ID: kroger.ztv

Mr. Richard C. Kroger
Corporate Counsel
Stewart & Stevenson Services, Inc.
P.O. Box 330
Sealy, TX 77474

Dear Mr. Kroger:

This is in reply to your letter of April 15, 2003, addressed to David "Comen" (Coleman), which we received on May 5. You seek clarification as to whether you are subject to the TREAD Acts early warning reporting (EWR) requirements set out in Subpart C of 49 CFR Part 579.

Your company manufactures trucks exclusively for the United States Army. You asserted that feedback reports you receive from the Army on your trucks are usually "purposely vague and prevent any meaningful review or truck evaluation." In the event that negative information might be received regarding a trucks performance, you pointed out that furnishing us with this information could result in an enemy gaining knowledge that it could put to tactical use. You argued that "it would seem that the intent of the Act (protecting the consumer public at large) is inapplicable to our situation."

The National Truck Equipment Association (NTEA) recently observed that under 49 CFR 571.7(c), vehicles manufactured for, and sold directly to, the military need not comply with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. NTEA asked whether such vehicles should be counted as part of a manufacturers production and included in reporting of warranty claims, consumer complaints, field reports, etc. We replied on May 14, 2003, that:

The exclusion of Section 571.7(c) is limited to compliance with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) and does not extend to [the defect program or] other NHTSA regulations applicable to motor vehicles. We would expect manufacturers of vehicles that they would otherwise be required to certify, such as staff (passenger) cars and some trucks, to submit reports under the EWR regulations in the same manner as manufacturers of non-military motor vehicles certified by their manufacturers.

By "some trucks," we mean trucks that are the counterparts of trucks that a manufacturer produces for non-military use. Thus, reports would not be required under the EWR rules for military personnel carriers. On the other hand, reports would be required for pickup trucks, vans, and sedans that have civilian counterparts.

You have informed us that your company does not produce trucks for civilian applications. In other words, there are no civilian counterparts. Based on this information, we do not consider your company subject to the EWR requirements.

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

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

Ref:579
d.5/21/03

ID: GF006496

Mr. Merrill Sutton
Tie Down Engineering, Inc.
5901 Wheaton Drive
Atlanta, GA 30336

Dear Mr. Sutton:

This responds to your facsimile and subsequent phone conversation with George Feygin of my staff regarding the possibility of placing your companys name on "side two" of brake hoses manufactured by Meiji Rubber and Chemical, Ltd. (Meiji). You indicated that Meiji is duly registered with the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) as a brake hose manufacturer. Further, Meiji is prepared to place your name, as a distributor, on "side two" of the brake hose.

By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301, manufacturers are required to certify that their vehicles and equipment meet applicable requirements. The issues raised by your letter are addressed below.

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 106 (FMVSS No. 106) has certain labeling requirements. S5.2.1 of the standard states:

S5.2.1 Each hydraulic brake hose shall have at least two clearly identifiable stripes of at least one-sixteenth of an inch in width, placed on opposite sides of the brake hose parallel to its longitudinal axis. One stripe may be interrupted by the information required by S5.2.2, and the other stripe may be interrupted by additional information at the manufacturer's option." (Emphasis added.)

Based on the language of the standard, Meiji, as a manufacturer of brake hoses, is permitted to enter "additional information" on the other side of the brake hose at its option. Such "additional information" can include, among other things, the name of your company.

We note that one side (or "side one") of the brake hose must contain information as required by S5.2.2. Specifically, the one side of the brake hose must include: (a) the symbol DOT; (b) a designation that identifies the manufacturer of the hose; (c) the nominal inside diameter of the hose; (d) the month, day and year of manufacture; [1] and (e) either "HR" to indicate regular-expansion hydraulic hose or "HL" to indicate low-expansion hydraulic hose.

I hope this information is helpful. If you need further assistance, please contact George Feygin of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

Enclosure
ref:106
d.10/9/03





---

[1] Your facsimile contained drawings of the brake hose in question. We note that the drawing of "side one" of the brake hose contains only the month and year of the manufacture but not the date.

ID: 2983yy

Mr. Takeo Wakamatsu
Executive Vice President and
General Manager
Mitsubishi Motors America, Inc.
Bridgeport Office
100 Center Square Road
P.O. Box 464
Bridgeport, NJ 08014

Dear Mr. Wakamatsu:

This responds to your March 28, 1991, letter to Mr. Scott Shadle of this agency's Rulemaking office, on behalf of Mitsubishi Motors Corporation (MMC) in Japan. MMC requests approval of its plan for "derating" the gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of certain imported trucks for the purpose of marketing strategy. Based on the context of the letter, I presume that you mean that MMC would like to lower the GVWR of the vehicles. The following responds to this request.

