ID: 1652y

Mr. Leonard M. Perkins
213 S. Pleasant
Prescott, AZ 86303

Dear Mr. Perkins:

Secretary Burnley has asked me to respond to your letter of September 7, 1988, with respect to your lighting device. In essence, this is a center high-mounted stop lamp, with turn signal lamps adjacent to it. You believe that high-mounted turn signals "joined with the rear window brake light should have a dramatic effect on rear and side collisions", but you have been told that "this conception is at present illegal."

Paragraph S4.4 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. l08 states that "no high-mounted stop lamp shall be combined with any other lamp or reflective device." We interpret this as prohibiting lamps or reflective devices that share a single lens or compartment with the center highmounted lamp. Your device shows lamps adjacent to the center highmounted lamp but not combined with it. Therefore, your device is not prohibited by that paragraph of the standard if you wish to market this device as original equipment. The next question to ask is whether it impairs the effectiveness of required lighting equipment (paragraph S4.1.3), principally the center stoplamp. For example, if the yellow turn signals were too bright or if the color of the turn signal were red, these lamps might "impair the effectiveness" of the center stoplamp. However, this is a determination to be made, in the first instance, by the manufacturer of the vehicle who must certify compliance with Standard No. l08.

If you wish to sell your device in the aftermarket, it is acceptable under Federal law if its installation does not adversely affect the operation of motor vehicle equipment installed in accordance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard so that the equipment would no longer comply with the standard. Assuming that the installation does not have this effect, the legality of installing or using such a device must then be determined according to the laws of any State in which a vehicle so equipped is registered or operated, and these auxiliary lamps must comply with any State requirements. We cannot advise you on State laws. One source of advice is the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 4600 Wilson Blvd., Arlington, Va. 22203.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

ref:108 d:l/l8/89

ID: 16537.drn

Mr. Karl-Heinz Ziwica
General Manger, Environmental Engineering
BMW of North America, Inc.
BMW Plaza
Montvale, NJ 07645-1866

Ref: A:FW22197

Dear Mr. Ziwica:

This responds to your request for an interpretation of Standard No. 102, Transmission shift lever sequence, starter interlock, and transmission braking effect as it applied to a proposed BMW transmission design with electronic shifting controls.

We have reviewed the arguments presented in your request for an interpretation, and cannot agree with BMW that S3.1.1 Location of transmission shift lever positions on passenger cars, S3.1.3 Starter interlock and S3.1.4 Identification of shift lever positions "are not applicable to automatic transmissions without a shift lever." However, the agency is carefully reviewing BMW's related petition for rulemaking submitted on November 19, 1997, the same date as the request for interpretation. The agency will inform you of its decision on the petition for rulemaking after it has completed its review of your petition.

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

Sincerely,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
ref:102
d.3/4/98

ID: 16539.wkm

Mr. Donald W. Vierimaa
Vice President - Engineering
Truck Trailer Manufacturers Association
1020 Princess Street
Alexandria, VA 22314-2247

Dear Mr. Vierimaa:

Please pardon the delay in responding to your letter to Dr. Ricardo Martinez, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) Administrator, in which you referred to subsection S5.3, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (Standard) No. 120, Tire selection and rims for motor vehicles other than passenger cars (49 CFR 571.120), and asked whether kilograms and pounds can be abbreviated kg and lb respectively. The answer is yes.

Subsection S5.3, Label information, requires that each vehicle other than passenger cars shall show tire and rim labeling as specified in S5.3.1 and S5.3.2 respectively, "in the format set forth following this section." Examples of the required labeling are set forth following paragraph S5.3.2, entitled "TRUCK EXAMPLE -- SUITABLE TIRE-RIM CHOICE." In those examples the words "kilograms" and "pounds" are spelled out, with no indication that abbreviations may be used.

The labeling is required to be shown "in the format" set forth in the examples. In a denial of a petition for reconsideration and denial of a petition for rulemaking concerning our child seat standard published in the Federal Register on June 4, 1993 (58 FR 31658) (extract enclosed), NHTSA stated:

Format refers to the general appearance of the form and to aspects such as type size, size and placement of margins, size and placement of the spaces for the consumer's name and address, and overall organization of the printed material.

