ID: nht72-6.12

DATE: 03/14/72

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Lawrence R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: Automotive Service Industry Association

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of February 23, 1972, concerning the requirements of section 573.6 (Owner lists) of the Defect Reports regulations (49 CFR Part 573).

In your letter you describe a situation where manufacturers perform modifications to heavy duty vehicles for dealers and may have difficulty, for competitive reasons, in obtaining the name of the ultimate purchaser. You ask that in this situation, these manufacturers be permitted, in meeting the requirements of section 573.6, to list the dealer as the "first purchaser," ". . . so that if a defect arises, the owners of record will be notified -- and, where applicable, the owners of record could notify the ultimate owners (usually warranty holders) of the defective vehicles."

The requirement that an owner list be maintained under section 573.6 does not arise until a defect notification campaign is undertaken. The compilation of such a list at that time, however, would of necessity be based on some existing source of all owner names. One such source could be, and probably will be in most situations, a list compiled at the time of sale for warranty purposes. This is apparently the situation you have in mind.

If a manufacturer has only the name of his dealer as the first purchaser, then we would consider using that name in his compilation as meeting the owner list requirement. The manufacturer would still be responsible for maintaining and updating the list as specified in section 573.6, and for obtaining the updated information from the dealer if it is the latter who is correcting the vehicles in question. If the manufacturer is making the corrections, of course, the updated information will be readily available to him.

With regard to your assumption," . . . so that if a defect arises, the owners of record will be notified -- and, where applicable, the owners of record could notify the ultimate owners (usually warranty holders) of the defective vehicles," the requirement for notification of owners (Section 113 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act) is separate from the requirement for compiling owners lists, and specifically excludes notification of dealers. While manufacturers may make arrangements with dealers and distributors for conducting notification campaigns, the ultimate responsibility for conducting the campaign lies with the manufacturer, and he does not meet this responsibility by merely notifying dealers.

At the same time, we would expect to be notified at once should a dealer both insist on keeping his customer list confidential from the manufacturer and refuse otherwise to cooperate with the manufacturer, so that notification letters cannot be sent.

ID: nht76-1.19

DATE: 03/08/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; R. B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Midland-Ross Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your January 30, 1976, letter requesting clarification of my March 7, 1975, letter concerning the relationship between Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 106-74, Brake Hoses, and Military Specification MIL-H-3992C.

My previous letter indicated that brake hose and brake hose assemblies sold to the military in conformity with MIL-H-3992C are, because of the provisions of 49 CFR 571.7(c), subject to neither the labeling nor the performance requirements of Standard No. 106-74. While Part 571.7(c) appears to exclude from the requirements of Standard No. 106-74 only that equipment which is sold directly to the Armed Forces, the NHTSA interprets this section as also excluding that equipment which is sold to military contractors, under contracts requiring it to conform to military specifications such as MIL-H-3992C, for installation in vehicles which are in turn sold directly to the military. We are considering the issuance of an interpretive amendment of Part 571.7(c) to this effect.

YOURS TRULY,

MIDLANDROSS

February 3, 1976

Richard B. Dyson Assistant Chief Counsel U.S. Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Further clarification of your March 7, 1975 letter to the undersigned (reference number N40-30 (MIS)) is requested with respect to the question of direct sales to the military. We, as a brake hose assembler, sell MIL-H-3992C specification hose to a vehicle manufacturer, the prime contractor for a military vehicle. Does this constitute selling "directly to, the Armed Forces of the United States in conformity with contractual specifications?" Does this further place the end-use control of the hose assemblies with the prime contractor?

Rulings by you or your office would be appreciated on the above questions.

Leon C. Huneke Chemical Engineer

ID: nht90-3.13

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: July 12, 1990

FROM: M. Michael Mascho -- Safety & Compliance Specialist, Kenworth Truck Company

TO: Taylor Vinson -- NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 8-30-90 from P.J. Rice to M.M. Mascho (A36; Std. 108)

TEXT:

I am requesting an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108; Lamps, reflective devices, and associated equipment. My concern is with Identification and Clearance Lamps listed in Table I, Required Motor Vehicle Lighting Equipment O ther Than Headlamps; and Table II, Location of Required Equipment. I have attached three (3) photos to better explain my concern.

Kenworth Truck Company is a manufacturer of Class 7 & 8 trucks that are over 80" in overall width, thus falling into the requirements of the above mentioned tables. We manufacture a conventional model truck with a Aerodynes sleeper. The Clearance and I dentification Lamps are mounted on the top of the cab. (see the right hand truck in photo 1).

