ID: 2630y

Mr. Heracilio R. Prieto
President
Easton Inc.
Road 870, KM 2.6, Palo Seco
Levittown, Puerto Rico 00949

Dear Mr. Prieto:

This responds to your letter asking about the marking and labeling requirements in Standard No. 116, Motor Vehicle Brake Fluids (49 CFR 571.116). You asked whether you could comply with the requirement in Standard No. 116 that each brake fluid container be labeled with a "serial number identifying the packaged lot and date of packaging" by means of a "label notch coding system," which you described as a mechanical device which permanently notches a label. Standard No. 116 does not prohibit the use of a label notch coding system provided that it is not susceptible to being torn. However, any label notch coding system must be permanent and unambiguous, and satisfy all other relevant provisions of the standard.

Section S5.2 of Standard No. 116 sets forth packaging and labeling requirements for brake fluid containers. Section S5.2.2.2 requires each packager of a brake fluid to include information that is either "marked" directly on the container or marked on a label that is "permanently affixed to the container." Section S5.2.2.2(a)-(g) sets forth the specific information that must appear directly on or be labeled on every brake fluid container. Section S5.2.2.2(d) requires that the container be marked with "a serial number identifying the packaged lot and date of packaging."

Information about the label notch coding system enclosed with your letter and samples of your notched labels show that you use the system known as "code-dating," which uses uniquely spaced notches to represent a code that can be translated into a packaging date by means of a "Codedge decoder card." With this number or date represented by notches, the number could be traced by the packager to the packaging date and lot number through its production quality control records. While the "Codedge" system only identifies the year of manufacturing by means of a single digit, your recent letter indicates that an additional notch will be added to identify the decade. With respect to the label notch coding system, if the notches clearly identified the packaged lot and date of packaging, the combination would be a "serial number" and would appear to comply with the requirement of S5.2.2.2(d).

I would also like to note that section 114 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1407) requires every manufacturer to certify that its products comply with all applicable safety standards. For this reason, this agency has no authority to approve, endorse, or offer assurances of compliance with respect to any system of labeling brake fluid containers.

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

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel /ref:116 d:8/27/90

ID: 24157.ztv

Robert G. Mills, Supervisor, Homologation
Triumph Motorcycles, Ltd.
Jacknell Road
Hinckley, Leicestershire LE10 3BS
United Kingdom

Dear Mr. Mills:

This is in reply to your fax of March 14, 2002, asking three questions with respect to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment (FMVSS No. 108). Pursuant to our request, you provided supplemental information on April 17, 2002.

Your questions are:

"1. If an SAE recommended practice that is referenced in FMVSS 108 is revised and updated by SAE, is the latest revision . . . automatically adopted in FMVSS 108? If not, does an earlier dated version remain in the regulation?

SAE materials that are referenced and subreferenced in FMVSS No. 108 are not automatically updated when the SAE revises them, and "earlier dated versions" remain in effect. That is because an SAE update requires an amendment to FMVSS No. 108 in order to be incorporated as a requirement. Under U.S. law, amendments to Federal regulations such as FMVSS No.108 must be proposed for public comment before they can be adopted.

2. You describe a new headlamp design and ask for confirmation of your conclusion that it complies with S7.9.6.2(b) of FMVSS No. 108.

Paragraph S7.9.6.2(b) requires that:

"If the [motorcycle headlamp] system consists of two headlamps, each of which provides both an upper and lower beam, the headlamps shall be mounted either at the same height and symmetrically disposed about the vertical centerline or mounted on the vertical centerline. If the headlamps are horizontally disposed about the vertical centerline, the distance between the closest edges of their effective projected luminous lens areas shall not be greater than 200mm (8 in)."

In your design, there would be "two visibly separate headlights" which would be placed "in one seamless housing," each headlamp providing an upper and lower beam, and each lamp placed symmetrically about the vertical centerline. Further, "[o]n each side, there will be clear cover placed over the outside of the lamp." You believe that this headlamp design is allowable but report that your supplier disagrees. In his view, a headlamp is permitted a maximum of two bulbs, and that use of a single housing effectively creates a four-bulb headlamp which is not permitted.

