ID: nht80-2.42

DATE: 06/02/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Donald Boyd & Associates, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your recent letter requesting confirmation that large commercial truck tractors do not have to comply with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 216, Roof Crush Resistance. You also asked whether large trucks should be designed to comply with the "belt system" option under Safety Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection.

You are correct in your assumption that large commercial trucks would not have to comply with Safety Standard No. 216 since that standard only applies to passenger cars. You are also correct in stating that trucks with a GVWR greater than 10,000 pounds may meet the seat belt option of Safety Standard No. 208 found in paragraph S4.3.2. Under S4.3.1, manufacturers do have the option of meeting the crash protection requirements of S5 by means that require no action by vehicle occupants (with current technology this means air cushion restraints or automatic seat belts). Further, vehicles manufactured prior to August 15, 1977, were permitted to comply with Safety Standard No. 216 in lieu of the "rollover" requirements of Standard No. 208, and for large trucks this would have been a simple test to meet. However, since the vehicle would also have been required to meet the "frontal" and "lateral" requirements by automatic means if option S4.3.1 were taken, no truck manufacturers chose to comply with the "rollover" requirements of Standard No. 208 via the Standard No. 216 option. Rather, seat belts were installed on all large trucks.

SINCERELY,

DONALD BOYD & ASSOCIATES, INC. Consulting Engineers

April 22, 1980

Office of Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Re: Roof Structure Crashworthiness Requirements for large commerciales vehicles

Dear Sir:

Based on my review of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards, I have concluded that it is not necessary for manufacturers of large commercial truck tractors to comply with FMVSS roof crash resistance performance standards. However, I would like to get your opinion.

FMVSS 216 relates to passenger cars and, because of the 5,000 pound test load limitation, cannot be expected to apply to large commercial truck tractors which should experience substantially higher forces in most rollovers. Standard number 208; S4.3 applies to "trucks and multipurpose passenger vehicles with GVWR of more than 10,000 pounds" and provides two options for meeting crashworthiness requirements. Realistically, however, it would seem that truck manufacturers should select one of these (the "belt system" option) because the other option (which refers back to 216 and the 5,000-pound load limitation) would not be expected to provide adequate roof structure to resist a 30 mile per hour rollover of a large commercial truck.

Therefore, I have concluded that large commercial truck tractors should be designed to comply with the "belt system" option of FMVSS 208 to provide better occupant protection and, in meeting the requirements of this option, will satisy the occupant crash protection Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards for trucks manufactured prior to August 15, 1977.

I would greatly appreciate a response from you indicating whether my interpretation of these requirements is consistent with that of the Office of the Chief Counsel.

Donald E. Boyd, Ph.D., P.E.

ID: nht80-3.32

DATE: 08/06/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Self Cycle & Marine Distributors

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of July 2, 1980, to Taylor Vinson of this office with respect to a driving lamp that is being used by a number of your customers as a replacement motorcycle headlight. In your opinion the lamp has not been tested for compliance with Federal motorcycle headlamp requirements, and you have asked whether you may continue to sell the item as a driving lamp in spite of the fact "that some customers are utilizing it as a head lamp."

By way of introduction, as you may know, this agency has been in litigation since 1978 over unsealed headlamps that meet European specifications for passenger cars but not the U.S. standards for such lamps. Although they are certified as meeting U.S. requirements for motorcycles only, they are in reality imported and sold as replacement headlamps for passenger cars. Our primary argument in these cases is that the manufacturers of these lamps are legally required to certify compliance with, in the words of the statute, "all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards" which means all standards applicable to any use of which the headlamp is physically capable.

We, therefore, believe that if any lamp is physically capable of replacing a motorcycle headlamp, it should conform and be certified as conforming with SAE J584 incorporated by reference in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. If sales of a noncomplying lamp were actively promoted by the seller to replace a motorcycle headlamp, we could view this as a willful violation of Federal requirements and we would probably engage in appropriate enforcement action.

Your letter implies that the purchasers themselves install the headlamps. This is not a violation of any Federal requirement. But a "manufacturer," "distributor," "dealer," or "motor vehicle repair business" is prohibited by 15 U.S.C. 1597(a)(2)(A) from replacing conforming equipment with a nonconforming item, and liable for a penalty of up to $ 1,000 per item if it does so.

