ID: nht92-7.3

DATE: May 14, 1992

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Raymond B. Kesler -- Kesler Research Enterprises

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 2/29/92 from Raymond B. Kesler to NHTSA Administrator (OCC 7175)

TEXT:

This responds to your February 29, 1992 letter asking the agency to reconsider its decision to deny your earlier petition for rulemaking to amend Federal motor vehicle safety standard No. 111, Rearview Mirrors. As explained below, your request is again denied, for the same reasons explained in the previous denial.

You initially petitioned the agency to amend Standard No. 111 to require passenger side convex mirrors to have a radius of curvature of 25 inches and to have a plastic label with a ring indicator applied to these mirrors. After reviewing the petition, the agency denied your request, finding that (1) a safety need for a wider field of view for passenger side convex mirrors had not been established and (2) your suggested mirror system would, by comparison with currently specified convex mirror systems, have increased distortion and reduced a driver's depth perception and judgment about another vehicle's closing speed. (56 FR 42715; August 29, 1991).

In your February 29, 1992 correspondence, styled a "petition for reconsideration," you restated your previous request for the agency to amend Standard No. 111 to require a mirror with a 25 inch radius of curvature and a plastic label with a ring indicator applied to these mirrors. That request does not provide any new information beyond what was presented in your initial petition.

Petitions for reconsideration may be filed only in response to an agency rule. See 49 CFR S553.35(a). A denial of a petition for rulemaking is not a rule, since such denials do not amend any existing provision in the Code of Federal Regulations. Thus, your correspondence is not a petition for reconsideration.

It is possible that there might be instances in which additional information has become available since the agency considered and denied the initial petition for rulemaking. If such a situation were to arise, the petitioner could file a new petition for rulemaking, asking again for the requested action based upon the newly available information. NHTSA would consider this as a petition for rulemaking. As noted above, your correspondence did not provide any new information. Thus, your correspondence is not a petition for rulemaking. Instead, your correspondence is simply a request for NHTSA to take the same action you previously asked us to take in a petition for rulemaking. Absent any new information, there is no reason for NHTSA to reexamine its previous conclusion on this matter.

I would like to take this opportunity to clarify what appears to be a misunderstanding of the agency's regulations on your part. In your February 29, 1992 correspondence, you made the statement that your product "should be

approved to be made available to the driver as an optional choice." In our notice denying your petition, the agency tried to make clear that products like your convex mirror with a ring sensor label are not prohibited from being installed on vehicles by the current requirements in Standard No. 111. However, such mirrors are permitted only as supplements to the required mirrors, for the safety reasons explained at length in the denial notice. See 56 FR 42716; August 29, 1991. Hence, your product may be installed as a supplement to the required mirrors on current vehicles, without any amendments to Standard No. 111.

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: 1934y

Mr. William L. Dunlap
Engineering Manager
Philips Industries, Inc.
Dexter Axle Division
500 Collins Road
Elkhart, IN 46515

Dear Mr. Dunlap:

This responds to your request for an interpretation of Standard No. 120, Tire Selection and Rims for Motor Vehicles other than Passenger Cars (49 CFR /571.120; copy enclosed). I apologize for the delay in this response. You stated that your company manufactures rims that you sell to other wheel manufacturers. These wheel manufacturers combine your company's rims with center disc sections of their own design to produce finished wheels for use on light trucks and trailers. Section S5.2(c) of Standard No. 120 specifies that each rim shall be marked with certain information. You asked whether your company, as the rim manufacturer, or any subsequent manufacturer that uses your company's rims to produce complete wheels is required to mark the rims in compliance with section S5.2(c). The answer is that the rim manufacturer is responsible for those markings, as explained below.

Section 108(a)(1)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(1)(A); the Safety Act) specifies that "No person shall manufacture for sale, sell, offer for sale, or introduce or deliver for introduction in interstate commerce, or import into the United States, any ... item of motor vehicle equipment manufactured on or after the date any applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard takes effect under this title unless it is in conformity with such standard ..." In this case, section S5.2 of Standard No. 120 requires certain markings to appear on all newly manufactured rims for use on motor vehicles other than passenger cars. These requirements became effective August 1, 1977. Thus, section 108 of the Safety Act makes it illegal for any person to "manufacturer for sale, sell, offer for sale, or introduce or deliver for introduction in interstate commerce, or import into the United States" any rim manufactured on or after August 1, 1977 designed for use on motor vehicles other than passenger cars unless that rim is marked in accordance with section S5.2 of Standard No. 120. Your company would violate this provision of the law if you were to sell light truck rims without the required markings, even if the party to whom you sold such rims was going to use the rims to produce completed wheel assemblies.

