ID: nht92-1.31

DATE: 12/10/92

FROM: JUAN F. VEGA

TO: ANDREW CARD -- SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 2-16-93 FROM JOHN WOMACK TO JUAN F. VEGA (A40; STD. 208)

TEXT: Attached to this letter you will find correct copies of multiples complaints that I have made. They have all been to no avial I wrote Captain [Illegible Words] of the Florida Highway Patrol complaining that the [Ilegible Word] being used at Florida State Prison to transport inmater have [Illegible Words]

On 9/20/92 I wrote the Asst. Superintendent at Florida State Prison setting which the same complaint.

In his response he stated that a copy of my complaint was being forward to the Department of Legal Affairs for further review and input.

The fact is that nothing has been done about the problem upto date.

[Illegible Words]

On 10/1/92 I wrote Florida State Prison Superintendent setting forth the same complaint.

On 10/9/92 he send me a response saying that the vans being used to transport inmates are not required to have seat belts.

Then he gave me the poor excuse that in the event of an accident it would [Illegible Words]

The fact is that in the event of an accident the injury is more saver if the prison does not have seat belts. And if the inmate breaks his back whats the hurry because you cannot move him. Its a clear established fact that Florida State Prison is trying to waste their duty to comply with Florida and Federal Safety belt law.[Illegible Paragraph]

ATTACHMENTS

1. LETTER UNDATED FROM JUAN F. VEGA TO TERRY R. MCINTYRE

2. INMATE REQUEST

DATED 9-20-92 FROM JUAN F. VEGA TO R. E TURNER

3. LETTER DATED 10-1-92

FROM Juan F. VEGA To STATE OF FLORIDA, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTTIONS

4. Memorandum DATED 10-7-92 From Everett I. PERRIN, Jr. To Juan Vega

(Text Omitted)

ID: nht92-1.32

DATE: 12/09/92

FROM: DANIEL K. UPHAM -- PRESIDENT, SYS TEK CORPORATION

TO: CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TITLE: SUBJECT: COMPLIANCE WITH NATIONAL SAFETY STANDARDS, NEW PRODUCT

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 12-28-92 FROM PAUL J. RICE TO DANIEL K. UPHAM (A40; STD. 108); ALSO ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 8-17-89 FROM STEPHEN P. WOOD TO ALAN S. ELDAHR (STD. 108)

TEXT: We are a new company located in Southern California involved in new product development and manufacturing. We are currently designing a new product that can be used in motor vehicles as an advertising or silent communications device and we would like to be sure that we are not violating any local or federal laws. That being the case I spoke on the telephone with Mr. George Shefflett who suggested that we contact your office for an official opinion even though he believed there did not appear to be a problem.

The product we have in mind is a portable lighted message display using LED technology, that could be mounted inside the vehicle to the side rear or rear window. It will be either battery powered or it will be powered using the vehicle power source via cigarette lighter or directly to the cars electrical harness. This is an after market product sold through auto parts stores or various other consumer outlets.

We have reviewed the California Vehicle Code and are aware of the general constraints such as colors, view obstruction, light brightness, etc. Frankly we have found no serious obstacles to our endeavor at this point and we would like to hear your concerns and suggestions with regard to our idea. We would also appreciate any suggestions you may have as to what other agencies or organizations we might need to confer with before we make our final decisions.

Thank you very much for your time and help.

ID: nht92-1.33

DATE: December 8, 1992

FROM: Vasant Jinwala -- Consumer Testing Laboratories, Inc.

TO: Marvin Shaw -- Department of Transportation

TITLE: Flammability for Comfort Cushions

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 1/22/93 from John Womack to Vasant Jinwala (A40; Std. 302; VSA 102(4))

TEXT:

We have received a comfort cushion for testing. The sample does not conform to DOT 302 flammability requirements. The manufacturer claims that the DOT 302 standard is only applicable to a car's original equipment and NOT for auto accessories. Your input in this matter is appreciated.

Please see the attached copy of packaging. The packaging clearly indicates the intended CAR use.

(Comfort Cushion brochure omitted.)

