ID: 9709

Air Mail

Mr. Jerry Steffy Triumph Designs Ltd. Jacknell Road Dodwells Bridge Industrial Estate Hinckley, Leicestershire LE10 3BS England

Dear Mr. Steffy:

This responds to your request to Mr. David Elias, formerly of this office, for an interpretation concerning whether a motorcycle certification label may be placed in a location other than that specified in 49 CFR Part 567, Certification. As explained below, the answer is yes, the agency has permitted an alternative location in certain circumstances.

49 CFR '567.4(e) states that motorcycle certification labels "shall be affixed to a permanent member of the vehicle as close as is practicable to the intersection of the steering post with the handle bars, in a location such that it is easily readable without moving any part of the vehicle except the steering system." In your letter, you seem to refer to this intersection as the "headstock area," and ask whether the certification label can be placed elsewhere.

In an interpretation letter of November 23, 1982, to Suzuki Motor Co., Ltd., (copy enclosed) NHTSA permitted the motorcycle certification label to be placed "on the down tubes in front of the engine on either the right or left side." The agency permitted the alternate location because some Suzuki motorcycles were equipped with fairings, obscuring labels placed in the specified location.

Your inquiry seems to imply that Triumph's design would cause a certification label placed in the location specified in '567.4(e) to be obscured. If that is the case, please contact Mr. George Shifflett of NHTSA's Office of Vehicle Safety

Compliance at (202) 366-5307. NHTSA would be happy to work with you on finding an alternative location for your certification label.

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

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosure

ref:567 d:6/9/94

ID: 9711

Mr. Shih-Chiang Chen
President
Top World Traffic Equipments Co., Ltd.
7F-1. No/ 286-9, Hsin Ya Road
Chien Chen Dist.
Kaohsiung
Taiwan R.O.C.

Dear Sir:

This is in reply to your letter of June 15, 1995, to the Department of Transportation regarding your invention, the "brake condition warning sensor." You ask whether such an invention is permissible in this country.

The sensor causes flashing in "the third brake light" keyed to the rate of deceleration.

Under the Federal regulations in the United States, motor vehicles must be manufactured so that the third brake light (or "center highmounted stop lamp" as we call it) and all other stop lamps are steady-burning when they are in use.

After the vehicle is sold, Federal law prohibits any manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or motor vehicle repair business from installing the sensor to modify the performance of the third brake light and cause it to flash.

However, Federal law does not prohibit the owner of the car from installing the sensor. In this circumstance, the law of the State in which the vehicle is operated must be consulted to determine whether a flashing third brake light is permissible. We are not able to answer questions about State laws. If you wish an opinion on State laws governing flashing third brake lights, you should write the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Va. 22203.

If I can be of further assistance, please contact me or Mr. John Womack Acting Chief Counsel (202) 366-9511.

Sincerely,

Ricardo Martinez, M.D.

ref:108 d:7/19/95

ID: 9719

Mr. Thomas D. Turner
Manager, Engineering Services
Blue Bird Body Company
P.O. Box 937
Fort Valley, GA 31030

Dear Mr. Turner:

This responds to your letter of February 21, 1994, requesting further clarification of the requirements of S5.5.3(c) of Standard No. 217, Bus Emergency Exits and Window Retention and Release (as amended at 57 FR 49413; November 2, 1992). Section S5.5.3(c) states that "(e)ach opening for a required emergency exit shall be outlined around its outside perimeter with a minimum 3 centimeters wide retroreflective tape."The July 7, 1993 letter also stated that the agency planned to issue a correction notice of the November 2, 1992 rule that would specify a minimum size of 2.5 cm for the tape. This notice has not yet been published. Until the correction is issued, NHTSA will not take enforcement measures regarding tape size against a manufacturer who uses 1 inch wide retroreflective tape. Your letter referenced our July 7, 1993 letter to you in which we stated that S5.5.3(c) permits interruptions in the tape necessary to accommodate curved surfaces and functional components. You requested confirmation "that retro-reflective tape around the perimeter of the rear of a school bus can be used to satisfy the requirements of S5.5.3(c)."

