ID: 05-008127drn

Herr Franz Horneffer
ZF Getriebe GmbH
Postfach 25 67
D-88015 Friedrichshafen
GERMANY




Dear Herr Horneffer:

This responds to your request for our legal opinion whether the Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) require that passenger cars with automatic transmissions must have a parking brake. The answer is that all passenger cars must have a parking brake. Thus, passenger cars with automatic transmissions must have a parking brake.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized to issue FMVSSs, which apply to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment manufactured for sale, sold, offered for sale, introduced or delivered for introduction in interstate commerce or imported into, the United States of America. (See Title 49 of the United States Code Section 30112.)NHTSA does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Instead, manufacturers are required to certify that their vehicles and equipment meet applicable standards.

The answer to your question is found in FMVSS No. 135, Light Vehicle Brake Systems. FMVSS No. 135 applies to passenger cars manufactured on or after September 1, 2000. (See S3. Application.)Equipment requirements are specified at S5. of FMVSS No. 135. Parking brake systems are addressed at S5.2, which states:

Each vehicle shall be equipped with a parking brake system of a friction type with solely mechanical means to retain engagement.

The requirement for "each vehicle to be equipped with a parking brake system" means that passenger cars with automatic transmissions must have a parking brake.

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

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Wood
Acting Chief Counsel

ref:102#135
d.11/3/05

ID: 23642ogm

Albert G. Hayeck, Esq.
75 Bowker Street
Worcester, MA 01604





Dear Mr. Hayeck:

This responds to your letter seeking information about the labeling requirements in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 218, Motorcycle Helmets (49 CFR 571.218). Your letter correctly notes that section S5.6.1 of Standard No. 218 requires that motorcycle helmets be permanently labeled with a "DOT" mark as a certification that the helmet complies with Standard No. 218. Your review of Standard No. 218 indicates that the Standard does not prohibit owners of helmets from removing or obscuring the "DOT" certification mark. You ask if removing or covering the "DOT" certification mark is lawful.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has the authority under Chapter 301 of Title 49, U.S. Code, to establish Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment, including motorcycle helmets. This statute requires each person manufacturing, selling, or offering for sale any new vehicle, or item of equipment, covered by an FMVSS, to ensure that the new vehicle or equipment item is certified as meeting all applicable FMVSSs.

The "DOT" certification mark and other required labels provide important information regarding the helmet, including the fact that the manufacturer has certified that the helmet meets Standard No. 218. Section S5.6.1 of the Standard requires that each helmet be permanently and legibly labeled with certain warnings, identifying information, size, and the DOT certification mark. Any helmet intended for highway use, must, at the time of sale, be permanently marked as directed by S5.6.1. Our agency requires permanent marking of these items because we believe this information is needed for the life of the helmet.

After the first sale of the helmet to a consumer, Federal law does not impose any obligation on users of the helmet to maintain it in its original state of compliance. Thus, a consumer may remove or obscure the "DOT" marking without violating Federal law. However, removing or obscuring the certification mark or otherwise modifying the helmet to degrade its performance may have an impact on the user under state laws requiring the use of compliant helmets.

Section 30122(b) of Title 49 of the United States Code, 49 U.S.C. 30122(b), provides that manufacturers, distributors, dealers, or repair businesses may not knowingly make inoperative any part of a device or element of design installed in a vehicle or item of equipment under applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. In this case, the label on motorcycle helmets is a device or element of design installed on the helmet in compliance with Standard No. 218. If a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair business removed that label, then those entities would be rendering the label inoperative, in violation of Federal law. While individual owners of motorcycle helmets are not subject to the "make inoperative" requirement, we urge owners of helmets not to degrade the safety of the equipment.

