ID: nht71-4.43

DATE: 11/08/71

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; E. T. Driver; NHTSA

TO: Commercial Rubber Company

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of October 14, 1971, in which you ask whether matrices (or molds) must be relettered to a new identification code mark when the ownership of a company is transferred from father to son. The son may continue to use the existing number if he will write a letter to us stating that he is the new owner, the date on which he became the new owner, that he wishes to continue to use the same identification code mark, and that he assume all responsibility under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (15 U.S.C 1381 et. seq) for tires manufactured with the identification mark on or after the date he assumes ownership of the company. This letter should also refer to the name of the old company and should include any changes being made in company name, address and types of tires being retreaded.

With the above procedure the matrices would not have to be relettered. We will change our records to conform to the information contained in the letter.

ID: nht73-5.4

DATE: 09/12/73

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Wesley Wells

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of May 10, 1973, concerning your purchase of a 1973 truck from Haag Motors which was sold as new but had an odometer reading of 1,125 miles at the time of sale. I apologize for our delay in replying.

The sale of a vehicle as new with an odometer reading of 1,125 miles does not violate Federal law, although it may violate a consumer protection statute in your state or the state of purchase. There is, however, a Federal law which requires sellers of motor vehicles to make an odometer disclosure statement at the time of sale. If you purchased the truck after March 1, 1973, and its gross vehicle weight rating does not exceed 16,000 pounds, you may have a private civil action against the dealer for $ 1,500 or treble damages, if he failed to execute the written statement.

You may wish to consult an attorney with regards to your rights in this matter. A copy of the Act and implementing regulations are enclosed for your information.

ENCLS.

ID: nht73-4.38

DATE: 07/30/73

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

TO: Glen Tillotson

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of July 6, 1973, concerning problems that you foresee for your company under Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 121. The primary problem you describe is the need to test brakes on vehicles that you produce in very small quantities.

The standards promulgated by this agency under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act do not impose a mandatory level of testing on regulated manufacturers. If we purchase a manufacturer's product, test it, and find that it fails an applicable standard, to avoid liability for noncompliance, the manufacturer must then establish that he exercised due care in assuring himself that the product conformed to the standard. The most common method by which manufacturers assess their product's conformity with a standard is by testing the products in accordance with the procedures of the standard. A manufacturer may, however, contract to have this testing done by an outside laboratory, may rely on adequate information provided him by a supplier, or use other reasonable means to make sure that his products comply.

ID: nht91-2.18

DATE: March 7, 1991

FROM: Liam J. Moran -- Hagans, Brown, Gibbs & Moran

TO: Steven Kratzke -- NHTSA

TITLE: Re Brey v. Spalding & Evenflo Companies, Inc.; Our File No. : 3571

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 3-19-91 from Paul Jackson Rice to Liam J. Moran (A37; Std. 213)

TEXT:

This letter will serve to confirm our telephone conversation today and constitute a request for a formal interpretation of Paragraph S5.6.3 of FMVSS 213. My inquiry to the Chief Counsel's Office is whether the manufacturer of a child restraint system is deemed in compliance with Paragraph S5.6.3 which requires that instructions affixed to the child restraint system "shall explain the primary consequences of noting (sec) following the warnings required to be labeled on the child restraint system" if the manufacturer affixes the statement appearing in Paragraph S5.5.2(g) which states as follows:

WARNING! Failure to follow each of the following instructions can result in your child striking the vehicle's interior during a sudden stop or crash. Secure this child restraint with a vehicle belt as specified in the manufacturer's instructions located --.

As I explained to you in our telephone conversation, this firm represents Spalding & Evenflo Companies, Inc. in a products liability action. The plaintiff alleges that even though Evenflo's child restraint system had the warning stipulated in Paragraph S5.5.2(g) of FMVSS 213 affixed to it, Evenflo violated Paragraph S5.6.3 of the regulation by failing to include additional language explaining the "primary consequences of not following the warnings."

I request that the issuance of the Chief Counsel's interpretation be undertaken on an expedited basis given the time constraints of the pending litigation.

Should you have any questions concerning our inquiry, please do not hesitate to call.

ID: Evans_10-005739_108

ID: nht79-4.40

DATE: 09/17/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: General Motors Technical Center

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of August 7, 1979 asking whether a nonconforming vehicle imported for testing must be removed from the public roads, at the end of one year, if NHTSA has not acted upon the importer's request for an extension of time.

This will confirm that the discussion which your Mr. Reed had with our Mr. Vinson is accurately reflected in your letter. If an application for an extension of time has been filed in accordance with 19 CFR 12.80 (b)(2) for a vehicle imported under 12.80(b)(1)(vii), the vehicle may continue to be operated upon the public roads until final disposition of the petition has been made. Permission to use the roads is considered a "license" and the principle of 5 USC 558(c) is operative: if a government agency receives an application for renewal of a license before it expires, the license continues in effect until final action has been taken on the request for renewal.

I trust that this is responsive to your request.

SINCERELY,

ID: nht94-7.34

DATE: March 21, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: James E. Schlesinger -- Esq., Schlesinger, Arkwright & Garvey

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 12/2/93 from James E. Schlesinger to Walter K. Myers (OCC-9388), letter dated 12/23/92 from James E. Schlesinger to Walter K. Myers, and letter dated 2/23/93 from John Womack to James E. Schlesinger

TEXT:

This responds to your letter addressed to Walter Myers of this office in which you posed certain questions relating to the Uniform Tire Quality Grading Standards (UTQGS), 49 CFR 575.104. Reference is also made to our letter to you dated February 23, 1993, in which we addressed certain other of your questions concerning the UTQGS.

