ID: nht95-6.15

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: August 17, 1995

FROM: Signature Illegible; John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: James V. Woodsmall, Esquire -- Warrick & Boyn

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: JULY 31, 1995 LETTER FROM JAMES WOODSMALL TO COLEMAN SACHS NOT AVAILABLE

TEXT: Dear Mr. Woodsmall:

This is in response to your letter of July 31, 1995 to Coleman Sachs of my staff, requesting an interpretation of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's (NHTSA's) requirements for affixing a certification label to motor vehicles, as found in 49 CFR Part 567. Your letter states that you have made this request on behalf of a client who converts completed pickup trucks into larger trucks or sport utility vehicles. In this process of this conversion, your client removes the door-latch post on which the original manufacturer's certification label is permanently affixed. As your letter states, it is not possible for this label to be removed without being completely destroyed.

Although not stated in your letter, in a prior telephone conversation with Mr. Sachs, you stated that the vehicles converted by your client have yet to be sold to their first retail purchaser. Given this circumstance, your client qualifies as a vehicle alterer. The certification requirements for vehicle alterers are stated in 49 CFR 567.7. That section provides that "[a] person who alters a vehicle that has previously been certified . . . shall allow the original certification label to remain on the vehicle, and shall affix to the vehicle an additional label of the type and in the manner and form described in @ 567.4 . . ."

As the conversions performed by your client entail the removal of the door latch post, it is clear that he cannot comply with the requirement that the original certification label be left on the vehicle. You have proposed as a solution to this problem that in addition to the alterer's label required by 49 CFR 567.7, your client be allowed to affix a copy of the original certification label to the vehicle. The copy would state that it is a replacement label affixed by your client because the original was destroyed in the conversion process. This solution is acceptable to NHTSA, provided that the replacement label includes the explanatory text that you have proposed. In addition, we recommend that your client preserve the original label so that it may be furnished to the vehicle purchaser.

If you have any further questions regarding this matter, feel free to contact Mr. Sachs at the above address, or by telephone at (202) 366-5238.

ID: nht69-2.42

DATE: 12/22/69

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Lawrence R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: Ford Motor Company

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: RE: CONSUMER INFORMATION

This is in response to your telegram of December 15 concerning the submission of consumer information on passenger cars produced by your associated company in England. You stated, "This data will be submitted to the Bureau thirty (30) or more days in advance of any of these cars being offered for sale in the United States as required by section 375.6 as published on October 22, 1969."

The regulation (49 CFR @ 375.6(b)) requires information to be made available to prospective purchasers, on or afer January 1, 1970, on "each of the vehicles offered for sale" at the dealer showroom. The general applicability of the information is to vehicles manufactured on or after January 1, 1970. The intent of the regulation is to provide prospective vehicle buyers with information on all the various types of vehicles currently being manufactured and available for purchase after that date.

You apparently are assuming that, within the meaning of the regulation, no vehicles are "offered for sale" to prospective purchasers except those that are physically present in the dealer showroom. This certainly does not reflect the practice of most manufacturers, whose dealers, while keeping representative stock of vehicles on hand, offer for sale (and enter into contracts for sale of) the manufacturer's complete line of vehicles. This interpretation would, furthermore, tend to defeat the main reaon for providing information to prospective purchasers, since a dealer would never be obligated to provide information on vehicles other than those that happened to be in his possession at a given moment.

We advise you, therefore, that the term "vehicles offered for sale" in the prospective purchaser requirement, 49 CFR @ 375.6(b), refers to all the types of vehicles that a manufacturer represents, or the dealer represents with the permission of the manufacturer, as being available for purchase by the general public at a particular dealer location. The regulation requires that consumer information be provided to prospective purchasers on each of there vehicles on or after January 1, 1970, and to the Administrator 30 days in advance of its availability to prospective purchasers.

ID: 77-1.16

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/02/77

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Caravan Trailer Rental Co. Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to Caravan Trailer Rental Company's December 22, 1976, question whether trailers manufactured prior to January 1, 1975, may be imported into the United States for sale without being required to conform to Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems.

Standard No. 121 only regulates the manufacture and importation of trailers that are produced on or after January 1, 1975. Standard No. 121's only limitation on the importation and sale of trailers manufactured prior to January 1, 1975, would be that any repair, refurbishment, or other modification of the trailer must not be so significant as to constitute the manufacture of a new vehicle. To qualify as a repair the NHTSA requires that the running gear assembly of the existing trailer be used in the refurbished trailer and that certain other identification and ownership (or leasing) aspects of the existing trailer be continued in the refurbished trailer. I have enclosed a copy of a notice which explains the NHTSA regulations in this area.

You are reminded that a trailer imported into the United States as you described must bear a label that states the month and year of manufacture.