Since no reference is made to the use of abbreviations, it is our opinion that the requirement that the specified labeling be "in the format" shown at the end of the section does not prohibit the use of appropriate abbreviations.

For the sake of brevity, NHTSA has always routinely used abbreviations throughout its standards, especially on prescribed labels. This saves scarce space on such labels and the more commonly used abbreviations, such as "kg" for kilograms and "lb" for pounds, are widely known and recognized by the public. Accordingly, those abbreviations are tantamount to the full spelling of those words and may be used interchangeably with the full spelling of those words in the labeling required by S5.3, Standard No. 120.

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

Sincerely,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
Enclosure
ref:120
d.3/19/98

ID: 1653y

The Honorable Jim Bates
Member, U.S. House of Representatives
430 Davidson St., Suite A
Chula Vista, CA 92010

Dear Mr. Bates:

This is in reply to your letter of October 19, l988, with reference to an invention by your constituent, Angelo R. Collica. You have asked for "the requirements necessary to install lighting devices on motor vehicles."

Since we do not have a description of Mr. Collica's device, our answer must therefore be general in nature. There are different answers, depending upon whether a device is installed before or after the first sale of a vehicle.

A supplementary lighting device installed on a vehicle by a vehicle manufacturer or dealer before its first sale to a consumer is permissible as long as it does not impair the effectiveness of lamps, reflective devices, and associated equipment that are required by the Federal motor vehicle safety standard on lighting. Examples of impairment are diminished brightness of a lamp due to interference with its wiring, or a confusion of its function through close proximity or signal of the supplementary device. In general, also, all lighting equipment other than hazard warning/turn signals, and headlamps flashed for signalling purposes, must be steady-burning in use. Whether a device creates an impairment is a determination to be made by the vehicle manufacturer in its certification of compliance with the Federal safety standards, or by the dealer, before sale of the vehicle.

The installation of a supplementary lighting device on a vehicle after the vehicle's first sale to a consumer is acceptable under Federal law, provided that the installation does not degrade the performance of any device or element of design installed in accordance with any Federal motor vehicle safety standard. This prohibition applies to vehicle manufacturers, distributors, dealers and repair businesses. It does not, however, apply if the supplementary lighting device is installed by the vehicle owner.

The legality of operating a supplementary device, installed after vehicle sale, is primarily determinable under the laws of any State in which a vehicle using it is registered or driven. The American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 4600 Wilson Blvd., Arlington, Va. 22203, is able to advise on State laws.

I hope that this has been helpful to you.

Sincerely,

Diane K. Steed

/ref:108 d:l/23/89

ID: 16613.ztv

Mr. Yanichi Yoshimoto
Deputy General Manager
Technical Administration Dep't.
Koito Manufacturing Co., Ltd.
Shizuoka Works
500,Kitawaki
Shmimzu-Shi, Shizuoka-ken
Japan

Dear Mr. Yoshimoto:

This is in reply to your letter of November 28, 1997, to the Associate Administrator for Safety Performance Standards, asking for an interpretation of the humidity test requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. For your future reference, requests for interpretation should be addressed to the Chief Counsel.

After a humidity test, paragraph S7.4(h)(6) of Standard No. 108 requires the inside of a headlamp to "show no evidence of delamination or moisture, fogging or condensation visible without magnification." You ask whether moisture is nevertheless permissible if it is located in an area of the interior where it cannot affect the photometric performance of the headlamp.

The requirement is absolute: no moisture that is visible without magnification is permitted on the interior of a headlamp after the humidity test, whether or not it is located in an area related to the photometric performance of the headlamp. Thus, moisture is not permissible in the situation shown in your Case 1 (moisture on the lens area of the turn signal lamp portion of a single compartment lamp) or your Case 2 (moisture in a location outside the photometric effective area of the headlamp).

Sincerely,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
d.1/8/98
ref:108

ID: 16614-1.pja

Mr. Shane K. Lack
Mechanical Engineer
Human Factors Division
National Transportation Safety Board
490 L'Enfant Plaza East, SW
Washington, DC 20594

Dear Mr. Lack:

This responds to your request that we review your draft summaries and interpretations of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards 205 (49 CFR 571.205, Glazing materials) and 217 (49 CFR 571.217, Bus emergency exits and window retention and release). We apologize for the delay in responding.