SINCERELY,

Self Cycle & Marine Distributors

July 2, 1980

Taylor Vinson, Esq. Office of Chief Council National Highway Traffice Safety Admin.

Dear Mr. Vinson:

Self Cycle & Marine Distributors currently carries within our product line a driving lamp. To our knowledge, this lamp has never been tested for compliance with SAE J584, however, since this light was intended to be used in addition to a OEM headlight it is exempt from this requirement. However, we have found out that a number of consumers are utilizing this light as a replacement headlight in order to give their motorcycle a "chopper" look. Can we continue to sell this item as a driving lamp to spite the fact that some consumers are utilizing it as a head lamp? Until we have an opinion from your office, we have temporary suspended sales on this item as well as frozen our reorder of this item from Japan. Since large sums of money are at stake, I would appreciate an opinion from your office within ten (10) working days.

Paul D. Wharton Chairman of the Board

(Graphics omitted)

ID: nht81-1.35

DATE: 03/11/81

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: M. Yasui & Company, Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

In reply refer to: NOA-30

Mr. Harry Shirai M. Yasui & Company, Ltd. Togin Building Marunouchi 1-4-2, Chiyodaku Tokyo, Japan

Dear Mr. Shirai:

This responds to your October 17, 1980, letter to this agency in which you requested a clarification regarding the regulations applicable to importing used truck tires into the United States. As I understand from your letter, your company collects used truck tires in Japan and ships them to the United States for retreading. However, the tires you are shipping do not have a DOT number on them, which would represent the tire manufacturers' certification that the tires comply with all applicable U.S. requirements. Some of your U.S. customers have refused further shipment of the tires without DOT numbers, based on their belief that accepting the tires would violate Federal regulations. Your customers are correct in their belief that tires imported into the United States must have a manufacturer's certification that the tires comply with all applicable U.S. requirements. However, this requirement can be satisfied without a DOT number on used tires.

Section 108(a)(1)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, as amended (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(1)(A)), makes it unlawful for any person to import into the United States any item of motor vehicle equipment, including tires, manufactured on or after the date that an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard takes effect, unless the equipment (tire) is in conformity with the standard. Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 119, New Pneumatic Tires for Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars, took effect on March 1, 1975. That standard requires that tires for vehicles other than passenger cars pass certain performance tests (endurance, strength, and high speed performance) and that the manufacturer label the tire with a DOT number to certify that the tire complies with the requirements of the standard. Any tires without a DOT number that were manufactured after March 1, 1975, would not be in compliance with Standard No. 119. Therefore, such tires, could not legally be imported into the United States, as new tires.

However, there are three ways that used tire casings may be legally brought into the United States. The tires must either (1) have a DOT number, (2) be accompanied by proof that they were manufactured before March 1, 1975, or (3) be accompanied by a statement from the original manufacturer that the tires, as originally produced, met the requirements of Standard No. 119. If the tires do not have any of these certifications, the U.S. Customs Service will seize the tires. Should the tires slip through customs without being seized, the retreaders who import the tires into this country are liable for a fine of up to $1,000 for each tire they bring into the country which does not comply with the requirements, according to section 109 of the Traffic Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1398).

Should you need any further information on this matter, please feel free to contact Mr. Stephen Kratzke of my staff.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

ID: nht94-4.26

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: September 8, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Mary B. Falls, Esq. -- Sherrard & Roe, Nashville, TN

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 06/13/94 from Mary B. Falls to Office of General Counsel, NHTSA (OCC 10098)

TEXT: This responds to your request for an interpretation of whether, in replacing stolen vehicle identification number (VIN) plates as prescribed by Tennessee state law, your client, Nissan, would conform to this agency's requirements concerning VINs. The an swer is Nissan would not violate our requirements when it replaces the stolen "VIN plate." However, there may be other aspects of replacing stolen VIN plates that are under the U.S. Department of Justice's law enforcement jurisdiction.

By way of background, Standard No. 115, Vehicle identification number - basic requirements, requires manufacturers to assign a VIN to each motor vehicle, to simplify vehicle information retrieval and to increase the accuracy and efficiency of vehicle rec all campaigns. S4.5 of the standard specifies that VINs shall appear on a permanent part of the vehicle or on a separate label or plate, called the "VIN plate." S4.6 requires the VIN for passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles and trucks of 10,00 0 lbs or less GVWR to be included in the passenger compartment, and manufacturers typically meet S4.6 by placing the VIN plate on the vehicle's dashboard.