NHTSA is not authorized by the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act to certify or approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment for compliance with the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS). Each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards.

The GVWR assigned to a vehicle by its manufacturer affects the vehicle's loading and other test conditions to which the vehicle will be subjected during NHTSA's compliance testing for the vehicle. Generally, NHTSA expects the GVWR to reflect a manufacturer's good-faith evaluation of the vehicle's size, weight, and load carrying capacity. The only regulatory limitation on the GVWR that manufacturers may assign to their vehicles is set forth in 49 CFR Part 567, Certification. Section 567.4(g)(3) provides that the assigned GVWR "shall not be less than the sum of the unloaded vehicle weight, rated cargo load, and 150 pounds times the vehicle's designated seating capacity."

There is no regulatory prohibition against a manufacturer lowering the GVWR assigned to its vehicles. Of course, the lower GVWR would have to be not less than the minimum GVWR specified in 567.4(g)(3). Further, the certification label on the vehicle would have to show the lowered GVWR as the GVWR assigned to the vehicle. In addition, the manufacturer must reexamine its certification of compliance for the vehicle to ensure that the vehicle continues to comply with all safety standards at this new lower GVWR, and that the vehicle continues to comply with all other NHTSA regulations (such as 49 CFR Part 565, Vehicle Identification Number-Content Requirements) at the lower GVWR. Assuming these conditions would be satisfied, MMC would be permitted to lower the GVWR assigned to these vehicles.

I hope that this information is helpful. Please feel free to contact us if you have any further questions.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

ref:567 d:4/29/9l

ID: nht91-3.30

DATE: April 29, 1991

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Takeo Wakamatsu -- Executive Vice President and General Manager, Mitsubishi Motors America, Inc.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 3-28-91 from Takeo Wakamatsu to Scott Shadle (OCC 5897)

TEXT:

This responds to your March 28, 1991, letter to Mr. Scott Shadle of this agency's Rulemaking office, on behalf of Mitsubishi Motors Corporation (MMC) in Japan. MMC requests approval of its plan for "derating" the gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of certain imported trucks for the purpose of marketing strategy. Based on the context of the letter, I presume that you mean that MMC would like to lower the GVWR of the vehicles. The following responds to this request.

NHTSA is not authorized by the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act to certify or approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment for compliance with the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS). Each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards.

The GVWR assigned to a vehicle by its manufacturer affects the vehicle's loading and other test conditions to which the vehicle will be subjected during NHTSA's compliance testing for the vehicle. Generally, NHTSA expects the GVWR to reflect a manufacturer's good-faith evaluation of the vehicle's size, weight, and load carrying capacity. The only regulatory limitation on the GVWR that manufacturers may assign to their vehicles is set forth in 49 CFR Part 567, Certification. Section 567.4(g)(3) provides that the assigned GVWR "shall not be less than the sum of the unloaded vehicle weight, rated cargo load, and 150 pounds times the vehicle's designated seating capacity."

There is no regulatory prohibition against a manufacturer lowering the GVWR assigned to its vehicles. Of course, the lower GVWR would have to be not less than the minimum GVWR specified in 567.4(g)(3). Further, the certification label on the vehicle would have to show the lowered GVWR as the GVWR assigned to the vehicle. In addition, the manufacturer must reexamine its certification of compliance for the vehicle to ensure that the vehicle continues to comply with all safety standards at this new lower GVWR, and that the vehicle continues to comply with all other NHTSA regulations (such as 49 CFR Part 565, Vehicle Identification Number-Content Requirements) at the lower GVWR. Assuming these conditions would be satisfied, MMC would be permitted to lower the GVWR assigned to these vehicles.

I hope that this information is helpful. Please feel free to contact us if you have any further questions.

ID: GF002595

Ms. Nancy Liu
Qingdao Sunsong Co., Ltd.
Wangtai Lingang Industrial Park,
Jiaonan, Qingdao
266425
CHINA
Attn: Mr. Yanlin Yang

Dear Ms. Liu:

This responds to your e-mail to George Feygin of my staff regarding the labeling requirements for brake hoses and brake hose assemblies found in S5.2.2(b) and S5.2.4(b) of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 106; Brake Hoses. Specifically you state that you have filed a manufacturers designation "SUNSUNG" with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), as required by S5.2.2(b). You ask whether you may use the same designation to label brake hose assemblies as required by S5.2.4(b). Additionally, you ask whether a manufacturer needs to provide samples for agency testing. The issues raised by your letter are addressed below.