ID: nht93-1.22

DATE: 01/29/93

FROM: JOSEPH S. KAPLAN -- ROSS & HARDIES

TO: JOSEPH S. KAPLAN -- ROSS & HARDIES

TITLE: REQUEST FOR A LEGAL INTERPRETATION NEW FLYER INDUSTRIES, INC.

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 2-12-93 FROM JOHN WOMACK TO JOSEPH S. KAPLAN (A40; PART 568; PART 591)

TEXT: On behalf of New Flyer Industries Limited of Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada, ("NFIL") we request a legal interpretation that bus shells which NFIL manufactures at its plant in Winnipeg and exports to an affiliated manufacturer, New Flyer of America (N.D.) Inc., ("NFND") for completion and delivery are exempt from the statutory prohibition against importing noncomplying motor vehicles and items of vehicle equipment and are exempt from bonding, and that the shells are admissible under 49 CFR 591.5 (e). The basis for this claim is that the shells require further manufacturing operations other than the addition of readily attachable equipment items and minor finishing operations to perform their intended function.

Facts

NFIL produces five models of bus shells (forty foot-diesel, forty-foot trolley bus, sixty-foot diesel, low floor diesel, and sixty-foot trolley bus) at its Winnipeg plant for exportation to NFND in Grand Forks, North Dakota. As exported, the shells are painted and equipped with tire and rim assemblies. The average standard labor hours to build the shell is 800 hours. At Grand Forks the shells are further manufactured into completed New Flyer buses. The final stage work undertaken in Grand Forks represents more than 50% of the production cost of the completed buses.

Major components added in the United States in the final building stage include bumpers, engine and oil filter (or propulsion system), power plant, starter system, cooling system, fuel system, interior lighting, electric system, destination signs, seating and stanchions, heating and air conditioning system, chair lift (except on low floor buses) and various option packages. Average standard labor hours expended in North Dakota to complete a bus from an imported shell are 300.

Thus, final stage operations clearly require significant and complex assembly operations, and constitute much more than the addition of readily attachable equipment components. The final stage labor input is a significant percentage (on average 27%) of total bus construction time, and the work done is necessary to convert the shell to a bus capable of performing its intended function.

Among the components added to diesel buses in the United States is the power plant. New Flyer buses are equipped with U.S.-made engines and transmissions which are delivered by the manufacturers directly to the Grand Forks assembly facility. In Grand Forks, the engines are mounted on engine cradles assembled in Grand Forks from subcomponents manufactured in Canada. The activity in the United States required to prepare and install the engines and transmissions requires the use of skilled labor and consumes 75 standard labor hours. The work cannot properly be described as the simple installation of an engine shipped separately from an otherwise complete bus or one requiring no more than the addition of mirrors, tires and rims.

Trolley bus shells require more or less the same second stage effort. The chief difference is merely that the propulsion system is based on a United States made electric motor and gear box rather than a diesel engine and transmission.

NFND is a final stage original equipment motor vehicle manufacturer. New Flyer buses which it completes and delivers to customers must, and do, conform to all applicable safety standards and are certified as in conformity with such standards.

Discussion

Although it is obvious that NFIL's shells are subject to the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (the "Act"), a determination as to whether the shells are either vehicles or equipment is necessary. As noted in the Facts section, there is no power train in the imported shells. As a result, the shells do not meet the definition of "incomplete vehicle" in 49 C.F.R. @ 568.3, which requires as a minimum, in addition to other features, all of which are presented in the imported shells, the presence of a power train.

There are two approaches to dealing with this request. Your office may either determine that NFIL shells are incomplete vehicles within the meaning of 49 C.F.R. @ 568.3, and direct the Customs Service to permit the importation of the shells as noncomplying motor vehicles or it may determine that the shells are motor vehicles or items of motor vehicle equipment within the scope of 15 U.S.C. @ 1397(e) and 49 C.F.R. @ 591.5(e), and direct Customs to permit their importation exempt from conformance and bonding. We believe that the second alternative is the sounder approach.