Your letter explained that Nissan manufacturers cars and light trucks in Tennessee, and leases these vehicles. Sometimes, the VIN plate in the passenger compartment is stolen from the leased vehicle, but the vehicle is otherwise not tampered with. You stated that:

Section 55-5111 of Tennessee Code Annotated provides that it is a Class C misdemeanor for any person to buy, sell, offer for sale, or possess a motor vehicle from which the manufacturer's serial, engine from which the manufacturer's serial, engine, or transmission number or other distinguishing number or identification mark or number has been removed, defaced, covered, altered, or destroyed. In addition, @ 55-5-112 provides that the owner of an original engine, serial, engine, or transmission, or "o ther number or mark" may restore such number or mark pursuant to a permit issued by the Criminal Investigation Unit of the Tennessee Department of Safety.

You asked whether Nissan, the vehicle owner, would be "in full compliance" with NHTSA's regulations if Nissan replaced stolen VIN plates in accordance with Tennessee law. In response to your question, we note that Standard No. 115 applies only to new mo tor vehicles. In the event a VIN plate is stolen from a leased (i.e., used) motor vehicle, NHTSA has no authority to require that any party replace the VIN plate. Thus, under NHTSA's regulations, if the VIN plate is stolen from a used vehicle, Nissan, the owner, may use its discretion whether to replace the VIN plate.

However, please note that there could be other implications under Federal law about replacing stolen VIN plates. The U.S. Department of Justice has jurisdiction over stolen VIN plates as a law enforcement matter. Therefore, I suggest that you consult w ith the Justice Department about possible Federal law enforcement implications of replacing the stolen VIN plates.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht75-5.48

DATE: 07/03/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; J. C. Schultz; NHTSA

TO: Sheller-Globe Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to Sheller-Globe's June 16, 1975, request for a statement of the requirements for 1976-model multipurpose passenger vehicles (MPV's) specified by Standard No. 208, Occupant crash protection.

Section S4.3 of the standard sets out the requirements for MPV's with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) or more than 10,000 pounds. These requirements are the same in the future as at present.

Section S4.2 sets out the requirements for MPV's with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less (S4.2.1 for vehicles until August 15, 1975, and S4.2.2 for vehicles on or after August 15, 1975 until August 15, 1977). As the standard is presently effective, S4.2.2 will require that most MPV's of 10,000 pounds or less be equipped with the same seat belts and warning systems as presently installed in passenger cars. I have enclosed a copy of those requirements as they were revised October 29, 1974 (40 FR 38380, October 31, 1974). Also enclosed is a Federal Register notice of December 6, 1974, that sets out the associated warning system requirements (40 FR 42692, December 6, 1974). The only MPV's excepted from these requirements are forward control vehicles, convertibles, open-body type vehicles, walk-in van-type trucks, motor homes, and vehicles carrying chassis-mount campers. They will continue to be required to meet the requirements of S4.2.1.2 as presently in effect.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration recently proposed that a manufacturer have the option of meeting the requirements of S4.2.1 or S4.2.2 until January 1, 1976. I enclose a copy of that proposal, which includes a preamble discussion of the reasons for this proposal. A final determination will appear in the Federal Register.

Sincerely,

SHELLER-GLOBE CORPORATION Vehicle Planning and Development Center

June 16, 1975

U.S. Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Attention: Richard B. Dyson Assistant Chief Counsel

Reference: Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 208 - Occupant Crash Protection

There have been so many changes in the referenced safety standard that it is quite possible for an individual to misinterpret its requirements applicable to a motor vehicle.

As you know, Sheller-Globe Corporation manufacturers School Buses, Motor Homes (Recreational Vehicles) and Professional Vehicles (Funeral Coaches and Ambulances). All of these motor vehicles, except School Buses, fall under the definition of Multipurpose Passenger Vehicles.

The manufacturing divisions of Sheller-Globe Corporation have requested of me direction pertinent to how they are required to comply to safety standard 208 for 1976 model year Multipurpose Passenger Vehicles (M.P.V.'s).

