ID: nht95-7.35

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: November 8, 1995

FROM: Jane Thornton Mastrucci -- Thornton, Mastrucci and Sinclair

TO: John Womack -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: 12/26/95 letter from Samuel J. Dubbin (signed by John Womack) to Jane Thornton Mastrucci (A43; Part 571.3; VSA 102)

TEXT: We represent the Dade County School Board with respect to its vehicular litigation.

The Florida Legislature has just passed a new law, F.S. 234.02 (1)(a) which allows a School Board to use, in addition to passenger cars not exceeding eight students, any other motor vehicle designed to transport ten on fewer persons which meets all federal motor vehicle safety standards for passenger cars. Similarly, the Department of Education Rule 6A-3.017 (10)(c) allows the transportation of students, when necessary or practical, in multipurpose vehicles, providing the MPV meets all of the applicable passenger car federal motor vehicle safety standards, except the standard pertaining to window tinting. Copies of both of these statutes are attached.

Would you please advise which passenger vehicles which multipurpose vehicles meet all federal motor safety standards.

Thanking you for your courtesy and cooperation in advance, I remain,

Florida statutes are omitted.

ID: nht72-6.31

DATE: 06/29/72

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: All Brake & Drive Unit Service Inc.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letters of February 14 and April 20, 1972. I apologize for our delay in answering your inquiries. You state that your G.M.C. truck dealership installs fifth wheels, saddle gas tanks, mirrors, marker lamps and tractor protection brake equipment and you inquire what your obligations are with respect to the Manufacturer Identification and Certification regulations (Parts 566 and 577 respectively).

Installation of fifth wheels would make you a "final-stage manufacturer", as defined in Part 568, Vehicles Manufactured in Two or More Stages, because you perform "such manufacturing operations on an incomplete vehicle that it becomes a completed vehicle", other than the addition of "readily attachable components, such as mirror or tire and rim assemblies". Installation of the other items you listed would generally not make you a final-stage manufacturer, since installation of these items does not fulfill the above criteria.

As a final-stage manufacturer, you are required under Part 566, Manufacturer Identification, to submit the information specified in @ 566.5. Your submittal of January 18, 1972, satisfies this requirement.

As a final-stage manufacturer, you are also required under Part 567, Certification, to affix a certification label on the vehicle you manufacture. In addition, Part 573 requires the submission of quarterly reports regarding vehicle production and defect notifications (49 CFR @ 573.5) and of copies of all other notices, bulletins and communications sent to more than one dealer or purchaser regarding any defect in such vehicles, whether or not safety-related.

I am enclosing copies of Parts 566, 567, 568, and 573 for your information. These should also answer your questions as to the format of the required submittals.

ID: nht88-2.44

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: JUNE 7, 1988

FROM: WILLIAM SHAPIRO -- MANAGER -- REGULATIONS AND COMPLIANCE, VOLVO

TO: ERIKA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TITLE: FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NUMBER 106; BRAKE HOSES-REQUEST FOR INTERPRETATION

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO MEMO DATED 12-9-88, TO WILLIAM SHAPIRO, FROM ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA, STD 106

TEXT: Section 5.3 sets forth the test requirements for hydraulic brake hoses. This section states that:

"A hydraulic brake hose assembly or appropriate part thereof shall be capable of meeting any of the requirements set forth under this heading, . . . However, a particular hose assembly or appropriate part thereof need not meet further requirements aft er having been subjected to and having met the constriction requirement (S5.3.1) and any one of the requirements specified in S5.3.2 through S5.3.11."

Sections S5.3.3 and S6.3 speak to the Whip Resistance Test. Table 11 in Section S6.3.1 specifies slack for different hose configurations. In Table 11 for a hose "over 19 to 24 inches inclusive", and "more than 1/8 inch or 3mm." there is no slack specif ied and therefore no requirement in the standard.

Volvo believes that the correct interpretation of this standard, for a hose that falls into the category of over 19 to 24 inches, inclusive, and more than 1/8 inch or 3mm. in diameter is that, while it must meet or exceed the constriction requirement, an d any one other of the requirements in Section S5.3, it need not be tested to meet or exceed the whip resistance requirement to be in compliance with FMVSS 106. Please confirm this for us.

Thank you for your attention to this matter. If you require any additional information, please feel free to contact me.

ID: nht74-3.34

DATE: 08/05/74

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Viola Back

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of July 15, 1974, inquiring as to penalties available for violation of the odometer requirements of the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act.

The Act requires, in part, that a written disclosure of a vehicle's recorded mileage be provided by the seller to the purchaser at the time ownership of a vehicle is transferred. If the correct mileage is unknown, the Act requires a statement to that effect to be furnished in written form to the buyer.

Violation of the disclosure requirement may subject the violator to civil liability where his actions were intended to defraud the purchaser. The Act makes available to the buyer a remedy in the amount of $ 1,500 or treble damages, whichever is greater. To obtain this remedy, section 409 of the Act provides that a private civil action be instituted in State or Federal Court.