We evaluated a similar situation in our letter of February 22, 1999, to Tadashi Suzuki of Stanley Electric Co. (copy enclosed). Our letter commented that "it is possible to design a headlamp with a single lens but with separate housings and chambers; this type of design would effectively create two headlamps." However, the supplementary information that you furnished clarifies that the Triumph headlighting system is designed to be installed in a single housing, and that the upper and lower beam headlamps are not separable from the housing. This design differs from that posited by Stanley and, in our opinion, could not be considered a two-lamp headlamp system. As such, the requirements of S7.9.6.2(b) do not apply to this design, and Triumph needs to ensure that this headlamp complies with the requirements of S7.9.6.2(a).

We would like to further comment that a headlamp with four light sources is permitted as a motorcycle headlamp. While there is a limitation on the number of light sources for motor vehicle headlamps, there is no limitation for motorcycle headlamps.

"3. Table IV of FMVSS 108 states that the minimum separation distance between a turn signal and a headlight must be 4 inches. However, since turn signals must comply with the requirements of SAE J588, does the factoring table in SAE J588 apply if we want to mount the turn signals closer to the headlights than 4 inches? If is difficult for us to decide if close mounting of turn signals is permissible as FMVSS [108] appears to preclude mounting turn signals closer than 4 inches yet J588 gives you a possibility to do so."

We were asked this question by BMW in a letter of August 15, 1983, and I enclose a copy of our response to Karl-Heinz Ziwicka. The interpretation remains valid. The minimum spacing requirements established by Table IV between motorcycle headlamps and turn signal lamps must be met, for the reasons expressed in our letter, notwithstanding the fact that SAE J588 NOV84 and its predecessor in effect at that time permit a closer spacing of these lamps if a multiplier is applied to the minimum luminous intensities.

Sincerely,
Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

Enclosures
Ref:108
d.5/24/02

ID: 1992y

Commander
U.S. Army Missile Command
(Mr. Bob Bergman)
ATTN: AMCPM-FM-TM
Redstone Arsenal, Alabama 35898-5793

Dear Commander:

This is in reply to a letter of August 7, l989, from Jerry L. Dooley, Deputy Project Manager, Non-Line of Sight, with respect to "safety standards of the military nature", in particular those that would apply to the M1037 High Mobility Multipurpose Wheel Vehicle (HMMWV), as well as the M993 Bradley Fighting Vehicle System (BFVS).

This agency has jurisdiction over all motor vehicles, defined as vehicles driven or drawn by mechanical power which are manufactured primarily for use on the public roads. Our principal role is the issuance of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards, and the monitoring of the notification and remedial campaigns of manufacturers upon the occurrence of noncompliances with the standards, or safety related defects in vehicles. We have never issued safety standards for military vehicles. Quite the opposite; although we interpret our authority as covering military vehicles, the agency has always specifically exempted from compliance with the standards any motor vehicles manufactured for, and sold directly to, the Armed Forces of the United States in accordance with contractual specifications.

Frequently, military contracts for procurement of vehicles will call for their conformance with the Federal safety standards, when the nature of the vehicle is such (e.g. passenger car, bus) that conformance with the standards is not inconsistent with the configuration required to accomplish their mission. None of our safety standards for civilian vehicles cover driver field of view, basic visibility requirements, or ingress/egress. Our glazing standard does specify minimum levels of light transmittance, and our rearview mirror standard covers rear view mirror placement and rearward field of view. I am enclosing copies of these standards for your information.

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

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosures - Standards Nos. lll, 205

ref: 571.7 d:9/7/89

ID: 2852yy

Mr. William A. Batten
Eaton Corporation
Truck Components Operations
P.O. Box 4013
Kalamazoo, MI 49003

Dear Mr. Batten:

This responds to your letter and telephone conversation with Ms. Fujita of my staff concerning Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 124, Accelerator Control Systems. You asked about the standard's "applicable mileage requirement or time domain" for a truck with a gross vehicle weight rating greater than 10,000 pounds. You informed Ms. Fujita that, stated differently, your question is whether NHTSA requires a used vehicle to continue to meet an FMVSS, and if the answer is yes, for what mileage or amount of time the vehicle must meet the standard.

Generally speaking, the answer is no. NHTSA is authorized by the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Safety Act) to regulate the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. The Safety Act requires a vehicle to comply with applicable FMVSS's until its first purchase in good faith for purposes other than resale.

However, you should be aware that manufacturers, distributors, dealers, or motor vehicle repair businesses modifying a vehicle (new or used) are prohibited by section l08(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act from knowingly rendering inoperative any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle in compliance with an applicable FMVSS. Thus, in the context of Standard No. l24, a person in the aforementioned categories is prohibited from rendering inoperative an accelerator control system that has been installed in compliance with that standard.

