ID: nht73-2.14

DATE: 11/09/73

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Lawrence R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: Jack Edwards; House of Representatives

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Your request for information on the Federal Odometer Disclosure regulation on behalf of Mr. Charles J. Fleming has been referred to as for reply.

I am enclosing a copy of the regulation which includes an example of an acceptable format. Other formats are acceptable if all the required information is included.

We are unable to advise Mr. Fleming about the effect of a particular typographical error without knowing its nature, but as a general matter a typographical error would not give rise to liability unless it were deceptive in a way which misleads a purchaser.

Sincerely.

Enclosure

LANE COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY --

EUGENE, OREGON

October 12, 1973

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Gentlemen:

We wish to submit the following questions to you for your review and response:

(1) Under the Federal Odometer Disclosure Act, is an automobile dealer required to include six (6) digit figures if the vehicle's odometer has gone over 100,000 miles?

(2) What duty does an automobile dealer have in checking the vehicle or former owner to see if the vehicle has gone over 100,000?

(3) Must a dealer reveal the former owner of a vehicle upon the request of the prospective purchaser?

We would greatly appreciate your cooperation in providing the answers to the above questions at your earliest possible convenience as we receive many inquiries regarding these matters.

Very truly yours,

J. PAT HORTON, District Attorney; Marcia Mellinger, Investigator

cc: Tom Trent

ID: hendrixMS_law_v2

Mr. William R. Hendrix
6790 Riverdale Road
Horn Lake, MS 38637-1518

Dear Mr. Hendrix:

This responds to your letter in which you ask if the State of Mississippis motorcycle helmet law is preempted by Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 218, Motorcycle helmets. We regret that we are unable to answer your question at this time.

By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) that apply to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment (49 U.S.C. Chapter 301). Section 30103(b) of that Chapter states that when an FMVSS is in effect, a State may prescribe or continue in effect a standard applicable to the same aspect of performance of a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment only if the standard is identical to the Federal standard. (There is an exception for state standards applicable to vehicles or equipment procured for the States own use that imposes a higher level of performance than the FMVSS. )

In your letter, you state that you believe Mississippis helmet law to be pre-empted by 30103(b) because the state standard requires use of a helmet inspected and approved by the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators (AAMVA). You further state that AAMVA no longer "inspects and approves" motorcycle helmets.

We have been unable to reach Mississippi state officials for more information about Mississippis motorcycle helmet law. We cannot address the preemption issue without more information. If you can provide further information, you may contact Mr. Chris Calamita of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:218#VSA
d.12/22/04

ID: nht91-3.27

DATE: April 22, 1991

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: John Marcum -- Chairman, Electric Vehicles S.A.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 12-14-90 from John Marcum to Administrator, NHTSA; Also attached to letter dated 4-1-91 from John Marcum to Administrator, NHTSA

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of April 1, 1991, to the Administrator attaching a copy of a letter dated December 14, 1990, and commenting that you hadn't received a response to it. The reason you didn't receive a response to the letter is that the agency has no record of receiving it.

Your letter requests a temporary exemption from the Federal motor vehicle safety standards for an electric minibus currently being operated in Allentown, Pa. The temporary exemptions granted by this agency are not retroactive, and cover only vehicles manufactured on and after the date of grant. Thus, it is not legally possible to exempt a vehicle after its manufacture. In the event Electric Vehicles, S.A., might be interested in obtaining exemptions for future vehicles, I enclose a copy of the agency's regulation on temporary exemptions, 49 CFR Part 555, as your letter of December 14 was not adequate for this purpose.

Our importation regulations make an exception from compliance for the importation of vehicles that are used for demonstration projects such as the one you have outlined in your letter. Under 49 CFR section 591.5(j), a nonconforming minibus may be imported for a period of up to 5 years (and longer, if the Administrator grants a request for an extension) if the purpose of its importation is "research, investigations, studies, or demonstrations or training." According to your letter, your electric bus is being used as part of a joint test and evaluation program between your company, a regional transportation authority, a State energy office, and a public utility. The importation of the bus for this use is within these exceptions to compliance. This exception would appear to cover the importation of any further electric minibuses imported for the same purpose, provided that the information specified in section 591.5(g) is supplied.

ID: nht72-6.13

DATE: 11/15/72

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Robert L. Carter; NHTSA

TO: Department of Commerce; State of Alaska

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of October 4, 1972, concerning the possible misuse by automobile insurers of vehicle identification numbers (VIN's) which would be available to them under a proposed amendment to NHTSA "Defect Reports" regulations (49 CFR Part 573). You believe that the availability of such numbers could be the basis for some companies to refuse to write or to cancel insurance, and suggest that we notify state insurance commissioners of that possibility.