The requirement for certain types of M.P.V.'s after December 31, 1975 was what was specified for passenger cars from September 1, 1973 to August 14, 1975 (Paragraph S4.1.2). However, the requirements of that paragraph have been revised or are proposed for revision.

Could you please direct myself and Sheller-Globe Corporation pertinent to the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 208 - Occupant Crash Protection as it will apply to Multipurpose Passenger Vehicles for model year 1976?

Your direction in this matter would be deeply appreciated.

George R. Semark - Manager Vehicle Safety Activities

ID: nht74-5.19

DATE: 02/22/74

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Office of the Attorney General; State of Kansas

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of January 30, 1974, concerning the application of the Federal odometer law to certain automobile operated by the Kansas State Department of Education. The cars in question are equipped with special odometers whose use normally requires the disconnection of the original equipment odometers.

The question posed by the Department of Education is whether this practice violates the Federal law and whether the Department must keep the special odometer in the car when selling it. Our reply is that the Department is not violating the Federal law, and that while it must make certain disclosures when it sells the cars, it need not leave the special odometers installed.

Sections 404 and 405 of the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act (15 U.S.C. 1981) make it unlawful for a person to disconnect an odometer with the intent to change the number of miles it indicates (section 404) and for a person with the intent to defraud to operate a vehicle with an inoperative odometer (section 405).

With respect to section 404, it does not appear that the Department will be changing the indicated mileage. With respect to section 405, it is apparent that the Department has no fraudulent intent in operating the vehicles with the standard odometers disconnected. We therefore find that the Department's practice does not violate the odometer law and may be continued.

We suggest that in executing the disclosure statement required by Section 408 of the Act, the Department should indicate that the indicated mileage is in error. Although section 408 does not

require disclosure of the true mileage, we regard full disclosure to be in the public interest and therefore recommend that the Department also include the true mileage on the disclosure statement. By doing this, it will avoid any appearance of deceptive intent.

YOURS TRULY,

STATE OF KANSAS

Office of the Attorney General

January 30, 1974

Hon. Claude S. Brinegar Secretary of Transportation

Re: Our File No. AC=63-82-3 Kansas State Department of Education Building 120 East Tenth Street Topeka, Kansas 66612 office has been requested to issue an opinion regarding the Kansas State and Federal odometer laws as applied to forty three automobiles assigned to the Kansas State Department of Education. It appears that these automobiles perform a certain function which necessitates removal of the original odometer and substitution of another for precision measurement of mileage.

While we feel most capable of rendering an opinion regarding the Kansas law on the matter, I am requesting your assistance for an opinion based upon the recently enacted federal legislation regarding odometers in motor vehicles. I am enclosing a copy of Dr. Whittier's letter for your reference.

Let me thank you in advance for whatever assistance you can render.

Very truly yours,(Illegible Word) MILLER Attorney General

BY: JOSEPH P. O'SULLIVAN Assistant Attorney General Consumer Protection Division

ID: nht95-1.94

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: March 8, 1995

FROM: Philip R. Recht -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Ken Daining -- Supervisor, Vehicle Test and Development, ITT Automotive

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 8/18/94 LETTER FROM KEN DAINING TO MARVIN SHAW (OCC 10316)

TEXT: This responds to your letter about Federal requirements applicable to an "on/off switch" for antilock brake systems (ABS). I apologize for the delay in our response. You stated that Chrysler Jeep owners disengage their ABS in response to the "perceived degraded performance it offers on off-road situations." You mentioned the possibility of designing a vehicle's gear system so that the ABS function is automatically disengaged when the vehicle is shifted into the four wheel drive-LO configuration. As e xplained below, while both manual and automatic ABS on/off switches are permitted under the current requirements, neither is required.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized under Title 49, Chapter 301 of the U.S. Code to issue FMVSSs that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicl e equipment. NHTSA does not approve or certify any vehicles or items of equipment, as is the practice in Europe. Instead, Chapter 301 establishes a "self-certification" process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its produc ts meet all applicable safety standards.

The agency has used this authority to issue FMVSS No. 105, Hydraulic Brake Systems, which specifies requirements for hydraulic service brake and associated parking brake systems. This Standard does not contain any provision requiring or prohibiting ABS. Likewise, it does not contain any provision requiring or prohibiting either a manual or automatic ABS on/off switch. Accordingly, either type of switch is permitted under the standard, provided the vehicle complies with the standard both when the devi ce is "on" and when the device is "off."