I cannot interpret the requirements of S5.5.3(c) as you request, since for many, if not most, designs the nearest possible location will be closer than the perimeter of the bus. While we appreciate your concerns about durability if numerous cuts or notches are made to accommodate rivets, our July 7 letter stated that manufacturers have the option of placing the retroreflective tape immediately adjacent to the rivets, rather than over the rivets. As an example, from the illustrations you enclosed, it appears that it may be possible to apply retroreflective tape outside the rivets adjacent to the lower portions of the door. Thus, that would be the nearest possible location, rather than the perimeter of the bus itself. I note, however, that the illustrations do not provide sufficient detail of all obstructions for us to determine the nearest possible location for each design.

I also note that your letter stated in support of your request that all school buses are required to have a rear emergency exit. While this is true, the type of emergency exit will vary and retroreflective tape at the perimeter of the exit would allow rescuers to immediately know the precise location of the exit. Moreover, retroreflective tape at the perimeter would enable rescuers to immediately know which type of exit is in this location. This information could be vitally important. Because push-out windows are not required to have a means of releasing the exit from outside the bus (S5.3.3.2), this information would allow rescuers to quickly determine that they should move to the sides of the bus to locate an exit they can open.

Your letter asked the agency to treat it as a petition for rulemaking if we did not interpret the standard as you requested. You will be notified of our decision to grant or deny your petition.

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

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

ref:217 d:3/28/94

ID: 9730

Mr. Blair Abraham
Biomedical Manager
Mersco Medical
P.O. Box 5061
Sioux Falls, SD 57117

Dear Mr. Abraham:

This responds to your letter requesting information about "the steps to take to certify a vehicle for a higher weight rating than what is issued by the manufacturer." I apologize for the delay in our response. As discussed in your letter and in a telephone conversation with Edward Glancy of my staff, your company owns a 1989 or 1990 Chevy van which it uses to deliver products. You indicate that the GVWR assigned to the vehicle is 5,600 pounds. You modified the suspension to enable the vehicle to handle an additional 1,000 pounds and "would like to certify the vehicle for 6,600 pounds." You asked us to send the information required for increasing the GVWR and also ask, if you cannot increase the GVWR, whether you are liable for noncompliance of a DOT regulation.

By way of background information, under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) issues safety standards for new motor vehicles and new motor vehicle equipment. Manufacturers are required to certify that their vehicles and equipment meet applicable safety standards.

Under NHTSA's certification regulations, manufacturers must assign a GVWR to new vehicles. The term GVWR is defined in 49 CFR Part 571.3 as "the value specified by the manufacturer as the loaded weight of a single vehicle." The GVWR informs vehicle owners how heavily the vehicle may safely be loaded. It also affects the vehicle's loading and other test conditions for the performance tests to ascertain whether the vehicle complies with applicable safety standards. NHTSA expects the GVWR to reflect a manufacturer's good-faith evaluation of the vehicle's size, weight, load carrying capacity, and intended use.

NHTSA's regulation on GVWR only addresses the GVWR of new vehicles. This is because the agency's safety standards apply only to new motor vehicles and new motor vehicle equipment. There is a provision, '108(a)(2)(A), in the Vehicle Safety Act

that prohibits manufacturers, distributors, dealers and motor vehicle repair businesses from knowingly rendering inoperative in whole or in part any device or element of design installed in accordance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard. These parties would be subject to this provision if they were to modify your vehicle's suspension. However, the provision does not apply to individual owners modifying their own vehicles.

Because we do not regulate how individuals modify their own vehicles (and thus do not prohibit you from modifying your vehicle's suspension), we are unable to advise you about the specific modifications that must be made to a vehicle for it to safely carry an additional 1,000 pounds. Among other things, however, you should carefully evaluate whether the vehicle's axles, brakes, tires, and frame can adequately handle the additional load. We suggest that you consult with the original vehicle manufacturer about this question. You may also wish to consult a local attorney concerning possible liability in the event your vehicle is involved in an accident.