There is no provision in the Act specifying that the transferee must obtain a disclosure statement from his transferor. The obligation to execute this disclosure document lies with the transferor alone.

For your information, I have enclosed relevant portions of the Act and the odometer disclosure requirements.

If you have any further questions, please let us know.

ENC.

JULY 15, 1974

NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION

IN REFERENCE TO OUR FEDERAL ODOMETER LAW, EFFECTIVE MARCH 1973, I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW, WHAT PENALTY, A LICENSED MOTOR VEHICLE DEALER FACES, FOR NON-COMPLIANCE OF SUCH LAW, I.E., HE NEITHER GIVES A PURCHASER OF A VEHICLE SOLD BY HIS DEALERSHIP, A SIGNED ODOMETER FORM, OR, RECEIVES ONE, FROM ANY TRADE-IN, OR OUTRIGHT PURCHASE OF VEHICLES, FROM OTHERS.

VIOLA BECK

ID: nht80-2.7

DATE: 04/18/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION

April 18, 1980

SUBJECT: Interpretation of Part 581 Damage Criteria

FROM: Chief Counsel

To: Director Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance

You have requested an interpretation of the term "original contour" as it appears in the Part 581 bumper standard, 49 CFR 581.5(c)(8), and 581.5(c)(11)(i) and (ii). The standard limits the amount of deviation from original contour permitted for the vehicle exterior surfaces and bumper face bar 30 minutes after completion of each pendulum and barrier impact. You ask whether original contour refers to the configuration of the exterior surface or face bar prior to the commencement of any testing, or prior to a particular test impact or test mode.

In establishing the Part 581 standard, NHTSA concluded that the typical vehicle will be involved in more than one lowspeed bumper impact over its expected life. In order to assure a performance level which meets the demands of normal driving conditions, the agency determined that bumpers should be capable of providing an acceptable level of damage resistance in a series of impacts. In keeping with this purpose, "original contour", as used in the Part 581 protective criteria, should be established prior to the initiation of any testing, and the tested surface or face bar should not deviate from this contour beyond the prescribed limits throughout the pendulum and barrier test sequences. The other interpretations would not serve the stated purpose, since they are based on a changing reference condition and would permit damage to accumulate from test to test.

Frank Berndt

ID: 7302

The Honorable George Allen
U. S. House of Representatives
255 West Main Street, Room 102
P.O. Box 136
Charlottesville, VA 22902-0136

Dear Mr. Allen:

Thank you for your letter in support of Philatron International's request for an immediate temporary exemption from the oil resistance requirement of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 106, Brake Hoses. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) can appreciate the concern you have for distributors of Philatron's brake hoses such as your constituent, Truck Parts East.

NHTSA closely examined Philatron's request and determined that the agency cannot provide the requested exemption. The reasons underlying this conclusion are fully explained in a May 26, 1992, letter from Chief Counsel Paul Jackson Rice to Anthony D. Padgett, counsel for Philatron. In his letter, the Chief Counsel explained that Philatron, as a manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment, is not eligible to be considered for an exemption under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. The Chief Counsel also concluded that a proceeding resulting from Philatron's rulemaking petition must include a full notice and comment procedure. A copy of the letter is enclosed.

I would like to clarify an aspect of our rulemaking procedures mentioned in your letter. While it is correct that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration granted Philatron's rulemaking petition to amend Standard 106's oil resistance requirement, the agency did not inform Philatron that such an amendment would in fact be adopted. Whenever the agency grants a rulemaking petition, it states that it will subsequently decide whether to issue the requested rule based on all available information developed in the course of the rulemaking proceeding, in accordance with statutory criteria.

We hope that this information is helpful.

Sincerely,

Frederick H. Grubbe Acting Administrator Enclosure Letter Dated May 26, 1992

cc: Washington Office

ref:106 d:6/15/92

ID: nht75-4.46

DATE: 09/17/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank A. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Department of the Army

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of August 29, 1975, in which you ask whether the exemption provided by 49 CFR @ 571.7(c) applies to all commercial vehicles manufactured for and sold directly to the Armed Forces of the United States.

All vehicles (including commercial vehicles) meeting the definition of "motor vehicle" in section 102(3) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. @ 1392(3)) that are manufactured for, and sold directly to, the Armed Forces of the United States in conformity to contractual specifications are exempt from the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards under 49 CFR @ 571.7(c).

We hope this information is of assistance.

SINCERELY,

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY

UNITED STATES ARMY TANK AUTOMOTIVE COMMAND

AUGUST 29, 1975

James C. Schultz Chief Counsel US Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

The advice provided by your letter of 6 June 1975 (copy attached) was sincerely appreciated and resolved the specific matter of the application of the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) to Commercial Construction Equipment sold directly to the Armed Forces.

We would appreciate your further advice concerning applicability in the case of commercial vehicles (other than commercial construction) sold directly to the Army. These would include such items as commercial truck tractors.

