ID: 77-3.8

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/22/77

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Joseph J. Levin Jr.; NHTSA

TO: J.A. Selsemeyer

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your April 1, 1977, letter asking several questions concerning a manufacturer's responsibility for tires installed as original equipment on a passenger car.

You asked the following questions in your letter:

1. Are there any laws now in effect which pinpoint responsibility for the quality of tires received as original equipment on a new car?

Section 159 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (the Act) (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.) places responsibility upon the vehicle manufacturer for compliance of original equipment with motor vehicle safety standards. However, Section 159 gives the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration the authority to shift to the tire manufacturer the responsibility for compliance of tires with Federal safety standards. You should note that the Act establishes responsibility for compliance with Federal regulations and does not establish remedies for litigants in private law suits.

2. Is it true that there is a federal law which makes it mandatory for United States auto manufacturers to buy original equipment tires in equal amounts from each domestic manufacturer of tires? If so, may I have a copy of this law?

There are no Federal laws of which we are aware that require vehicle manufacturers to purchase equal numbers of tires from each tire manufacturer.

3. What is the current status of safety testing as provided by law in 1966, but never implemented? This law was to be effective January 1, 1976 for radial tires, July 1, 1976 for bias-belted tires, and January, 1977 for bias-ply tires. Was it? If not, what are the prospects?

The regulation to which you refer is known as Uniform Tire Quality Grading and is found in the Code of Federal Regulations, Title 49, Part 575. The effective dates for implementation of tire quality grading standards for the three tire types you mention have been delayed by litigation. The agency intends to establish new effective dates shortly.

4. Can a customer of General Motors ask for and receive a service agreement for the tires at the time of sale of a car?

This is a contractual matter between the purchaser of a motor vehicle and General Motors. Federal regulations neither encourage nor discourage such arrangements.

ID: 77-3.9

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/27/77

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; J. J. Levin, Jr.; NHTSA

TO: Truck Body and Equipment Association, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your April 6, 1977, letter asking whether two proposed labels satisfy the requirements for certification and information labels found in 49 CFR Part 567. Certification, and Standard No. 120, Tire Selection and Rims for Motor Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not issue advance approval of compliance by manufacturers with motor vehicle safety standards or regulations. The agency, however, will give an informal opinion as to whether your sample labels appear to comply with NHTSA regulations. From the illustrations you present, it appears that you have closely followed the format suggested in our regulations, and therefore, the labels seem to comply with the agency's requirements. Section S5.3(b) of Standard No. 120 permits the use of both labels when affixed in accordance with Part 567.4(b)-(f).

ID: 77-4.1

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 09/03/77

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: State Department of Education - Virginia

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

ID: 77-4.10

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 09/29/77

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; J. J. Levin, Jr.; NHTSA

TO: The Coachette Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your August 19, 1977, letter asking whether Standard No. 217, Bus Window Retention and Release, permits the use of two rear doors for the determination of the size of the required unobstructed rear exit opening.

The standard states in S5.4.2.2 that: "[a] school bus with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less shall conform to all the provisions of S5.4.2, except that the parallelepiped dimension for the opening of the rear emergency door or doors shall be . . . ." This section specifically allows the determination of the required rear opening through the use of either one or two doors. Therefore, your interpretation that the standard permits the use of two rear doors is correct.

SINCERELY,

Coachette Company

August 19, 1977

Joseph Levin Office of Chief Council N.H.T.S.A.

RE: FMVSS 217

We urgently need a clarification on FMVSS 217, paragraph S5.4.2. and specifically sub-paragraph S5.4.2.2., as these and other referenced sections apply to a van type school bus rear emergency exit.

The school bus in question had two rear emergency doors side by side with the left hand (driver's side) door hinged on the left side and the right hand door hinged on the right side. The operation of these doors require the right hand door to be opened first, then the left hand door may be opened. However, with just the right hand door open, there are couple of minor protusions into the opening that prevent the parallelepiped from passing through.

The two doors have very simple labels and instructions for operating would be clear and concise. (See enclosed sketch.)

Is our interputation correct that we would be in full compliance with FMVSS 217 if both doors were utilized to obtain the required unobstructed opening?

An early reply is desired and anything that can be done to expedite this clarification will be greatly appreciated.