The individual States are free to establish requirements for the use of motorcycle helmets, including a requirement that helmets used on state highways comply with Standard No. 218. States can prohibit an owner from removing or covering the label or impose sanctions for the use of an unlabeled helmet.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions or need some more information on this subject, please do not hesitate to contact Mr. Otto Matheke of my staff at this address, or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel

ref:218
d.3/14/02

ID: 2660o

Mr. M. Arisaka
Manager, Automotive Lighting
Engineering Dept.
Stanley Electric Co. Ltd.
2-9-13, Nakameguro, Meguro-ku
Tokyo 153
JAPAN

Dear Mr. Arisaka:

This is in reply to your letter of September 23, 1987, with respect to daytime running lamps (DRLs).

With reference to the Canadian proposal on this subject, you have noted that it would allow optically combining the DRL with the parking lamp, using dual intensity bulbs within the same housing and covered by the same lens. (As you may be aware, the Canadian government recently issued a final rule which adopted the proposal). You have further noted that the maximum candela output of the parking lamp together with the candela of the DRL will be greater than the maximum permitted for the parking lamp. You believe that under this circumstance the parking lamp does not have to conform to the maximum values specified, and have asked for our opinion of this matter.

Under the proposal by the United States, a DRL would have to be a lamp other than a parking lamp (proposed new paragraph S4.6.3(a)), because their brightness is inadequate for use as DRLs. However, the DRL could be incorporated into a multiple function lamp, one of whose functions is to serve as a parking lamp. A lamp with multiple functions must meet all requirements that apply when a specific function is being fulfilled. For example, a lamp that functions both as a parking lamp and a DRL and which is operated in daylight could act as either a DRL or a parking lamp, depending on the intensity of the light emitted, but it would have to meet the photometric requirements for the function being exercised. We cannot really be more specific in answering your questions, because we are still at the proposal stage of the rulemaking process. The final decision could differ.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel ref:108 d:2/19/88

ID: 21387.ztv

Mr. Dennis G. Moore
President
Sierra Products, Inc.
1113 Greenville Road
Livermore, CA 94550

Dear Mr. Moore:

This is in reply to your letter of March 2, 2000, to Taylor Vinson of this Office.

As you are aware, Mark Rodgers of American Products Company (APC) was informed in a telephone conversation with an engineer from the Office of Safety Performance Standards that it appeared that the company's All Clear replacement rear vehicle lighting assemblies (which they import from China) are illegal did not comply with our safety standard and therefore could not legally be sold as replacement equipment, even though they were being advertised "For Off Road Use Only." You approve of this but have asked three questions:

"1. As I understand the 1966 Vehicle Safety Act . . . Rulemaking Standards have a right and a legal obligation to the American Public to decree these kind of lights as "Illegal" . . . True?"

Pursuant to its authority under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has promulgated a Federal motor vehicle safety standard that requires replacement lighting equipment to comply with the same requirements as are applicable to the original equipment that it replaces (see S5.8.1 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108). If the replacement lighting equipment fails to comply, it may not be sold and the manufacturer (defined to include the importer) of the equipment must make a determination of noncompliance and inform us of that fact, and then notify purchasers and remedy the noncompliance. If the manufacturer fails to make such a determination, NHTSA may make the determination instead and order the manufacturer to notify and remedy.

"2. Without a printed Legal interpretation on this matter somewhere in Accessible Public Files . . . who is going to know of this decision. Therefore, why hasn't this action been publicly printed for all concerned to read?"

As required by 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301 and by 49 CFR Part 573, APC filed a Noncompliance Information Report with us on November 12, 1999 covering clear taillamp lenses that it had imported. The Recall Campaign Number is 99E-039. All Part 573 Reports are available to the public in NHTSA's Technical Reference section, and all recalls are tracked on the agency's internet Website, at http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/cars/problems/recalls.

In addition, we have responded to a request from a law enforcement officer in Arizona for an interpretation on the law on replacement taillamp lenses that are marked as intended for -off road. I enclose a copy for your information.