Treatment of the shells as either vehicles or equipment was specifically contemplated in the Notice of Proposed Rule Making proposing the addition of a new Part 591 to Title 49 C.F.R. (54 Fed. Reg. 17772 April 25, 1989). In connection with proposed section 491.5(e), NHTSA explained that it is intended to implement new section 108(e) of the Act as amended by the Imported Vehicle Safety Compliance Act of 1988, P.L. 100-562, and in turn that new section 108(e), encompassing vehicles and equipment requiring further manufacture to perform their intended function, broadens the pre-existing exception from conformance available to vehicles built in two or more steps. Also the NPRM noted the practice of offering for importation vehicles without engines or other running gear parts, which NHTSA had treated as de facto importations of noncomplying motor vehicles, and specifically mentioned that such importations are now covered by section 108(e). Further, in a discussion in the same NPRM of motor vehicle equipment importations, the agency commented:

Under new section 108(e), an equipment item need not comply on importation if it requires further manufacturing to perform its intended function.

Clearly, therefore NFIL shells come within NHTSA's existing understanding of exempt articles under section 108(e) and this understanding is consistent with the plain meaning of both the statute and the regulation. Having so concluded however, it is still necessary to determine whether for the purpose of 49 C.F.R. @ 591.6(b) the shells are subject to the documentation requirements of @ 591.6(b) (1) (if vehicles) or @ 591.6(b)(2) (if equipment).

We have expressed our preference that the shells be deemed equipment rather than incomplete vehicles. There are two reasons. First, that would eliminate the need to deviate and explain away the deviation from the definition of incomplete vehicle in 49 C.F.R. @ 568.3. Second, it would reduce the paperwork burden on NFIL without compromising the beneficial purposes of the Act. NFIL does not contend that the shells are equipment to which no standard applies, and the commercial circumstances of their importation provide assurances that they will be brought into conformity in the course of final-stage manufacture. Thus the problems which caused NHTSA to treat imports without engines as vehicles despite the definitional requirements of section 568.3 are not present, and such de facto treatment is unnecessary. With regard to the documentation requirements of 49 C.F.R. @ 568.4 applicable to incomplete vehicles, the information required will be furnished when the completed buses are sold and delivered. Thus there is no harm or threat of harm to the public interest in permitting NFIL to enjoy the less burdensome documentary requirements of 49 C.F.R. @ 591.6(b)(2).

Requested Interpretation

For the foregoing reasons, we request that you hold that New Flyer forty and sixty foot diesel bus shells, low floor diesel bus shells and forty and sixty foot trolley bus shells are exempt from the bonding and conformance requirements of section 108(a) (1) (A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, 15 U.S.C. 1397(a) (1) (A) pursuant to section 108(e) of the Vehicle Safety Act as amended by the Imported Vehicle Safety Compliance Act of 1988, P.L. 100-562, and may be declared on entry as vehicles or equipment items requiring further manufacturing operations to perform their intended function, other than the addition of readily attachable equipment items, or minor finishing operations, pursuant to 49 C.F.R. Part 591 and section 591.5(e) thereof. Based on the facts presented we request that you find that New Flyer bus shells are equipment items which require further manufacturing operations to perform their intended functions, and, thus, are exempt on compliance with the appropriate documentary requirements of 49 C.F.R. @ 591.6(b) applicable to items of vehicle equipment.

New Flyer bus shells covered by a @ 591.5(e) declaration will be accompanied by an appropriate written statement issued by NFIL.

Should any question exist concerning NFIL's entitlement to the requested determination, we will appreciate being notified and provided with an opportunity to discuss the issues with you and to amplify the record.

ID: nht93-1.23

DATE: 01/29/93

FROM: BEVERLEY SILVER-CORBER

TO: U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION -- NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 2-19-93 FROM JOHN WOMACK TO BEVERLEY SILVER-CORBER (A40; PART 591)

TEXT: I am the owner of a 1992 Accord purchased in Canada. My husband has been accepted into Graduate Studies at Temple University in Philadelphia for the fall term. We understand from Honda (a copy of their letter to us is enclosed) that our vehicle meets EPA standards but does not have a passive restraint system and cannot be modified. We were planning to bring this car with us for our own personal use during the two years my husband will be studying. Please advise whether we would qualify for an exemption and be allowed to import the car for the two years of study and under what conditions, if any.