E.M. Ryan Design Engineer

ENC.

ward

SCHOOL BUS MFG., Inc. P.O. BOX 311 HIGHWAY 65 CONWAY, ARKANSAS 72832

DATE - 8-19-77 CHK - DRAFT: 40M ENGR: SCALE IN OR OUT PART ORDER NO. REV CHANGE BY DATE

MATERIAL-

TOLERANCE

(Graphics omitted)

ID: 77-4.11

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 09/30/77

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Francis Armstrong; NHTSA

TO: Bedell Trailer Company

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your August 18, 1977, letter asking who is responsible for compliance with the standards issued by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.

Compliance with Federal safety standards is the responsibility of the manufacturer of the motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment. Manufacturer is defined in the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.) as "any person engaged in the manufacturing or assembling of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment . . . ." Therefore, in the cases to which you refer, the assembler of the vehicle would be responsible for ensuring the compliance of the vehicle with all applicable Federal safety standards. The purchaser is not responsible for compliance with the requirements unless he assembles the vehicles, thereby becoming the manufacturer.

Dealers are prohibited by section 108(a)(1)(A) of the Act from selling any completed motor vehicle that is not in compliance with the standards. A dealer is permitted, however, to rely upon the manufacturer's certification that the vehicle conforms to the standards' requirements. Therefore, prior to sale of a vehicle a dealer should make sure that the manufacturer has complied with the certification requirements of Part 567, Certification, and Part 568, Vehicles Manufactured in Two or More Stages, of our regulations which are contained in Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations.

A dealer is not prohibited from selling an "incomplete vehicle" as that term is defined in Part 568 of our regulations. Such an incomplete vehicle would require further manufacturing before its final certification for compliance with the standards. The incomplete vehicle manufacturer would need to fulfill it's responsibilities as outlined in Part 568. The person who completes the vehicle would then be responsible for the vehicle complying with standards. You should note that vehicles that lack merely readily attachable components are not "incomplete vehicles." They are completed vehicles. The sale of any such vehicle that was not certified for compliance with all applicable standards would be a violation of the Act.

ID: 77-4.12

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 09/30/77

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Armstrong for R. L. Carter; NHTSA

TO: FILE

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: On Sept 30, I called Mr. Premo of Sheller Globe Corp.

Discussion Mr. Premo had called the day before and asked for information about attendant seats in an ambulance. On Sept 30 we discussed the requirements of Stds 207,208, and 210 as they applied to ambulances. I told Mr. Premo that, since the attendant seats were designated seating positions, his company had to comply with the requirements of all three standards

W. SMITH

ID: 77-4.13

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 10/03/77

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Joseph J. Levin Jr.; NHTSA

TO: Messrs. Eckert; Seamans; Cherin & Mellott

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of September 13, 1977, to Robert Aubuchon of this agency on behalf of your client Charles J. Sechan. Mr. Sechan has imported a 1976 Ferrari that does not comply with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards and you have inquired whether, as a statutory manufacturer, he may apply for a temporary exemption from Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 215, Exterior Protection on the basis that compliance would cause him substantial economic hardship.

In our view he may not do so. Section 102(5) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act includes in its definition of "manufacturer" any person "importing motor vehicles . . . for resale." Your client does not appear to be a manufacturer since he has imported only a single motor vehicle personally for his own use. There is nothing in your letter that indicates he is importing motor vehicles for resale.

Section 123 of the Act was not intended to apply to the occasional importer of a motor vehicle but to business entities engaged in the manufacture of motor vehicles. Thus the exemptions provided are "temporary," meaning that after the date of expiration motor vehicles produced by the manufacturer must comply with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards from which they were previously exempted. Exemptions do not provide retroactive coverage and apply only to vehicles manufactured after the effective date of the exemption's grant (See 49 CFR 555.7(f)).

I hope this answers your questions.

SINCERELY,

ECKERT, SEAMANS, CHERIN & MELLOTT

September 13, 1977

United States Department of Transportation National Highway Safety Administration

Attention Robert Abuschon:

Re: N41-22CUS

In a telephone conversation with you on September 2, 1977, you agreed to provide me with an updated listing of the various exemptions from the FMVSS which have been granted to various manufacturers and importers of motor vehicles. To date, I have not received this information.