SINCERELY,

CARAVAN TRAILER RENTAL CO. LTD.

December 22, 1976.

Fred Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Our Company is looking at the feasibility of exporting, from Canada, used trailers to be sold in the American market.

We are concerned with a potential problem vis a vis, the M.V.S.S. 121 Brake Regulation.

Our question to you is this:

Does the existing M.V.S.S. 121 Brake legislation prohibit us in any way from selling used trailers, manufactured in years 1974 and prior, into the American market? Would the braking system on these trailers have to be altered in any way, as they are obviously presently not equipped with any of the M.V.S.S. 121 specifications?

We would appreciate an early reply to this inquiry and thank you in advance for your co-operation.

CARAVAN TRAILER SALES - DIVISION OF CARAVAN TRAILER RENTAL CO. LTD.

Jack D. Livingston, Executive Vice-President.

cc: MARY SWEENEY

ID: nht75-6.6

DATE: 07/08/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Athens Sport Cycles Inc.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of May 18, 1975, in which you ask a number of questions relating to tire registration procedures, and in amplification of your telephone conversation with Mr. Schwartz of my office. We will answer your questions in the order raised.

1 and 2. There is a universal tire registration form (figure 3 in the enclosed Part 574) which manufacturers are required to furnish to you or you may reproduce pursuant to @ 574.7 of the regulation.

3. Since the regulation requires that the manufacturers or their agents maintain the records, the forms should either be sent to the manufacturer or his designated agent. A number of manufacturers utilize services such as the Tire Safety Registry in New Jersey to keep their records, but they merely act as the manufacturer's agent. There is to our knowledge no central place to send the forms for all manufacturers.

4. We have no idea what is meant by a retailer I.D. number. Our recommendation is that you contact the manufacturers to determine what they mean.

5. Our tire recordkeeping regulation only applies to tires for use on motor vehicles. Thus, tires for use on off-road vehicles would not fall within the regulation.

6. As required by @ 574.8 of the enclosed regulation, completed forms must be sent to manufacturers every 30 days. The only exception is where you sell less than 40 tires of all makes and manufacturers in the 30-day period, in which case you may wait until you sell 40 tires or for 6 months, whichever comes first.

7. Retailers are not required to keep any tire owner forms.

8. It is the responsibility of the dealer to mail the forms, although he may ask the customer to fill out the form at the time of purchase.

On behalf of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, let me commend you for your desire to fully comply with the requirements of our tire recordkeeping regulations. It is through the efforts of dealers such as you that motorcyclists and their passengers are protected against tire defects which might lead to injury or death.

ID: nht93-7.51

DATE: November 3, 1993

FROM: William J. MacAdam -- President and CEO, trans2 Corporation

TO: John G. Womack, Esq. -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 4/1/94 from John Womack to William J. MacAdam (A42; VSA 102(3))

TEXT:

Enclosed is a letter written on behalf of trans2 Corporation (trans2) requesting that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) issue a letter confirming that the electric vehicle that trans2 plans to manufacture is not a "motor vehicle" as that term is defined in the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. A list of vehicle specifications and two photographs of the vehicle are also enclosed.

Pursuant to 49 C.F.R. Part 512, I hereby request that NHTSA treat the list of vehicle specifications and the photographs as confidential business information and withhold them from public disclosure.

trans2 hasn't yet begun full scale manufacture of their low speed electric vehicle. Public disclosure of the vehicle's specifications and the photographic detail of the vehicle's appearance would cause the company substantial competitive harm. Such disclosure would provide trans2's competitors with an opportunity to develop competing products faster. As such, the information constitutes a trade secret and is confidential commercial information.

trans2 has made efforts to prevent the information contained in the vehicle specifications and the photographs from becoming publicly available. The photographs have only been seen by employees of trans2, the company's attorneys and investment bankers, a few key suppliers and limited number of potential investors. All of the above disclosures were on a confidential basis. The list of vehicle specifications has only been disclosed to the company's attorneys.

We are aware of no occasions on which this information has appeared publicly, or any other circumstances that would compromise the confidential nature of the information. We are aware of no prior determinations by NHTSA or any other federal agency or federal courts relating to the confidentiality of the submitted information or similar information. Moreover, disclosure of this type of information would impair NHTSA's ability to obtain similar information from small manufacturers in the future.

We request NHTSA to keep the materials confidential until January 1, 1995.

Thank you for you consideration of this request.