We have been asked to build trucks that also include an extra set of Clearance and Identification Lamps on top of the sleeper. (see left hand truck in photo 1, and photos 2 & 3). The requirements of Tables I & II for Identification Lamps are three (3) amber lamps mounted as close as practicable to the top of the vehicle, or alternatively as close as practicable to the top of the cab. Identification Lamps are to be two (2) amber lamps mounted as near the top as practicable to indicate overall width.

By mounting the extra lamps on top of the sleeper, we now have six (6) Identification Lamps and four (4) Clearance Lamps. This vehicle when viewed from the front at night would resemble a typical Class 8 truck pulling a trailer with front mounted Cleara nce and Identification Lamps.

Would this vehicle be considered to be in compliance with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 108?

Photographs attached to letter (graphics omitted).

ID: nht75-4.13

DATE: 08/25/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Dana Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to Dana Corporation's July 11, 1975, question whether a system which controls a truck engine throttle from a remote location by means of compressed air from the truck's brake system would violate the requirements of Standard No. 121, Air brake systems.

The answer to your question is no. Standard No. 121 does not contain a prohibition on the use of air pressure from the air brake system for powering auxiliary devices. The vehicle must of course conform to Standard No. 121 following installation of the device, if the installation occurs prior to the first purchase in good faith for purposes other than resale. For example, the compressor build-up pressure would still be required to meet S5.1 of the standard.

Although not a requirement of the standard, the NHTSA does consider it appropriate that a pressure protective valve be placed in the line to the auxiliary device so that a rupture of an auxiliary line does not cause depletion of air pressure in the brake system.

SINCERELY,

DANA CORPORATION . TECHNICAL CENTER

July 11, 1975

Chief Council U.S. Department of Transportation

We are presently involved with the design and development of a system used in the control of truck engine throttles. The system will require compressed air for its actuation which will be obtained from the air supply used in the vehicle's air brake system. This system will primarily be used on refuse packers during the pack cycle. The time per pack cycle will be one minute or less with a system's air consumption of .375 cubic feet at a regulated pressure of 35 pounds per square inch and having a free air flow of .358 cubic feet.

With data available to you, I would like to know if, when using our system, the manufacturers will be in any violation of the FMVSS No. 121, Air Brake Systems. I am mostly concerned with paragraphs S5.1.1, S5.1.2, and S5.1.2.1 referring to compressors and reservoirs.

Having this information, we can assure the truck manufacturers that our system will not in any way put them in jeopardy of any vehicle safety standards set forth by the U.S. Department of Transportation.

If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me.

Robert J. Ostrander Development Engineer

ID: JAPIA.ajd

Keiko Utsunomiya
Assistant Director
Japan Auto Parts Industries Association
C/o JETRO Chicago
401 N. Michigan Ave. Suite 660
Chicago, IL 60611

Re:  Request for Interpretation

Dear Ms. Utsunomiya:

This is in reply to your e-mail letter of November 18, 2003, to Mr. Jonathan White of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administrations (NHTSA) Office of Defects Investigations requesting a clarification of several requirements of NHTSAs regulation on reporting of information and communications about potential defects, 49 CFR Part 579.

In your e-mail to Mr. White, you asked whether a supplier has an obligation to report under the following scenario:

Supplier C manufacturers part X for automaker A and B. OEM A received a claim of a fatal accident in relation to a possible defect on X, and recalled vehicles with X. But, OEM A does NOT sell cars in the U.S., so they did not report to NHTSA on the claim and the subsequent recall. OEM B sells cars with X, but has not receive[d] claims on X.

You also stated that your understanding of the above hypothetical is that supplier C does have an obligation to report to NHTSA and requested that we provide you with the legal authority to require that report.

Your question is unclear as to what you understand supplier C needs to report to NHTSA. Based upon the facts in the hypothetical you present, it appears that you pose two questions. First, does a supplier of motor vehicle equipment have an obligation to report a recall campaign that is conducted by a vehicle manufacturer who does not sell motor vehicles in the United States? Pursuant to Subpart B of 49 CFR Part 579, supplier C would not have an obligation to report the recall of the vehicles with part X to NHTSA because OEM A, not supplier C, determined that a safety-related defect existed in part X. See 49 CFR 579.11. In addition, since a foreign government did not require supplier C to conduct a safety-related recall, supplier C is not obligated to report the recall. See 49 CFR 579.12.