Also, the individual states have the authority to regulate used vehicles, and changes in the GVWR of used vehicles may be addressed by state law. State law may also address the operation of a vehicle loaded above GVWR.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions about NHTSA's regulations, please feel free to contact Mr. Glancy at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

ref:567 d:6/30/94

ID: 9731

Mr. Gilbert Gallahar
Kings Environmental Hydrogen Systems
P.O. Box 713
Marana, AZ 85653

Dear Mr. Gallahar:

This responds to your letter requesting information about Federal requirements applicable to an on-board hydrogen generator used on an internal combustion engine to control exhaust emissions. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our regulations to you.

By way of background, NHTSA is authorized by the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Safety Act) to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment, including an on-board hydrogen generator.

NHTSA has not issued any standards for a device such as yours. Nevertheless, there are other Federal laws that indirectly affect the manufacture and sale of your product. You as the product's manufacturer are subject to the requirements in sections 151-159 of the Safety Act concerning the recall and remedy of products with defects related to motor vehicle safety. In the event that the manufacturer or NHTSA determines that the product contains a safety related defect, the manufacturer would be responsible for notifying purchasers of the defective equipment and remedying the problem free of charge.

Please note that no FMVSS would preclude the installation of your product as an item of original equipment. Nevertheless, if your device were installed on a new vehicle by a vehicle manufacturer or an alterer before the first consumer purchase, then they would have to certify that the vehicle complies with all applicable standards, including Standard No. 301, Fuel System Integrity.

A commercial business that installs the on-board hydrogen generator would also be subject to provisions of the Safety Act that affect modifications of new or used vehicles. Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)) provides that:

No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or in part, any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle ... in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard.

This means that a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business must not install your device if the system renders inoperative the vehicle's compliance with the FMVSSs. For instance, compliance with FMVSS No. 301 might be degraded if the hydrogen generator affected the integrity of a motor vehicle fuel system. Any violation of this "render inoperative" prohibition would subject the violator to a potential civil penalty of up to $1,000 for each violation.

Please note also that the render inoperative prohibition does not apply to modifications that vehicle owners make to their own vehicles. Thus, Federal law would not apply in situations where individual vehicle owners install an on-board hydrogen generator in their own vehicles, even if the installation were to result in the vehicle no longer complying with the safety standards. However, NHTSA encourages vehicle owners not to degrade any safety device or system installed in their vehicles. In addition, individual States have the authority to regulate modifications that individual vehicle owners may make to their vehicles, so you might wish to consult State regulations to see whether your device would be permitted.

You may wish to contact the Environmental Protection Agency for any questions concerning emissions and air quality. The general telephone number for the EPA is (202) 382-2090. You may also wish to contact the state of Arizona for information on its emissions testing regulations.

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

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosure

ref:301 d:5/18/94

ID: 9753a

Mr. J. L. Steffy
Triumph Designs Ltd.
Jacknell Road
Dodwells Bridge Industrial Estate
Hinckley, Leicestershire LE10 3BS
England

Dear Mr. Steffy:

This responds to your request for an interpretation of model year designations specified in 49 CFR part 565 Vehicle Identification Number - Content Requirements. You asked whether the vehicle identification number (VIN) for a 1994 model year vehicle may use the symbol "P" to designate model year. The answer is no.

You stated that Triumph wishes to use, in its VIN, a letter code designating the year of vehicle manufacture. Triumph marks the letter "P" in the VIN of a vehicle manufactured in November 1993. Triumph considers this a MY 1994 vehicle.

The format for VIN content information is specified in part 565. Table VI of part 565 specifies that MY 1993 is designated by the letter "P" and MY 1994 is designated by the letter "R." Designating a MY 1994 vehicle with the letter "P," as you wish to do, could engender confusion since it would represent that the vehicle is a MY 1993 vehicle. Such confusion could hinder the accuracy and efficiency of vehicle recall campaigns.

You also asked if Triumph may be permitted a modification of the part 565 model year designations and designate its MY 1994 vehicles as "P." The answer is no. NHTSA has no procedures to permit manufacturers to modify or waive any of part 565.