ENCLOSURE

11/3/93

Mr. John G. Womack, Esq. Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

Dear Mr. Womack:

On behalf of trans2 Corporation (trans2), I am writing to request the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) issue a letter confirming that the electric vehicle which trans2 plans to manufacture is not a "motor vehicle" within the meaning of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the "Safety Act").

trans2 intends to manufacture a low speed electric vehicle for use in residential communities, university campuses, industrial complexes and on short commuter trips. As you can see from the attached photographs and technical description, the trans2 vehicle has a body configuration that readily distinguishes it from other highway vehicles. In addition, the trans2 vehicle has a top speed of 20 miles per hour.

Section 108(a)(1) of the Safety Act prohibits the manufacture for sale of motor vehicles that do not conform to applicable federal motor vehicle safety standards. 15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(1). Section 102(3) defines a "motor vehicle" as "any vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power manufactured primarily for use on the public streets, roads, and highways, except any vehicle operated exclusively on rail or rails." 15 U.S.C. 1391(3) We understand that prior NHTSA interpretations of the Safety Act have excluded certain limited use vehicles from the definition of "motor vehicles." For example, NHTSA has determined that vehicles with "an abnormal body configuration that readily distinguishes them from other highway vehicles and maximum speed of 20 miles per hour (mph) are not considered motor vehicles." Letter from Paul Jackson, NHTSA Chief Counsel, to Matthew J. Plache, Esq., at 2 (Dec. 3, 1991); see also Letter from Jeffrey R. Miller, NHTSA Chief Counsel to Alexander E. Nagy, at 2 (April 16, 1985). The trans2 vehicle satisfies these two criteria.

Accordingly, based on NHTSA's prior interpretations of the Safety Act, we request a NHTSA letter confirming that the foregoing interpretation remain applicable and that when applied to the trans2 vehicle result in the conclusion that our vehicle is not "motor vehicle" under the Safety Act.

Thank you for your consideration of this request. Please contact me if you need further information about the trans2 vehicle.

ATTACHMENTS

(Specifications and photo omitted.)

ID: nht75-4.8

DATE: 05/02/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; J. C. Schultz; NHTSA

TO: General Motors Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of March 21, 1975, inquiring as to the effect of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 121 on Massachusetts and New Jersey State laws relating to air brake performance.

As you are aware, section 103(d) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (15 U.S.C. 1392(d)) provides that no State or political subdivision of a State may promulgate or continue in effect standards applicable to an aspect of motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment performance which is covered by a Federal motor vehicle safety standard, unless the standards are identical.

Standard No. 121 includes provisions relating to truck and bus brake performance, including requirements for stopping distances. A more restrictive State brake requirement than that specified in Standard 121 is voided by @ 103(d) since the Federal standard is intended to cover all aspects of air brake performance.

The Federal requirements must be regarded as conclusive with regard to service, emergency, and parking braking capabilities in order to maintain the uniformity necessary in a Federal regulatory scheme. This was affirmed in a recent decision rendered in a case brought by the Motorcycle Industry Council, Inc. against the State of California in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California concerning the preemption of a California State requirement that motorcycle headlamps be wired to operate when the engine is running. The Court held that the California requirement is preempted by the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 since the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration intended to cover all aspects of performance directly involving motorcycle headlamps.

Therefore, requirements such as those described in your letter would be preempted by Standard 121 since the aspects of performance that would be affected are covered by the Federal standard. You should note that this discussion of State "requirements" only refers to rules of general applicability within a State or municipality. It does not refer to purchase specifications that may be imposed by any person or organization, including a State or municipality, with respect to vehicles purchased for the person or organization's own use. Such specifications are not limited by Federal law, and in the case of governmental bodies are specifically allowed by @ 103(d), although of course they cannot alter a manufacturer's duty to conform to Federal standards.

ID: nht93-9.27

DATE: December 28, 1993

FROM: Lloyd Boshaw -- C.E.O., Auto Trim

TO: John Womack -- Acting Chief Consul, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 1/21/94 from John Womack to Lloyd Boshaw (A42; Std. 108) and letter dated 8/31/90 from Paul Jackson Rice to David Holscher

TEXT:

We have a small business installing after market accessories for automobile dealers and customers. Among the accessories installed are the rear deck lid spoilers. We remain confused over the question should the Vehicle manufacturer's brake light in the rear window be disconnected when a spoiler is added (which has a brake light). This would mean you would be adding one additional brake light.

Our contacts with local agencies have indicated that they want and prefer the additional safety illumination from the added brake light in the spoiler.

The photographs and sketches will provide a clearer explanation.

In our effort to make sure we provide the finest service to our dealers we wanted to be sure we do not have a question concerning this matter.

The defined question is, When we add a spoiler to a vehicle (which has a brake light) must we disconnect the vehicle manufacturer's brake light in the rear window?