FMVSS No. 105 will continue to apply to multipurpose passenger vehicles (MPVs), notwithstanding the agency's recent adoption of FMVSS No. 135 Hydraulic Brake Systems; Passenger Car Brake Systems, which applies only to passenger car brake systems (60 FR 6 411, February 2, 1995). Even though FMVSS No. 135 does not apply to MPVs, you should be aware that FMVSS No. 135 prohibits passenger cars from being equipped with ABS disabling switches. The agency stated in a July 1991 notice that "such a switch could be left off when the ABS is needed, and that therefore, it would be more likely to be harmful than beneficial." Please note that this prohibition does not become immediately effective, even for passenger cars, since manufacturers can continue to certify compliance to FMVSS No. 105 for five years after FMVSS No. 135 takes effect.

If an automatic or manual ABS on/off switch were installed in a used vehicle, such a device must not "make inoperative" the vehicle's compliance with FMVSS No. 105. Specifically, 49 U.S.C. 30122 prohibits a motor vehicle manufacturer, distributor, deale r or repair business from installing such a device if the installation "makes inoperative" compliance with any safety standard. For instance, if a vehicle could only comply with the stopping distance or other service brake requirements in Standard No. 1 05 when the ABS is activated, then installation of the switch would serve to make inoperative compliance with the safety standard.

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

ID: kane.ztv

Barry C. Kane, Esq.
Miller, Johnson, Snell & Cummiskey, P.L.C.
P.O. Box 306
Grand Rapids, MI 49501-0306

Dear Mr. Kane:

This is in reply to your letters of June 9 and 10, 2003, which asked for an interpretation of terminology in 49 CFR Part 579 and Part 573. These letters were identical, with the exception noted below under the discussion of Section 579.4(d)(2). Your Part 579 questions related both to the reporting obligations under Subpart B pertaining to foreign safety campaigns, and the reporting obligations under Subpart C, the Early Warning Reporting (EWR) requirements. You wrote on behalf of "divers automotive-related clients," including "original equipment manufacturers, as well as first and second tier providers of parts and/or services."

For purposes of EWR, your clients are considered manufacturers of original equipment (OEM) and thus are covered by 49 CFR 579.27. In response to your initial inquiry, if an OEM does not receive a claim or notice of death in any quarterly reporting period, it is not required to report that fact to NHTSA.

Your next question was postulated on the assumption that section 579.27 requires OEMs to report information about injuries allegedly caused by their products. However, that is incorrect. Section 579.27 requires your clients to report "on each incident involving one or more deaths . . . that is identified in a claim . . . or in a notice . . . which notice alleges or proves that the death was caused by a possible defect in the manufacturers . . . equipment" (emphasis added) (if the incident occurred in the United States, the manufacturer must also report the number of injuries, if any). You asked for confirmation "that an incident in which a manufacturers component is involved that did not initiate the sequence of events leading to [a death] has not to be reported because such a component does not meet the definition of involving in 579.27."

We have not defined "involving" and a definition of the term is not required to respond to your question. Whether a component initiated a sequence of events that led to a death (and injury) may be a question of fact or law (e.g., proximate cause) that is not developed or resolved at the time a manufacturer receives a claim or notice about a death. Regardless, if the document received by the OEM meets the definition of "claim" or "notice" and identifies the OEMs equipment with "minimal specificity," as those three terms are defined in Section 579.4(c), the OEM must report to NHTSA in the manner prescribed by Section 579.27.

You have also asked a question about the application of Section 579.4(d)(2)s definition of identical or substantially similar motor vehicle equipment to a hypothetical situation. Equipment sold or in use outside the United States is deemed to be "identical or substantially similar" to equipment sold in the United States if the equipment has "one or more components or systems that are the same, and the component or system performs the same function" in vehicles sold in the United States (Section 579.4(d)(2)). In your hypothetical, identical fasteners would be used in an air-conditioning unit and an alternator. In your letter of June 9, you stated your belief that "`substantial similarity looks at the assembly as a whole and not to the components forming the assembly to determine the similarity unless it is the particular fastener in this example that is the rudimentary cause of the failure in one of the components." However, on June 10, you advanced a modified view of "substantial similarity" and concluded that "all these different assemblies incorporating such fasteners are substantially similar irrespective of whether the cause of the failure is another part of the assembly," and you asked whether your clients are "obliged to report all these assemblies . . . although the cause of the defect is not the fastener."

