of what is meant by a "new" tire as opposed to a "used" tire, a vehicle or item of equipment is new from the time of its manufacture until its first retail sale. The agency considers the point at which the vehicle or item of equipment is delivered to the customer to be a critical factor in determining whether and when an item has been purchased. Thus, it is at the point of delivery of the item to the retail purchaser that a vehicle or item of equipment ceases to be "new" and therefore subject to Federal law and the FMVSSs, and becomes "used" and subject to state law and regulations.

The agency considers a motor vehicle to be the sum of its parts, including the tires mounted on the vehicle and its spare tire, if any. Accordingly, after a vehicle is delivered to its first retail purchaser, every component on and in that vehicle, including all its tires, becomes "used" for the purposes of the FMVSSs.

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

Sincerely,

Samuel J. Dubbin Chief Counsel

ref:109#119 d:4/18/96