"3. Under what circumstances will NHTSA continue to decree Obviously "Non-Compliant", or "Confusing," or "Distracting" Lighting products as "illegal" for O.E.M. use by U.S. Vehicle Manufacturers, or for U.S. Aftermarket Sales . . . for the Replacement of Originally Mandated Lights?"

Standard No. 108 will continue to require replacement taillamp lenses and side and rear reflex reflectors to be red, and we foresee no circumstances under which we will change that requirement.

You have asked that we post your letter and our reply on NHTSA's website "so readers can compare my questions with your answers." As I indicated in response to your second question, it is our practice to post copies of our interpretations on our website. This letter repeats the questions you have asked, and it will be posted shortly after I have signed it.

I hope that this answers your questions.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
Enclosure
ref:108
d.4/21/2000

ID: 86-4.38

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/08/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Robert G. Russell

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Robert G. Russell, Acting Director Division of School Traffic Safety and Emergency Planning Indiana Department of Education Room 229 Indianapolis, IN 46204-2798

Dear Mr. Russell:

This responds to your letter asking about NHTSA's regulations for school buses and the relationship between State and Federal school bus definitions and regulations. I regret the delay in responding to your letter.

According to your letter, Indiana distinguishes "special purpose buses from "school buses." Under your State's law, "school buses" are defined as motor vehicles, other than special purpose buses, designed for more than 10 passengers and used to transport school children. "Special purpose buses" are motor vehicles accommodating more than six passenger; used by schools to transport handicapped students to special programs, or school children and supervisors to extracurricular school activities. Special purpose buses are prohibited from being used on a regular basis to carry students between their residences and schools and are not required to meet any State identification, construction or equipment standards for school buses.

You asked whether Indiana's definitions of "school buses" and "special purpose buses" conflict with our school bus definition, and how Federal law might preempt State law in this matter.

To begin, it is important to keep in mind how State and Federal school bus definitions and regulations differ in their application. She standards we have issued under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act apply to vehicles according to our motor vehicle type classifications regardless of the classifications used by the various states. Our safety standards apply to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles, including school buses. Our regulatory definitions, set forth in 49 CFR Part 571.3, define a "school bus" as a motor vehicle designed to carry 10 or more passengers plus a driver, sold for purpose; that include carrying students to or from school or related events. Our definitions do not include one for "special purpose buses." A vehicle that is designed to carry 10 or more passengers and meets the Indiana definition of "special purpose buses" is considered a "school bus" under Federal law since it is intended for pupil transportation, not-withstanding its exclusion from Indiana's school bus definition.

Therefore, each person selling l0-passenger or larger "special purpose buses" is required under the Vehicle Safety Act to ensure that those vehicles are certified school buses. Violation of this Federal requirement by sellers of new school buses is punishable by civil penalties of up to 81,000. The requirement applies to new school bus sellers regardless of whether a vehicle is considered a "school bus" under the laws of a particular State.

Further, the preemption provisions in section 103(d) of the Vehicle Safety Act are not limited in their effect by the fact that this agency's classification of a vehicle differs from that of one or more of the States. Regardless of how Indiana classifies a vehicle, Indiana may not apply to that vehicle standards which cover the same aspects of performance as Federal standards but are not identical to the Federal standards. The only exception is a State may set higher standards of performance for vehicles procured for the State's own use.

A State's definition of a "school bus" is, of course, determinative of the application of State requirements to the operation of school buses, such as inspection, maintenance and identification requirements. appears that the provision in Indiana's definitions that special purpose buses are not "school buses" excludes those vehicles from the application of Indiana' school bus operational requirement. While Indiana is responsible for determining requirements for vehicles operating in that State, NHTSA recommends that each State consider carefully setting operational requirements for all vehicles used to carry school children. Recommendations for specific aspects of States' pupil transportation programs have been issued in Highway Safety Program Standard No. 17, Pupil Transportation Safety (copy enclosed), which was promulgated by NHTSA under the Highway Safety Act in connection with the Federal funding of State highway safety programs. While not required to do so, individual States have chosen to adopt some or all of Program Standard No. 17's recommendations and Indiana might want to consider then for their special purpose buses.