We addressed these situations in the preamble to the EWR final rule (67 FR 45822 at 45844). With respect to the view in your letter of June 9, we remarked that we read the word "equipment" both as the completed item of motor vehicle equipment and as each individual component that comprises the item. With respect to your modified view of June 10, the Motorcycle Industry Council (MIC) had asked "if the only commonality [in equipment] is a single type of fastener that neither failed nor contributed to the incident, are the components or equipment substantially similar?" We replied that the equipment incorporating the fasteners would be substantially similar for EWR purposes, "unless the claim [or notice] specifically identified a non-common component as the source of the failure" (p. 45844).

With respect to the phrase "sold or offered for sale" as it appears in the definition of "identical or substantially similar," a client has asked you "if the rule covers the situation where an automobile is manufactured outside the United States and has been privately imported by an individual consumer." It is your suggestion that "the rule does not apply to this situation," and that it "is intended to apply to manufacturers who intentionally enter the market in this country rather than low volume imports arranged by private consumers." We understand that this question relates to Smart cars, manufactured by DaimlerChrysler A.G. in Europe. That company does not sell these cars or offer them for sale in the United States, but at some future time they may be imported by a Registered Importer.

Although, as a factual matter, a Smart car sold outside the United States would be identical or substantially similar to a Smart car sold or offered for sale by a person in the United States other than its fabricating manufacturer (e.g., a Registered Importer), we do not intend the rule to impose a reporting obligation upon a manufacturer who is not marketing an identical or substantially similar vehicle in the United States. Thus, the EWR rule does not require DaimlerChrysler to report incidents of deaths outside the United States involving Smart cars, unless and until DaimlerChrysler imports the Smart car into the United States (see definition of "manufacturer," Section 579.4(c)).

You next asked "whether a supplier of parts to OEMs or Tier 1 suppliers is ever required to notify the Administration of the recall under the rule since they do not decide on or carry out a recall themselves, but solely sell their products via the OEMs/Tier 1." Part 579 does not require an OEM to notify NHTSA that a person is conducting a defect notification and remedy campaign on products that incorporate equipment which the OEMs have supplied. Defect reporting obligations arise under another regulation, 49 CFR Part 573, Defect and Noncompliance Responsibility and Reports. In some instances, these obligations apply to, or may be assumed by, OEMs (see Section 573.3).

With respect to the obligation under Section 579.5(b) to provide copies of each communication relating to a customer satisfaction campaign (as defined in Section 579.4(d) to include other terms as well) within five days after the end of each month, you suggest that "this rule only needs compliance when indeed such customer satisfaction campaigns exist." This is correct. We need not be informed that there were no customer satisfaction campaigns in the previous month. It is also your tentative view that "the campaigns need only be reported when there is "communication with two or more of those involved in the distribution chain for the assembly in the U.S." That is incorrect. If a communication is "issued to, or made available to, more than one dealer, distributor, lessor, lessee, other manufacturer, owner or purchaser, in the United States," a copy of the communication must be furnished to us. See Section 579.5(b).

Your last question is "whether we should consider additional rules, statutes, or provisions promulgated by the individual states or whether this rule supercedes individual state requirements." We are unaware of any State requirements that address the same issues as Part 579.

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

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:579
d.8/8/03

ID: nht70-1.35

DATE: 01/26/70

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Francis Armstrong; NHTSA

TO: U.S. Suzuki Motor Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: RE: Request for Interpretations By Suzuki

This is in reply to your letter of October 13, 1969, requesting confirmation of your interpretation of certain Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards and regulations, and further asking whether or not certain other areas of vehicle performance are presently regulated under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (15 U.S.C. 1391 et seq.).