Because your documents are lengthy (36 pages) and contain so many statements, questions, and interpretations, we are unable to address each individual point in this letter. Instead, we will confirm that, in general, your summaries and interpretations of our standards are correct. We offer the following answers to your questions and corrections to a few of your interpretations, with reference to the page number and line number of your summary. For brevity, we have paraphrased the relevant portions of your letter in italics.

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205, Glazing materials

Questions on page 1, lines 1 through 9, and lines 22 through 27: Will any material that meets the tests for a specific item of glazing be considered to be that kind of glazing, or do materials specifications (e.g., rigid plastic) restrict the choice of material?

The answer to the first part of your question is yes. The material of which the glazing is constructed is not specified. Both Standard 205 and the American National Standard, Safety Code for Safety Glazing Materials for Glazing Motor Vehicles Operating on Land Highways -- ANSI Z26.1-1977 (hereafter referred to as ANSI Z26.1, which is incorporated by reference in the CFR) may refer to specific kinds of glazing in headings. Examples of this are in paragraph S5.1.2.3 of the standard, which refers to "flexible plastics," and the column headings of Table 1 in ANSI Z26.1, which lists materials such as "laminated glass." These headings are for illustrative purposes only, to indicate the material and construction that typically is used to meet the enumerated tests. See note 1 to Table 1 in ANSI Z26.1, which specifically states that future materials that meet the enumerated tests may be used. Therefore, any material that meets all the tests for a particular item of glazing complies with the standard, regardless of composition or construction.

Question on line 28 through 33: What about paragraph S5.1.2.2, which in the text of the standard itself seems to restrict item 12 glazing to safety plastics?

Again, the mention of safety plastics is illustrative. The words "safety plastics" should not have been included in the standard. However, the performance-based method (i.e., whatever meets the tests) of determining compliance is maintained even for item 12 glazing.

Question on page 1, lines 34 and 35, and page 2, lines 1 and 2: Are the glazing materials approved for the side windows of buses the same regardless of the gross vehicle weight rating and whether the bus is a school bus or a non-school bus?

The answer to both questions is yes.

Question on page 2, line 8: Is the list on lines 9 through 22 showing approved glazing types for side windows of buses correct?

The list of approved glazing types on page 2 is correct.

Question on page 2, line 25: Does each piece of glazing material have to be stamped with "AS" followed by the item no. of the glazing?

Yes.

Question on page 2, line 26: Does Standard No. 205 allow glazing materials that shatter to be placed in the side windows of buses, as long as those materials shatter into small pieces.

Yes.

Question on page 2, line 28: Does Standard No. 205 require a measurement of the dynamic force deflection curve of glazing materials?

No, it does not.

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 217, Bus emergency exits and window retention and release

Interpretation at page 1, line 27: To be counted as an emergency exit, an exit must be in compliance with all emergency exit requirements for that type of exit.

We assume when you say "to be counted" you mean whether a particular exit would count for determining if the bus has the correct number of exits specified in Standard No. 217. When conducting a compliance inspection of a new vehicle, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) would normally have the manufacturer's certification data showing which exits are designated as emergency exits. If an exit did not comply in some way, this agency would not "uncount" that exit for meeting exit number and exit area requirements. Instead, the vehicle would be considered to have failed only the requirements that were not fulfilled. For example, if an otherwise compliant exit were not labeled, the bus would fail only the S5.1.1 labeling requirement. The area for that exit would still be counted for meeting the emergency exit number and area requirements.

Interpretation on page 1, line 31: The minimum size of an emergency exit window in a non-school bus is the area of an ellipsoid having a major axis parallel to the ground of 50 cm and a minor axis of 33 cm. This minimum total area of an emergency exit on a non-school bus is 510.5 square centimeters.

The first sentence of your interpretation is correct. Your computation in the second sentence is incorrect. The minimum emergency exit opening computes to 1296 sq. cm for a 33cm X 50cm ellipsoid. The area of an ellipse = 3.14 times the product of the major and minor semi-axes.

