ID: nht72-2.40

DATE: 07/19/72

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; C. A. Baker for E. T. Driver; NHTSA

TO: Raybestos-Manhattan

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: In your letter of June 30, 1972, you raised two questions that touch on the responsibility of manufacturers who produce components, such as brake blocks, that affect the ability of a vehicle to meet a motor vehicle safety standard.

Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems, the standard of concern to you, regulates vehicles equipped with air brakes, but it does not regulate the brakes or their components as separate items of equipment. As a component manufacturer, your company is therefore not required by our regulations to certify its products as conforming to Standard 121. This is not to say that your customers will not be concerned about the performance of your products, but only that you have no direct responsibility under the standard.

A vehicle manufacturer who intends to use your brake blocks on a new vehicle will probably try to get as much test data from you as he can. His vehicle will have to conform to the standard. If our tests disclose a shortcoming in the brakes, he will have to show that he exercised due care in the manufacture of the vehicle and the data he obtains from you may be an important part of his case. Whether you supply him with dynamometer data or complete road test data is a matter to be arranged privately, however, and the subject is not regulated by our rules.

A brake block or other brake component sold as a replacement part is not at this time subject to regulation under Standard 121. A truck owner will presumably want to obtain components that are compatible with the rest of the brake system.

You have also asked for information about agencies equipped to run tests in accordance with Standard 121. At this time we have not compiled a list of test facilities, but we expect that such information will become widely available in the next few months.

ID: ES004934

Mr. Gerald Plante
Manager, NHTSA Compliance
Fuji Heavy Industries USA, Inc.
Subaru Plaza
P.O. Box 6000
Cherry Hill, NJ 08034-6000

Dear Mr. Plante:

This is in response to your recent e-mail to Mr. George Feygin, in which you requested clarification of the June 3, 2004, final rule responding to petitions for reconsideration, which amended Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 110, Tire Selection and Rims for Motor Vehicles with a GVWR of 4,536 Kilograms (10,000 Pounds) or Less (69 FR 31306). Paragraph S4.3(h) of that standard allows a vehicle manufacturer to place an optional bar code or vehicle identification number (VIN) on the righthand edge of the vehicle placard and tire information label. Specifically, you asked whether it would be permissible under paragraph S4.3(h) to continue the use of certain two-letter codes on the vehicle placard to track and coordinate the correct application of specific placards with specific vehicle types on or after September 1, 2005, the effective date of the rule.

By way of background, the June 3, 2004, final rule is related to an earlier final rule published on November 18, 2002, which sought to improve the information readily available to consumers about tires (69 FR 69600). The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has stated that it believes that overcrowding the vehicle placard and tire inflation pressure label with information considered non-critical for regular maintenance would discourage the use of tire inflation pressure information in those key locations, so the agency decided upon a general prohibition against the addition of "other information" to these sources (69 FR 31306, 31311).

As you are probably aware, the agency is in the process of responding to petitions for reconsideration of the June 3, 2004, final rule, and we expect to issue our response shortly. Our review suggests that the issue raised in your recent e-mail is already before the agency in the context of a petition for reconsideration submitted by the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers (Alliance) (Docket No. NHTSA-2004-17917-4). The Alliances petition seeks to amend paragraph S4.3(h) to permit inclusion of an optional part number on the righthand edge of the vehicle placard and tire information label. We view the two-letter code described in your correspondence as a variation of the part number issue discussed in the Alliances petition, and we will address the issue you raise in our response to the petitions for reconsideration.

Beyond the code marking issue, please note that the Fuji label provided with your correspondence does not follow the format specified in paragraph S4.3 and Figure 1 of the June 3, 2004 final rule for FMVSS No. 110. Specifically, paragraph S4.3 provides in relevant part, " This information shall be in the English language and conform in color and format, , as shown in the example set forth in Figure 1 in this standard."

Should you have any remaining or additional questions once the response to the petitions for reconsideration is published, please feel free to submit them to the agency. If you have further questions in the interim, you may contact Mr. Eric Stas of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman Chief Counsel

ref:110
d.9/10/04

ID: 2773y

Mr. William Walters
7709 Wallace Street
Merrillville, IN 46410

Dear Mr. Walters:

This is in reply to your letter of October 8, l990, to Ms. Erika Jones, formerly Chief Counsel of this agency. You have asked that we review the enclosures to your letter, and provide "the reason why this system is not being used."