By way of background, NHTSA does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301, manufacturers are required to certify that their vehicles and equipment meet applicable requirements. Accordingly, a manufacturer need not provide the agency with brake hose samples for testing. Instead, the manufacturer is responsible for self-certifying its product. If the agency decides to test the brake hose or brake hose assemblies manufactured by your company, the agency will purchase samples of your product on the open market.

With respect to brake hose and brake hose assembly labeling, we note that S5.2.2(b) requires that each manufacturer mark the brake hose with, among other things, a designation filed with NHTSA. Similarly, S5.2.4(b) also requires that each manufacturer mark the brake hose assembly with, among other things, a designation filed with NHTSA. A manufacturer can use the same designation for both sets of requirements. Because you already filed a manufacturers designation "SUNSUNG" under S5.2.2(b), you need not file a separate designation under S5.2.4(b).

In addition, I would like to direct your attention to the following two requirements:

1. Under the requirements of 49 CFR Part 566 (a copy of which is enclosed), each manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment to which a motor vehicle safety standard applies must submit to NHTSA certain identifying information and a description of the items they produce. Specifically, a manufacturer must indicate: (a) the full individual, partnership, or corporate name of the manufacturer; (b) the residence address of the manufacturer and state of incorporation, if applicable; and (c) a general description of the equipment produced.
2. Under the requirements of 49 CFR 551.45 (a copy of which is enclosed), each foreign manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment must designate a permanent resident of the United States as its agent for service of process and file this designation with NHTSA.

For your reference, I also enclose an information package for new equipment manufacturers. I hope this information is helpful. If you need further assistance, please contact George Feygin of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

Enclosures
ref:106
d.5/4/04

ID: suzuki

Mr. Kenneth M. Bush
Regulations Manager
American Suzuki Motor Corporation
3251 E. Imperial Highway
Brea, CA92821

Dear Mr. Bush:




This is in response to your letter of October 8, 2002, requesting an interpretation of the vehicle certification regulations at 49 CFR Part 567. You state that for the 2003 model year, Suzuki is planning to market two new motor scooter models in the United States.You note that for the purpose of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS), these vehicles are classified as motorcycles, but that they have certain physical attributes that differ from those of conventional motorcycles.In particular, you note that unlike motorcycles, motor scooters have a step-through design and body panels that completely cover the frame members.

You note that a provision of the certification regulations, at 49 CFR 567.4(e), requires the certification label for motorcycles to "be affixed to a permanent member of the vehicle as close as is practicable to the intersection of the steering post with the handle bars, in a location such that it is easily readable without moving any part of the vehicle except the steering system." You state that on conventional motorcycles, the certification label "is usually affixed to the steering post, or if the motorcycle is equipped with a fairing that obscures the steering post location, to an exposed frame member."You observe that on most motor scooters, "there are no exposed frame members that allow placement of [the] certification label" in such a manner that it is "easily readable without moving any part of the vehicle except the steering system." As a consequence, you have asked whether "a body panel that is not intended to be removed, and which is not readily removed" can be considered a "permanent member" of the vehicle for the purposes of section 567.4(e), and therefore an acceptable location for the placement of the certification label. To illustrate your question, you have included a photograph of a certification label affixed to what appears to be a molded panel between the foot rest and a storage compartment on the center line of the vehicle, which you describe as "a permanent body panel . . . reasonably close to the intersection of the steering post with the handlebars."

The term "permanent member" is not defined in the vehicle certification regulations. The intent of the regulations is that the certification label be affixed to an integral part of the vehicle, in a location where the label may be easily read. We are satisfied that these objectives will be met if the certification label on 2003 model year scooters you are planning to market in the United States is placed in the location you have proposed.

If you have any further questions regarding vehicle certification requirements, feel free to contact Coleman Sachs of my staff at 202-366-5238.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:567
d.10/24/02

ID: GF009529

Ms. Susan Gabel
Rockland Coach Works LLC
120 Lyons Road
Mertztown, PA 19539




Dear Ms. Gabel

This responds to your December 14, 2004, letter asking whether a "coach" manufactured by your company using a previously used bus chassis requires a new Vehicle Identification Number (VIN) in accordance with 49 CFR Part 565.