Interpretation on page 2, line 24: For non-school buses with a GVWR > 10,000 lb, there is no prohibition against placing side emergency exits vertically above one another.

While it is true that there is no prohibition explicitly stated in the standard, NHTSA interprets its regulations consistently with their purposes. The purpose behind the emergency exit requirements, which is clearly reflected paragraph S2 and in its preambles on the subject, is to provide readily accessible emergency egress. It is highly unlikely that a manufacturer would actually place emergency exits in such an unusual configuration. If it did, NHTSA would not regard the emergency exit placed on top of another as being accessible, and would not count it toward meeting the requirements.

Interpretation on page 2, lines 29 through 30: There are no guidelines on lateral or longitudinal placement of roof emergency hatches.

Paragraph S5.2.1 allows manufacturers of non-school buses to meet the specifications for non-school buses in S5.2.2 or the specifications for school buses in S5.2.3. If S5.2.2 is followed and a roof exit is needed because a rear exit cannot be provided, then paragraph S5.2.2.2 specifies that the roof exit is to be located in the rear half of the bus. If S5.2.3 is followed, then S5.3.2.2(b) specifies both the longitudinal and lateral position of all roof exits.

Interpretation on page 4, line 1: An emergency release mechanism is defined in previous NHTSA interpretations as a mechanism that prevents an exit from opening.

We do not know to which interpretation you are referring. A computerized search of all our previous interpretation letters did not reveal an interpretation with those words. It is true, however, that the provisions specifying that the release mechanisms can only be actuated by applications of a certain magnitude of force in certain directions are designed to prevent inadvertent opening of an exit.

I hope this is helpful. Again, my sincere apologies for the delay in our reply.  If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact us at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
ref:205# 217
d.2/17/99

ID: 16619.ogm

Ms. Susan Ohara
Safety Engineering
Mitsubishi Motors of America
Ann Arbor Laboratory
3735 Varsity Drive
Ann Arbor, MI 48108

Dear Ms. Ohara

This is in response to your letter requesting information regarding the requirements of Standard No. 201, Head Impact Protection. Specifically, your question relates to locating the B-pillar reference point (BPR) where the specific characteristics of the vehicle interior create difficulties in locating that point. Your letter and accompanying drawings indicate that in the vehicle in question, a groove or indentation is formed at the intersection of the side rail trim and the edge of the interior surface of the roof. You note that S10.2(a) directs that BPR is the point "located at the middle of the line from Point 3 to Point 4 in Plane 7, measured along the vehicle interior surface." The presence of the groove presents the choice of locating BPR either through measuring along the actual surface of the side rail and roof or by using a flexible tape to bridge the groove and measure along the "nominal" surface between Point 3 and Point 4. You further note that if the latter course is followed that BPR will be located on a point in space and ask how you should proceed in relocating BPR so that it is located on the surface of the vehicle interior.

If, as is the case with the vehicle represented in the drawings attached to your letter, the radius of curvature of the groove or indentation located between Point 3 and Point 4 is such that the forehead impact zone of the FMH could not contact any point beneath the nominal surface, BPR should be located by measuring along that nominal surface.

NHTSA stated, at page 16723 of the final rule published on April 8, 1997 (62 FR 16718), that measurements along trim with small convolutions, gaps or depressions would be made nominal to the surface. If following that direction and measuring along the nominal surface results in BPR being located at a point in space rather than on the interior surface of the vehicle, target BP1 must be relocated but BPR must remain in its original location.

In cases where the forehead impact zone of the FMH cannot make contact with a target point, S10(b) provides a procedure for relocating targets within a 25 millimeter sphere centered at the original target:

(b) Except as specified in S10(c), if there is no combination of horizontal and vertical angles specified in S8.13.4 at which the forehead impact zone of the free motion headform can contact one of the targets located using the procedures in S10.1 through S10.13, the center of that target is moved to any location within a sphere with a radius of 25 mm, centered on the center of the original target and measured along the vehicle interior, which the forehead impact zone can contact at one or more combination of angles.

If it is still not possible for the forehead impact zone to make contact within the sphere described in S10(b), S10(c) provides that the sphere may be expanded in 25 mm increments until contact can be made.