We appreciate your concern over the possible misuse of information obtained as a result of NHTSA regulations. However, we have no evidence at this time that such practices are occurring, and we believe it inappropriate, without evidence, to take action which raises the implication of impropriety on the part of the insurance industry. Of course, if we find evidence of misuse of information obtained as a result of NHTSA regulations, we will take steps to remedy the situation.

Your letter and our response have been placed in Docket 69-31, which concerns the reporting of VIN's. We appreciate your writing to us regarding this matter.

ID: nht90-1.64

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: March 6, 1990

FROM: Anthony Riani; David Mitchell

TO: To Whom it May Concern

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 4-4-91 from Paul Jackson Rice to DS America, Inc., Attn: Messrs. Riani and Mitchell (A37; Part 591)

TEXT:

We are interested in importing Volkswagon Beetles' into the United States for retail sale. We have already contacted the Environmental Protection Agency as to their requirements for importing vehicles. We have also contacted the Department of Transport ation by telephone. We were told the vehicle has to be crash tested. These tests are to confirm the speeds at which the car can withstand head-on, rear-end, and side collisions. We were also told about some other problems that were experienced by impo rters in the past. We would greatly appreciate any and all information you could send to us regarding all relevant requirements for cars being imported to the United States. We would also appreciate any information about these problems that the Departm ent of Transportation has on record. We are curious to know if documentation by Volkswagon of Mexico certifying these crash requirements can replace a crash tested vehicle or vehicles. Thank you for your help.

ID: nht93-7.24

DATE: October 14, 1993

FROM: Amantha L. Barbee -- Sales Coordinator, Thomas Built Buses, Inc.

TO: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 11/23/93 from John Womack to Amantha L. Barbee (A41; Std. 102; Part 571), letter dated 1/26/93 from John Womack to Paul David Wellstone, letter dated 8/21/92 from Paul Jackson Rice to Chuck Anderson, and letter dated 9/27/85 from Jeffrey R. Miller to Charles Pekow

TEXT:

I am writing you in search of information pertaining to the van versus school bus issue. I am the Head Start Sales Coordinator for Thomas Built Buses, Inc. I have found many Head Start Agencies to be using vans to transport students to and from the program. When I have asked the directors of the agencies why they are not using FMVSS as a guide for transportation. The answer across the board is, "because we have not been told otherwise."

If I understand the ruling correctly, this practice should be illegal. I am asking your help in clarifying this issue for me. If indeed this is unlawful, what can be done within the organization to rectify the situation?

I would appreciate any assistance you could offer. I can be reached at the above address or at (919) 841-5794.

ID: nht93-2.2

DATE: March 1, 1993

FROM: Peter Drymalski -- Investigator, Montgomery County Government, Office of Consumer Affairs

TO: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: Application of 15 U.S.C. Section 1403 to the "Cannibalization" of Unsold New Cars for Repair Parts

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 5/3/94 from John Womack to Peter Drymalski (A42; Part 567; VSA S108(a)(2)(A))

TEXT:

I am writing to request your office's assistance on an issue that has been brought to our office and which may involve Federal laws enforced by your agency.

A local new car dealer recently sold two 1993-model year vehicles. Shortly after the sale, both vehicles were returned for power steering pump failures. The dealer and the distributor had no power steering pumps in stock and had to order them from Japan. This resulted in a lengthy delay in completing the repairs, so much so, in fact, that the 30- day out-of-service deadline of the Maryland Lemon Law (Commercial Law Article, Section 14-1502(d)(2) was about to come into play.

According to the dealer, the distributor advised the dealer to remove two power steering pumps from other, unsold, 1993 models and install them on the two vehicles awaiting parts. The dealer refused, believing that this was illegal. Fortunately for the distributor, the parts then arrived and the repairs could be completed within the 30-day deadline. Nonetheless, the distributor has apparently insisted that the dealer prove its claim that the cannibalization of unsold vehicles is illegal.

I do not know of any Maryland law that prohibits this, although our laws would probably require the dealer to disclose the repairs when it sells the cannibalized cars as "new" after they're repaired.

However, such cannibalization may affect the cannibalized cars' certifications under 15 U.S.C. 1403 and 49 C.F.R. Part 567, or under other laws. Is such cannibalization allowed and, if so, on what conditions?

I will appreciate your office's review of and assistance on this matter.

Thank you very much.