Thanking you in advance for a prompt response to our enquiry,

ATTACHMENT LETTER DATED 1-13-92 FROM VERNELL WOODS (HONDA) TO B. CORBER (TEXT OMITTED)

ID: nht93-1.24

DATE: February 1, 1993

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Joanna L. Campfield -- Vice President, Ultra B-O-N-D, Inc.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 11/18/92 from Joanna L. Campfield to Paul J. Rice (0CC 8033)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter asking the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to issue an "approval" letter for your method of repairing cracks in windshields. As explained below, this agency does not approve motor vehicles or items of motor vehicle equipment. However, this letter does discuss Federal safety requirements in connection with windshield repairs.

By way of background information, section 103 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (Safety Act, 15 U.S.C. S1392) authorizes this agency to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and items of new motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA, however, does not approve motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment, nor do we endorse any commercial products. Instead, the Safety Act establishes a self-certification process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet our safety standards. The agency periodically tests vehicles and equipment items for compliance with the standards, and also investigates alleged safety-related defects.

NHTSA has issued Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205, GLAZING MATERIALS (49 CFR S 571.205) which establishes performance and location requirements for glazing used in new motor vehicles and for all new replacement glazing for motor vehicles. Neither Standard No. 205 nor any other FMVSS establishes performance requirements for repair kits, such as the Ultra B-0-N-D method, used to repair cracks in broken glazing. However, use of such a material or process in a new windshield prior to the first consumer purchase which requires repair, for example, as a result of damage sustained in shipment would be affected by Standard No. 205. Manufacturers must certify that their new vehicles comply with all applicable safety standards. If a windshield is repaired prior to the new vehicle being sold for the first time to a consumer, the person making the repairs would be considered a vehicle alterer under our certification regulations (Part 567). As an alterer, the person would have to certify that the vehicle, as altered, continues to comply with all of the requirements of Standard No. 205.

In the case of a used vehicle, use of a windshield repair kit could potentially be affected by section 108 (a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act. That section prohibits commercial businesses from knowingly rendering inoperative devices or elements of design installed in a vehicle in compliance with a FMVSS. In discussing the applicability of section 108 (a)(2)(A) to the repair of windows in used vehicles, NHTSA has said that the prohibitions of that section do not apply to use of a product or process used in the repair of a windshield which has been previously installed in a vehicle and damaged in use. The agency has considered the event that damaged the windshield, and not any subsequent action

by the person repairing the damaged window in a used vehicle, as the event which rendered inoperative the compliance of the glazing with the standard. Thus, there is no Federal regulation which would prohibit the use of a product or process in the repair of a windshield which has previously been installed in a vehicle and damaged in use. I note, however, that if the repair shop, in the course of fixing a damaged windshield that is installed in a vehicle renders another part of the vehicle or element of design inoperative with respect to another applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard, then the repair shop would violate section 108 (a)(2)(A).

In addition, the manufacturer of the windshield repair kit is considered a manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment. Accordingly, it is subject to the requirements in sections 151-159 of the Safety Act concerning the recall and remedy of products with defects related to motor vehicle safety.

Please be aware that the laws of the individual States may be relevant to the repair of motor vehicle glazing. For more information about these laws, you should contact the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators. Its address is 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Va. 22203.

I hope this information is helpful. Please feel free to contact Marvin Shaw of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992 if you have any further questions or need additional information.

ID: nht93-1.25

DATE: February 1, 1993

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Allan Ferver -- Product Manager, Waekon Industries, Inc.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 12/1/92 from Allan "Buzz" Ferver to Paul Rice (OCC 8056)

TEXT: This responds to your letter asking about how this agency's regulations would apply to a product which you call the "Universal Replacement Fuel Cap." You explained that this product is designed to replace lost fuel caps until the proper replacement can be obtained. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our regulations to you. I am also enclosing a copy of a fact sheet entitled "Information for New Manufacturers of Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Equipment."

By way of background information, NHTSA is authorized to issue Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA is not authorized to certify or approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment for compliance with the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. Instead, under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, each manufacturer of a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards.

There is currently no Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard that is directly applicable to a replacement fuel cap. Nevertheless, you should be aware of Safety Standard No. 301, FUEL SYSTEM INTEGRITY, which may be relevant to your product. Standard No. 301 applies only to new motor vehicles and specifies performance requirements that must be met by the fuel system as a whole following crash tests. The standard does not apply to individual components of a fuel system or to aftermarket equipment for use on fuel systems.