The primary material you enclosed is a patent granted May 1, l990, for an "Automobile Warning Light Improvement." The purpose of the "Improvement" is to enhance existing rear signal lamps by sending an advance warning of driving situations which have the potential of impeding the flow of traffic. The device activates the center highmounted stop lamp under situations other than when the brake pedal is applied. According to the patent, the device causes the center lamp to operate in a steady-burning mode when a vehicle is in reverse gear, and in a flashing mode when the turn signals are operating. When activated under these conditions, the center lamp will be deactivated when the accelerator is depressed.

The reason why this system cannot presently be used is that its installation would create a noncompliance with existing requirements. The performance of the center highmounted stop lamp is specified by Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. l08, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment. Paragraph S5.5.4 of the standard specifically states that "The highmounted lamp on passenger cars shall be activated only upon application of the service brakes." In addition, the effect of paragraph S5.5.10 is to require all stop lamps to be steady burning when in use. Activation of the center lamp by means other than application of the brake pedal (such as putting the vehicle into reverse gear, or activating the turn signals), and in a mode other than steady burning (flashing with the turn signals) is prohibited by Standard No. l08.

The reason why this system is unlikely to be used in the future is that it appears to have little if any potential for improving motor vehicle safety. Backup lamps, turn signal lamps, and center stop lamps have specific and different tasks to perform. Use of the center lamp to assist the other lamps in performing their tasks has the potential for creating confusion. The red center lamp used alone sends an unmistakable message: this vehicle is braking, with a deceleration that may lead to a stop. It is a message to which the motoring public is accustomed. Use of the center lamp when the backup lamps are on sends a false signal that the vehicle may be decelerating in a forward motion or stopped when, in fact, it may be proceeding in a reverse motion. Use of a flashing stop lamp, mounted on the centerline of the car, in conjunction with a turn signal lamp that is flashing either to the right or left of the centerline, has the potential also to create confusion as to the intent of the driver, and distracts attention from the message sent by the turn signal that the vehicle is changing lanes or preparing to turn.

We appreciate your interest in safety and in bringing this invention to our attention.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

ref:l08 d:l2/3/90

ID: nht75-2.21

DATE: 10/03/75

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

TO: High & Walters

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your August 11, 1975, request for information on regulations concerning the matching of innertube sizes with motorcycle tire sizes. Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 119 (copy enclosed) specifies performance and labeling requirements for motorcycle tires manufactured after March 1, 1975. There are no Federal regulations, however, containing requirements for proper matching of tubes with tires.

Yours truly,

Enclosure

HIGH & WALTERS -- ATTORNEYS AT LAW

August 11, 1975

Department of Transportation 400 - 7th Street SW Washington, D.C. 20590

TIPE SAFETY REGULATIONS

Madam or Sir, would you please inform this office how we might obtain any regulations of the Department of Transportation relating to proper tube sizes for particular tire sizes.

We are interested specifically in motorcycle tire regulations with regard to the size of the innertube for a given tire size.

Thank you in advance for your assistance with regard to this matter.

JAMES P. WALTERS

ID: 2403y

Mr. Patrick S. Baran
I.D.E.A.
2340 W. Belmont
Chicago, IL 60618

Dear Mr. Baran:

This is in reply to your letter to Taylor Vinson of this Office, with respect to "D.O.T. guidelines for tail light brightness" with respect to a "brake light for the back of a motor cycle helmet." I regret the delay in responding.

The Department has no authority to "approve" or "disapprove" items of equipment, but we can provide guidance on the relationship of equipment to the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. I enclose a copy of a l982 interpretation with respect to a similar device, a headlamp intended for installation on a motorcycle helmet. It also represents our views with respect to your device. I enclose also a copy of SAE Standard J586c Stop Lamps, which our Rulemaking office promised you.

We note that you use the term "tail light" and "brake light" interchangeably. In seeking State guidance you should be clear as to whether your device indicates the presence of the cyclist (taillamp), or the application of the brakes of the motorcycle (stop lamp), or both.