You asked whether schools are permitted at any time under Federal law to transport school children to or from school related activities in a vehicle other than a school bus. Strictly speaking, the answer is yes, for two reasons. This is because, first, the requirements of the Vehicle Safety Act apply to new school bus manufacturers and sellers, and not to school bus users. Therefore, we cannot prohibit schools from using noncomplying buses to transport children although we do prohibit the manufacture and sale of new noncomplying school buses. Second, manufacturers and dealers are required to sell complying school buses only if they sell new buses for pupil transportation purposes. Other types of vehicles, for example "multi-purpose passenger vehicles" (vehicles constructed on truck chassis which carry nine or fewer passengers), may be sold to carry school children to school or school-related events.

I hope this information is helpful. Please contact my office if you have any further questions.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Enclosure

April 10, 1986

Chief Counsel Office Erika, Z. Jones NHTSA Room 5219 400 7th Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Ms. Jones:

F/Sgt. Michael Smith of the Indiana State Police and myself spoke with a member of your staff last week in reference to an Indiana law which appears to be in conflict with federal law. Ms. Deirdre Hom was very helpful to us and suggested we write your office for a response.

Indiana enacted a law in 1981 which established a "special purpose bus". By definition, (see page 1 of enclosed statutes), a "special purpose bus means any motor vehicle designed and constructed for the accommodation of more than six (6) passengers, and used by a school corporation for transportation purposes not appropriate for school buses." This type of vehicle is not required to meet any construction or equipment standards in the State. It is only required to be inspected by the State Police once a year. (page 18 IC 20-9.1-4-5)

Page 21 of the enclosure explains the uses of the special purpose buses (IC 20-9.1-5-2.6). They may not be used to provide regular transportation of school children. However, they may be used to transport children and their supervisors, coaches, managers, and sponsors to athletic events, field trips, and other school related activities. Also, these types of vehicles may be used to transport persons enrolled in special education programs for developmentally disabled or physically handicapped persons.

Indiana's definition of a school bus (page 1) is, "any motor vehicle other than a special purpose bus, designed and constructed for the accommodation of more than ten (10) passengers, which is used for the transportation of Indiana school children. The term includes either the chassis or the body or both the chassis and the body." This definition seems to be significantly used for the purpose of transporting primary, pre-primary, or secondary school students to or from such school or events related to such schools."

Further, federal law has established Motor Vehicle Safety Standards in 15 USCS Section 13???. Paragraph d states, "Supremacy of Federal standards; allowable higher standards for vehicles used by Federal or state governments. Whenever a Federal motor vehicle safety standard established under this title is in effect, no State or political subdivision of a State shall have any authority either to establish, or to continue in effect, with respect to any motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment, any safety standard applicable to the same aspect of performance of such vehicle or item of equipment which is not identical to the Federal standard . . . etc."

Based on the information previously mentioned, is Indiana's law on special purpose buses and school buses in conflict with Federal law? What recommendations or advice do you give other states regarding this issue? Is it permissible at any time, to transport school children to or from school related activities in a vehicle other than a school bus by schools?

Your written comments and recommendations to these questions would be appreciated. If further information is needed, please call or write this office at your convenience. Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,

Robert G. Russell, Acting Director Division of School Traffic Safety/Emergency Planning

RGR/tlg

Enc.

ID: nht87-2.33

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/09/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Richard F. Anderson

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Richard F. Anderson Regional Manager Phoenix Products Company, Inc. 4715 North 27th Street Milwaukee, WI 53209

Dear Mr. Anderson:

This is in reply to your letter of May 20, 1987, with respect to the acceptability of stroboscopic lighting as a supplement to the center high-mounted stop lamp. This lamp, or a series of lamps, would operate only under "panic" conditions, when the opera tor exerts higher than normal pedal pressure. You envision both OEM and aftermarket applications.