In your letter you state that your request results from the fact that Suzuki is considering the production of a multipurpose passenger vehicle for expert into the United States sometimes in 1970, and attach a sketch of this vehicle. The vehicle represented by the sketch, however, appears to be a truck, and not a multipurpose passenger vehicle. "Multipurpose passenger vehicle" is defined in the regulations (49 CFR 371.3(b)) as a motor vehicle with motive power, except a trailer, designed to carry(Illegible Word) persons or less which is constructed either on a truck chassis or with special features for occasional off-road operation." "Truck" is defined to mean (49 CFR 371.3(b)) "a motor vehicle with motive power, except a trailer, designed primarily for the transportation of property or(Illegible Word) equipment." The distinction between a truck and multipurpose passenger vehicle, therefore, is whether the vehicle is designed primarily to carry persons or property. The sketch you enclose is of a vehicle designed to carry property, and for this reason I have answered your questions with reference only to trucks. Your questions are repeated below, with our replies following them:

Subject No. 1 - Glazing Requirements - Rear Windows

1. "We understand it would be permissible to use a fabric soft top with no rear window if an outside mirror was installed on the right side of the vehicle."

You are correct in saying you may use a fabric soft top with no rear window. Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205 specific glazing materials for use in passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, motorcycles, trucks and buses. It does not require a rear window or the use of glazing material therein. If a rear window is installed, however, the referenced United States of America Standards Institute "American Standard Safety Code for Safety Glazing Materials for Glazing Motor Vehicles Operating on Land Highways," AGA Standard 325.1-1966, July 15, 1955, specifies the types of material which must be used.

There are no National Highway Safety Bureau requirements for mirrors on trucks.

2. "We understand it would be permissible to use a fabric soft top, with an open section in the back, utilizing no installation of glazing material, but just an open area which would permit viewing to the rear using the inside rear view mirror."

Your understanding is correct. As stated before, Standard No. 205 does not require the use of glazing material.

3. "We understand it would be permissible to use a fabric soft top, using a rear window such as found in the tops of convertible automobiles, in which the rear window's composition has utilized a ASA plastic material conforming to 325.1-1966 regulations.

"If this is correct we would appreciate being informed which plastic materials can be utilized."

That is incorrect. The criterion for "a rear window such as found in convertible automobiles" is inappropriate for trucks. The only plastics which may be used in trucks are S4 and S5, rigid plastics, and then only "where other means to afford visibility of the highway" are provided.

4. "We understand it would be permissible to use a fabric soft top, using a rear window such as found in the tops of convertible automobiles, in which the rear window's composition has utilized a ASA safety glass material conforming to 325.1-1966 regulations.

"If this is correct we would appreciate being informed which safety glass materials can be utilized."

As indicated in our comment to number 3 above, the criterion for rear window glazing used in convertible automobiles is inappropriate for trucks. ASA Standard 325.1-1966 allows the use of Items 1, 2, 3, 8, 9, 10, and 11 glass in the rear window of trucks. Item 3 or 9 glass may only be used, however, "where other means to afford visibility of the highway" are provided.

Subject No. 2 - Gross Vehicle Weight

"It is our understanding that, at present, there is no requirement that a manufacturer attach a label to the vehicle stating the gross vehicle weight of . . . [trucks] in the weight category of 2,000 lbs. or less."

Your understanding is correct. The National Highway Safety Bureau does not presently have a requirement for gross vehicle weight labeling.

Subject No. 3 - Fuel Tank Requirements

"It is our understanding again that there is no present Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard retaining to gas tanks on . . . [trucks]. I understand that there may be future standards implemented in the near future regarding this subject."

Your understanding is correct. Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 301, "Fuel Tanks, Fuel Tank Filler(Illegible Word) and Fuel Tank Connection-Passenger Cars", applies to only passenger cars at this time. Docket No. 3-2 (F.R. 14232), currently under consideration, contemplates extending the requirements of Standard No. 301 to multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, buses and motorcycles.

Subject No. 4 - Vehicle Noise Level "It is our understanding that, at the present time, there is no special noise level requirements pertaining to . . . [trucks]. We would appreciate your comments as to any future standard presently under discussion regarding this subject."

Your understanding is correct. There are no Federal requirements or proposals at present concerning vehicle noise level, There are states and municipalities, however, that have requirements concerning this subject.

Subject No. 5 - Speedometer Error

"There are several questions we have regarding this subject.

1. Is there a stipulation regarding allowance of percentage of speedometer error.

2. Would it be considered the manufacturer's responsibility for speedometer error in case the user or person was to change the tire size."

There are presently no Federal requirements concerning speedometers. A substantial speedometer error resulting from a reasonable tire size change might be considered a safety related defect for which the manufacturer would be responsible.