In addition, if the in-use deterioration of the performance of a vehicle or one of its components creates a safety risk, it could constitute a safety-related defect. Pursuant to sections l5l-l54 of the Safety Act, manufacturers are required to notify NHTSA and owners of such safety-related defects and to remedy such defects without charge. Thus, if the accelerator control systems on your vehicles deteriorate such that they no longer would comply with Standard No l24 and create an unsafe situation, that could be the basis for a defect determination, even though the vehicles met all applicable safety standards when they were new.

I also note that our sister agency in the Department, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), has operational and equipment requirements for trucks used in interstate commerce. If you are interested in that agency's requirements, you can write to them at the following address:

Office of Motor Carrier Standards Federal Highway Administration 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

I hope this information is helpful.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

/ref:124#VSA d:3/4/9l

ID: nht91-2.7

DATE: March 4, 1991

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: William A. Batten -- Eaton Corporation, Truck Components Operations

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 11-28-90 from William A. Batten to Paul Jackson Rice (OCC 5517)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter and telephone conversation with Ms. Fujita of my staff concerning Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 124, Accelerator Control Systems. You asked about the standard's "applicable mileage requirement or time domain" for a truck with a gross vehicle weight rating greater than 10,000 pounds. You informed Ms. Fujita that, stated differently, your question is whether NHTSA requires a used vehicle to continue to meet an FMVSS, and if the answer is yes, for what mileage or amount of time the vehicle must meet the standard.

Generally speaking, the answer is no. NHTSA is authorized by the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Safety Act) to regulate the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. The Safety Act requires a vehicle to comply with applicable FMVSS's until its first purchase in good faith for purposes other than resale.

However, you should be aware that manufacturers, distributors, dealers, or motor vehicle repair businesses modifying a vehicle (new or used) are prohibited by section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act from knowingly rendering inoperative any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle in compliance with an applicable FMVSS. Thus, in the context of Standard No. 124, a person in the aforementioned categories is prohibited from rendering inoperative an accelerator control system that has been installed in compliance with that standard.

In addition, if the in-use deterioration of the performance of a vehicle or one of its components creates a safety risk, it could constitute a safety-related defect. Pursuant to sections 151-154 of the Safety Act, manufacturers are required to notify NHTSA and owners of such safety-related defects and to remedy such defects without charge. Thus, if the accelerator control systems on your vehicles deteriorate such that they no longer would comply with Standard No 124 and create an unsafe situation, that could be the basis for a defect determination, even though the vehicles met all applicable safety standards when they were new.

I also note that our sister agency in the Department, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), has operational and equipment requirements for trucks used in interstate commerce. If you are interested in that agency's requirements, you can write to them at the following address:

Office of Motor Carrier Standards Federal Highway Administration 400 Seventh Street, S.W.

Washington, D.C. 20590

I hope this information is helpful.

ID: nht87-2.7

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/10/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: David C. Maroon -- The Sentinel Group

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

David C. Maroon The Sentinel Group P.O. BOX 905 Miami, FL 33137-0905

Thank you for your letter to Stephen Oesch of my staff concerning Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials. I regret the delay in our response. You explained that your company represents, on an exclusive basis, a number of different manufacturers of both wind shields and tempered glazing materials for automobiles. You asked whether it is possible to consolidate these different manufacturers "into one identity by using both one DOT number assigned to the Sentinel group as well as one universal logo.: As explai ned below, the answer is yes with regard to using one logo, but no with regard to using one DOT certification number.

S6 of Standard 205 specified certification and marking requirements for manufacturers and distributors of glazing material for use in motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. All glazing material must be marked both with the basic identifying informat ion specified in section 6 of the ANSI standard Z26.1 (as modified by S6.1 of Standard 205) and with a certification that the glazing meets the requirements of all applicable federal motor vehicle safety standards. Different certifications are specified for prime manufacturers and other manufacturers/distributors of glazing material (contained in paragraphs 56.2 through S6.2 of the standard).

Further distinction in certification requirements for prime manufacturers depends on whether the glazing is designed for use in a specific motor vehicle or camper, or whether the glazing is designed to be cut into components for use in motor vehicles or items of motor vehicle equipment. (A prime manufacturer is defined in 56.1 of the Standard as one who fabricates, laminates or tempers the glazing material, as opposed to one who alters or cuts an already manufactured piece of glazing.)