The acceptability of supplemental lighting equipment is determinable under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 as amended and Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment, which i s issued under its authority. Standard No. 108 is primarily concerned with the lighting equipment that it mandates as original equipment for motor vehicles, and replacement equipment for those items. Supplemental stroboscopic lamps are not covered by the standard, but as original equipment is nevertheless subject to several restrictions. A lamp that is not covered by Standard No. 108 is permissible if it does not impair the effectiveness of lighting equipment required by the standard. (Paragraph S4.1.3. ) We offer no opinion whether a stroboscopic panic light would impair the effectiveness of a vehicle's stop lamp system. However, all passenger car lamps except turn signals and hazard warning signals (and headlamps and side marker lamps when used for si gnaling) must be steady-burning when in use. (S4.5.11) Since the strobe lamp is a pulsing one, it would therefore not be acceptable as original equipment.

Once a vehicle has been sold to its initial purchaser, the safety standards no longer apply. The only restriction that pertains to it is that any modification performed by a manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or motor vehicle repair business must not ren der inoperative in whole or in part any device or element of design installed pursuant to a Federal motor vehicle safety standard. As your strobe design would not appear to interfere with the operation of the center high-mounted stop lamp, it does not ap pear to violate this restriction. However, aftermarket equipment of this nature would be subject to the laws of the individual States in which the device is sold and/or used. We are unable to advise you of State laws, and suggest you contact for further advice the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators (AAMVA), 1201 Connecticut Ave., N.W., Washington, D.C.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

May 20, 1987

Ms. Erika Jones, Chief Counsel NHTSA Room 5219 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Ms. Jones:

This is written subsequent to a telephone discussion this date with Atty. Taylor Vinson, of your office.

Our company is a manufacturer of lighting products, and at the present, is in a particularly aggressive mode in search of new products to serve both existing and new markets.

I have offered a new product suggestion which would apply to automotive crash avoidance: the suggestion provides for one or more (I visualize three) stroboscopic lights that could be placed adjacent or surrounding the third brake light mounted at the rea r window ("Elizabeth Dole light").

The stroboscopic light (or lights) would not operate under normal braking conditions, but would operate only under "panic" conditions when the operator exerts higher than normal pedal pressure. Such pressure would activate a switch, which in turn, would fire the stroboscopic light(s), thereby providing an additional and attention-drawing warning.

Ms. Jones, my purpose in writing on this subject is that we would appreciate a determination that my suggestion would evolve into a product in conformance with any federal regulations that may exist relative to personal and commercial transportation.

If we learn from your office that the product is within legal limits, we would went to offer the product to both OEM and aftermarkets.

We will appreciate your guidance.

Sincerely,

Richard F. Anderson Regional Manager

ID: 23014.ztv

Mr. Benjamin J. Freeman
1715 Aberdeen Avenue
Aberdeen, WA 98520





Dear Mr. Freeman:

This is in reply to your letter of March 30, 2001, with further questions following my letter to you of February 26, 2001.

Your first question is which of the current Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) apply to "light duty trucks" and "MPVs." You state that you have "the full FMVSS text." You will find your answer in the text. Each FMVSS has an applicability paragraph, either S2 or S3. This paragraph identifies the types of vehicles to which that particular FMVSS applies. We have no definition or category of "light duty truck," therefore we have no list that could help you. The category "truck" includes both light and heavy duty vehicles. However, some FMVSS that apply to "trucks" may only apply to trucks at and below a specified Gross Vehicle Weight Rating (GVWR) (for example, S2 of FMVSS No. 225, "Child Restraint Anchorage Systems," applies the standard to trucks and multipurpose passenger vehicles with a GVWR of 3,855 kg (8,500 lbs.) or less).