I hope that this is responsive to your inquiry. Please contact Otto Matheke of my staff at (202) 366-5263 or through electronic mail at omatheke@nhtsa.dot.gov if you have any questions.

Sincerely,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
ref:207
d.5/13/98

ID: 16653.ztv

Mr. Filmore Bouldes
5607 High Ridge Drive
Ypsilanti, MI 48197

Dear Mr. Bouldes:

We have received your letter postmarked November 25, 1997, which asks the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration "if it's legal to use any other colors, on the front approach of your vehicle, other than yellow and clear/can you use blue, red etc. inside or outside of your vehicle?"

We assume that you mean the color of front lamps, such as headlamps, parking lamps, turn signal lamps, and fog or other supplemental lamps. The question of colors that you are permitted to use for lamps on the front of your vehicle must be answered under the laws of the states in which the vehicle will be licensed and operated. I am sorry that we are not conversant with state laws, but the Michigan Highway patrol will be able to furnish you an answer. However, we believe that most states restrict the use of blue or red front lighting to emergency vehicles.

This agency's motor vehicle lighting standard requires vehicles to be manufactured with front lamps that are white (headlamps), or amber (parking and turn signal lamps) in the color of light they emit. Federal law does not prohibit the owner of a vehicle from personally changing these colors, but state laws very likely will.

If you have any further questions, you may refer them to Taylor Vinson of this Office (202-366-5263).

Sincerely,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
ref:108
d.1/13/98

ID: 16660-1.pja

Ms. Jeanne Isbill
TarasPort Trailers, Inc.
P.O. Box 327
Sweetwater, TN 37874

Dear Ms. Isbill:

This responds to your letter requesting an interpretation of whether two trailers your company manufactures would be excluded from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's (NHTSA's) rear impact protection (underride guard) regulations. You enclosed photographs of two flatbed trailers with rear extenders that slide out as much as 36 inches from the rear of the chassis. In the case of one trailer, the extension is full width, meaning that the extension forms a continuous plane from one side of the trailer to the other. On the other trailer, the extensions are only on the sides, like the small shelves that slide out from office desks on either side of the chair. Although no dimensions are given, it appears from the photographs that the extenders are more than 560 mm above the ground, near the top of the trailer tires. You ask if these trailers are special purpose vehicles and, if so, whether their bumpers need to be labeled stating that they are excluded. As explained below, these trailers are not excluded special purpose vehicles, and a compliant underride guard would need to be provided.

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 224, Rear impact protection, requires most trailers and semitrailers weighing over 10,000 pounds to be fitted at the rear with a rear impact (underride) guard meeting the requirements of Standard No. 223, Rear impact guards (49 CFR 571.223 and 571.224, published on January 24, 1996 at 61 FR 2004). However, certain kinds of vehicles are excluded. The only excluded category that is relevant for the purposes of this letter is that of "special purpose vehicles."

A special purpose vehicle is defined in S4 of FMVSS No. 224 as "a trailer or semitrailer having work-performing equipment that, while the vehicle is in transit, resides in or moves through the area that could be occupied by the horizontal member of the rear underride guard, as defined by S5.1.1 through S5.1.3."⁽¹⁾ S5.1.2 states that "[t]he vertical distance between the bottom edge of the horizontal member of the guard and the ground shall not exceed 560 mm at any point across the full width of the member. . . ." We can see no part of your trailer that, while the vehicle is in transit, would reside in or pass through an area described in S5.1.2.

In addition, to be a special purpose vehicle the guard area would have to be occupied or passed through by work-performing equipment. NHTSA interprets the words "work-performing" to mean that the equipment must actively perform its function, and that the function must involve exerting force or moving something else. There is no work-performing equipment at the rear of your trailers. Therefore, these vehicle do not meet the definition of a special purpose vehicle. No other exclusion applies to them, so the vehicle would have to be equipped with an underride guard meeting the requirements of 49 CFR 571.223 in order to be certified. The guard would have to be labeled as specified in S5.3 of Standard No. 223.