Although Standard No. 301 would not directly apply to a replacement fuel cap, there are responsibilities under Federal law of which you should be aware. Manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment, which includes fuel caps, are subject to the requirements in sections 151-159 of the Safety Act concerning the recall and remedy of products with defects relating to motor vehicle safety.

In addition, there are prohibitions against certain modifications of new and used vehicles. Section 108 (a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act specifies that no manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative any device or element of design installed on or in a new or used motor vehicle, in compliance with any applicable Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard. Therefore, no person in any of the aforementioned categories may place your fuel cap on a motor vehicle if by so doing the vehicle's compliance with Standard No. 301 were negatively affected. Whether your fuel cap could be installed on a vehicle by a person in one of those categories without taking the vehicle out of compliance with Standard No. 301 or any other applicable Federal safety standard is a determination that must be made by the entity making the installation.

Please note that the prohibition of S 108 (a)(2)(A) does not apply to

individual vehicle owners who alter their own vehicles. Thus, under Federal law, a vehicle owner may install or remove any item of motor vehicle equipment regardless of its effect on compliance with the Federal safety standards. However, the agency encourages vehicle owners not to remove or otherwise tamper with vehicle safety equipment if the modification would degrade the vehicle's safety.

We suggest that you also contact the Environmental Protection Agency to see whether EPA has any type of emissions standard that might affect you as the manufacturer of a fuel cap. The general telephone number for EPA is (202) 382-2090.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions about NHTSA's safety standards, please feel free to contact Marvin Shaw of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht93-1.26

DATE: February 4, 1993

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Bill Dobberteen -- Product Launch Engineer, Prince Corporation

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 11/16/92 from Bill Dobberteen to Office of Chief Council, NHTSA (OCC 8026)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter that requested information about how the regulations administered by this agency would apply to a device you wish to market. According to your letter, your company is developing an overhead storage compartment bin to be secured to the interior roof of a utility vehicle behind its rear seat. In a telephone conversation with Marvin Shaw of my staff, you stated that you anticipate that this product will typically be installed in motor vehicles prior to their first consumer purchase. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our regulations to you.

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

NHTSA does not have any safety standards specifically covering a rear overhead storage bin. However, it is possible that the installation of such a product could affect the compliance of a vehicle with some safety standards.

All new motor vehicles manufactured for sale in the United States must be certified by their manufacturers as complying with the applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. If your storage bin is installed in a new vehicle prior to its first sale to a customer, the person making the installation would be considered a vehicle alterer. Under our certification regulation (49 CFR Part 567), a vehicle alterer must certify that the vehicle as altered continues to comply with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards.

Manufacturers, distributors, dealers, or motor vehicle repair businesses modifying a used vehicle are prohibited by Section 108 (a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act from knowingly rendering inoperative any safety device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard. Thus, if your storage bin is installed in a used vehicle, any businesses making such installations cannot render inoperative the vehicle's compliance with any of our standards.

We also note that manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment have responsibilities under the Safety Act regarding safety defects. Under Sections 151, et seq., of the Safety Act, such manufacturers must notify purchasers about safety-related defects and remedy the product free of charge.

In order to determine how installation of your storage bin could affect the compliance of a vehicle with applicable Federal safety standards, you should

carefully review each standard, including but not limited to Standard No. 216 which addresses roof crush resistance and Standard No. 302 which addresses the flammability of interior materials. In that regard, I am enclosing for your information a fact sheet titled INFORMATION FOR NEW MANUFACTURERS OF MOTOR VEHICLES AND MOTOR VEHICLE EQUIPMENT, and a booklet entitled FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDS AND REGULATIONS.

I hope this information is helpful. Please feel free to contact Marvin Shaw of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992 if you have any further questions or need additional information.