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosure ref:VSA#l08#2l8 d:4/9/90

ID: 21872.ztv

Mr. Paul Crunk
Track Master Inc., LED
Box 725
Taylor, MI 48180-0725





Dear Mr. Crunk:





This is in reply to your fax of July 11, 2000, to Taylor Vinson of this Office.

You wish to manufacture for use on "semi trucks and trailers" certain "marker lamps that will have the ability to change from street legal to a show color for when the driver is off road in a parking lot or truck stops or truck shows." The color "will match the color of their truck or trailers." You cite the color blue as an example of a show color. The marker lamp will operate normally with red or amber colors. There is some indication in your letter that the system would be used in marker lamps that incorporate turn signal lamps.

As you realize, front side marker lamps and turn signal lamps must be amber in color. Rear side marker lamps must be red in color. Rear turn signal lamps must be either red or amber in color. These color requirements have been established by Tables I and III of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment , for original lighting equipment on all motor vehicles, including truck tractors and trailers. These requirements also apply to replacement motor vehicle lighting equipment, which must meet the same standards as original equipment. This means that the use of any color other than red or amber to illuminate a side marker or turn signal lamp would create a noncompliance with Standard No. 108. The fact that you intend the system to be used only off road is immaterial; the vehicle itself has been manufactured for on-road use and its equipment must meet all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. I also observe that truck tractors and trailers operated commercially in interstate commerce are subject as well to the regulations of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) of the Department of Transportation. FMCSA regulations require that marker and turn signal lamps be red or amber in color.

Consequently, the side marker lamps that you describe cannot be certified as complying with Standard No. 108 and thus cannot be sold either as original or replacement equipment.

This system would also be subject to State law. Generally, States reserve the use of the color blue for emergency vehicles. Increasingly, the color purple is used to designate funeral processions.

Mr. Vinson has already talked with Peter Crunk of your company on this matter, but if you require further information, you may call him at 202-366-5263.





Sincerely,

Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel

ref:108
d.8/11/00

ID: 86-2.50

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 05/01/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Jerry Koh

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Jerry Koh 7617 DeLongpre Ave., #1 Los Angeles, California 90046

Dear Mr. Koh:

This is in reply to your letter of February 6, 1986, to Mr. Vinson of my staff asking whether a lighting accessory you wish to import for sale is acceptable.

The device you describe is intended for installation on the rear parcel shelf of passenger cars. You state that it emits a "stream of flashing lights in continuous sequence when the driver steps on the brake (stops), turns (right or left), and when overtaking other cars." The specification sheet that you enclosed indicates that the device has an adjustable flashing speed between 66 and 140 times a minute.

This agency, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, establishes manufacturing requirements for new motor vehicles and equipment. Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment, applies to lighting equipment that is required on new motor vehicles, and to aftermarket equipment that is intended to replace the required equipment. The standard does not itself cover accessory lighting equipment such as you propose to import, and thus there is no U.S. safety standard that applies to it. Whether it is permissible for use therefore must be determined by the law of each state in which it will be sold and operated.

However, Standard No. 108 does prohibit installation of any aftermarket lighting device before initial sale of a new vehicle if that device "impairs the effectiveness" of lighting equipment that the standard requires, and you should be aware of this prohibition if you intend to sell the device to new car dealers for installation on new cars in stock. Thus, we must consider whether your device would impair the effectiveness of the center high-mounted stop lamp, and the turn signal lamps. We offer these comments: stop lamps must be activated simultaneously and not sequentially. The mode of operation of your device to indicate brake application is not clear. If all eight lights are activated simultaneously, and are steady burning, that would not appear to impair the effectiveness of the center stop lamp. If they are activated in a sequential spread, or flash if activated simultaneously, this could possibly be an impairment of the nature contemplated by Standard No. 108.

With respect to the turn signal function, the flash rate should be synchronized with that of the vehicle's standard turn signals. Under Standard No. 108, 60 to-120 cycles per minute is permissible, Thus, the highest speed attainable of your device, 110, could be viewed as a possible impairment. We do not understand the safety purpose of the overtaking function and how it operates.

If you have any further questions, we will be happy to answer them. Thank you for your interest in highway safety.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Mr. Taylor Vinson Legal Counsel NHTSA. U.S. Dept. Of Transportation 400 7th ST. S.W. Washington D.C.