When deciding how to mount the guard, please keep in mind that a vehicle would have to meet the requirements of the rule in every configuration in which it can be operated on the road. Standard No. 224 does not specify the position the rear extenders would have to be in when the agency determines compliance. When a standard does not specify a particular test condition, we begin with a presumption that the requirements must be met in every test condition in which the vehicle can be operated. See, for example, NHTSA's October 2, 1990 letter to Mr. S. Kadoya of Mazda. Starting from this presumption, we look to the language of the standard and its purposes for guidance to decide whether some limitation on the test condition should be implied. We see no language that would imply a limitation. As to the purposes, with the trailer configured in the flatbed mode with its rear end at a height above 560 mm, a colliding vehicle would likely underride the trailer rear extenders. This safety concern is one that the agency considered extensively in the January 24, 1996 final rule (see 61 FR 2016-18), and it is this kind of situation the regulation was intended to prevent. Therefore, NHTSA could determine whether the vehicle complied with the rear extenders in any position they could be placed in transit.

S5.1.3 of Standard No. 224 states that the horizontal member of the guard must be as close as practicable to the rear extremity of the vehicle, but in no case farther than 305 mm from the rear extremity of the trailer. Your trailer's rear extremity with the extenders out would be the rearmost surface on the extenders themselves. To comply with S5.1.3, the rear face of the horizontal member of the guard would need to be no farther forward than 305 mm from the extenders, when the extenders are in any position in which they can be placed when in transit.

We cannot provide a specific opinions on how your trailer might be redesigned to accommodate a guard. We note, however, that the standard specifies only the guard's horizontal member position, and therefore there is a great deal of flexibility in how you attach the guard to the trailer, so long as the strength and energy absorption requirements are met. There is no requirement that the guard be suspended from the bed area. A guard attached to the extenders would move in and out with them, thus complying with the S5.1.3 no matter what position the extenders are in. However, we emphasize that it is you, as the vehicle manufacturer, who is responsible for the vehicle's compliance with the standard.

If you expect to encounter unusual difficulty redesigning your trailers, the agency would consider a petition for temporary exemption from Standard No. 224. Under one of our regulations (49 CFR Part 555), vehicle manufacturers may apply for a temporary exemption from the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. Under Sec. 555.6(a), a manufacturer whose yearly production is not more than 10,000 units may ask for an exemption of up to three years on the basis that compliance would cause it substantial economic hardship and that it has attempted in good faith to comply with the standard from which it has asked to be excused. We have enclosed a copy of Part 555 for your information. We have also enclosed a copy of our regulations relating to the protection of confidential business information. Most of the trailer manufacturers submitting petitions for temporary exemption have requested that their financial information remain confidential.

Please note Part 555 requires the agency to publish a notice in the Federal Register seeking public comment on each exemption petition before a decision can be made on such a request, and then publish a second notice either granting or denying the petition. This process normally takes three to four months from the date of submission.

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.

Sincerely,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
Enclosures: Parts 512, 555
ref:224
d.5/22/98

1. Note that this definition, as quoted, reflects an amendment made in response to petitions for reconsideration of the final rule. See 63 F.R. 3654 (January 26, 1998).

ID: 16666-3.ztv

Mr. Peter Stroosma
Small Business Development Center
Skagit Valley College
2405 East College Way
Mount Vernon, WA 98273-5899

Dear Mr. Stroosma:

This is in reply to your fax of December 10, 1997, to Taylor Vinson of this Office re "VW Beetle Restoration/Regulations." I apologize for the delay in our response.

You write that your client Stephen Callero "is considering [sending] the chassis of an original Beetle to Mexico where it will be equipped with a new body and an engine (that is really a new engine but billed out as a used engine)." You ask whether this would create "a new vehicle," and, if so, what modifications "would qualify the vehicle to be registered under its original model year?"

This is a complicated area. We have addressed a similar issue in a letter of July 28, 1997, to Miguel Padres. I have enclosed a copy of that letter for your information. I note that your client's plan differs in that a new engine would be installed as well as a new body. In our view, this would result in the manufacture of a new motor vehicle that would have to comply with applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards in order to be admitted into the United States. Furthermore, as a condition of its importation into this country, the vehicle would have to be certified by its Mexican assembler as conforming to the Federal standards.

If you have any further questions, Taylor Vinson (202-366-5263) will be happy to answer them for you.

Sincerely,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
Enclosure
ref:591
d.5/22/98