ID: nht93-1.27

DATE: 02/04/93

FROM: ROBERT A. ERNST -- RESEARCH COORDINATOR, I-CAR

TO: CHIEF CONSUL -- U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, NHTSA

TITLE: INQUIRY REGARDING AIR BAG SYSTEM REPAIR

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 3-4-93 FROM JOHN WOMACK TO ROBERT A, ERNST (A40; 108 (a)(2)(A); ALSO ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 2-4-93 FROM STEPHEN P. WOOD TO LINDA L. CONRAD (STD. 208)

TEXT: I-CAR produces technical training for the automotive collision repair industry. We have received numerous inquires regarding the legal liability exposure for a repair facility if an air bag system is not repaired following a collision. We would appreciate any information you can supply on the following.

1. Are there Federal regulations which specifically direct the collision repair facility to restore the supplemental restraint system to an operable condition following a deployment on vehicles the facility repairs?

2. If repairs are deliberately made to mask the fact that the air bag system is inoperative, has the repair facility violated any applicable laws?

3. If the owner of the vehicle requests that the supplemental restraint system not be restored to operational condition, is the owner of the repair facility or the vehicle liable for later injuries?

4. Can the vehicle be sold if the owner knows that the supplemental restraint system is inoperable because of a previous deployment?

We appreciate your assistance in answering the above inquiries. Please call with any questions.

ID: nht93-1.28

DATE: February 9, 1993

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Patrick R. Smorra -- Group Vice President, Chrysler Corporation

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 11/12/92 from P.R. Smorra to Administrator, NHTSA (OCC 8087)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of November 12 to the Administrator asking for a variance from the Federal motor vehicle safety standards for vehicles that Chrysler Corporation would like to sell to foreign nationals for their use on vacation in the United States. You have inquired whether additional information is required.

The agency would be willing to consider Chrysler's request through the medium of a petition for temporary exemption from one or more specific Federal motor vehicle safety standards. The temporary exemption, two years in duration, permits a manufacturer to sell up to 2,500 exempted vehicles in any 12-month period during the term of the exemption, subject to such terms and conditions as the agency deems appropriate. These exemptions are renewable. Indeed, NHTSA has already provided exemptions to General Motors for the same purpose as Chrysler's, pursuant to 49 CFR 555.5 and 555.6(d). For your guidance, I enclose a copy of the Federal Register notice that granted GM's original petition in 1988. Because of the necessity to afford the public an opportunity to comment, a petitioner should anticipate an elapsed time of approximately four months between the agency's receipt of its petition and a determination on it. Should you have questions on the exemption process, Taylor Vinson of this office will be pleased to answer them (202-366-5263).

You have also asked "(i)f upon expiration of the variance, the vehicle has not left the U.S. who is responsible for the delinquency?" This is an interesting question. The exemption is not provided directly to the purchaser. Instead, it is provided to a manufacturer to allow it to sell nonconforming vehicles to foreign nationals without violating the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, subject to the purchaser's agreement to export the vehicle when (s)he leaves this country. Should a manufacturer sell an exempted vehicle to a foreign national knowing, or in the exercise of due care having reason to know, that the purchaser did not intend to export it, the manufacturer would have violated the Safety Act's prohibition against sale of nonconforming vehicles, notwithstanding the fact that the vehicle had been exempted. Moreover, if the manufacturer did not take appropriate steps to assure that the purchaser honored his or her commitment to export the vehicle, the agency could find that continuation of the exemption was no longer in the public interest, and cancel it. However, if the manufacturer did not know or in the exercise of due care have any reason to know that its exempted vehicles would not be exported, it would appear to have incurred no liability under the Act.

As for a foreign national purchaser who fails to export a vehicle in conformity with the terms of the condition imposed by the manufacturer under the exemption, it appears that the purchaser could be deemed to have violated the Safety Act's prohibition against introduction into interstate commerce of a nonconforming vehicle, notwithstanding the fact that the manufacturer had

received an exemption for the manufacture and sale of the vehicle. Finally, depending on the safety standards from which the vehicle had been excused, the owner of the vehicle might find it difficult to register it in a State without bringing it into full compliance with the safety standards.

You have also asked, "(I)n the unlikely event that this vehicle has an accident in which it is deemed undriveable, who is responsible for its disposition." The answer to this question would appear to turn on the ownership of the vehicle. Since Chrysler does not intend to lease the exempted vehicles, we assume that it will transfer all right, title, and interest in them to the foreign national purchasers, and we assume that those owners will be responsible for the disposition of wrecked vehicles deemed undriveable.