We note that Triumph could use the letter "P" to designate the vehicle as a 1993 MY vehicle. Section 565.3(h) defines "model year" as:

the year used to designate a discrete vehicle model irrespective of the calendar year in which the vehicle was actually produced, so long as the actual period is less than two calendar years.

Assuming the actual production period of the vehicle is less than two calendar years, a vehicle manufactured in November 1993 could be a MY 1993 vehicle, identified by the letter "P."

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

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

ref:565 d:3/29/94

ID: 9758

Ms. Denise Davis
3177 Lotheridge Rd.
Gainesville, GA 30501

Dear Ms. Davis:

This responds to your letter asking for help in a matter involving window tinting on your car. I apologize for the delay in responding.

You explain in your letter that you asked a window tinting store for a sticker showing that the tint on your windows met Georgia law. The store informed you that it cannot issue you a sticker because your windows only allow 20 percent sunlight through, and the new law requires 35 percent. To get a sticker, you would have to remove the tint, which you explain will be costly. You also state that your windows were tinted seven years ago when you purchased your car, and at the time you had your windows tinted, you were "not breaking any law."

I regret that we cannot help you pay to have the tint removed. The primary purpose of this agency is to regulate the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles and new motor vehicle equipment. We have no authority to provide funds to citizens to help them correct problems with their vehicles or equipment. Please bear in mind that the "35 percent" law was adopted by Georgia to regulate the operation of vehicles. Thus, we suggest that you contact the Georgia Department of Motor Vehicles for information about this matter.

We appreciate your efforts to reduce the tint on your vehicle and are sorry that we are unable to assist you. If you have any other questions, please contact Mr. Marvin Shaw of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

ref:205 d:8/9/94

ID: 9759

Spectrum Engineering Group
1111 South Main Street
Cheshire, CT 06410

Dear Sir/Madam:

This responds to your letter to this office regarding your reconstruction of an accident involving a 16- passenger school bus. I apologize for the delay in responding.

You stated in your letter that the original latch/hinge mechanism of the right front entrance door of the bus in question was disabled by removal of the striker plate and equipped instead with a remote door opening/closing apparatus and latching mechanism. The bus was involved in an accident in which the driver was ejected through that door. You then asked a series of questions concerning the classification of the vehicle and the Federal safety standards pertaining to the door in question.

By way of background, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, 15 U.S.C. 1381, et seq. (Safety Act), authorizes the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. The Safety Act establishes a self-certification system in which manufacturers are responsible for certifying that the vehicle or equipment complies with all applicable FMVSSs in effect on the date of manufacture. Once the vehicle or equipment has been sold to the first customer for purposes other than resale, Federal jurisdiction over the manufacture and sale of the vehicle or equipment generally terminates and use of the vehicle or equipment becomes a matter of state jurisdiction.

You first asked, "Would this vehicle be classified as a multi-purpose passenger vehicle, a bus, or a school bus?"

The answer to your question is that each manufacturer classifies its vehicles in accordance with the definitions set

forth in the Safety Act and in NHTSA's regulations. The Safety Act defines a "school bus" as [A] passenger motor vehicle which is designed to carry more than 10 passengers in addition to the driver, and which the Secretary determines is likely to be significantly used for the purpose of transporting primary, preprimary, or secondary school students to or from such schools or events related to such schools. 15 U.S.C. 1391(14).

Our regulations define a "bus" as a motor vehicle designed to carry more than 10 persons, and further define a "school bus" as a bus that is sold for purposes that include carrying students to and from school and related activities, but does not include a bus sold for operation as a common carrier in urban transportation. 49 CFR '571.3.

Thus, whether a vehicle is a school bus under our regulations depends on the purpose for which it was originally sold. Although you did not indicate who purchased the bus originally and for what purpose, you referred to the vehicle in your letter as a "mini school bus," you stated that the body was manufactured by Mid Bus, a school bus manufacturer, and the descriptive literature you enclosed with your letter depicts different models of small school buses manufactured by Mid Bus. Accordingly, it appears the vehicle in question would have been classified as a school bus under 49 CFR '571.3. Our regulations require the vehicle manufacturer to state the vehicle type classification on the vehicle's certification label. The certification label of the vehicle in question should have that information.