Since you indicate in your letter that the manufacturers you represent make windshields and tempered glazing materials for automobiles, we assume that the glazing is manufactured by the prime manufacturer and is designed for use in a specific motor vehic le or camper. In this case, the S6.2 certification requirements apply, which include marking each piece of glazing material with the symbol DOT and a manufacturer's code mark, assigned by NHTSA.

The purpose of the manufacturer's code mark is to aid the agency in identifying the actual manufacturer of the glazing for the purpose of defect and noncompliance recall campaigns. Accordingly, the agency only issues a code mark to a manufacturer that ac tually fabricates, laminates or tempers glazing material. We have found the code mark to be an effective method to identify the manufacturer for enforcement purposes.

Because of this, the agency is less concerned that the distinctive logo be for the same company as that which the code mark indicates. for example, in a November 7, 1983, letter to the Libby-Owens-Ford Company, the agency stated that so long as the manuf acturer places its DOT code mark on the glazing materials, the tracing and enforcement policies would not be circumvented and the use of another company's logo would now violate Standard No. 205. Accordingly, it is acceptable, if you wish, to have each p rime manufacturer mark its glazing material with its unique code mark and your logo for the Sentinel group, which is used for all of the various manufacturers you represent.

I hope this provides an adequate response to your question.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

October 30, 1986 Stephen Oesch Office of Chief Counsel NHTSA 400 7th Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Mr. Oesch:

Per my telephone conversation with Mr. Harper today, I am writing you to request a legal interpretation of the intent of the DOT number. As relayed to you by Mr. Harper, Sentinel would like to be assigned its own "DOT number". We currently represent, on an exclusive basis, a number of different manufacturers of both windshields and tempered parts for automobiles and would like to know whether it would be possible for us to consolidate into one identity by using both one DOT number assigned to the Sentin el group as well as one universal logo.

Please advise us as to whether this would be possible at your earliest convenience.

Thanking you in advance for your cooperation,

Sincerely,

DAVID C. MAROON

ID: nht76-2.43

DATE: 07/15/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Department of California Highway Patrol

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of June 22, 1976, asking for interpretations of Motor Vehicle Safety Standards Nos. 108 and 205.

Paragraph S4.3.1 of Standard No. 108 requires, as you noted, that lamps and reflective devices be securely mounted on a rigid part of the vehicle. You asked "whether or not flexible mount clearance and sidemarker lamps should be permitted for use on motor vehicles." Your question appears directed towards replacement equipment. The answer is that California may regulate mounts for replacement lighting equipment in the manner it deems appropriate. S4.3.1 applies to the mounting of lighting equipment on new motor vehicles, and does not establish a specification for replacement equipment mounts. The replacement clearance and sidemarker lamps themselves are, of course, subject to Standard No. 108.

You also asked whether there was a provision in Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials, that would exempt "Item 3" [AS 3] glazing (to be used for glass partitions and rear side windows of van-type vehicles) from the requirements of ANS Z26 Tests Nos. 1 and 18.

The answer to your question is no. Paragraph S5.1.1 of Standard No. 205 specifies that glazing materials for use in motor vehicles shall conform to the requirements of ANS Z26. The ANS Z26 specifications require "Item 3" glazing materials to comply with Test No. 1, "Light Stability," and Test No. 18, "Abrasion Resistance," regardless of where the "Item 3" glazing is to be used in the vehicle. Thus, there is no provision by which manufacturers of such glazing may be exempted from the test requirements.

SINCERELY,

DEPARTMENT OF CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL

June 22, 1976

File No.: 61.A2781.A3107

James C. Schultz Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

We would appreciate your interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards Nos. 108 and 205 with regard to the following situations:

1. FMVSS No. 108, Section S4.3.1 requires, in part, that lamps and reflective devices be securely mounted on a rigid part of the vehicle. For several years, clearance or sidemarker lamps have been available which have a rubber strap between the mounting plate and the lamp housing that allows the lamp great freedom of movement when attached to "a rigid part of the vehicle".

Each of the lamps we have examined has a small degree of rotation between the mounting plate and the lamp. In addition, when the mounting plate is held against an appropriate mounting surface, the lamp axis is neither parallel nor perpendicular to the planes normally associated with lamp orientation. When a truck with this type of lamp installed is in motion, the wind currents cause the orientation of the clearance lamps to be further distorted and the ones used for the sidemarker function are in constant motion.

We assume that the intent of the regulation is to ensure that the device will maintain a fixed orientation. Since this lamp cannot comply with that requirement, we request your opinion as to whether or not flexible-mount clearance and sidemarker lamps should be permitted to be sold for use on motor vehicles.