As you may recall, I represent Sechan Coal Company, Inc. which, on July 21, 1977, imported a 1976 Ferrari, BB, Serial No. 18587. Mr. Charles J. Sechan, the President of Sechan Coal Company, is presently endeavoring to bring his automobile into compliance with the applicable FMVSS. In order to do so, Mr. Sechan wanted to know whether there were any exemptions granted from the FMVSS with respect to his vehicle.

Section 123(d)(1) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 provides:

"No manufacturer whose total motor vehicle production in its most recent year of production exceeds 10,000, as determined by the Secretary, shall be eligible to apply for an exemption under paragraph (1)(A) of subsection (a) of this section".

Paragraph (1)(A) of subsection (a) of Section 123 of the Act provides that an exemption may be granted upon an application by a "manufacturer" on the ground:

"(1)(A) that compliance would cause such manufacturer substantial economic hardship and that the manufacturer has, in good faith, attempted to comply with each standard from which it requests to be exempted".

Section 102(5) of the Act defines a "manufacturer" as follows:

"'Manufacturer' means any person engaged in the manufacturing or assembling of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, including any person importing motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment for resale". (Emphasis added)

As you know, the Ferrari Boxer is an extremely limited production vehicle which is assembled by hand at the Ferrari plant in Italy. Moreover, it appears from the sections of the Act quoted above that "any person importing motor vehicles . . . for resale" (Section 102(5)) would be considered a "manufacturer". Accordingly, if that "manufacturer" were to import an insubstantial number of vehicles, he would be eligible to apply for an exemption from the FMVSS pursuant to Section 123(a)(1)(A) of the Act, i.e., on the ground of substantial economic hardship.

According to an itemized list of Federal Motor Vehicle Standards provided as an enclosure to Form FL-80, which was sent to my client on August 12, 1977, the 1976 Ferrari Boxer may not comply with FMVSS, Section 215, relating to exterior protection. Preliminary inquiries made by my client reveal that FMVSS Section 215, requiring the replacement of original "bumpers" with those which will comply with that standard, is incredibly expensive.

Accordingly, I was wondering if you would be so kind as to provide me with an interpretation of Section 123 of the Act relating to exemptions. Specifically, I would like to know whether my client is eligible to apply for an exemption from Section 215 of the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards pertaining to bumpers on the 1976 Ferrari Boxer he has imported into this country on the ground of substantial economic hardship.

Please regard this request as merely an inquiry. My client fully intends to use his best efforts to bring his vehicle into compliance with all applied standards from which his vehicle is not exempted. However, before expending the sums of money necessary to do so, he requested that this inquiry be made.

Your cooperation in this matter will be appreciated.

Mark A. Willard

ID: 77-4.14

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 10/07/77

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; J. J. Levin, Jr.; NHTSA

TO: Wisconsin School Bus Association

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your August 29, 1977, letter requesting an interpretation of Standard No. 222, School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection, that would permit the measurement of seat spacing at any point along the width of the seat back.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has previously responded to a similar request for an interpretation of the measurement of seat spacing. I am enclosing a copy of that letter for your information. In that letter, the NHTSA stated that measurement of seat spacing must be made from the seating reference point to the surface of the seat back or restraining barrier, exclusive of portions which protrude from the basic contour of the surface. This interpretation prohibits the measurement of seat spacing from the seating reference point to the side tubing which protrudes from the basic contour of the seat.

The NHTSA has received your second letter requesting rulemaking on the issue of seat spacing. That letter is being treated as a petition for rulemaking and will be processed according to agency rulemaking procedures.

ID: 77-4.15

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 10/07/77

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; J. J. Levin, Jr.; NHTSA

TO: Motor Coach Industries, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This will acknowledge receipt of the petition by Motor Coach Industries, dated July 22, 1977, for a determination that an apparent noncompliance with Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 121 is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety.

We are preparing a notice for publication in the Federal Register requesting public comment on your petition and you will be notified in due course as to its disposition. The notice will not include reference to the fact that the "continuous warning" signal required by S5.1.5 of Standard No. 121 is an automatic flashing light on MCI vehicles. It is the opinion of this office that either an automatic flashing light or a continuous light will provide a "continuous warning" within the intent of the Standard.

ID: 77-4.16

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 10/11/77

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Joan Claybrook; NHTSA

TO: Hon. J. A. Ambro - H.O.R.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION