ID: MULTISTG.UPS

Mr. Thomas S. Klingman
Motor Carrier Tax Manager
United Parcel Service
55 Glenlake Parkway NE
Atlanta, GA 30328

Dear Mr. Klingman:

This is in response to your letter dated January 26, 1996, in which you requested that this office clarify which party is responsible for odometer disclosure under Federal law when the disclosure involves a vehicle manufactured in two or more stages. Your letter states that United Parcel Service (UPS) has encountered differing interpretations from several jurisdictions when it registers these vehicles.

Under the Federal odometer law, it is the person transferring ownership of a motor vehicle who is obliged to disclose the odometer reading under Federal law. 49 U.S.C. 32705; 49 CFR 580.5(c). Accordingly, the answer to your question of whether it is the incomplete vehicle manufacturer or the final-stage manufacturer that must disclose the mileage on the odometer hinges on the meaning of the terms "transferor" and "motor vehicle" as applied to the Federal odometer disclosure requirements.

Section 32702(8) of Title 49 of the United States Code states that "transfer" of a motor vehicle means "to change ownership by sale, gift, or other means." In its implementing regulations, NHTSA has defined "transferor" as "any person who transfers ownership of a motor vehicle by sale, gift, or any means other than the creation of a security interest." Under Part C of Subtitle VI of Title 49 of the United States Code, the definition of "motor vehicle" that applies to the Federal odometer law is:

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

49 U.S.C. 32101(7).

According to your letter, UPS purchases the chassis of its vehicles from various chassis manufacturers, and then the chassis is shipped to a body manufacturer, which installs the body on the chassis. The body manufacturer never obtains ownership of the chassis. Accordingly, the only transfer of ownership that takes place between the body manufacturer and UPS is the sale of the body to UPS. This is not a transfer of ownership of a motor vehicle as that term is defined for purposes of the Federal odometer law, because the body alone is not "driven or drawn by mechanical power." This interpretation is also supported by NHTSA's regulation, which exempts vehicles that are not self-propelled from the odometer disclosure requirements of 49 CAR Part 580. 49 CAR 580.6(a)(2). From the outset, NHTSA has exempted transfers of such vehicles from the odometer disclosure requirements because it determined that for this category of vehicles, odometer mileage is not used as a guide for value, because most non-self-propelled vehicles lack an odometer. 38 Fed. Reg. 2978-79 (Jan. 31, 1973).

Therefore, the states that require odometer disclosure when the chassis is transferred from the chassis manufacturer to UPS are following the correct procedure under Federal odometer law. Any state that does not require disclosure for that transfer is not following the correct procedure under Federal law. Federal law does not require any odometer disclosure at the time that the body manufacturer transfers ownership of the body to UPS. A state may on its own decide to impose this as an additional requirement to register the vehicle, but it is not a requirement of the Federal law, and such a disclosure would not have to comply with the Federal regulations governing odometer disclosure statements.

I hope this interpretation is responsive to your request. If you have further questions concerning interpretation of the Federal odometer statute and regulations, please contact

Eileen Leahy, an attorney on my staff, at the above address, or at (202) 366-5263.

Sincerely,

Samuel J. Dubbin

Chief Counsel

ref:580

d:3/21/96

ID: mvaltr.etl

BY TELEFAX

Mr. John H. Strandquist
President
American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators
4301 Wilson Boulevard, Suite 400
Arlington, VA 22203

Dear Mr. Strandquist:

I have received a copy of the Issue Alert dated April 17, 1997, that you sent to the members of the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators concerning the decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in Diersen v. Chicago Car Exchange, 110 F.3d 481 (7th Cir. 1997). In that decision, issued on March 31, 1997, the court held that the NHTSA regulation that exempts vehicles ten years old and older from the requirement in 49 U.S.C. Chapter 327 that an odometer disclosure statement be completed when ownership of the vehicle is transferred (49 CFR 580.6(a)(3)) is invalid because Chapter 327 does not authorize exemptions from that requirement. Your Issue Alert noted that you had contacted NHTSA "to determine whether any action is planned to amend the current legislation for odometer disclosure requirements" in light of the Diersen decision.

NHTSA has concluded that amending legislation is unnecessary because Congress has already given the agency the authority to exempt vehicles from the disclosure requirements of Chapter 327. Specifically, in section 332 of the FY 1997 Department of Transportation and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, Pub. Law 104-205 (Sept. 30, 1996), Congress provided that "notwithstanding any other provisions of law, the Secretary may use funds appropriated under this Act, or any other subsequent Act, to administer and implement the exemption provisions of 49 CFR 580.6 and to adopt or amend exemptions from the disclosure requirements for any class or category of vehicles that the Secretary deems appropriate."

In light of the fact that Congress has now authorized NHTSA to expend funds to adopt or amend exemptions from the disclosure requirements, the agency has concluded that the most expeditious way to resolve the uncertainty caused by the Diersen decision is to publish a final rule repromulgating all of the exemptions currently contained in 49 CFR 580.6 under the statutory authority of section 332 of P. L. 104-205. Because the current situation can cause problems, such as confusion about whether or not an odometer disclosure statement is required when an older vehicle is transferred, inappropriate rejection of title applications and other delays in the titling process, particularly for vehicles transferred into states within the Seventh Circuit, we plan to make this final rule effective immediately upon publication in the Federal Register.

So that your members and others may have prompt access to information about actions NHTSA is taking in response to the Diersen decision, the agency plans to post this letter, the Federal Register notice and any other relevant information on its World Wide Web site, which is accessible on the Internet at http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/new. We will also provide you with a copy of the Federal Register notice as soon as it is available.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions on this matter, please contact Eileen Leahy, an attorney on my staff, at 202-366-5263.

Sincerely,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
5/28/97

ID: myles.ztv

Mr. Russel Myles
McDowell Knight Roedder & Sledge, L.L.C.
63 South Royal, Suite 900
Riverview Plaza
Mobile, AL 36602

Dear Mr. Myles:

This is in reply to your letter of March 7, 2003, following up on my letter of

May 24, 2002, regarding prepaid mandatory service insurance policies acquired by registered importers. You have two questions related to that letter.

Your first question is related to my conclusion that if such a policy becomes ineffective because the underwriter has gone out of business, an RI would not be required to secure a new policy that provides coverage for the periods that remain outstanding on all previously imported vehicles. You asserted that this is contrary to my statement in the letter that "policies must remain in effect until ten years have elapsed from" the date on which the vehicle is first purchased after importation. You asked that I reevaluate this interpretation.

Obviously, we hope that the issuer of the mandatory service insurance policy will remain financially able to honor claims against that policy for the full ten years that free remedy of noncompliances and safety-related defects is required. However, as I remarked last year, "the owners of these vehicles would be protected to the extent that the company is required by state regulatory authorities to maintain sufficient reserves or take other measures to cover its outstanding liability on previously issued policies in the event that it should go out of business."At that time, we were unaware that any policy underwriter had gone out of business. You have now brought to our attention one that has: Vehicle Protection Services (VPS) of Michigan. However, you have not indicated that any owner covered by a VPS policy has suffered actual loss as a result thereof, or that Michigan law does not adequately address the issue of reimbursement. As I further noted in 2002, our regulations do not obligate a RI to obtain new policies for previously imported vehicles if the original underwriter goes out of business. For this reason, I cannot provide an interpretation that differs from the one I gave you last year. However, if events transpired that such a requirement would be in the public interest, we could propose an appropriate amendment to our regulations.

You have also expressed concern about contracts issued to a RI by a company that is not an insurance carrier but an entity that is only "backed" by an insurance company. Specifically, you asked who has standing "to make a claim on the real insurance policy," commenting that "the insurance companys only obligation is to the non-insurance company issuing the guarantee." It is our understanding that a vehicle owner holding such a policy would present a claim to the non-insurance company which would either pay the claim or present the claim to the insurer for payment, either to the policy holder or the non-insurance company. We adopted these requirements based upon what we understood were the commercial realities of the time, principally the difficulty in finding businesses that would issue service insurance contracts or policies.

We noted your statement that "vehicle owners and/or RIs could find themselves facing deductibles and other coverage limitations that completely undermine the regulatory coverage requirements and create other practical difficulties for those persons intended to be protected." However, RIs, as part of the application process, are required to furnish us with a copy of the policies they intend to provide to vehicle owners and are thereafter required to notify us within 30 days of any change in the information that is submitted in its application. See 49 CFR 592.5(a)(8) and (f). RIs are also required to include a current copy of their service insurance policy in their annual applications for renewal. See 49 CFR 592.5(e). We routinely review these policies to ensure they are consistent with the obligation of the RI to provide remedy without charge during the term of the policy.

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

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:591
d.5/27/03

ID: Nakachi

Matthew K. Nakachi, Esq.
Law Offices of George R. Tuttle
Three Embarcadero Center, Suite 1160
San Francisco, CA 94111





Dear Mr. Nakachi:

This responds to your letters of November 30, 2000 (as supplemented by an email of December 18, 2000, to Taylor Vinson of this Office), and January 3, 2001, concerning the applicability of certain Federal motor vehicle safety standards to sidecars.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has the statutory authority to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. All motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment manufactured or imported for sale in the United States must comply with all applicable FMVSSs. ⁽¹⁾ The FMVSSs apply in different ways. Some apply only to new motor vehicles, others apply to new items of motor vehicle equipment ("equipment standards"), while others apply to both new vehicles and new equipment.

Your letters concern the importation of sidecars which would be sold to individuals who already own motorcycles. These sidecars would not be considered "motor vehicles" but would be considered motor vehicle equipment. ⁽²⁾ Therefore, standards that apply only to new motor vehicles would not apply to these sidecars. However, as discussed below, the sidecars would be subject to certain equipment standards.

If an aftermarket sidecar incorporates motor vehicle equipment that is regulated by an equipment standard, the equipment would have to independently comply with the applicable standard. (See NHTSA's May 4, 1982 letter, copy enclosed). Of particular relevance to sidecars are our standards for brake hoses, tires, tire rims and glazing, all of which apply to individual items of

equipment. Brake hoses, tires, tire rims and glazing, if provided on a sidecar, must meet the requirements of Standard Nos. 106, 119, 120, and 205, respectively, that apply to equipment for motorcycles.

You note, for certain of these standards, that the "scope" sections do not mention sidecars but only include such equipment that is used with "passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, buses, trailers, and motorcycles." That the standards do not list sidecars is not of significance, because the lists only include vehicle types, and a sidecar is an accessory item (not a vehicle itself). A sidecar is an accessory for a motorcycle. Therefore, equipment on a sidecar is equipment for use on a motorcycle. To determine whether a standard applies to the equipment on a sidecar, we check the application section of the standard to see whether it applies: (a) to items of motor vehicle equipment, and (b) that is for use in motorcycles. If the answer to both of these is yes, then the equipment on the sidecar would have to comply with the standard.

Standard No. 108

In the May 4, 1982, letter we also stated that lighting equipment on a sidecar would have to comply with Standard No. 108. We have reconsidered our views on this issue. Standard

No. 108 applies, in relevant part, to certain types of motor vehicles including motorcycles, and to "(l)amps, reflective devices, and associated equipment for replacement of like equipment on vehicles to which this standard applies." Since an aftermarket sidecar is sold as an accessory to a motorcycle and not to replace a part of a motorcycle, any lamps, reflective devices or associated equipment on the sidecar would not be "for replacement of like equipment" on the motorcycle. Therefore, Standard No. 108 would not apply to an aftermarket sidecar. This would be true whether the sidecars were imported as single items or with the sidecar fenders incorporating lighting equipment separated from the rest of the sidecar.

However, detached and discrete items of lighting equipment that could be installed either on motor vehicles to which Standard No. 108 applies, or on an aftermarket sidecar, could not be imported unless the items of lighting equipment comply with Standard No. 108. We do not understand that your client intends to import detached items of lighting equipment.

Standard No. 119

Our understanding is that the tires of the sidecar are not labeled in any manner. Unlabeled tires would not meet the requirements of Standard No. 119. The marking requirements for tires subject to Standard No. 119, "New pneumatic tires for vehicles other than passenger cars" (49 CFR 571.119), are set forth in paragraph S6.5 of the standard. Paragraph S6.5(b) requires that each tire be marked with "the tire identification required by part 574 of this chapter." Section 574.5, "Tire identification requirements," specifies that "[e]ach tire manufacturer shall conspicuously label on one sidewall of each tire it manufactures, except tires manufactured exclusively for mileage contract purchasers or non-pneumatic tires of non-pneumatic tire assemblies, by permanently molding into or onto the sidewall, in the manner and location specified in Figure 1, a tire identification number (TIN) containing the information set forth in paragraphs (a) through (d) of this section." According to this paragraph, the information must be molded into or onto the sidewalls of the sidecar tires. Of course, the tires would also have to comply with all performance requirements applicable to new motorcycle tires.

Standard No. 120

ID: nash.ztv

Mr. Rod Nash
Vice President of Engineering
Collins Industries, Inc.
15 Compound Drive
Hutchinson, KS 67502-4349

Dear Mr. Nash:

This is in reply to your two letters of June 23, 2003, received in this Office on July 16.

In one letter, you wrote on behalf of Capacity of Texas (Capacity), which you identified as a "wholly-owned subsidiary" of Collins Industries, Inc. (Collins). You related that "Collins has other subsidiaries that build school buses, commercial buses, and ambulances." You commented that only a portion of Capacitys total production of "spotter trucks" is certified for use on the public roads, less than 500 vehicles a year, but that the total number of vehicles manufactured by all subsidiaries of Collins will be more than 500 a year. You have asked whether Capacity may report as a small volume manufacturer under the early warning reporting (EWR) regulation (i.e., under 49 CFR 579.27 rather than under 49 CFR 579.22).

In the other letter, you have written on behalf of Wheeled Coach Industries (Wheeled Coach), another wholly-owned Collins subsidiary. Wheeled Coach produces both light vehicles and medium-heavy vehicles (all ambulances). You reported that you were told by a panelist at the public meeting of June 19, 2003, that if production of either of these types "within a years time" was under 500, Wheeled Coach would only have to report about deaths involving that type. You have written for confirmation that Wheeled Coach can report as a small volume manufacturer "in years the production volume is less than 500 ambulances" of each type.

Collins presents itself as a specialty vehicle manufacturer with seven subsidiaries. See www.collinsind.com. In addition to Capacity and Wheeled Coach, these subsidiaries include Collins Bus Corp., World Trans. Inc., Mid Bus Corporation, Waldron Equipment and Lay-Mor. Collins most recent release of financial information states that Collins

Industries is a leading manufacturer of ambulances, North Americas largest manufacturer of Type "A" small school buses, the nations second largest manufacturer of terminal trucks and a leader in the road construction and industrial sweeper markets. These products are made by its various subsidiaries. Similarly, Collins Industries most recent SEC 10-K filing states that the Company, Collins, manufactures the products referred to above. Collins presents its financials in consolidated statements that include its subsidiaries.

As we explained in a recent interpretation to Jason Cavallo of the Halcore Group, "[u]nder the EWR regulation, the definition of "manufacturer" at 49 CFR 579.4(c) includes parents, subsidiaries, and affiliates. For purposes of determining whether the production of vehicles meets or exceeds the 500 vehicles per year threshold in Section 579.21 et seq., the production of the divisions, parent, subsidiaries and affiliates must be aggregated. However, under Section 579.3(b), the parent may report collectively or the incorporated entities may report separately, provided that all vehicles are covered by the reporting."

The determinant between full and limited (i.e., small volume manufacturer under Section 579.27) reporting is the total annual aggregate production for each type of vehicle defined by the EWR regulation. With respect to vehicles manufactured by Collins, these types would appear to be "medium-heavy vehicle and bus," and "light vehicle," which is defined as any vehicle (other than a bus, motorcycle, or trailer) with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less. If the aggregate number of either light vehicles or medium heavy vehicles and buses is less than 500, Collins (or its individual subsidiaries) would only have to report limited information required by Section 579.27 for that type of vehicle.

With regard to your second letter, as explained above, Collins must report according to the aggregate production of each vehicle type. For example, assume that Wheeled Coach produces less than 500 medium-heavy vehicles and another subsidiary of Collins produces less than 500 buses. If the aggregate production by both subsidiaries (and all other subsidiaries of Collins) of medium-heavy vehicles and buses is 500 or more, Collins (and/or its individual subsidiaries) must report as required by Section 579.22. By the same token, if Wheeled Coach is the only subsidiary of Collins producing light vehicles and its production is less than 500, Wheeled Vehicles (or Collins itself) would report with respect to those vehicles under Section 579.27. However, to report under Section 579.27, the production of light vehicles must be less than 500 "during the calendar year of the reporting period or during each of the two prior calendar years" (Section 579.21). Moreover, if Collins anticipates that Wheeled Coachs total production of light vehicles will exceed 500 before the end of a calendar year, Collins would file its quarterly reports as required by Section 579.21, even if its production was below 500 in each of the prior two calendar years.

If you have any questions, you may refer them to Taylor Vinson or Andrew DiMarsico of this Office (202-366-5263).

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:579
d.8/20/03

ID: nash2.ajd

Mr. Rod Nash
Vice President of Engineering
Collins Industries, Inc.
15 Compound Drive
Hutchinson, KS 67502-4349

Dear Mr. Nash:

This is in reply to your letter dated September 17, 2003 on behalf of Capacity of Texas, which is a subsidiary of Collins Industries, Inc. (Collins), with respect to the early warning reporting regulation, 49 CFR Part 579. This office received your letter on September 26, 2003.

In your letter, you reference and attach two communications from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA): one was my letter of August 20, 2003 and the other was an e-mail from Bob Squire of NHTSAs Office of Defects Investigation. You stated that "Capacity of Texas is willing to report information on the one hundred or so spotter trucks they build a year that are certified for on highway use."You further stated that if the volume of trucks is so small that only reporting deaths is the appropriate procedure, then you are prepared to follow that directive.

The reference to trucks in your letter is not clear. Collins and its subsidiaries must report according to the aggregate production of each vehicle category. Therefore, we expect Collins or Capacity of Texas to report for each vehicle category for which the aggregate production by Collins and all its subsidiaries and affiliates is 500 or more. Thus, for example, if the spotter trucks are medium-heavy vehicles, and Collins and/or its subsidiaries also manufacture medium-heavy vehicles, the production volumes of all these companies vehicles must be aggregated to determine whether the companies must report under 49 CFR 579.22 or 579.27.

Please note that the Office of Defects Investigation has amended the manufacturer identification application to cover situations in which a manufacturer is reporting early warning information on behalf of subsidiaries or affiliated companies. Therefore, when applying for a manufacturers identification number for early warning reporting, the reporting entity has to identify each parent, subsidiary, or affiliate for which it will be providing information.

If you have any questions regarding this letter, you may phone Andrew DiMarsico of my staff at (202) 366-5263.Any questions on the manufacturer identification application should be presented to Jon White of NHTSAs Office of Defects Investigation, who may be reached at (202) 366-5226.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:579
d.10/10/03

ID: NCC02000890IIogm

Ms. Sonja Polt
Concept Technologie GmbH
Fischeraustrasse 13
A-8051 Graz Austria

Dear Ms. Polt:

This is in response to several questions contained in your electronic mail message to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administrations Office of Chief Counsel regarding test procedures under the head impact protection provisions contained in Standard No. 201, Occupant protection in interior impact. Your electronic mail message states that your company is concerned about which approach and "roll" angles should be used when testing a target located on a seat belt anchorage. You note that the anchorage in question is located on the B-pillar of a vehicle your company is testing. As shown in a photograph embedded in your electronic mail message, this seat belt anchorage projects above the surface of the B-pillar.

Specifically, you note that Standard No. 201 specifies different vertical and horizontal approach angles for seat belt anchorage targets and targets located on a B-pillar. As the target in question is a seat belt anchorage located on a B-pillar, you ask whether the approach angles for a seat belt anchorage or for a B-pillar target apply. You also ask if the "roll" or offset angle should be the 5 degree angle used for all targets except those on the B and other pillars or the 10 degree angle used for B and other pillars.

Standard No. 201 establishes performance requirements for certain areas of vehicle interiors but does not require that all areas of the upper interior of a vehicle be subjected to compliance testing. Instead, the standard sets forth a number of discrete target areas that must be impacted by a test headform known as the Free Motion Headform (FMH). According to the standard, if a seat belt anchorage is located on the B-pillar, the target area known as BP2 is located on that anchorage. The performance requirements for the target areas are intended to reduce the risk of occupant head injury by ensuring that vehicle interiors have certain impact characteristics. All of the target areas may be impacted by the FMH provided that the FMH is directed at the target within a certain range of angles. These angles are referred to in Standard No. 201 as approach angles. If an approach angle for a particular target is within the range of permissible approach angles, that angle may be used in testing a target area.

S8.13.4 of the standard specifies a range of permissible horizontal and vertical approach angles that constrain the direction of the FMH when approaching particular types of targets. The approach angle limits are specified in Table 1 of the standard. That table separately lists, among other targets, the left B-pillar, right B-pillar, and seat belt anchorages. However, the table does not indicate what angles are to be used when a target is on a seat belt anchorage that is also located on a pillar.

We partially addressed your question in an October 15, 2002, letter to Mr. Takashi Yoshie of the Toyota Technical Center (copy enclosed). In response to Mr. Yoshies inquiry regarding the proper offset angle to be used when testing a seat belt anchorage on the B-pillar, we indicated that in those instances where the anchorage projects above the surface of the B-pillar, the appropriate offset angle is five degrees. However, we indicated that if the anchorage does not project above the surface of the B-pillar, the maximum offset of the vertical approach angle is ten degrees. As the photograph embedded in your message shows target BP-2 located on a seat belt anchorage that projects above the surface of the B-pillar, the appropriate angles would be those used for seat belt anchorages.

As we explained in our letter to Mr. Yoshie, the offset angles set forth in S8.13.4.2(b) were chosen to delay chin contact with the vehicle to allow appropriate HIC calculations. Ten degrees of downward rotation was determined to be an appropriate amount for determining the maximum vertical approach angle for B-pillar and other pillar targets. Five degrees of downward rotation was determined to be the appropriate amount for seat belt anchorage targets. In the case of seat belt anchorages mounted above the surface of the B-pillar, a ten degree offset would be unnecessary. Where the anchorage design results in BP2 being on or below the surface of the B-pillar, ten degrees would be appropriate to prevent early chin contact.

Once the appropriate offset angle is applied and the maximum vertical angle is established, one must determine which one of the range of horizontal and vertical approach angle limits listed in Table 1 applies. We note that in establishing the range of horizontal and vertical approach angle limits for seat belt anchorages, the agency indicated that seat belt anchorages could be approached at any horizontal angle. This choice of an unlimited range of horizontal angles was based on the agencys expectation that seat belt anchorages would most likely be protruding into the vehicle and could be contacted at any horizontal angle. Similarly, the agencys choice in setting vertical approach angle limits for seat belt anchorages, zero to fifty degrees, also reflects our expectation that seat belt anchorages would protrude into the vehicle. Unlike the limits set for pillar targets, which have lower limits adjusted to delay chin contact, the vertical approach angle limits for seat belt anchorages have a lower limit of zero.

Because we set seat belt anchorage approach angle limits under the expectation that these anchorages would protrude into the vehicle interior, where a target is located on a seat belt anchorage that is also on a pillar, the seat belt anchorage approach angles limits apply in those instances where the anchorage is located above the surface of a pillar. Where the anchorage is located on or below the surface of a pillar, the appropriate approach angle limits would be those applicable to the appropriate pillar. Therefore, in the case of the vehicle shown in the photographs attached to your message, in which the anchorage is located above the surface of the pillar, the proper approach angle limits would be those applicable to seat belt anchorages.

I hope that this is responsive to your inquiry. If you have any questions or comments, please contact Otto Matheke of this office at (202) 366-5253.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:201
d.6/9/03

ID: New Holland Tire

ID: nht67-1.1

DATE: 01/16/67

FROM: William Haddon, Jr., M.D. -- NHTSA

TO: H. H. Brainerd - Pennsylvania Bureau of Traffic Safety

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of December 7, 1966, seeking clarification of questions posed by certain sections of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966.

Your first question seeks interpretation as to the time when standards established under former Public Law 87-637 (brake fluid) and Public Law 88-201 (seat belts) become effective. Subsection 117(c) of the Act, although repealing the foregoing Federal statutes, continues in effect any standards effectively issued under those laws "as if they had been effectively issued under section 103 until amended or revoked..." Therefore, the Federal brake fluid and seat belt standands issued by the Secretary of Commerce before September 9, 1966, have continued in effect since that date under authority of section 103 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966. The proposed Federal safety standard 209 on seat belts, if issued, will effectively replace the existing Federal seat belt (l5 CFR 9) standard issued on June 25, 1965 (Federal Register July 1, 1965) and the amendment thereto issued August 1, 1966 (Federal Register August 31, 1966).

Your second question asks whether proposed Federal safety standard 109 supersedes the Pennsylvania Law requiring testing and certification of brake linings. Because the Federal standard in question has not been promulgated but only proposed, we are precluded from making any official statement of interpretation regarding its preemption of state laws. However, we very much appreciate your having brought this matter to our attention and you may be assured that it will be fully considered before the initial Federal safety standards are promulgated. Your question will no doubt be clarified at that time.

The remaining questions you have raised seek clarification on how your State may ascertain whether manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment, parts and components have complied with applicable Federal standards. We anticipate that the provisions of section 114 of the Act, which require every manufacturer or distributor of motor vehicle equipment to furnish a certification that each such item of motor vehicle equipment conforms to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards, will provide the States with suitable confirmation of compliance. We [Illegible Words) of course, that these provisions will need to be fully implemented at the Federal level by regulations and testing procedures.

I trust this reply will be of assistance to you and that the answered questions will be resolved when the initial standards are promulgated later this month. However, if I can be of further service to you, please do not hesitate to let me know.

ID: nht67-1.10

DATE: 08/01/67

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; George C. Nield; NHTSA

TO: Sears, Roebuck & Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Thank you for your letter of June 20, 1967, concerning restraining straps for children.

Initial Federal Motor Vehicle Safety No. 209 provides that seat belt assemblies shall meet the requirements of Department of Commerce, National Bureau of Standards, Standards for Seat Belts for Use in Motor Vehicles (15 CFR 9) (31 F.N. 11528). For your convenience a copy of the Federal Register containing the seat belt standard is enclosed.

The standard affects any seat belt manufactured for sale after February 23, 1967, including Type 3 belts which are designed for children between 8 months and 6 years of age. The problem you discuss in your letter, that of manufactures who consider their devices something less than seat belts, and so label them, is under review to determine if there is any violation of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1965.

Sincerely,

June 20, 1967

Department of Transportation Washington, D.C.

Attention: Dr. Haddon

Dear Dr. Haddon

Sears Automotive Department carries only a child's harness that meets your new federal safety standard, but many competitors are carrying inexpensive restraining straps which obviously do not meet the standard. We would like to know the position that the federal government will take regarding them. If inexpensive restraining straps state on the package clearly that "this is not a safety harness but only a child's restraining strap" or words to that effect, will they be legal since the federal standard does not apply to them? A statement regarding this form you will be greatly appreciated.

Very truly yours,

C.M. HATTERSLEY, Buyer -- Auto Parts and Accessories, Department 628,SEARS, ROEBUCK AND CO.