You suggested in your letter that your company's markings on its rims used by other manufacturers to produce completed wheel assemblies may be misleading or unfair, because your company has no control over the integrity of the completed wheel assemblies. This may represent a misunderstanding of the meaning and purpose of the required rim markings. The markings and certification required on rims for motor vehicles other than passenger cars by section S5.2 of Standard No. 120 provide information about only the rims, not the entire wheel assembly. In your letter, you indicated that other wheel manufacturers simply add center discs to your company's rims to produce completed wheel assemblies. In these circumstances, the accuracy of the markings and certification put on a rim by your company as the rim manufacturer would not be affected by another manufacturer simply adding a center disc to that rim to produce a completed wheel assembly.

If you have any further questions or need additional information on this subject, please feel free to contact Marvin Shaw of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel

/ref:120 d:8/7/89

ID: 20117.nhf

Mr. Richard Lefebvre
President
Canadian Kingpin Specialists Ltd.
P.O. Box 74, Blezard Valley
Ontario Canada P0M 1E0

Dear Mr. Lefebvre:

This responds to your letter asking whether there are any National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) regulations that apply to the re-manufacture of kingpins or upper couplers. I apologize for the delay in our response. You ask about the male part of the connection that holds a tractor and semitrailer together.

By way of background information, NHTSA has the authority to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. We have a self-certification system under which motor vehicle and equipment manufacturers certify that their products comply with all applicable standards. For that reason, NHTSA neither approves, disapproves, endorses, nor grants letters of approval of products. We enforce compliance with the standards by purchasing new vehicles and equipment when they have been offered for sale to consumers and testing the products to our standards' requirements. Vehicles and equipment must also be free of safety-related defects. If a vehicle or item of equipment does not comply with our standards or has a safety-related defect, the manufacturer of the product has the responsibility of recalling the product and remedying the problem free of charge.

Turning now to your question about kingpins and upper couplers, NHTSA has not issued any standard applicable to these items of motor vehicle equipment. However, the products are subject to our authority to investigate safety-related defects. If NHTSA or a manufacturer determines that the product contains a safety defect, the manufacturer would have to notify purchasers of the defective equipment and remedy the problem free of charge.

Our statute at 49 U.S.C. 30122 (copy enclosed) provides that a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or vehicle repair business may not knowingly "make inoperative" any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle in accordance with any FMVSS. Therefore, your product could not be installed by one of the parties listed in 30122 if the installation would adversely affect the compliance of a device or element of design installed pursuant to an FMVSS. This provision does not apply to modifications made to a vehicle by its owner.

I note that the Department's Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration has jurisdiction over interstate motor carriers operating in the U.S. You should contact that office at (202) 366-4012, for information about any requirements that may apply to your product. In addition, states have the authority to regulate the use and licensing of vehicles operating within their jurisdictions. You should therefore check with the Department of Motor Vehicles in any state in which the equipment will be sold or used.

For your further information, I am enclosing a fact sheet we prepared entitled Information for New Manufacturers of Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Equipment, and Where to Obtain NHTSA's Safety Standards and Regulations.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any questions or need additional information, feel free to contact us at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
Enclosures
ref:VSA
d.3/7/2000

ID: 17494.ztv

Mr. Keith Reichow
26409 148th Ave. S.E.
Kent, WA 98042-8142

Dear Mr. Reichow:

This is in reply to your letter of March 5, 1998, with respect to your planned importation of an automobile body. You have asked for a "letter that can be presented to U.S. Customs that would assist in clearing this hardware."

We are pleased to provide an interpretation to you. You intend to import "the frame with axles and suspension attached." In addition, "the aluminum body skin and fenders would be in place and the dashboard would be equipped with some instruments. The radiator, brake, clutch and gas pedals would also be mounted."

