ID: nht78-3.42

DATE: 11/14/78

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; John Womack; NHTSA

TO: McClintock Donovan Carson & Roach

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of September 1, 1978, requesting information on the Federal odometer disclosure requirements. You specifically asked what a lessor's responsibility is with regard to the certifications on the disclosure statement. The lessor, as transferor of a vehicle, is required to certify, to the best of his knowledge, as to the accuracy of the vehicle's odometer. A lessor should assume that an odometer is accurate unless he has reason to believe otherwise. Any reasonable belief that the odometer is wrong should be reflected on the disclosure statement by checking, in the first set of certifications, either box 2 or 3, as appropriate. In situations where the lessor has no knowledge as to the accuracy of the odometer reading, he should not state that the mileage is in error because to the best of his knowledge it is correct.

With regard to the second set of certifications, the lessor should check box 1 unless he altered or knows that the lessee or some other person altered the odometer. Since your client is concerned about the possibility that the lessee may alter the odometer, he may find it advisable to protect himself by requiring the lessee to indemnify him in the event of liability under the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act. He may also add a statement on the disclosure form that the vehicle was subject to a lease or was otherwise outside of his control.

ID: nht74-4.43

DATE: 01/15/74

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

TO: Farrar & Farrar

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of December 17, 1973, regarding rules and regulations pertaining to tire ply bonding and adhesion strength, and to tire ratings as related to number of plies.

There are no Federal regulations that contain specific requirements for ply bending and adhesion strength, per se, in tires. However, a measure of tire structural strength is provided by the plunger energy test included in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 109, copy enclosed. The high speed and endurance tests also form a part of the tire evaluation process. Poor bonding and adhesion of plies could cause premature separation and failure in these tests.

There is no categorization in the Federal standard that relates tire mating to number of plies, except that labeling of tire sidewalls is required to express values for load rating, maximum inflation, and number of plies. The enclosed booklet entitled "Consumer Tire Guide" shows in its tables of tire load limits how ply ratings have been related to load ratings in tire industry practice. Recent trend in the industry has been to phase out the ply rating system and to substitute in its place the "load range" system denoted by markings with letters.

With regard to test methods and procedures used in tire analysis, we recommend your examination of the following standards of the American Society for Testing Materials (ASTM) and the American National Standards Institute (AMSI).

ASTM 885-72 "Tire Cords, Tire Cord Fabrics and Industrial Filament Yarns made from Man-made Organic Base Fibers" 1973 Edition or ANSI-L 14.231-1973 (2nd Edition) approved August 10, 1973.

ASTM D 2969-71T "Tire Cords, Tire Cord Fabrics, Filaments, and Strands made from Wire"

ASTM D 2970-71T "Tire Cords, Tire Cord Fabrics, and Industrial Yarns made from Class"

ENCLS.

ID: nht75-6.1

DATE: 08/19/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank A. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: International Development Service Inc.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of July 8, 1975, asking our opinion on several matters.

You first ask:

"1. If our automobile is imported using a used chassis and where a used or rebuilt engine would be installed in the car in the United States, would you consider that this constitutes the vehicle being classified as used?

We consider a vehicle with a used chassis to be a used automobile.

2. If a used chassis is defined as being used by its being previously titled, does it matter where the titling has occurred?

As the previous answer indicates, it does not matter where titling has occurred.

3. If we import, complete, and sell the car under the conditions stated in number one and your opinion was that this constitutes a used vehicle, then, what would our requirements be in reference to the vehicles complying with the Motor Vehicle Safety Standards under the Act of 1966?"

Federal motor vehicle safety standards apply to used vehicles, that are imported into the United States. The standards are those that were in effect on the date of manufacture of the chassis. Further, you would be a manufacturer of motor vehicles and subject to all regulations that apply to manufacturers, chief of which is to notify purchasers upon discovery of any safety-related defect in your product, and to remedy it.

Your fourth question asks what your responsibilities are under four possible plans of shipping components into the United States. I will assume for purposes of this answer that the chassis are new. These four fact situations differ somewhat from the hypothetical presented in your letter of May 31, 1975, of a motor vehicle complete except for its engine. In these four situations, the vehicle is clearly motor vehicle equipment, an assembly that needs further manufacturing operations for completion, and the remarks of Mr. Schultz in his letter of May 5 on this matter set forth your obligations as a supplier of equipment.

ID: nht92-9.58

DATE: January 7, 1992

FROM: Stephen C. Bartch -- Applications Engineer, Quigley Motor Company, Inc.

TO: Office of Chief Council, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 2/18/92 from Paul Jackson Rice to Stephen C. Bartch (A39; Part 567; Std. 301)

TEXT:

We propose to convert the Ford E-series vans to our 4X4 drive system; however, the tank in the 1992 vans interferes with our transfer case placement.

After much consideration and examining other Ford tank arrangements on 4X4 vehicles, we came to the conclusion that to keep certification costs down and still show due-care in reference to FMVSS 301, we should either:

A. find a tank manufacturer that can build a tank with identical attachments as the OEM tank, or B. modify the OEM tank to eliminate the interference.

We found a tank supplier who can manufacture the tank to our specifications, so we can pursue both options.

The question that some of our customers are asking is about the legality of our fuel tank retrofit in regards to FMVSS 301. Could you summarize in writing our responsibilities regarding FMVSS 301 and state that we are not required by law to do crash testing on our vehicles?

Thank you for your cooperation and willingness to accommodate us.