Your next question is whether a noncomplying vehicle, manufactured in 1989 before the effective date of the registered importer requirements, January 31, 1990, may be imported without using a registered importer. The answer is no; the importation regulations (49 CFR Part 591), effective that date, require all motor vehicles less than 25 years old that are not certified by their manufacturer as complying with all applicable FMVSS and that are imported for personal use to be imported pursuant to a contract with a registered importer to bring the vehicle into conformance and to certify that conformance to NHTSA. We regret that you have been unable to come to an agreement with any of the registered importers that you have contacted.

Sincerely,

John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel

ref:591
d.5/10/01

ID: nht74-1.8

DATE: 10/16/74

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; R. B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Volkswagen of America, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

OCT 16 1974 NOA-30 (ZTV)

Mr. Joseph W. Kennebeck, Manager Emissions, Safety & Development Volkswagen of America, Inc. Englewood Cliffs, N. J. 07632

Dear Mr. Kennebeck:

This is in reply to your letter of September 24, 1974. You informed us that Volkswagen intends to introduce a new model, the Rabbit, in January 1975 that meets all requirements of Standard No.105-75 except S5.3.1.(b), requiring a brake fluid reservoir capacity indicator, which it will meet as of September 1, 1975. You also informed us that "one version of the Rabbit which meets FMVSS 105-75 exceeds the currently required preburnish check permissible pedal force." You therefore asked for an "interpretation of whether the Volkswagen Rabbit could comply with FMVSS 105-75 except for S5.3.1.(b) prior to September 1975, in lieu of complying with FMVSS 105 in effect up to that time."

In our view, the fact that the Rabbit exceeds the maximum specified preburnish check pedal force does not by itself indicate a failure to comply with existing Standard No. 105. Paragraph S4.1 of Standard No. 105 requires the performance ability of a passenger car service brake system to be "not less than that described in Section D of Society of Automotive Engineers Recommended Practice J937, 'Service Brake System Performance Requirements - Passenger Cars', June 1966." and tested in accordance with SAE Recommended Practice J843c, 'Brake System Road Test Code - Passenger Cars', June 1966." Section D of J937, Preburnish check, subreferences "SAE J843, Section C item 1".

The subreferenced item says that the purpose of the preburnish check is "to allow for a general check of instrumentation, brakes, and vehicle function," rather than a test of the effectiveness of the service brake system. Thus the preburnish check is not actually a test requirement. Although the distinction between test requirements, conditions and procedures is not made in the SAE materials incorporated into Standard No. 105, the successor Standard No. 105-75 distinguishes the three. It makes brake burnish part of the test procedure and sequence. Burnishing appears in the test procedure section, S7.4, and Table I, showing test requirements and corresponding procedures, does not relate it to any of the requirements of S5.

A manufacturer's certification covers only the performance requirements of the standard, and is his representation that if testing is conducted in the manner the standard specifies, the vehicle will meet those requirements. Therefore, no "waiver" of Standard No. 105-75 or amendment to Standard No. 105 appears necessary for Volkswagen to certify that the Rabbit complies with Standard No. 105, assuming, of course, that it meets all actual performance requirements of that standard.

Yours truly,

Original Signed By

Richard B. Dyson Acting Chief Counsel

ID: 77-5.12

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/21/77

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Joseph J. Levin, Jr.; NHTSA

TO: Robert W. Becker

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of November 7, 1977, asking whether a U.S. importer of tires for resale would be considered the "manufacturer" of those tires for purposes of complying with the identification mark requirements contained in Part 574, Tire Identification and Recordkeeping.

Section 102(5) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1391 et seq.) defines the term "manufacturer" as

any person engaged in the manufacturing or assembling of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, including any person importing motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment for resale.