None of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards apply to any of these items of equipment. Accordingly, it is permissible for you to import the body by completing the box titled "Description Of Merchandise If Motor Vehicle Equipment" on the HS-7 Declaration Form which you may be required to execute, and, under it, checking Box 1 which states in pertinent part that "the equipment item was manufactured on a date when no applicable Federal Motor Vehicle Safety or Theft Prevention Standard was in effect." You may attach a copy of this letter to the form to facilitate entry.

Even though the assembled vehicle will be a replica of an early 1960s Lotus 7, it must comply upon manufacture with all Federal motor vehicle safety standards of 49 CFR Part 571 that apply to passenger cars manufactured in 1998, even if they are not necessarily compatible with a 35-year old design. The vehicle would have to meet the bumper standard as well (49 CFR Part 581).

If you have any questions, you may call Taylor Vinson of this Office (202-366-5263).

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

ID: 2972yy

Mr. David A. White
Manager, Reliability
Grumman Olson
P.O. Box 2005
Sturgis, MI 49091

Dear Mr. White:

This responds to your "notification of noncompliance" with 49 CFR Part 567 dated March 12, l99l, and addressed to the Associate Administrator for Enforcement. Grumman has omitted to provide a VIN on the vehicle certification label, as required by section 567.4(g)(6). You have petitioned "to have the noncompliance deemed inconsequential", and are "seeking relief from the notification and repair requirements based on that possibility."

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act requires notification and remedy for noncompliances with Federal motor vehicle safety standards, and for defects that relate to motor vehicle safety. The requirement that Grumman fails to meet is not contained in Safety Standard No. 115 Vehicle Identification Number, but in a regulation that is not part of the Safety Standards (Part 571). Thus, a noncompliance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard has not occurred. Furthermore, failure to provide information on the certification label in accordance with Part 567 is not a "defect". The Act defines a defect as a "defect in performance, construction, components or materials." Clearly this does not exist.

In sum, there is no legal obligation upon Grumman Olson to notify and remedy under these circumstances, and the company is free to take whatever action it deems desirable in this case. Failure to comply with Part 567 is a violation of the Safety Act for which a civil penalty may be imposed, but the agency does not intend to seek a penalty in this matter. Nonetheless, we encourage Grumman Olson to take steps necessary to ensure that further violations do not occur.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

ref:556 d:4/25/9l

ID: 2986yy

Mr. David A. White
Manager, Reliability
Grumman Olson
P.O. Box 2005
Sturgis, MI 49091

Dear Mr. White:

This responds to your "notification of noncompliance" with 49 CFR Part 567 dated March 12, l99l, and addressed to the Associate Administrator for Enforcement. Grumman has omitted to provide a VIN on the vehicle certification label, as required by section 567.4(g)(6). You have petitioned "to have the noncompliance deemed inconsequential", and are "seeking relief from the notification and repair requirements based on that possibility."

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act requires notification and remedy for noncompliances with Federal motor vehicle safety standards, and for defects that relate to motor vehicle safety. The requirement that Grumman fails to meet is not contained in Safety Standard No. 115 Vehicle Identification Number, but in a regulation that is not part of the Safety Standards (Part 571). Thus, a noncompliance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard has not occurred. Furthermore, failure to provide information on the certification label in accordance with Part 567 is not a "defect". The Act defines a defect as a "defect in performance, construction, components or materials." Clearly this does not exist.

In sum, there is no legal obligation upon Grumman Olson to notify and remedy under these circumstances, and the company is free to take whatever action it deems desirable in this case. Failure to comply with Part 567 is a violation of the Safety Act for which a civil penalty may be imposed, but the agency does not intend to seek a penalty in this matter. Nonetheless, we encourage Grumman Olson to take steps necessary to ensure that further violations do not occur.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

ref:556 d:4/25/9l

ID: nht91-3.28

DATE: April 25, 1991

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: David A. White -- Manager, Reliability, Grumman Olson

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 3-12-91 from David A. White to Associated Administrator For Enforcement, NHTSA

TEXT:

This responds to your "notification of noncompliance" with 49 CFR Part 567 dated March 12, 1991, and addressed to the Associate Administrator for Enforcement. Grumman has omitted to provide a VIN on the vehicle certification label, as required by section 567.4(g)(6). You have petitioned "to have the noncompliance deemed inconsequential", and are "seeking relief from the notification and repair requirements based on that possibility."