By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) issues Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) applicable to new motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. Chapter 301 of Title 49 of the United States Code, "Motor Vehicle Safety" (49 U.S.C. 30101 et seq.), establishes a "self-certification" process under which motor vehicle manufacturers are responsible for certifying that their vehicles meet all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards.

NHTSA does not generally regulate rebuilding or re-manufacturing of used motor vehicles. However, if the rebuilding or remanufacturing involves sufficient manufacturing operations and new parts, the vehicle may be considered newly manufactured. This would mean that it would be required to meet all applicable safety standards in effect at the time of rebuilding (re-manufacture), and to be certified as conforming to those standards. Because of the variety of fact situations involved, the agency has found it difficult to establish a general requirement, and it provides opinions on a case-by-case basis.

In this case, your letter (and the pictures on your web site) demonstrates an extensive manufacturing process, which includes the following:

1. A used MCI-9 bus is "stripped" completely leaving only the chassis and certain frame components;
2. Damaged frame components are replaced;
3. The rear of the vehicle is extended by 5 feet;
4. The vehicle roof is raised 8 inches;
5. All exterior body panels are replaced with a custom fiberglass body panels;
6. The vehicle is equipped with a different (new or remanufactured) engine and transmission;
7. Wiring, heat, and air components are all replaced;
8. The vehicle is equipped with a new, custom designed interior featuring living quarters.

The extent of manufacturing operations and new parts described in your letter indicate that the vehicles in question are newly manufactured motor vehicles. Particularly, we note that vehicles remanufactured by your company feature different, engines, transmissions, and entirely new bodies except for certain frame components. Thus, your company must assign a new VIN to these remanufactured vehicles. We note that these vehicles would be treated as newly manufactured for the purposes of NHTSAs safety standards and regulations. Among other things, this would mean that your company is required to certify that the vehicles comply with all applicable safety standards in effect as of the date the remanufacturing operations are completed on the vehicles. The information for new vehicle manufacturers is available at our web site at www.nhtsa.gov.

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

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:565
d.2/16/05

ID: GF005899

Ms. Robin C. DesCamp
Blount International, Inc.
PO Box 22127
Portland , OR 97269-2127

Dear Ms. DesCamp:

            This responds to your August 26, 2004, letter and subsequent e-mail to George Feygin of my staff. You ask whether various items manufactured by your company for logging purposes would be classified as “motor vehicles” and subject to the agency’s early warning reporting (EWR) regulations (set forth in 49 CFR Part 579) or to our vehicle identification number (VIN) requirements (49 CFR Part 565).  As explained below, based on the information you provided, we do not consider the items to be motor vehicles for the purposes of our regulations. Thus, the EWR and VIN requirements do not apply.

           Title 49 U.S.C Chapter 301 authorizes the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to prescribe Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. Section 30102(a)(6) defines “motor vehicle” as:

“[A] vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power and manufactured primarily for use on the public streets, roads, and highways, but does not include a vehicle operated only on a rail line.”

NHTSA has issued several interpretations of this language. We have stated that vehicles equipped with tracks, agricultural equipment, and other vehicles incapable of highway travel are not motor vehicles. We have also determined that certain vehicles designed and sold solely for off-road use (e.g., airport runway vehicles and underground mining vehicles) are not motor vehicles, even if they may be operationally capable of highway travel. Finally, we have concluded that items of mobile construction equipment that use the highways only to move between job sites and that typically spend extended periods of time at a single site are not motor vehicles. However, we do consider vehicles that use the public roads on a necessary and recurring basis to be motor vehicles.

In the present case, the information you have provided describes specialized cranes and loaders made for delimbing and loading logs. Although the cranes are equipped with wheels, the pictures and the description of the logging cranes indicate that they are intended to remain at a single location for prolonged periods of time. Your letter confirms that these cranes are moved only infrequently between logging sites.

Based on this information, it appears that the logging cranes are akin to airport runway vehicles or items of mobile construction equipment that do not travel on highways on a recurring basis. Accordingly, we find that the logging cranes described in your letter are not “motor vehicles.” Because these machines are not motor vehicles, they are not subject to our regulations and requirements, including those of the EWR and VIN programs. 

I hope you find this information helpful.  If you have any other questions please contact Mr. George Feygin at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman

Chief Counsel

ref:571

d.11/5/04

ID: GF008639

Mr. Tom Lykken
President CEO
SnoBear Industries
3681 Fairway Road
Fargo, ND 58102

Dear Mr. Lykken:

This responds to an inquiry forwarded to us by Senator Byron L. Dorgan, and your subsequent e-mail communications with George Feygin of my staff. You ask whether a SnoBear ice fishing vehicle (SnoBear) that will be manufactured by your company would be classified as a "motor vehicle." As explained below, based on the information you provided us, we would not consider the SnoBear a "motor vehicle" for the purposes of our regulations.