More specifically our inquiry is with regard to the applicability of the exemption stated in Section 571.7(c) to all commercial vehicles manufactured for and sold directly to the Armed Forces of the United States.

Thank you for your assistance in this matter.

ALBERT A. DAWES

Chief, Procurement Law Division

ID: nht91-4.45

DATE: July 11, 1991

FROM: David A. McClaughry -- Harness, Dickey & Pierce

TO: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

COPYEE: Richard L. Carlson

TITLE: Re Our Ref.: 0364-50108

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 8-2-91 from Paul Jackson Rice to David A. McClaughry (A38; Part 571.7(c))

TEXT:

I am writing to request an interpretation of the applicability of the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards to a sale of motor vehicles to the United States Navy.

A client that we represent is interested in bidding on a zero-emission vehicle contract. The design according to the proposed specifications may not meet some FMVSS. In order to accurately bid the project, an estimate of the required testing to certify the vehicle design is needed.

We are aware of the waiver provisions for the development and field evaluation of a low-emission motor vehicle in 15 U.S.C. S1410(a)(1)(C). In addition, the Code of Federal Regulations, 49 C.F.R. S571.7, provides a military vehicle exemption:

(c) Military vehicles. No standard applies to a vehicle or item of equipment manufactured for, and sold directly to, the Armed Forces of the United States in conformity with contractual specifications.

I am interested in understanding the scope of this exclusion. What is your interpretation of the definition of a "military vehicle?" Is a "military vehicle" confined to vehicles used in combat, vehicles that remain on military bases or any vehicle which the military purchases? Does this exclusion extend only for FMVSS or all safety standards? Are there other military safety standards that the vehicles must satisfy? Should the client attempt to obtain a certification exemption under 15 U.S.C. S1410(a)(1)(c)?

Your prompt attention to this matter is greatly appreciated. Thank you for your time and assistance.

ID: nht69-1.39

DATE: 08/01/69

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Francis Armstrong; NHTSA

TO: Bedell Trailer Company

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Thank you for your letter of June 12, 1969, in which you enclosed a certification label you are now using and in essence ask why it will not be satisfactory after August 31, 1969.

Manufacturers were put on notice, by publication in the Federal Register, Volume 32, No. 215, dated November 4, 1967, that the National Highway Safety Bureau had under study an appropriate program which would lead to specific regulations applicable to certification. It was requested that manufacturers submit, among other things, a sample of the certification label or tag they were using.

As a result of that study, a proposal was promulgated and published in the Federal Register, Volume 33, No. 205, dated October 9, 1968. Interested parties were given the opportunity to express their views and after due consideration a rule was published on January 24, 1969, Federal Register, Volume 34, No. 16.

Shortly thereafter peitions for reconsideration of the Certification Regulation were received. The "Denial of Petitions for Reconsideration," Federal Register, Volume 34, No. 81, states in part, "Objection was made to the specification of the language of the conformity statement." This specification has been determined to be necessary, however, in order to eliminate the burden of seeking approval of proposed labels, as many manufacturers found advisable under the previous rule, and to inform both regulated persons and the public of the requirement of the "Act".

It is regretted that the Certification Regulation, that becomes effective with vehicles manufactured after August 31, 1969, makes the labels in your inventory obsolete, however, we feel that manufacturers have had ample prior warning of a pending specific regulation.

ENCLOSURES F-6, F-34, F-54, F-59 and F-60

ID: nht71-3.24

DATE: 07/02/71

FROM: E.T. DRIVER -- NHTSA; SIGNATURE BY JOHN CARSON

TO: Bandag Incorporated

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of May 30, 1971, and to confirm opinions given by members of this office(Illegible Words) phone coversation with you.

Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act and regulations issued pursuant to it the treadless casing you import is not considered to be a completed tire until the tread is applied. Therefore, the Bandag dealer applying the tread is considered to be the tire manufacturer and the Korean manufacturer of the casing does not have to put his own "DOT" number on the casing.

Since you expect many of your dealers will be using this process, in order not to unduly expand the new manufacturer's list, all your dealers are to use your assigned code number "DOT" for the grouping representing the manufacturer's assigned code and their own three symbol retreader's code in the third grouping which is normally considered the optional code:

Your dealers, as manufacturers of the tires are responsible for maintaining the records of the first purchaser of the tires they manufacturer.

I believe Docket No. 70-12, Notice No. 9 (36 P.R. 9869) answers your question concerning the location of tire identification numbers.

Mr. M. Groosman U.S. Factory Representative Automobiles Peugeot

This is in reply to your letter of June 22 requesting an interpretation of Paragraph S4.2 of Motor Vehicles Safety Standard No. 101.

You may mark your windshield wiper control, and lighting - windshield washing control in the manner indicated in your letter. We do not consider the washing control a wiping control requiring identification as such merely because the wiper is momentarily activated when the washer system is in operation.

Lawrence R. Schneider Acting Chief Counsel