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act requires notification and remedy for noncompliances with Federal motor vehicle safety standards, and for defects that relate to motor vehicle safety. The requirement that Grumman fails to meet is not contained in Safety Standard No. 115 Vehicle Identification Number, but in a regulation that is not part of the Safety Standards (Part 571). Thus, a noncompliance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard has not occurred. Furthermore, failure to provide information on the certification label in accordance with Part 567 is not a "defect". The Act defines a defect as a "defect in performance, construction, components or materials." Clearly this does not exist.

In sum, there is no legal obligation upon Grumman Olson to notify and remedy under these circumstances, and the company is free to take whatever action it deems desirable in this case. Failure to comply with Part 567 is a violation of the Safety Act for which a civil penalty may be imposed, but the agency does not intend to seek a penalty in this matter. Nonetheless, we encourage Grumman Olson to take steps necessary to ensure that further violations do not occur.

ID: nht91-6.20

DATE: October 10, 1991

FROM: James M. Watson

TO: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: Re United States Custom Service file no. 866522R

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 12-10-91 from Paul Jackson Rice to James Watson (A38; VSA 102(3))

TEXT:

I am writing to ask your assistance in a disagreement with Customs about whether a farm vehicle I hope to import has to meet Federal highway safety standards. I am a mechanical engineer living on a small farm. On a trip to Thailand, I saw a unique Thai farm vehicle which I thought would be very convenient to bring bales of hay down from my field for storage in my barn. I am engaged in the process of trying to import one.

I requested a tariff classification ruling from the United States Customs Service in New York. I included a brief discussion in my descriptive literature of those features whose presence or absence indicate it is a farm vehicle rather than a motor vehicle. I was shocked when they decided it is a motor vehicle and enclosed a booklet which says a motor vehicle must be brought into compliance with the DOT motor vehicle highway safety standards before it can enter the country.

I wrote Customs asking how to appeal their ruling. I also wrote DOT NEF-32 a letter, with a copy to Customs, asking if one of its engineers could review Customs' file to offer an opinion whether the vehicle falls within DOT's purview. Customs recently informed me that they have sent the referenced file to U.S. Customs Service Headquarters, 1301 Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20229 for their review. If they change their mind, this request for help could become moot. Meanwhile, a DOT engineer called to discuss the matter, sent me a copy of N40-30 (TWH), "Vehicles which are affected by the Federal Safety Standards", and advised me to send you my copies of the material I sent to Customs.

I have enclosed copies of the documents I sent to or received from U.S. Customs. Having read N40-30, I believe my difficulty with Customs derives from my description of these vehicles being used on highways IN THAILAND, even though I tried to make it clear how I intend to use it in the United States and why almost anything can use the roads over there. If you need additional information, you can write to my return address or call me during the day at (412)-655-1200. Your assistance will be appreciated.

LIST OF ENCLOSED DOCUMENTS

A. 22 August 1991 letter from James M. Watson to U.S. Customs in New York City requesting classification for e-tant farm vehicle. Three pertinent sentences have been highlighted.

B. "Information Regarding the Farm Vehicle" enclosure to document A.

Eleven pertinent sentences have been highlighted.

C. Undated postcard received about 30 August 1991 from U.S. Customs in New York City to James M. Watson.

D. 11 September 1991 letter from U.S. Customs in New York City to James M. Watson classifying e-tant as motor vehicle.

E. Customs' Importing a Car" booklet which accompanied document D.

Markings added by Customs on the cover, page 8 and page 10 have been highlighted, as have statements of particular concern to me on page 2.

F. 18 September 1991 letter from James M. Watson to Jean F. Maguire (U.S. Customs in New York City) protesting classification of e-tant as motor vehicle. Two pertinent paragraphs have been highlighted.

G. 17 September 1991 letter from James M. Watson to Jean F. Maguire (U.S. Customs in New York City) enclosure to document F.

H. 19 September 1991 letter from James M. Watson to U.S. DOT with copy to Jean F. Maguire (U.S. Customs in New York City).

I. 30 September 1991 postcard from U.S. Customs in New York City to James M. Watson.

J. 3 October 1991 letter from James M. Watson to U.S. Customs in Washington, D,C. responding to document I. Seven pertinent sentences have been highlighted.