Second, does a supplier of motor vehicle equipment have to report a claim of a fatal accident received by a vehicle manufacturer who does not sell motor vehicles in the United States? Pursuant to Subpart C of 49 CFR Part 579, supplier C does not have an obligation to report the fatality claim, since the claim was made against and received by OEM A. See 49 CFR 579.27(b).

If you have any questions, you may phone Andrew DiMarsico of my staff at (202) 366-5263.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:579
d.12/8/03

ID: nht91-4.6

DATE: May 28, 1991

FROM: Roddy Williams -- Container Enterprise

TO: Paul J. Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: Reference: FMVSS No. 115 Vehicle Identification

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 7-12-91 from Paul Jackson Rice to Roddy Williams (A38; Std. 115; Part 571.7(f); VSA 108(a)(2)(A))

TEXT:

Container Enterprise is a chassis manufacturer in New Orleans, La. and is registered with S.A.E. to apply VIN numbers. We are presently converting container chassis from their original 23' length to a new length of 27' which will enable them to conform to the new Federal Bridge Formula.

Leasing companies have contracted us to modify these older chassis carrying a five digit VIN number. According to S.A.E., current regulations require a seventeen digit VIN number on any new and remanufactured productions. Any length change would also constitute a VIN number change.

Explanation of Modification:

The original chassis is 23' long. We remove the axles and half of the cross members on the original frame. We manufacture a 12' subframe and reinstall axles to the subframe. The subframe upon completion will extend the chassis length to 27'. The conversion will allow the chassis to slide open or closed.

Upon completion of modification, Container Enterprise will issue a new manufacturer plate with a new VIN number and date of remanufacture. A remanufacture certificate of orgin is sent to the leasing company and the leasing company registers the chassis.

It is our understanding after a telephone conversation with D. Nacoma with N.H.T.S.A. that the original manufacturer is no longer responsible after remanufacturing is completed. It is also our understanding that the remanufacturer assumes responsibility of the chassis meeting all of N.H.T.S.A. standards.

According to the Department of the Treasury Publication 510, Excise Taxes, Page 10, Heavy Trucks, Trailers, & Tractor: F.E.T. is not taxable on remanufactured equipment.

We feel that these procedures comply with all requirements and regulations. We would appreciate your review of these procedures and responding with any comments or opinions.

Should you require additional information or clarification, please contact me at your convenience.

ID: 8624

Mr. Daniel L. Kokal
Champagne Imports
506 Stonehurst Court
Gainesville, VA 22065

Dear Mr. Kokal:

This is in reply to your letter of May 8, 1993, requesting use of continuous surety bonding for importation of nonconforming vehicles under the Registered Importer program.

As you have informed us, "[c]urrently, single entry bonds are filed with each [nonconforming] vehicle at 150% of the vehicle's value . . . .", and that this is expensive for the importer of Canadian vehicles which "rarely, if ever, require safety modifications to meet U.S. standards." You propose a continuous bond which would cover more than one vehicle, with the same level of value. The example you give is that of a continuous bond of $150,000 which would cover 10 vehicles imported together, each with a value of $10,000 as determined by the U.S. Customs Service, rather than individual bonds for 10 vehicles of $10,000 value, each bond at $15,000. Your specific suggestion is for "the ability to import no more than 15 vehicles under a given continuous bond at 150% total vehicle value."

We are unable to implement your suggestion at present. Under 49 CFR 591.8(a), the safety compliance bond's coverage is restricted to "only one motor vehicle." Thus, rulemaking is required to amend paragraph 591.8(a) to permit a bond that covers more than one vehicle. In addition, Appendix A to Part 591 will have to be modified; this sets forth the terms of the bond, presently expressed in single-entry terms. As NHTSA is required to reimburse Customs for its costs in processing safety compliance bonds, that agency must necessarily be consulted to determine the impact of such a change on its operations, with a possible change in the bond processing fee imposed under Part 594. However, the Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance will consider the feasibility of rulemaking on this subject.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel ref:591 d:6/4/93

ID: nht93-4.22

DATE: June 4, 1993

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, U.S. Department of Transportation, NHTSA

TO: Daniel L. Kokal -- Champagne Imports

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 5-8-93 from Daniel L. Kokal to Johnathan Womack (OCC 8624)

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of May 8, 1993, requesting use of continuous surety bonding for importation of nonconforming vehicles under the Registered Importer program.