ID: nht94-4.41

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: October 01, 1994 EST

FROM: Womack, John -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: March, Gary D. -- Director, Illinois Dept. of Transportation, Division of Traffic Safety

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: Attached To 2/14/94 Letter From Gary D. March To John Womack (Occ 9667)

TEXT: This responds to your letter of February 14, 1994, requesting an explanation of the compliance date for vehicles manufactured in two or more stages of a recent final rule amending Standard No. 217, Bus Emergency Exits and Window Retention and Release (57 FR 49413; November 2, 1992).

The effective date for the November 2 final rule is May 2, 1994. Only vehicles manufactured on or after the effective date of an applicable requirement in a Federal motor vehicle safety standard must comply with that requirement. If a vehicle is manufa ctured in two or more stages, the final stage manufacturer is required to certify that the vehicle complies with "the standards in effect on the date of manufacture of the incomplete vehicle, the date of final completion, or a date between those two date s." (49 CFR Part @ 568.6). The choice of a date is the manufacturers.

I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Walter Myers of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht94-1.94

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: March 24, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Gary D. March -- Director, Illinois Dept. of Transportation, Division of Traffic Safety (Springfield, IL)

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 2/14/94 from Gary D. March to John Womack (OCC 9667)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of February 14, 1994, requesting an explanation of the compliance date for vehicles manufactured in two or more stages of a recent final rule amending Standard No. 217, Bus Emergency Exits and Window Retention and Release (57 FR 49413; November 2, 1992).

The effective date for the November 2 final rule is May 2, 1994. Only vehicles manufactured on or after the effective date of an applicable requirement in a Federal motor vehicle safety standard must comply with that requirement. If a vehicle is manufa ctured in two or more stages, the final stage manufacturer is required to certify that the vehicle complies with "the standards in effect on the date of manufacture of the incomplete vehicle, the date of final completion, or a date between those two date s." (49 CFR Part S568.6). The choice of a date is the manufacturers.

I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Walter Myers of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992.

ID: 9667

Gary D. March, Director
Illinois Dept. of Transportation
Division of Traffic Safety
3215 Executive Park Drive
P.O. Box 19212
Springfield, IL 62794-9212

Dear Mr. March:

This responds to your letter of February 14, 1994, requesting an explanation of the compliance date for vehicles manufactured in two or more stages of a recent final rule amending Standard No. 217, Bus Emergency Exits and Window Retention and Release (57 FR 49413; November 2, 1992).

The effective date for the November 2 final rule is May 2, 1994. Only vehicles manufactured on or after the effective date of an applicable requirement in a Federal motor vehicle safety standard must comply with that requirement. If a vehicle is manufactured in two or more stages, the final stage manufacturer is required to certify that the vehicle complies with "the standards in effect on the date of manufacture of the incomplete vehicle, the date of final completion, or a date between those two dates." (49 CFR Part 568.6). The choice of a date is the manufacturer's.

I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Walter Myers of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

ref:586#217 d:3/17/94

ID: 3270yy

Mr. Tony Llama
President
Davenport Enterprises
301 Almeria Ave., Suite 1
Coral Gables, FL 33134

Dear Mr. Llama:

This responds to your letter of December 13, l99l, with respect to the permissibility of temporarily importing a Fiat from Brazil that is not in conformance with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. The purpose of the importation is to design and build an air conditioning system for the car. Upon completion of this work, the Fiat will be exported.

You have enclosed a copy of my letter of August 2, 1990, granting permission for the importation of a van manufactured in the Soviet Union for which you had been asked to design an air conditioning system. In that letter, I informed you that it would be appropriate for you to enter the van pursuant to 49 CFR section 591.5(j), under the declaration that the vehicle is being imported solely for the purpose of research, investigations, and studies or demonstrations. Under the circumstances outlined in your letter, we believe that it would be appropriate for you to enter the Brazilian Fiat as well under section 591.5(j).

If you have any further questions, we shall be happy to answer them.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

/ref:59l d:l/3/92

ID: nht92-9.60

DATE: January 3, 1992

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Tony Llama -- President, Davenport Enterprises

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 12/13/91 from Tony Llama to Paul Jackson Rice (OCC 6784)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of December 13, 1991, with respect to the permissibility of temporarily importing a Fiat from Brazil that is not in conformance with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. The purpose of the importation is to design and build an air conditioning system for the car. Upon completion of this work, the Fiat will be exported.

You have enclosed a copy of my letter of August 2, 1990, granting permission for the importation of a van manufactured in the Soviet Union for which you had been asked to design an air conditioning system. In that letter, I informed you that it would be appropriate for you to enter the van pursuant to 49 CFR section 591.5(j), under the declaration that the vehicle is being imported solely for the purpose of research, investigations, and studies or demonstrations. Under the circumstances outlined in your letter, we believe that it would be appropriate for you to enter the Brazilian Fiat as well under section 591.5(j).

If you have any further questions, we shall be happy to answer them.

ID: nht94-7.25

DATE: March 24, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Gary D. March -- Director, Illinois Dept. of Transportation, Division of Traffic Safety (Springfield, IL)

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 2/14/94 from Gary D. March to John Womack (OCC 9667)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of February 14, 1994, requesting an explanation of the compliance date for vehicles manufactured in two or more stages of a recent final rule amending Standard No. 217, Bus Emergency Exits and Window Retention and Release (57 FR 49413; November 2, 1992).

The effective date for the November 2 final rule is May 2, 1994. Only vehicles manufactured on or after the effective date of an applicable requirement in a Federal motor vehicle safety standard must comply with that requirement. If a vehicle is manufactured in two or more stages, the final stage manufacturer is required to certify that the vehicle complies with "the standards in effect on the date of manufacture of the incomplete vehicle, the date of final completion, or a date between those two dates." (49 CFR Part S568.6). The choice of a date is the manufacturers.

I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Walter Myers of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992.