Your second question asks, "Does FMVSS 206 and/or FMVSS 217 apply to the right front entrance door of this vehicle?"

With respect to FMVSS 206, Door locks and door retention components, the answer is no. Standard 206 applies only to passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, and trucks. The standard does not apply to buses.

With respect to FMVSS 217, Bus emergency exits and window retention and release, the standard specifies requirements for window retention other than windshields in buses, except buses designed to transport persons under restraint, and establishes operating forces, opening dimensions, and markings for emergency exits. The glazing requirements of S5.1 of FMVSS 217 would apply to the right front entrance door, and if the door was also used as an emergency exit, it must also have complied when new with the emergency exit requirements of S5.2.3, S5.3, S5.4.2, and S5.5.3 of the standard.

Your third question asked, "Which FMVSS would apply to the right front entrance door (particularly its loading requirements)?"

The answer is that apart from the provisions of FMVSS 217 discussed in our answer to your second question, there was no FMVSS in 1988 that specified performance standards for the right front entrance doors of buses. Effective September 1, 1993, however, the side door strength requirements of FMVSS 214, Side Impact Protection, will apply to 90 percent of the buses with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of 10,000 pounds or less produced after that date, and all buses with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less produced on and after September 1, 1994, must comply with those requirements.

I would like to make the following observation about the modification of the door in question. Modifications of new and used vehicles by commercial parties are subject to '108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)). That section prohibits any manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or vehicle repair business from knowingly rendering inoperative any device or element of design installed on or in a vehicle in compliance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard. In this case, your letter did not indicate who disabled the original latch mechanism on the vehicle or who installed the remote door latch mechanism. If the work was done by a party listed in '108(a)(2)(A), the person modifying the vehicle was responsible for not degrading the performance of the door with regard to FMVSS 217.

Section 108(a)(2)(A) does not apply to individual vehicle owners. Thus, vehicle owners can modify the vehicle in any manner he/she chooses without violating any Federal requirements.

I hope this information answers your questions. We have enclosed copies of FMVSS 206 and 217 that were effective in 1988, photocopied from the October 1, 1987 edition of the Code of Federal Regulations, as you requested. Should you have other questions, please feel free to contact Walter Myers of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosures ref:206#217 d:6/28/94

ID: 9775

The Honorable Chuck Chvala
Wisconsin State Senator
State Capitol
P. O. Box 7882
Madison, WI 53707-7882

Dear Senator Chvala:

This responds to a letter from U.S. Senator Russell D. Feingold on your behalf, asking whether a pending redefinition of Wisconsin's "school bus" definition would violate Federal law. Senator Feingold contacted the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) because our agency administers the Federal requirements for school buses.

I appreciate this opportunity to address your concerns. As explained below, my review leads me to conclude that Wisconsin's contemplated redefinition of a school bus would not conflict with Federal law, insofar as the redefinition relates to the operation of school buses. However, an area of possible conflict relates to the requirements for mirrors on school buses.

By way of background information, Chapter 301 of Title 49 of the U.S. Code, authorizes NHTSA to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS's) applicable to new motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. In 1974, Congress directed NHTSA to require new school buses to meet FMVSS's on specific aspects of school bus safety, including floor strength, seating systems, and crashworthiness. The legislation requires each person selling a new "school bus" to ensure that the vehicle is certified as meeting the school bus FMVSS's. Following the first retail purchase, the use of vehicles becomes a matter of state regulation.

NHTSA defines a "school bus" as a "bus" that is sold for purposes that include carrying students to and from school or related events, and defines a "bus" as a vehicle designed to carry 11 or more persons. 49 CFR 571.3.

We understand that the new definition contemplated by Wisconsin would exclude some vehicles that are school buses under our definition. Information from Mr. Doug Burnett of your staff indicates that the new definition would define a school bus as "a motor vehicle which carries 16 or more passengers (in addition to the operator)." Thus, a motor vehicle that can carry 11-16 persons (including the driver) would be a "school bus" for Federal purposes, but apparently not for Wisconsin's purposes.