As you have informed us, (c)urrently, single entry bonds are filed with each (nonconforming) vehicle at 150% of the vehicle's value . . . .", and that this is expensive for the importer of Canadian vehicles which "rarely, if ever, require safety modifications to meet U.S. standards." You propose a continuous bond which would cover more than one vehicle, with the same level of value. The example you give is that of a continuous bond of $150,000 which would cover 10 vehicles imported together, each with a value of $10,000 as determined by the U.S. Customs Service, rather than individual bonds for 10 vehicles of $10,000 value, each bond at $15,000. Your specific suggestion is for "the ability to import no more than 15 vehicles under a given continuous bond at 150% total vehicle value."

We are unable to implement your suggestion at present. Under 49 CFR 591.8 (a), the safety compliance bond's coverage is restricted to "only one motor vehicle." Thus, rulemaking is required to amend paragraph 591.8 (a) to permit a bond that covers more than one vehicle. In addition, Appendix A to Part 591 will have to be modified; this sets forth the terms of the bond, presently expressed in single-entry terms. As NHTSA is required to reimburse Customs for its costs in processing safety compliance bonds, that agency must necessarily be consulted to determine the impact of such a change on its operations, with a possible change in the bond processing fee imposed under Part 594. However, the Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance will consider the feasibility of rulemaking on this subject.

ID: 08-006426drn.doc manufactured homes

ID: 77-2.37

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 05/18/77

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank A. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Lansdale; Carr & Baum

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your March 25, 1977, letter asking whether your proposed tire registration card to be used by your retail tire stores meets the requirements of 49 CFR Part 574, Tire Identification and Recordkeeping.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not issue advance approvals of compliance with agency standards or regulations. The agency will, however, give an informal opinion as to whether your registration card appears to satisfy the requirements of the regulation.

The proposed card that you submitted is similar to the example presented in Figure 3 of Part 574. Accordingly, it appears to comply with most of the requirements of that regulation. The actual seller of the tires, however, is not identified on the form. Since Part 574.7 requires that the tire seller be identifiable to the tire manufacturer, the form should disclose that information. Naming only the corporate office is insufficient, since that does not readily identify the store through which the tire was sold. The NHTSA suggests that the actual seller's name and address be provided on the card as shown on Figure 3.

It is our understanding that the tire seller will forward the cards to you who will then forward the information to the manufacturer. This process is acceptable to the NHTSA as long as the information is forwarded to the manufacturer within the time frame specified in Part 574.8.

SINCERELY,

Landsale, Carr & Baum advertising, marketing & management

March 25, 1977

Francis Armstrong, Director Office of Standards Enforcement Motor Vehicle Programs US Department of Transportation National Highway Safety Adminstration

We wish to submit the enclosed design for your approval to be used as a universal DOT identification card throughout our chain of retail tire stores.

This card was designed to conform to the requirements of Section 574.8 of the department's directive on universal formats, dated May 22, 1971.

We would appreciate hearing from you as soon as possible so that we can proceed with this project.

Paul Ideker

(Graphics omitted) (Illegible Text)

FIG 3. UNIVERSAL FORMAT

@ 574.8 Information requirements -- tire distributors and dealers.

(a) Each distributor and each dealer selling tires to tire purchasers shall submit the information specified in @ 571.7 (a) to the manufacturer of the tires sold, or to the manufacturer's designee.

(b) Each tire distributor and each dealer selling tires to tire purchasers shall forward the information specified in #571.7(a) to the tire manufacturer, or person maintaining the information, not less often than every 20 days. However, a distributor or dealer who sells less than 10 tires, of all makes, types and sizes during a 30 day period may wait until he sells a total of 10 tires, but in the event longer than 6 months before forwarding the tire information to the respective tire manufactures or their designee.

(c) Each distributor and each dealer selling tires to other tire distributors and dealers shall supply to the tire distributor or dealer to whom he sells tires a (Illegible Words) the information specifical in @ 571.7(a), unless such a means has been provided to that distributor or dealer by (Illegible Word) person or by a manufacturer.

(d) Each distributor and each dealer shall immediately stop selling any group of tires when so directed by a notification issued pursuant to Section 113 of the Act (13 U.S.C. 1102).

@ 574.9 Requirements for motor vehicle dealers.

(a) Each motor vehicle dealer who sells a used motor vehicle for purposes other than resale, or who leases a motor vehicle for more than (Illegible Word) days, that is equipped with new tires or newly retreated tires (Illegible Word) for purposes of this