2. Due to the increasing popularity of glass partitions in van-type vehicles, we have received many requests for our approval of AS-3 glazing manufactured with one or both sides textured to render it translucent or with designs etched or sand-blasted upon it. This glazing is also used in the rear side windows of vans and bathroom windows in buses and recreation vehicles. Several of the manufacturers have asked to have this type of glazing exempted from ANSI Test Number 18, Abrasion Resistance, because such resistance has no safety value in this application.

Since the purpose of the abrasion test is to ensure that the driver will have an undisturbed view in the areas requisite for driving visibility, it appears unreasonable to require Tests Nos. 1 and 18 to be performed on glazing that is not used for driving visibility. We would like to know if there is a provision which would allow these manufacturers to be exempt from these tests for this type of glazing.

WARREN M. HEATH Commander Engineering Section

CC: AAMVA; VESC

ID: 1985-02.27

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 05/13/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Jeffrey R. Miller; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Robert L. Hart

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of February 11, 1985, to former Chief Counsel Frank Berndt asking for an interpretation that a combination stop lamp-rear view mirror you have intended would be permissible under paragraph S4.4.1 of Standard No. 108.

That paragraph precludes combining a center high-mounted stop lamp with any other lamp or reflective device. You have concluded that the prohibition applies only to passenger cars manufactured after September 1, 1985, "and does not prohibit application of my device to vehicles manufactured prior to the effective date of the mandate."

Actually, S4.4.1 does not apply to your device at all. The lamp established by the standard is one that is mounted on the vertical centerline of the vehicle, at or near the rear window with no relationship to the forward left side of the vehicle where your combination lamp-mirror would be located. Standard No. 108 does contain in paragraph S4.1.3 a prohibition against additional lighting devices that impair the effectiveness of the lighting equipment required by the standard. But on the basis of the facts as you have presented them to us, we cannot say that impairment would exist. We therefore conclude that your device is not prohibited by Standard No. 108 as either original or replacement equipment on any motor vehicle.

However, Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 111, Rearview Mirrors, does relate to your device. Passenger cars are required to be equipped with an outside rear view mirror on the driver's side; under paragraph S5.2.2 ". . . neither the mirror nor the mounting shall protrude farther than the widest part of the vehicle body except to the extent necessary to produce a field of view meeting or exceeding the requirements of S5.2.1." Some of your designs show the lamp portion at the left end of the device's housing resulting in a wider unit than one incorporating a mirror alone. We recommend that you re-examine these designs with paragraph S5.2.2 in mind, relocating the lamp to the area either above or below that of the mirror surface if you conclude that the combination mounting would not comply with Standard No. 111.

There is no similar mounting requirement for driver's side mirrors on vehicles other than passenger cars, and your designs for mirrors on these vehicles would appear permissible under Standard No. 111.

Sincerely,

February 11, 1985

Frank Berndt Office of the Chief Counsel U.S. Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Subject: Petition for Rulemaking

Dear Mr. Berndt:

This letter is to request an amendment to FMVSS No. 108: Lamps, reflective devices and associated equipment. I reference specifically, S4.4.1 of 571.108, pp243 of the Federal Register, 1984: . . . and no high mounted stop lamp shall be combined with any other lamp or reflective device.

The purpose of my petition is to obtain clearance to pursue technical and commercial development of my invention - Side Mounted Rear View Mirror with Brake Light/Wide Vue Brake Light - (on which I have a patent pending) for OEM as well as aftermarket merchandising. My interpretation of the new standard is that the high mounted lamp relates specifically to new passenger vehicles manufactured on or after September 1, 1985, and does not prohibit application of my device to vehicles manufactured prior to the effective date of the mandate.

Although functional testing of the Wide Vue Brake Light has not been concluded, my instincts and observations, and those of consultants who are assisting me, give rise to the belief that my device will be more effective than (and an auxilliary to) the high mounted lamp in terms of reducing rear end collisions, especially in highway traffic patterns where chain reaction collisions are most likely to occur.

My invention is designed to be applicable to all roadway motorized vehicles, and is, therefore, more effective than the high mounted stop lamp which is applicable only to passenger vehicles. A most important design feature of my device is that the light is recessed and, therefore, is not within view of the primary driver; i.e., it can be seen by trailing drivers only and cannot distract the primary driver.