Subject No. 6 - Special Label for Non-Conforming Vehicle Entry Into The United States

"I would like to confirm the following information regarding the placement of a special label to be placed on the inside of the vehicle's windshield so that it is readable from the outside of a vehicle being imported into the United States. This would be placed on a vehicle that does not have the This would be placed on a vehicle that does not have the required Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard items readily attached in their respective place on the vehicle.

"It is my understanding, for instance, that if the outside rear view mirror was not attached to the vehicle, but packaged in a box to prevent damage or pulferage while in transit to the United States, that in such a case a label would be required to be attached to the vehicle stating essentially the following message.

THIS VEHICLES DOES NOT CONFORM TO FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD # 111 BECAUSE THE OUTSIDE REAR VIEW MIRROR HAS NOT BEEN ATTACHED FOR THE CONVENIENCE OF SHIPMENT. THIS VEHICLE WILL BE BROUGHT INTO CONFORMITY BY ATTACHMENT OF THE OUTSIDE REAR VIEW MIRROR BEFORE IT IS OFFERED FOR SALE TO THE FIRST PURCHASER FOR THE PURPOSE OF RESALE.

"If we have interpreted this requirement correctly would you please advise us of the full requirements for this label. It is also our understanding that at the time of importation of these vehicles the importer would be required to submit in duplicate the Federal Highway Administration Form Number HS-7."

Your interpretation of the above is correct. A label such as you have described, used in conjunction with the certification label required in 49 CFR 367, would meet the requirements. Your understanding regarding the HS-7 form is also correct.

We trust this will clarify the situation for you.

ID: 10316

Mr. Ken Daining
Supervisor, Vehicle Test and Development
ITT Automotive
3000 University Drive
Auburn Hills, MI 48326

Dear Mr. Daining:

This responds to your letter about Federal requirements applicable to an "on/off switch" for antilock brake systems (ABS). I apologize for the delay in our response. You stated that Chrysler Jeep owners disengage their ABS in response to the "perceived degraded performance it offers on off-road situations." You mentioned the possibility of designing a vehicle's gear system so that the ABS function is automatically disengaged when the vehicle is shifted into the four wheel drive-LO configuration. As explained below, while both manual and automatic ABS on/off switches are permitted under the current requirements, neither is required.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized under Title 49, Chapter 301 of the U.S. Code to issue FMVSSs that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA does not approve or certify any vehicles or items of equipment, as is the practice in Europe. Instead, Chapter 301 establishes a "self-certification" process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards.

The agency has used this authority to issue FMVSS No. 105, Hydraulic Brake Systems, which specifies requirements for hydraulic service brake and associated parking brake systems. This Standard does not contain any provision requiring or prohibiting ABS. Likewise, it does not contain any provision requiring or prohibiting either a manual or automatic ABS on/off switch. Accordingly, either type of switch is permitted under the standard, provided the vehicle complies with the standard both when the device is "on" and when the device is "off."

FMVSS No. 105 will continue to apply to multipurpose passenger vehicles (MPVs), notwithstanding the agency's recent adoption of FMVSS No. 135 Hydraulic Brake Systems; Passenger Car Brake Systems, which applies only to passenger car brake systems (60 FR 6411, February 2, 1995). Even though FMVSS No. 135 does not apply to MPVs, you should be aware that FMVSS No. 135 prohibits passenger cars from being equipped with ABS disabling switches. The agency stated in a July 1991 notice that "such a switch could be left off when the ABS is needed, and that therefore, it would be more likely to be harmful than beneficial." Please note that this prohibition does not become immediately effective, even for passenger cars, since manufacturers can continue to certify compliance to FMVSS No. 105 for five years after FMVSS No. 135 takes effect.

If an automatic or manual ABS on/off switch were installed in a used vehicle, such a device must not "make inoperative" the vehicle's compliance with FMVSS No. 105. Specifically, 49 U.S.C. 30122 prohibits a motor vehicle manufacturer, distributor, dealer or repair business from installing such a device if the installation "makes inoperative" compliance with any safety standard. For instance, if a vehicle could only comply with the stopping distance or other service brake requirements in Standard No. 105 when the ABS is activated, then installation of the switch would serve to make inoperative compliance with the safety standard.

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

Sincerely,

Philip R. Recht Chief Counsel

ref:105 d:3/8/95