Since the States, and not NHTSA, regulate the use of vehicles, the inconsistency would be immaterial with regard to requirements adopted by Wisconsin pertaining to the use of school buses. Wisconsin may set the operational requirements for those vehicles the State defines as "school buses" without regard to our school bus definition.

However, the inconsistency would matter at the point of sale of a new school bus. The FMVSS's specify requirements for school buses that do not apply to other buses. See, e.g., 49 CFR part 571.222, School bus passenger seating and crash protection. A decision by Wisconsin to adopt a definition other than the Federal definition of a school bus has no effect on the application of the Federal school bus safety standards to a vehicle. Any person selling a new "bus" (a vehicle designed to carry 11 or more persons) to a school must sell a certified "school bus," regardless of whether the vehicle is considered a school bus under Wisconsin law. The vehicle would have to be equipped with the safety features NHTSA requires for school buses.

The information provided by Mr. Burnett indicates that Wisconsin would redefine "school bus" for two purposes. First, Wisconsin would prohibit the operation of a "school bus"--a vehicle with a capacity of 17 persons (including the driver)--unless the bus has a specific type of mirror. (Section 347.40) As explained above, this requirement would not affect NHTSA's requirement that vehicles considered to be "school buses" under our definition must be equipped with the mirrors and other safety features we require for school buses, even if the vehicles are not "school buses" under Wisconsin law.

Chapter 301 further provides that a Federal standard preempts any state or local standard applicable to the same aspect of performance that is not identical to the Federal standard. 49 U.S.C. 30103(b). A State standard for mirrors that is not identical to the Federal standard is preempted unless it imposes a higher level of safety and is applicable only to vehicles procured for the State's own use (e.g., public school buses). Wisconsin's requirements for school bus mirrors could be preempted, depending on the type of mirror required and whether the vehicles equipped with it are public buses.

We understand that the second purpose of Wisconsin's contemplated redefinition of a school bus is to require privately-owned vehicles carrying 15 or fewer students to be insured by a policy providing specified minimum coverage. (Section 121.555). This provision concerns matters wholly within State law and would not conflict with Federal law.

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

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

cc: The Honorable Russell D. Feingold United States Senate 502 Hart Senate Office Building Washington, D.C. 20510

ref:571 d:8/4/95

ID: 9783

Mr. David A. Scott
President, RKS International L.L.C.
822 Wisconsin Avenue
Racine, WI 53403

Dear Mr. Scott:

This responds to your letter of March 8, 1994, asking for information about this agency's regulations regarding importation and sale of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment.

You intend to import "fiberglass kit cars." The cars may be imported "either disassembled or partially assembled." Your company "will then be providing and/or installing American parts in the U.S. for the major mechanical portions like engines, transmissions, suspension systems, tires, etc."

It appears from your letter that you intend to import items of equipment, either individually or as part of a larger assembly, which, after entry into the United States, will have the drive train and related components installed that are necessary to complete its manufacture as a motor vehicle. For purposes of this interpretation, it is unimportant whether the equipment is imported as individual items, or assembled into a vehicle lacking a power train.

Some items of motor vehicle equipment are subject to the Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS). In order to be imported into the United States, they must comply with all applicable FMVSS. Passenger car equipment that must comply includes brake hoses, brake fluid, lamps and reflectors, tires, glazing material, and seat belt assemblies. It is mandatory that all these items (except lamps and reflectors) bear a DOT symbol in order to be imported; the symbol is the manufacturer's certification of compliance with the FMVSS. It is optional for lamps and reflectors to be marked with the DOT symbol. If they are not marked, permissible options include a certification statement attached to the equipment item or on the container in which the item is shipped.

When assembly of the vehicle is completed in the United States, its assembler must satisfy itself that it conforms to all applicable FMVSS and affix a label certifying that the vehicle complies.

I have enclosed a copy of an information sheet for new manufacturers of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. It identifies relevant Federal statutes and this agency's standards and regulations affecting motor vehicle and motor vehicle equipment manufacturers. It also explains how to obtain this agency's safety standards and regulations. If you have further questions we shall be pleased to answer them.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosure ref:591 d:4/25/94