All logic that we can find says "no." Some concerns result from disconnecting the vehicle manufacturer's brake light in the rear window when it is not necessary. First, the additional brake light in the spoiler provides additional brake light illumination for safety. Disconnecting the vehicle manufacturer's brake light in the rear window creates a warning light in the instrument cluster to go on indicating a brake light is out. This can be overcome by relays etc. However, we believe the manufacturer's brake light and wiring should be left intact whenever possible. Only one large dealer and account has asked that we disconnect the light and we are awaiting your reply until we take on his account.

We are informed that spoilers are being installed all over the country without disconnecting the vehicle manufacturer's brake light.

As you know most small businesses are in tough times due to the current economy and in that fact we would like to ask you for an opinion or judgment as soon as possible so we may continue business with as little interruption as absolutely necessary, it will be greatly appreciated.

ID: nht75-6.25

DATE: 05/02/75

FROM: JAMES C. SCHULTZ -- NHTSA CHIEF COUNSEL

TO: FRAZER F. HILDER -- GENERAL COUNSEL GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION

TITLE: N40-30

TEXT: Dear Mr. Hilder:

This is in response to your letter of March 21, 1975, inquiring as to the effect of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 121 on Massachusetts and New Jersey State laws relating to air brake performance.

As you are aware, section 103(d) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (15 U.S.C. 1392(d)) provides that no State or political subdivision of a State may promulgate or continue in effect standards applicable to an aspect of motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment performance which is covered by a Federal Motor vehicle safety standard, unless the standards are identical.

Standard No. 121 includes provisions relating to truck and bus brake performance, including requirements for stopping distances. A more restrictive State brake requirement than that specified in Standard 121 is voided by @ 103(d) since the Federal standard is intended to cover all aspects of air brake performance.

The Federal requirements must be regarded as conclusive with regard to service, emergency, and parking braking capabilities in order to maintain the uniformity necessary in a Federal regulatory scheme. This was affirmed in a recent decision rendered in a case brought by the Motorcycle Industry Council, Inc. against the State of California in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California concerning the preemption of a California State requirement that Motorcycle headlamps be wired to operate when the engine is running. The Court held that the California requirement is preempted by the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 since the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration intended to cover all aspects of performance directly involving motorcycle headlamps.

Therefore, requirements such as those described in your letter would be preempted by Standard 121 since the aspects of performance that would be affected are covered by the Federal standard. You should note that this discussion of State "requirements" only refers to rules of general applicability within a State or municipality. It does not refer to purchase specifications that may be imposed by any person or organization, including a State or municipality, with respect to vehicles purchased for the person or organization's own use. Such specifications are not limited by Federal law, and in the case of governmental bodies are specifically allowed by @ 103(d), although of course they cannot alter a manufacturer's duty to conform to Federal standards.

Sincerely,

ID: 09-000984drn saito

ID: nht95-3.92

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: August 17, 1995

FROM: Signature Illegible; John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: James V. Woodsmall, Esquire -- Warrick & Boyn

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: JULY 31, 1995 LETTER FROM JAMES WOODSMALL TO COLEMAN SACHS NOT AVAILABLE

TEXT: Dear Mr. Woodsmall:

This is in response to your letter of July 31, 1995 to Coleman Sachs of my staff, requesting an interpretation of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's (NHTSA's) requirements for affixing a certification label to motor vehicles, as found i n 49 CFR Part 567. Your letter states that you have made this request on behalf of a client who converts completed pickup trucks into larger trucks or sport utility vehicles. In this process of this conversion, your client removes the door-latch post o n which the original manufacturer's certification label is permanently affixed. As your letter states, it is not possible for this label to be removed without being completely destroyed.

Although not stated in your letter, in a prior telephone conversation with Mr. Sachs, you stated that the vehicles converted by your client have yet to be sold to their first retail purchaser. Given this circumstance, your client qualifies as a vehicle alterer. The certification requirements for vehicle alterers are stated in 49 CFR 567.7. That section provides that "[a] person who alters a vehicle that has previously been certified . . . shall allow the original certification label to remain on the vehicle, and shall affix to the vehicle an additional label of the type and in the manner and form described in @ 567.4 . . ."

As the conversions performed by your client entail the removal of the door latch post, it is clear that he cannot comply with the requirement that the original certification label be left on the vehicle. You have proposed as a solution to this problem t hat in addition to the alterer's label required by 49 CFR 567.7, your client be allowed to affix a copy of the original certification label to the vehicle. The copy would state that it is a replacement label affixed by your client because the original w as destroyed in the conversion process. This solution is acceptable to NHTSA, provided that the replacement label includes the explanatory text that you have proposed. In addition, we recommend that your client preserve the original label so that it ma y be furnished to the vehicle purchaser.

If you have any further questions regarding this matter, feel free to contact Mr. Sachs at the above address, or by telephone at (202) 366-5238.