I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our laws and regulations. Title 49 U. S. Code (U.S.C) Chapter 301 authorizes the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to prescribe Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. Section 30102(a)(6) defines "motor vehicle" as:

"[A] vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power and manufactured primarily for use on the public streets, roads, and highways, but does not include a vehicle operated only on a rail line."

In your e-mail you stated that the SnoBear is not intended for highway use. Instead, SnoBear is intended for use on lakes, primarily for the ice fishing industry, and other limited off road use. Pictures obtained from your website ^[1] and CAD drawings youve provided indicate that the SnoBear is equipped with skies and tracks instead of tires, and therefore cannot travel on surfaces other than snow and ice.

Based on the information you provided, it is our opinion that the SnoBear is not a motor vehicle within the statutory definition. We have previously interpreted Section 30102(a)(6) to mean that vehicles that are equipped with tracks or are otherwise incapable of highway travel are not motor vehicles.^[2] In this instance the SnoBear is incapable of highway travel and therefore is not a motor vehicle. Because the SnoBear is not a motor vehicle, it is not subject to any of our regulations, including the Federal motor vehicle safety standards.

We note that your product may fall under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Consumer Products Safety Commission. Contact information for that agency is at http://www.cpsc.gov/businfo/businfo.html. In addition, the Environmental Protection Agency may have emissions regulations applicable to your product. Contact information for that agency is at http://www.epa.gov/epahome/comments.htm.

I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any other questions please contact Mr. George Feygin at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

cc: Nathan Berseth




---

[1] www.snobearindustries.com

[2] See our 09/25/87 interpretation letter to John R. Niemela of Ranger International Inc.

ID: nht89-2.88

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/30/89

FROM: JOHN K. MOODY -- MOODY & MOODY ENTERPRISES

TO: TAYLOR VINSON -- LEGAL COUNSEL NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION FMVSS-108 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 11/01/89 FROM STEPHEN P. WOOD -- NHTSA TO JOHN K. MOODY -- MOODY AND MOODY ENTERPRISES; REDBOOK A34; STANDARD 108; LETTER DATED 09/14/89 FROM S. WATANABE -- STANLEY ELECTRIC COMPANY TO STEPHEN P. WOOD NHTSA; OCC 3931

TEXT: Dear Mr. Vinson,

My company is planning to market nationwide a vehicle aftermarket kit which effects the front turn signals on motor vehicles. The intent of this letter is to inquire as to whether or not vehicles equipped with our product would be in conflict with exist ing vehicle lighting standards established by N.H.T.S.A..

Prior to writing this letter I had telephone conversations with several individuals there at N.H.T.S.A. and the consensus was that, since our product does not interfere with the normal operation of the existing vehicle lighting equipment, there would be no conflict. It was recommended, however, that I write this letter to you in order to obtain an official evaluation of our product and to receive a reply in writing.

Our product is really quite simple. We connect both front turn signal lamp filaments so that when the brake pedal is pushed and the rear brake lights are illuminated, both front turn signal lights are also illuminated. If a turn signal is activated eit her before or during application of the brakes, the front turn signal light flashes in its normal manner thereby indicating the direction of turn while the other front turn signal light will be illuminated as long as the brake pedal is being pushed.

This product is intended to add a significant measure of safety to vehicles by providing a forward indication as to whether or not the driver of the vehicle is attempting to apply the brakes. This would be a benefit to other drivers and pedestrians alik e.

According to the directional analysis of 1987 motor vehicle traffic accidents published by the National Safety Council, this safety improvement could have been helpful in reducing 41.6% of all two car accidents (8,652,800) and 29.5% of all two car fatali ties (12774). In addition, we believe that a significant number of pedestrian-car accidents (90,000 total resulting in 8200 fatalities in 1987) could have been avoided had the car been equipped with a forward directed brake application indicator.

Although we are requesting your evaluation concerning our product's compatibility with vehicle lighting standards, we also would appreciate any comments which you or others would offer concerning your opinion as to the safety benefits which would result from vehicles being equipped with a forward directed brake application indicator.

For your information, we are sending a similar letter to each state requesting their opinion concerning our product and their state vehicle lighting regulations.

Thank you for your attention to this matter. A prompt reply would be greatly appreciated.

Sincerely,