ID: nht75-1.26

DATE: 12/08/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; R. L. Carter; NHTSA

TO: Brainerd & Bridges

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your October 30, 1975, letter requesting clarification of the status of the banding requirement of Federal Motor Vehicles Safety Standard No. 106-74, Brake Hoses.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has granted petitions, filed by General Motors Corporation and Ford Motor Company, which requested deletion of the banding requirement. This deletion is the "change now being developed in our rulemaking proceedings" to which you have referred. The complete elimination of the banding requirement is inconsistent with any substitute labeling requirement. The petition of your client, Kugelfischer Georg Shafer & Co., was denied for this reason.

You should understand that our commencement of a rulemaking proceeding does not signify that the requested amendment will necessarily be issued. It does indicate, however, a determination that there is a reasonable possibility that the requested amendment will be issued. A final decision concerning the issuance of a proposal to amend the standard will be made on the basis of all available information developed in the course of the proceeding, in accordance with statutory criteria. If the NHTSA determines that such an amendment would not be appropriate, the amendment which you have requested will be considered as an alternative. We do expect to issue a proposal in the near future.

SINCERELY,

BRAINERD & BRIDGES

October 30, 1975

Robert L. Carter Associate Administrator Motor Vehicle Programs U.S. Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

REF: N40-30

On September 29, 1975 you sent me a letter a photo of which is attached, in which your Department denied the petition of our client, Kugelfischer Georg Schafer & Co. for an amendment of the banding requirement of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 106-74, Brake Hoses.

In your letter you stated that the amendment has been denied because it ". . . is inconsistent with the deletion of the banding requirement": Of course the amendment went specifically to the request that the banding requirement be waived under circumstances in which positive identification through multiple other means was at all times assured. Waiver of the banding requirement under such circumstances would not have relinquished any advantage or omitted any function inasmuch as the sole purpose of the banding requirement is to insure identity of manufacturer.

In any event, you have also stated that perhaps a "change now being developed in the rulemaking proceedings will be satisfactory" to Kugelfischer Georg Schafer & Co.. Would you be kind to advise me when such change is expected and what the nature thereof may be. Our client is intimately concerned with this problem and regrets that our prior petitions were sufficiently unclear as to have failed to explain the redundancy of the banding requirement under circumstances in which manufacturer-identity is otherwise clearly established.

Andrew W. Brainerd

ID: nht69-2.21

DATE: 06/05/69

FROM: H.A. HEFFRON -- CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA; CONCURRENCE OF TENNEY JOHNSON -- MVSPS

TO: G. M. Hilgendorf, Esq.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Mr. Frank Coy, Special Assistant to the Under Secretary of Transportation, has asked that I respond to your letter of April 16, 1969, in which you ask whether a station wagon purchased in March of 1968, equipped with two ply tires, violates Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 109.

The vehicle you purchased was apparently manufactured prior to April 1, 1968, and therefore, it was not required to be equipped with tires conforming to Standard No. 109. However, even if the standards were applicable, because a tire is labeled "2-ply" it is not necessarily a non-conforming tire. Standard No. 109 does not specifically require tires to have a given number of plies. It does require that irrespective of any ply rating tires pass minimum performance tests. As to passenger cars, Standard No. 110 requires that passenger cars manufactured after April 1, 1968, (1) must be equipped with tires that comply with Standard No. 109; and (2) the vehicle must not place a load on any of the tires greater than the load capacity of the tire specified in Standard No. 109.

ID: nht75-4.43

DATE: 05/16/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Department of California Highway Patrol

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of February 25, 1975, requesting several interpretations of 49 CFR Part 569, "Regrooved Tires." The present Regrooved Tire regulation results from a U.S. Court of Appeals decision (NAMBO v. Volpe 484 F.2d 1294 (D.C. Cir. 1973), cert. denied U.S. (1974) which invalidated certain aspects of the previous requirements. The confusion apparent in the existing requirements results from Section 204 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicles Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1424) which, when read literally, only authorizes the NHTSA to permit the sale of regrooved tires. That statutory section has since been revised (Sec. 110, Pub. L. 93-492, 88 Stat. 1470, October 27, 1974) and the NHTSA will revise Part 569 to provide a more realistic regulatory scheme than that contained in the present requirements. While we have answered as best we can the questions you raise, we believe any extensive enforcement program you plan for the requirements should be deferred until new regulations are issued.

Section 569.1 Purpose and scope, provides that the regulation specifies requirements under which regrooved tires may be sold. This should not be interpreted as precluding the enforcement of the regulation against other commercial transfers, such as offering for sale, the introduction or delivery for introduction into interstate commerce, etc. Section 569.7(a) specifically prohibits those activities. Section 569.7(a) also prohibits an operator, including a public transit system, from regrooving his own tires under any circumstance; he may not, as you suggest, regroove them and sell them to others. Section 569.7(a)(1) specifically states that a person regrooving his own tires for use on motor vehicles is to be considered as delivering those tires for introduction into interstate commerce, which is a prohibited activity.