The attached materials, including technical drawing and illustrations and a narrative research summary by Invention Marketing, Inc., present reasons why the Wide Vue Brake Light is more effective.

I should appreciate your favorable review of my petition and removal/revision of the restriction encompassed in S4.4.1 of 571.108, in order that I may approach vehicle manufacturers relative to possible inclusion of my invention in new vehicles after the 1986 model year.

Please contact me for clarifications or answers to questions regarding my invention.

Rxobert L. Hart

Enclosures Omitted.

ID: GF001069

Michael Price, Project Manager
Mobilized Systems, Inc.
1032 Seabrook Way
Cincinnati, OH 45245

Dear Mr. Price:

This responds to your February 10, 2004, e-mail and subsequent phone communications with George Feygin of my staff, regarding certain U.S. Military Trailers that are being shipped to the United States from Europe for repairs. Specifically, you ask whether these trailers must comply with applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) while they are in transit on U.S. highways from the seaport of entry to the repair facility in Cincinnati Ohio, and back to the seaport.

By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) administers Federal requirements for the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles and certain items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA issues FMVSS applicable to new vehicles and equipment (49 CFR Part 571). Chapter 301 of Title 49 of the United States Code, "Motor Vehicle Safety" (49 U.S.C. 30101 et seq.), establishes a certification process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable FMVSS.

49 CFR 571.7(c) provides that "no standard applies to a vehicle or item of equipment manufactured for, and sold directly to, the Armed Forces of the United States in conformity with contractual specifications."  [Emphasis added]

In the present case, youve indicated that the trailers were designed and manufactured as military command posts and sold directly to the military in conformance with specific contractual specifications. Accordingly, the trailers in question are exempt from applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards.

Even if the trailers were not manufactured for, and sold directly to the military, they could be operated on public roads in the United States without being brought into conformity with all applicable FMVSS. While 49 U.S.C. 30112(a) prohibits the

introduction into interstate commerce of a motor vehicle that does not conform to all applicable FMVSS, Section 30112(b)(3) exempts from this prohibition "a motor vehicle intended only for export, labeled for export on the vehicle . . . and on the outside or any container or the vehicle . . . and exported." Accordingly, so long as the trailers are labeled "for export only," they could be operated on U.S. roads from the seaport to the repair facility and back without having to be brought into compliance with all applicable FMVSS.

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

ref:224
d.3/23/04

ID: nht90-3.68

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: August 27, 1990

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Heracilio R. Prieto -- President, Easton Inc.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 3-22-89 from H.R. Prieto to E. Jones (OCC 3378); Also attached to literature entitled Codedge Label Dating Machine (text omitted)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter asking about the marking and labeling requirements in Standard No. 116, Motor Vehicle Brake Fluids (49 CFR 571.116). You asked whether you could comply with the requirement in Standard No. 116 that each brake fluid container be labeled with a "serial number identifying the packaged lot and date of packaging" by means of a "label notch coding system," which you described as a mechanical device which permanently notches a label. Standard No. 116 does not prohibit the use of a label notch coding system provided that it is not susceptible to being torn. However, any label notch coding system must be permanent and unambiguous, and satisfy all other relevant provisions of the standard.

Section S5.2 of Standard No. 116 sets forth packaging and labeling requirements for brake fluid containers. Section S5.2.2.2 requires each packager of a brake fluid to include information that is either "marked" directly on the container or marked on a label that is "permanently affixed to the container." Section S5.2.2.2(a)-(g) sets forth the specific information that must appear directly on or be labeled on every brake fluid container. Section S5.2.2.2(d) requires that the container be marked with "a serial number identifying the packaged lot and date of packaging."

Information about the label notch coding system enclosed with your letter and samples of your notched labels show that you use the system known as "code-dating," which uses uniquely spaced notches to represent a code that can be translated into a packagi ng date by means of a "Codedge decoder card." With this number or date represented by notches, tbe number could be traced by the packager to the packaging date and lot number through its production quality control records. While the "Codedge" system on ly identifies the year of manufacturing by means of a single digit, your recent letter indicates that an additional notch will be added to identify the decade.

With respect to the label notch coding system, if the notches clearly identified the packaged lot and date of packaging, the combination would be a "serial number" and would appear to comply with the requirement of S5.2.2.2(d).

I would also like to note that section 114 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1407) requires every manufacturer to certify that its products comply with all applicable safety standards. For this reason, this agency has no au thority to approve, endorse, or offer assurances of compliance with respect to any system of labeling brake

fluid containers.

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