February 6, 1986

Dear Mr. Vinson:

Please provide me a letter of interpretation regarding the following item. Thank you.

I have an illumination accessory (Highway Flasher FS-7100, made in Tiawan for automobiles which can be mounted on rear dash of each car.

The Flasher Hill emits a stream of flashing lights in continuous sequence when the driver steps on the break (stops), turns (right or left), and when overtaking other cars. It is a very good safe-guard device in which it alarms other drivers and at the same time it is a beautiful car ornamentation.

" In a way The Flasher is similar to the 3rd light that is now mandatorily required on all 1986 cars. However, it can be used on all cars that are with or without the 3rd light. For the 3rd light is always mounted in the center of the rear window; whereas The Flasher can be mounted on the rear dash board and its light will flash on either right or left or both sides of the rear window. (Figure 1)

(Insert Graphics)

In fact with the Flasher it will actually enhance the visibility of all vehicles, increase drivers' awareness at night, in heavy fog and on highways, and complement cars that already have the 3rd light.

I am thinking about importing the Flashers into the U.S. but I want to make sure it is safe and legal to do so. I am unable to find out from the manufacturer whether this product has met U.S. Highway Safety Standard or not, probably because the product is not being imported yet.

Thank you for your time and assistance.

Respectfully Yours,

Jerry Koh

Encls.

ID: nht75-5.19

DATE: 05/28/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; James B. Gregory; NHTSA

TO: Speaker of the House of Representatives

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: The purpose of this letter is to inform the Committees on Interstate and Foreign Commerce and on Public Works and Transportation of recent activities and decisions of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration relating to the establishment of a Uniform Tire Quality Grading Standard (UTQGS). We are pleased to announce that this standard, required by section 203 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (15 USC 1423), was promulgated on May 20, 1975 (copy enclosed). The rule provides for grading tires in three areas: treadwear, traction, and temperature performance. I believe it will provide the consumer with the information he needs to determine which tire is the best value for him, considering his needs and driving habits.

As I am sure you are aware, we have had our share of problems in developing this rule. It had been our original intention to utilize a control tire against which other tires would be compared. In May of 1974, due to technical problems and time constraints imposed by the court in Nash v. Brinegar, Civil Action No. 17, D.C. (1974), the decision was made to attempt to utilize a control surface rather than a control tire. In order to investigate the feasibility of this approach, a section of runway at Goodfellow AFB, in San Angelo, Texas, was repaved, to provide a research control surface. At the outset of the research project the question had been raised regarding the applicability of section 301 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (which provides for specific approval by the above mentioned Committees of the House and their counterparts in the Senate, before constructing facilities for testing in traffic safety) to the construction of the control surfaces. It was then determined that since the action was a short-term effort, and in the nature of a feasibility study, section 301 was not applicable. This research project was successful and forms the basis of the rule.

We have recently obligated a sum of $ 75,000, in addition to the approximately $ 750,000 expended for the earlier research project (including $ 165,000 for the control surface), for the purpose of altering the control surfaces and nearby roadway to enable manufacturers to use these surfaces to meet the requirements of complying with the rule.

Even though the associated conversion costs were less than $ 100,000, we recognized that alterations to the surfaces in late FY 1976 and FY 1977 will cause total expenditures to rise above that level. Therefore, prior to proceeding with the recent site conversion effort, we focused again on the issue of the applicability of section 301. We determined that the section is to facilitate testing in a matter which is first and foremost consumer information rather than traffic safety, for, as stated in section 203 of the Act, UTQGS is established "in order to assist the consumer to make an informed choice in the purchase of motor vehicle tires . . . ."

We will continue to keep you posted on the progress of the UTQGS as manufacturers begin testing. We expect to be able to provide the consumer with information in the near future which will enable him to make the best use of his tire dollars.

