ID: nht95-2.22

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: April 8, 1995

FROM: Philip R. Recht -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA; Signature by John Womack

TO: Malcolm Bricklin - President, The Electric Bicycle Company

TITLE: Re: Petition for Exemption

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 3/20/95 LETTER FROM MALCOLM BRICKLIN TO RICARDO MARTINEZ

TEXT: Dear Mr. Bricklin:

We have received your letter of March 20, 1995, asking for an exemption from two provisions of Motor Vehicles Safety Standard No. 123 on the basis that "compliance with the standards, in this instance, will constitute a greater hazard to the general publ ic and will result in more accidents caused by operator error than the alternatives that we propose."

I am sorry to inform you that we cannot consider your request in its current form. For your guidance, I enclose a copy of our temporary exemption regulation, 49 CFR Part 555. I suggest that the appropriate basis for your petition under that regulation is section 555.6(d): that you are otherwise unable to sell a vehicle whose overall level of safety is the equivalent of, or exceeds, the overall level of safety of a nonexempted vehicle.

When you have filed a petition that provides the information required by Part 555, we shall be pleased to consider this matter further. Because of the need to afford the public an opportunity to comment, a decision is rarely reached until three to four months after a petition is received.

If you have any questions on the regulation, Taylor Vinson of this Office will be glad to answer them (202-366-5263; FAX: 202-366-3820).

ID: nht72-5.46

DATE: 09/18/72

FROM: JOSEPH S. GORMAN FOR FRANCIS ARMSTRONG -- NHTSA

TO: Pleasure Industries Inc.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of August 4, 1972, in which you ask for information in regard to the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) and Certification regulations that would apply to a combination boat trailer/water cruiser that you describe in your letter and brochure.

The trailer depicted on the last page of your brochure is considered to be a "boat trailer" as defined in paragraph 571.3(b) of Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations which states, ". . ." Boat trailer' means a trailer designed in cradle-type mountings to permit launching of the boat from the rear of the trailer . . . ."

The "water cruiser" is considered to be cargo and not an integral part of the trailer. Therefore, it would not, nor would any part of it be regulated by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.

If you are not already aware of the Coast Guard regulations that might apply to the water cruiser you might wish to contact the United States Coast Guard, Office of Boating Safety, 400 - 7th Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20590.

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 is the only FMVSS that applies to trailers at this time. Regulations that apply are as follows:

Part 566 of Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations - Manufacturer Identification

PART 567 - CERTIFICATION

Part 573 - Defect Reports

Part 574 - Tire Identification

Copies of the above are enclosed with a copy of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act and a Notice of Publications Change.

In regard to tongue weight and proper distribution, you might be interested in reviewing the "Recommended Practices and Standards Covering Boat Trailer Practices" in the American Boat and Yacht Council, Inc., publication "Safety Standards for Small Craft." The address of that organization is American Boat and Yacht Council, 15 E. 26th Street, Room 1603, New York, New York 10010.

If you have further questions, I will be pleased to answer them.

ID: nht72-6.30

DATE: 07/17/72

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: McLaughlin Equiqment Co.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of May 17, 1972, concerning the remounting of old school bus bodies on new chassis. You indicate that this practice is occuring in North Dakota, enclose an advertising brochure of a company that performs the service, and also enclose a copy of a letter from Mr. Robert B. Klure of the Divco-Wayne Corporation which discusses possible safety problems that may result from this practice. You have asked us to outline actions and procedures that can be taken by the NHTSA or your office to curtail this practice.

The NHTSA considers the mounting of an old school bus body on a new chassis to be manufacturing of a vehicle, which must conform to all applicable motor vehicle safety standards in effect on the day of the manufacture of the chassis, or of the completed vehicle. The failure of a school bus manufactured in this fashion to conform to applicable standards would be a violation of section 108(a)(1) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a) (1)), and could subject its manufacturer to civil penalties and other sanctions. In addition, such vehicles must be certified as conforming to all applicable standards, and the failure of a manufacturer to certify can also result in the imposition of similar sanctions.

It appears from the discussion of safety problems in Mr. Klure's letter that the mounting of old school bus bodies on new chassis creates safety problems that the NHTSA might consider to be safety related defects. If a finding is made by NHTSA that such a defect exists, the manufacturer would be required to notify owners of the defect, and the NHTSA would probably urge the manufacturer to conduct a recall campaign.

In either case the NHTSA will take steps to see that all manufacturers are complying with NHTSA requirements. You can assist us by providing the names of companies which you believe are engaging in this practice. This information should be sent to Mr. Francis Armstrong, Director, Office of Standards Enforcement, National Highway Traffic Safety Adminsitration, 400 7th Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20590.

ID: nht92-1.50

DATE: December 1, 1992

FROM: Allan "Buzz" Ferver -- Product Manager, Waekon Industries, Inc.

TO: Paul Rice -- Chief Council, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 2/1/93 from John Womack to Allan Ferver (A40; Std. 301)

TEXT:

Waekon Industries would like to introduce to the Automotive Aftermarket a new product. I have contacted other members of your organization regarding any issues pertaining to compliance to any safety standards, Steve Chan-Fuel systems and Marvin Shaw-Advisor and was instructed to contact you in writing. The product is to be known as Universal Replacement Fuel Cap (sample enclosed).

The product is designed to replace lost fuel caps temporarily until the proper replacement can be obtained.

Both the gentlemen I contacted told me that NHTSA-was not concerned with component parts in this instance. Please advise me of any particulars regulated by your agency which may be relevant to our marketing this cap. Also, if you would please advise me of any other agencies or regulations. which I would have to satisfy.

I thank you very much for your considerations and look forward to your response.