K. 4 October 1991 letter from Jean F. Maguire (U.S. Customs in New York City) to James M. Watson indicating file was forwarded to U.S.

Customs in Washington, D.C. for review.

ID: nht79-1.5

DATE: 11/29/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: United States Senate

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

NOA-30

Honorable S. I. Hayakawa United States Senate Washington, D.C. 20510

Dear Senator Hayakawa:

This responds to your October 25, 1979, letter enclosing correspondence from your constituent Mr. Morrill N. Farr asking about the agency's air brake standard. Mr. Farr also asked about the highway use tax. We understand that the Federal Highway Administration will respond to you directly with an answer to that question.

With respect to the air brake standard, Mr. Farr asked whether the Government would reimburse him for a portion of the costs of installing the no lockup portion of his air brake system. Mr. Farr stated that a court has held the no lockup requirement of the air brake standard invalid, and accordingly, the Government should reimburse vehicle owners for the installation of no lockup systems that have been proven to be faulty.

The court in PACCAR v. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 573 F.2d 632 (9th Cir. 1978) cert. den'd 439 U.S. 862 (October 2, 1978), stated that the no lockup portions of the standard were invalid because some of the systems constructed in accordance with the requirements were unreliable. The court also indicated that a proper no lockup device could substantially improve the safety of vehicles. Our air brake standard does not specify a particular design or construction of brake system. It is a performance standard, and manufacturers are free to choose any design or construction that complies with the performance requirements. The fact that some manufacturers chose faulty systems is unfortunate. If the system on Mr. Farr's truck is faulty, his remedy lies with the manufacturers of the truck and the system, not with the Government.

This agency has attempted over the past several years to address the problem of faulty systems by initiating several investigations under the statutory provisions requiring manufacturers to recall and remedy defective vehicles and equipment. Those investigations contributed to the decisions of a number of manufacturers to conduct recalls.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

Enclosure Constituent's Correspondence

October 25, 1979

Department of Transportation Congressional-Liaison 400 Seventh St. SW Washington, D.C. 20590

Gentlemen:

Enclosed is a copy of correspondence I received from Mr. Morrill Farr. I would appreciate any information you could provide regarding this matter.

Please forward your reply, in duplicate, to the attention of my staff assistant, Samuel R. Buck, Room 6217, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C. 20510.

Sincerely,

S. I. Hayakawa

SIH/pw Enclosure

ID: nht92-3.6

DATE: 10/27/92

FROM: J. LESLIE DOBSON, OWNER, MCKINNEY VEHICLE SERVICES

TO: PAUL JACKSON RICE -- NATIONAL HIGHWAY SAFETY ADMINISTRATION

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 11-20-92 FROM PAUL J. RICE TO J. LESLIE DOBSON (A40; PART 567); ALSO ATTACHED TO 3-19-91 LETTER FROM PAUL RICE TO JERRY TASSAN (PART 567); ALSO ATTACHED TO 7-1-92 LETTER FROM PAUL RICE TO GENE FOUTS

TEXT: We are a small business engaged in the rental of trucks in Los Angeles, California. We have approximately 50 Bobtail trucks with a gross vehicle weight, ("GVW"), of 28,000 pounds each. Recently, the licensing laws in the State of California were changed to require a special class of driver's license for vehicles with a GVW in excess of 236,00 pounds. This has resulted in a dramatic decrese in our rental business, since many of our small customers do not possess such a license.

We believe that a reclassification of our Bobtail trucks to a GVW of less than 26,000 pounds would not adversely effect safety. The California driver's license requirement was intended to ensure that drivers of large commercial vehicles were specially trained. However, with Bobtail trucks, no special training is required for their safe operation. Indeed, over the last decade, we have had an excellent safety record with these vehicles. Our Bobtail trucks have only two axles and cannot carry large amounts of weight. They are traditionally used for local furniture delivery and for similar purposes. The boxes and flatbeds on our trucks are only 22 feet in length and they are incapable of towing a trailer.

Therefore, we would request your advice and assistance in how we would go about having these Bobtail trucks reclassified at 26,000 GVW. Would you be so kind as to contact me with some direction as to how we should proceed.

Thank you for your anticipated cooperation and assistance.