In your most recent letter, you set forth a very complicated factual scenario about certain events which occurred during 1990-91, and which involved three companies. At the end of the letter you asked, with respect to each company, whether the company was in violation of one or more provisions of 49 CFR Part 575. You also asked whether, in addition to the penalties for violation of the UTQGS as set forth in S109 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, 15 U.S.C. S1381, et seq. (Act or Safety Act), there are "additional sanctiortion on the decklid. Our review of the two designs shows that they are essentially similar, and that the Mazda design comprises, in fact, two adjacent lamps. As it was not our intent to change the earlier interpretation, we confirm that the June 1985 interpretation remains valid, and that the December 1991 letter is overruled to the extent that it is inconsistent with it.

ID: nht71-1.32

DATE: 08/25/71

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Lawrence R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: Honiron

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of June 17, 1971, concerning the notice published April 14, 1971 (36 F.R. 7054) amending the Certification regulations (49 CFR Part 567) and establishing regulations governing "Vehicles Manufactured in Two or More Stages" (49 CFR Part 568). You ask whether as a trailer manufacturer you need comply only with the requirements of @ 567.4(g)(1) at present, and need not comply with @@ 567.4(g)(2) through 567.4(g)(7) until October 1, 1972. The answer to this question is no. The amendment to the regulations on which your question is based merely added the requirements of @@ 567.4(g)(1)(iii) 567.4(g)(3), and 567.4(g)(4) to existing requirements that have been in effect since September 1, 1969 (copy enclosed). Thus, the requirements of @@ 567.4(g)(1)(i) and (ii), and 567.4(g)(2), (g)(5), (g)(6) and (g)(7) (as they appear in the notice of April 14, 1971) have been in effect since September 1, 1969. Of the new provisions @ 567.4(g)(1)(iii) did become effective June 1, 1971. The effective date of the other new provisions has been corrected to January 1, 1972, by a notice published April 27, 1971 (36 F.R. 7855), a copy of which is also enclosed.

You are correct in interpreting "gross vehicle weight rating" as it applies to trailers to exclude the weight of the tractor or other towing vehicle. It includes as you state only the weight of the fully loaded trailer. You are also correct in interpreting "gross axle weight rating" as it applies to trailers to apply to only the weight applied to the axle of the trailer. It does not include the weight applied to any part of the towing vehicle.

If you have further questions, please let us know.

ID: nht93-1.17

DATE: 01/22/93

FROM: GUY DORLEANS -- INTERNATIONAL AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS MANAGER, VALEO LIGHTING

TO: CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TITLE: AIMABILITY OF HEADLAMPS

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 3-4-93 FROM JOHN WOMACK TO GUY DORLEANS (A40; STD. 108)

TEXT: Valeo Lighting is currently studying new principles for aiming small circular headlamps. Two versions are considered:

Version A:

A pair of headlamp spacer rims, hereunder designated by the acronym "HSR", are permanently attached to the car. The lens of each headlamp has 3 bosses, so that the HSR shown on sheet A1 easily finds its place between the lens and a standard circular adpater for 5" 3/4 sealed-beam units. Sheet B2 shows the assembly, before adjunction of readily available aimers for 5" 3/4 sealed beams units.

The pair of "HSR" is placed in an accessory kit, in the trunck. Relevant instructions for use are included in the owner's manual.

Version B:

The part shown on sheet B1 replaces the functions of the HSR and the function of the standard circular adapter.

The B1 specific adapter (see sheet B2) is the link between the lens of the headlamp and the external 5" 3/4 aimers, these latter devices being available in the United States for more than 30 years.

In this case also, a pair of specific adapters are sold with the car, and permanently placed in the trunck of each car. Relevant informations are provided by the owner's manual.

-------

Valeo respectfully asks NHTSA to confirm that both versions are in compliance with Standard 108.

Do not hesitate to contact me if further clarifications are needed.

ATTACHMENTS

(GRAPHICS OMITTED.)

ID: kronosport.ztv

Mr. Edward A. Kron
President & CEO
Kronosport
Mellon Bank Center
1735 Market St., Suite A500
Philadelphia, PA 19103

Dear Mr. Kron:

This is in reply to your letter of February 3, 2003, describing four-wheeled pedal-electric vehicles that you manufacture which travel at a maximum speed of 12 miles per hour. You have asked for "an exemption to NHTSAs speed requirement in order to allow our vehicles to be legally operated on roadways that have a posted speed limit of 35 mph or under."

NHTSA has no "speed requirement." We have established a category of motor vehicle called "Low-Speed Vehicle." In part, a Low-Speed Vehicle is defined as a four-wheeled motor vehicle, other than a truck, whose speed attainable in l mile is more than 20 mph and not more than 25 mph. In adopting this definition, we made it clear that the individual States have the authority to prescribe requirements for the registration and use of Low-Speed Vehicles, including whether to allow Low-Speed Vehicles at all on roads under their jurisdiction, or to limit the roads on which they can be used.

Because the maximum speed of your vehicle is 12 mph, it is not a "Low Speed Vehicle." We do not know whether any State permits use on its public roads of vehicles with a maximum speed of 12 miles per hour. We suggest that you consult with each State in which you intend to market your vehicle to determine whether your vehicles may use the public roads in that State.

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

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:500
d.5/22/03