ID: nht88-2.57

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/26/88

FROM: RON MOXHAM

TO: ERICA JONES -- OFFICE OF CHIEF COUNCIL NATIONAL HWY. TRAFFIC SAFETY ADM.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 03/17/89 FROM ERIKA Z. JONES TO J. JAMES EXON -- SENATE, REDBOOK A33; STANDARD 108, VSA 108(A)(1)(A), VSA 108(A)(2)(A), PART 567.7; LETTER DATED 02/09/89 FROM J. JAMES EXON -- SENATE TO NHTSA; LETTER DATED 01/26/89 FROM RON MOXHAM TO J. JAMES EXON

TEXT: Dear Ms. Jones

Mr. John Massero of your office referred me to you for a technical question. I am in the process of developing an add-on-trunk for mini vans, etc. This would be a detachable box which could be placed on the vehicle when needed. It would attach either to the liftgate bumper, or frame. It would extend 16"-20" beyond the bumper (when in use). See attached drawing.

My question is what highway regulations will I have to comply with? Will the "trunk" have to have a bumper? Will it have to have separate taillights & stoplights? Etc.

I would appreciate any information you can provide regarding this project.

Please let me know if I can provide any further information.

Thank you for your assistance.

Sincerely,

(DRAWING OMITTED)

ID: nht91-2.22

DATE: March 8, 1991

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Ron Marion -- Sales Engineer, Thomas Built Buses, Inc.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 5-10-82 from Frank Berndt (Signature by Stephen P. Wood) to Martin V. Chauvin; Also attached to letter dated 5-12-81 from Frank Berndt to Doris Perlmutter; Also attached to letter dated 6-11-90 from Ron Marion to Paul Jackson Rice (OCC 4915); Also attached to letter dated 11-11-77 from James Tydings to Roger Tilton; Also attached to letter dated 12-21-77 from Joseph J. Levin, Jr. to James Tydings

TEXT:

This responds to your letter noting that Headstart facilities have been deemed by this agency to be schools for purposes of determining the applicability of this agency's standards for school buses asking whether "privately owned and operated preprimary school type facilities" for children are also considered to be schools. I apologize for the delay in this response. The applicability of these standards is not dependent on whether the ownership of a facility is public or private, but on whether the function of the facility is educational or custodial.

The definition of "schoolbus" set forth in the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act specifically includes buses likely to be significantly used to transport students to or from preprimary schools. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has issued a number of interpretations concerning whether specific types of facilities are preprimary schools, within the meaning of this definition. These include the December 21, 1977, letter to James Tydings of Thomas Built, a copy of which was attached to your letter, as well as a May 12, 1981, letter to Doris Perlmutter and a May 10, 1982, letter to Martin Chauvin (copies of the latter two are enclosed). The Perlmutter letter explains that nursery schools are considered preprimary schools, while the Chauvin letter draws a distinction between day care centers and preprimary schools. This distinction is based upon the function of the facility. Facilities that are primarily educational in nature are considered schools, while those that are primarily custodial in nature are not considered schools. Hence, day care facilities, being custodial in nature, are not schools, while nursery schools and Head Start programs, which are educational in nature, are considered schools.

I hope you find this information helpful. If you have further questions, please do not hesitate to contact Mary Versailles of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

ID: 17338.ztv

Mr. Michael Krumholz
2301 N.W. 33rd Court, Unit 104
Pompano Beach, FL 33069

Dear Mr. Krumholz:

This is in reply to your fax of February 11, 1998, to Taylor Vinson of this Office.

With respect to "the standards for blue and yellow fog and driving lamps under Federal law," you ask us to confirm your understanding that "these lights are allowed as long as they do not impair the effectiveness of the required lighting equipment for motor vehicles."

We are happy to confirm your understanding. Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment does not prescribe specifications for fog lamps or driving lamps, either as standard or optional equipment. This means that the individual states have the authority to regulate the performance of these lamps, and even to forbid them. Most if not all states regulate the color of auxiliary lamps, either directly or through reference to standards of the Society of Automotive Engineers. Those standards prescribe white to yellow as the permitted color and state how to measure it. Also, most states prohibit lamps from emitting blue light because that color is often reserved for police and emergency vehicles. I am sorry that we cannot advise you on the laws of the individual states. You will have to contact the Department of Motor Vehicles in each state for an answer.

Standard No. 108 prohibits supplementary original lighting equipment such as fog lamps or driving lamps if they impair the effectiveness of lighting equipment required by Standard No. 108. One example of impairment would be if a fog lamp were installed so close to a turn signal lamp (required by Standard No. 108) that its brightness masked the turn signal. To prevent this, front fog lamps must be located either more than 100 mm from a front turn signal lamp, or the turn signal must be up to 2.5 times more intense than otherwise required, depending on its distance from the fog lamp. See paragraph 5.1.5.4 of SAE Standard J588NOV84 Turn Signal Lamps for use on Motor Vehicles Less Than 2032 MM in Overall Width, incorporated by reference in Standard No. 108.

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

Sincerely,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
ref:108
d.4/8/98