ID: nht88-3.93

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 11/03/88 EST

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TO: A. L. BRAGG -- LABORATORY MANAGER, TRUCK-LITE CO., INC.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED JUNE 22, 1988 RE: REQUEST FOR INTERPRETATION OF S4.1.1.16 AND S4.1.17 IN STANDARD NUMBER 108; OCC-2303

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of June 22, 1988, to Mr. Vinson of this Office asking for an interpretation of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

It is your understanding that for purposes of measuring the effective projected illuminated area of a lens, the reflex area, if any, must be subtracted from the total lens area. Your company manufactures a combination lamp which "has four square inches of reflector area and eight square inches of stop, tail and turn area." You have asked if you may advise your customers that this lamp may be used on vehicles whose overall width is 80 inches or more:

"A) Singularly (that is one on each side of the vehicle in the rear) as a stop, turn, tail and reflex reflector?

B) In combination of two's or three's (on each side of the rear of the vehicle), provided that the lamps are separated by at least twenty-two inches?"

Your understanding is correct, that the effective projected illuminated lens area must be determined without reference to any reflex reflector that may be combined with it. If the turn signal function in your lamp is met by one compartment, your lamp is acceptable under "A)." But if the turn signal function is met by more than one compartment, your lamp would not be acceptable as the area of each compartment is less than 12 square inches. With regard to "B)," the lamps could be used in combinations of twos and threes if they are mounted more than 22 inches apart but could not be used if mounted closer than 22 inches.

You also asked about the relationship to paragraph S4.1.1.7. This paragraph covers replacement equipment only, without reference to its location on a vehicle. It applies only to turn signal lamps intended to replace original equipment turn signal lamps on vehicles manufactured in accordance with SAE Standard J588d, June 1966. The current original equipment is SAE standard J588e September 1970.

You should be aware that the Truck Safety Equipment Institute has petitioned for rulemaking the effect of which would be to extend the 12-inch requirement to lamps used on all wide vehicles without reference to the 22-inch spacing. At present the agency is reviewing this petition.

I hope that this answers your questions.

ID: EJones.ajd

Erika Z. Jones, Esquire
Mayer, Brown, Rowe & Maw, LLP
1909 K Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20006-1101

Re: Requests for Interpretation of Part 579

Dear Ms. Jones:

This is in reply to your letter dated January 5, 2004, seeking two interpretations of 49 CFR Part 579, "Reporting of Information and Communications About Potential Defects."Both requests for interpretation involve reporting consumer complaints related to child restraints pursuant to the early warning reporting (EWR) requirements.

In particular, you seek guidance on how to report consumer complaints that erroneously identify the production year of the affected child restraint as a year in which the identified make/model restraint was not manufactured. In addition, you seek a clarification of the definition of "consumer complaint" with respect to communications related to safety recalls. You ask the agency to confirm your understanding that the agency does not expect manufacturers to record calls to request a repair kit or ask about participation in a safety recall as "consumer complaints" for purposes of EWR.

In response to your first request, I note that the agency addressed a similar concern raised by the Juvenile Product Manufacturers Association (JPMA) in a request for reconsideration of the EWR rule.See 68 Fed. Reg. 35132 (June 11, 2003). JPMA had asked how to report consumer complaint/warranty claim information when the production date is illegible. We responded that when a manufacturer is confronted with a reportable item that does not include the production year of the child restraint, the manufacturer should enter the number "9999" in the template. See 68 Fed. Reg. at 35136.Child restraint manufacturers should report similarly when they receive a consumer complaint that specifies a year in which the model was not produced.

Your second request asks the agency to confirm your understanding that the agency does not expect manufacturers to record communications "to request a repair kit that is being offered pursuant to a safety recall, or to ask about participation in a safety recall" as "consumer complaints" for the purposes of EWR.

The definition of "consumer complaint" includes a communication made by a consumer "expressing dissatisfaction with a product, or any actual or potential defect in a product." 49 CFR 579.4. With respect to communications about recall remedies, the preamble to the final rule explained that:

Our proposed definition would also include communications in which the owner of a vehicle or item of equipment that is subject to a defect or noncompliance recall asserted that the remedy failed to correct the defect or noncompliance.

67 Fed. Reg. 45822, 45847 (July 10, 2002). The agency intended to receive communications relating to failures of a recall remedy that allow a defect to continue, not communications seeking information about the recall itself. Thus, we confirm your understanding that general communications requesting a repair kit or to participate in a safety recall campaign are not "consumer complaints" for the purposes of EWR.

If you have any questions, you may phone Andrew DiMarsico of my staff at (202) 366-5263.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:579
d.4/13/04