According to this definition, the U.S. firm to which you refer would be considered the "manufacturer" for purposes of compliance with the Traffic Safety Act and any standards of regulations promulgated thereunder. This would include compliance with the tire identification and recordkeeping requirements in 49 CFR Part 574. As the manufacturer of the tires, the U.S. importer would be permitted to place its own identification mark on the tires, as required under @ 574.5, in lieu of the European tire producer as the manufacturer of the tires. By this action, all duties imposed upon tire manufacturers under Part 574 would be the responsibility of the U.S. importer.

SINCERELY,

WALTER BECKER

NOVEMBER 7, 1977

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

ATTN: Legal Department

Re: Interpretation of 15 USC 1391(5)

A foreign client of ours has posed a question concerning the interpretation of the 15 U.S.C. 1391(5) definition of "manufacturer" as it applies to the Federal Safety Standards Act, and in particular, to 49 CFR 574.5(a), which requires that the manufacturer's assigned identification mark be molded onto each tire he manufactures.

Our client produces tires for a U. S. firm in their name and pursuant to their specifications. I would therefore respectfully request that you furnish us with a ruling under these circumstances as to whether in fact the referenced U.S. firm is the "manufacturer" (inasmuch as, pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 1391 (5), they are "importing the motor vehicle equipment for resale"), and therefore only the identification mark of the U.S. firm, and not of the foreign producer, must appear on each tire. This question of interpretation is of grave concern to the parties involved since the U. S. firm finds it, understandably, offensive to sell tires in its own name with a symbol thereon which can be traced back to the foreign producer. At the same time, the intent of the statute would in no way be circumvented by including only the U. S. firm's identification mark since this firm would maintain records of the source of their tires.

Your attention to the above matter is greatly appreciated.

Robert W. Becker

ID: nht74-4.44

DATE: 01/17/74

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; A. G. Detrick; NHTSA

TO: Gillig Brothers

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in acknowledgment of your Defect Information Report, in accordance with the defect reporting regulations. Part 573.

The Defect Information Report involves: 1600 coaches manufactured during a period dating from January 1, 1972, through December 13, 1973, with Ross HPS71 and HF64 power steering gear boxes. Possibility that the lower steering shaft bearing has failed due to a lack of lubricating and/or the failure to maintain proper alignment with the gear box.

The following National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) identification number has been assigned to the campaign 73.0247. The first quarterly status report for this campaign is required to be submitted by February 5, 1974.

Please refer to the above number in all future correspondence concerning this campaign.

In addition, the letter which you have sent to first purchasers does not meet the requirements of 49 CFR Part 577, "Defect Notification." Specificantly, it does not evaluate the risk to traffic safety in the manner set forth in section $ 77.4(d). (If vehicle crash is the potential result of steering (Illegible Word) as appears likely, your letter should reflect the requirements of 577.4(d)(1).) The letter also fails to conform to

2 section 577.4(e)(3), requiring a statement of the measures to be taken to repair the defect when the manufacturer does not bear the cost of repair. Specifically, it is not clear from the drawing you enclose which parts may have to be replaced. For each part section 577.4 (e)(3)(i) required the name, part number, and suggested list price to be included. You are also required to specify the day after which parts will be generally available (section 577.4(e)(3)(iii). If parts are presently available, the letter should so state.

For your information, your December 1973 quarterly report which you sent to this office does not meet the requirements of Part 573 (49 CFR). This regulation requires the submission of quarterly reports not more than 25 working days after the close of each calendar quarter, that is, the end of March, June, September, and December. Also, each report shall contain the total number of manufacturer's vehicles by make, model, and model year produced or imported during the quater whether or not they are involved in a recall campaign. Therefore, the NHTSA requests that in the future quarterly reports be composed in accordance with Part 573.

Failure to comply with this regulation can result in the imposition of civil penalties and injunctive sanctions.

If you desire further information please contact Messrs, James Murray or Maxx Eliott of this office at (202) 426-2840.

ENC. PART 577 -- DEFECT NOTIFICATION