ID: nht95-5.38

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: July 26, 1995

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Lance Tunick -- Vehicle Services Consulting, Inc.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 5/23/95 LETTER FROM LANCE TUNICK TO ORRON KEE (OCC 10925)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Tunick:

This responds to your request for the agency to clarify the requirements of 49 CFR 575.101, which until recently required manufacturers to disclose information about the stopping performance of passenger cars and motorcycles. In particular, you asked how the requirement would apply to vehicles certified to comply with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 135, Passenger Car Brake Systems.

I am enclosing a copy of a June 26, 1995, final rule in which the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) rescinded section 575.101 (60 FR 32918). As a result of this decision, a vehicle manufacturer is no longer required to furnish information about the stopping performance of passenger cars and motorcycles.

I hope this information is helpful to you. Should you have any questions or need additional information, please feel free to contact Marvin Shaw of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht95-3.59

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: July 26, 1995

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Lance Tunick -- Vehicle Services Consulting, Inc.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 5/23/95 LETTER FROM LANCE TUNICK TO ORRON KEE (OCC 10925)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Tunick:

This responds to your request for the agency to clarify the requirements of 49 CFR 575.101, which until recently required manufacturers to disclose information about the stopping performance of passenger cars and motorcycles. In particular, you asked ho w the requirement would apply to vehicles certified to comply with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 135, Passenger Car Brake Systems.

I am enclosing a copy of a June 26, 1995, final rule in which the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) rescinded section 575.101 (60 FR 32918). As a result of this decision, a vehicle manufacturer is no longer required to furnish infor mation about the stopping performance of passenger cars and motorcycles.

I hope this information is helpful to you. Should you have any questions or need additional information, please feel free to contact Marvin Shaw of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht72-6.56

DATE: 02/09/72

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

TO: Scott's Trailer Market

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: In reply to your letter of January 28, 1972, we are enclosing a copy of Regulation Part 574 - Tire Identification and Record-keeping.

To answer your specific question whether the manufacturer is responsible for furnishing the tire serial numbers, as a matter of record, on the invoice of the vehicle, the regulation does not specify this requirement.

The Manufacturer is not required to retain a record of tire identification numbers for each vehicle prior to shipment of the vehicle. Normally, the dealer records these numbers at the time of sale along with the purchaser's name and address. The manufacturer provides the means to record this information and the dealer remits the information to him.

If the manufacturer chooses to retain a record of tire identification numbers for each vehicle prior to shipment, although he is not required to do so, he may request the dealer to send him only replacement numbers involved in a change, plus name and address of purchaser.

Please let us know if you need further clarification of the subject.

ID: nht78-4.29

DATE: 04/13/78

FROM: JOSEPH J. LEVIN -- NHTSA CHIEF COUNSEL

TO: MOE PARE -- DIRECTOR OF DESIGN CARS & CONCEPTS, INC.

TITLE: NOA-30

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 06/26/89 FROM STEPHEN P. WOOD -- NHTSA TO MELANIE TURNER; REDBOOK A33 [2]; STANDARD 205; LETTER DATED 08/31/84 FROM FRANK BERNDT -- NHTSA TO TOYOTA MOTOR CORPORATION; STANDARD 205; LETTER DATED 11/03/88 FROM MELANIE TURNER TO ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA; OCC 2777

TEXT: Dear Mr. Pare:

This responds to your letter of February 16, 1978, asking whether the certification markings required on glazing materials by Safety Standard No. 205 must remain visible from the interior or exterior of a vehicle after installation.

The answer to your question is no. There is nothing in the certification requirements of section S6 of Standard No. 205 that requires the markings to remain visible after installation on the vehicle. As long as the glazing manufacturer has certified and marked his glazing in accordance with the standard and as long as these markings are not removed by the vehicle manufacturer there is no prohibition against covering the markings.

Sincerely,

ID: nht93-2.21

DATE: March 19, 1993

FROM: Connie Hafenstine -- Chief, Bureau of Personnel Services, Kansas Department of Transportation; Larry Bluthardt -- Director of Pupil Transportation, Kansas Department of Transportation

TO: Patricia Breslin -- Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Standards

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 4/22/93 from John Womack to Larry Bluthardt (A41; Std. 124)

TEXT: I'm in receipt of a letter from one our Contract Managers concerning the use of built-up foot operated throttle controls. The following questions were asked:

1. Is there any violation of the FMCSR'S in conjunction with the FMVSS concerning the modification of a school bus foot operated throttle control or other equipment modifications that may relate to the physical accommodation of a commercially licensed driver to perform his or her duties behind the wheel?

2. If we can modify the foot operated throttle control to the vehicle (school bus), does the modification require specific registration, certification or inspection prior to the installation?

FOR EXAMPLE: Can the modification be made and installed locally, or should the modification be purchased and installed by a certified commercial vendor i.e., manufacturer.

Thank you for your assistance. We await your reply.

ID: nht92-4.48

DATE: August 6, 1992

FROM: R.J. Misorski -- Director, Maintenance & Repair, Maersk Inc.

TO: Legal Council, NHTSA

COPYEE: A. Petrizzo, W. Drozd

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 8/21/92 from Paul J. Rice to R.J. Misorski (A39; Std. 108)

TEXT:

Attached is a copy of the Federal Register outlining your rule change that went into effect December 1, 1991.

The new rule now requires a minimum of 12 square inches of lens area for rear stop or turn signals on vehicles over 80" wide, regardless of the separation between lamps. We feel that equipment manufactured prior to December 1991 would be exempt from this ruling. Our interpretation of this new rule is that it only applies to equipment that is manufactured after December 1, 1991.

We would highly appreciate if you could confirm our understanding in writing in order that we may ensure compliance with our equipment fleet.

Attachment

Copy of page 20158 of the 5/15/90 Federal Register pertaining to 49 CFR Part 571, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment (action: final rule). (Text omitted)