Section 569.7(b) prohibits any of the proscribed commercial activities with respect to tires siped in the manner set forth in that section. You are apparently again misinterpreting the Scope section.

With respect to your question regarding the labeling of retreaded regroovable tires, such tires must be labeled in accordance with section 569.9. There are numerous procedures by which labeling can be molded onto retreaded tires. Two with which we are familiar involve either a cutting or engraving of the matrix or the insertion of metal strips into the matrix during curing.

ID: 7246-3

Mr. Hal Balzak
28025 N. Sarabande Lane #1216
Canyon Country, CA 91351

Dear Mr. Balzak:

This responds to your letter concerning Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 201, Occupant Protection in Interior Impact. I apologize for the delay in our response. You stated that you have received a copy of this standard and would like clarification of two issues. Your questions are addressed below.

Your first question asked whether Standard No. 201 applied to passenger cars manufactured between January 1, 1968 and September 1, 1981. The answer to this question is yes; the standard applied to all passenger cars manufactured on or after January 1, 1968.

Your second question asked whether Standard No. 201 applies to instrument panels manufactured for replacement of damaged units. The answer to this question is that, by its own terms, Standard No. 201 applies only to new motor vehicles. This means that the standard applies to original equipment components, including instrument panels, but not to replacements for those components.

However, you should be aware of an important provision in Federal law. Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)) provides that "(n)o manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or part, any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard. . . ." This provision applies to both new and used vehicles.

You specifically asked about the replacement of damaged instrument panels. I note that the Safety Act does not require a manufacturer, distributor, dealer or repair business to return a vehicle to compliance with a standard if a device or element of design has been "rendered inoperative" by another agent, such as a crash.

The prohibition of section 108(a)(2)(A) does not apply to individual owners who alter their own vehicles. Thus, individual owners may install any item of motor vehicle equipment regardless of its effect on compliance with Federal motor vehicle safety standards. However, NHTSA encourages vehicle owners not to tamper with the safety equipment installed on their vehicles.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have further questions, please feel free to contact Edward Glancy of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

ref:201#VSA d:6/11/92

ID: nht92-6.9

DATE: June 11, 1992

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Hal Balzak

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 12/3/91 from Hal Balzak to NHTSA, U.S. DOT

TEXT:

This responds to your letter concerning Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 201, Occupant Protection in Interior Impact. I apologize for the delay in our response. You stated that you have received a copy of this standard and would like clarification of two issues. Your questions are addressed below.

Your first question asked whether Standard No. 201 applied to passenger cars manufactured between January 1, 1968 and September 1, 1981. The answer to this question is yes; the standard applied to all passenger cars manufactured on or after January 1, 1968.

Your second question asked whether Standard No. 201 applies to instrument panels manufactured for replacement of damaged units. The answer to this question is that, by its own terms, Standard No. 201 applies only to new motor vehicles. This means that the standard applies to original equipment components, including instrument panels, but not to replacements for those components.

However, you should be aware of an important provision in Federal law. Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)) provides that "(n)o manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or part, any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable Federal Motor vehicle safety standard. . . ." This provision applies to both new and used vehicles.

You specifically asked about the replacement of damaged instrument panels. I note that the Safety Act does not require a manufacturer, distributor, dealer or repair business to return a vehicle to compliance with a standard if a device or element of design has been "rendered inoperative" by another agent, such as a crash.

The prohibition of section 108(a)(2)(A) does not apply to individual owners who alter their own vehicles. Thus, individual owners may install any item of motor vehicle equipment regardless of its effect on compliance with Federal motor vehicle safety standards. However, NHTSA encourages vehicle owners not to tamper with the safety equipment installed on their vehicles.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have further questions, please feel free to contact Edward Glancy of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht78-3.1

DATE: 04/27/78

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

TO: Bureau of Transportation - L.A., CA

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your March 10, 1978, question whether Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems, applies to a device that automatically applies to vehicle's service brakes when a sensing bumper mounted at the rear of the vehicle is tripped by contact with an object during a backing maneuver. For purposes of your question, I assume that the vehicle, whether new or used, has been certified to comply with Standard No. 121 prior to installation of the device.

The answer to your question is no. Paragraph S3 (Applicability) of Standard No. 121 states that the standard applies to trucks, buses, and trailers equipped with air brake systems (with some specified exceptions). The standard therefore applies only to vehicles, and does not apply to motor vehicle equipment such as the braking actuator you describe. The vehicle must, of course, conform to Standard No. 121 following installation of the device, if the installation occurs prior to the first purchase in good faith for purposes other than resale.

After the first retail sale, $ S 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Act) (15 U.S.C. $ S 1397(a)(2)(A)) prohibits, with one exception, manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and repair businesses from knowingly rendering inoperative devices or elements of design installed in satisfaction on a safety standard such as Standard No. 121.

ID: 86-6.5

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/05/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: no addressee

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

This is in reply to your letter of September 12, 1986, to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, and your letter to me of november 13, asking for our comments on four new motor vehicle lighting devices.

The first device performs a combination of two functions. It consists of three lamps serving as identification lamps and will meet all requirements of Standard No. 108 for such equipment. The three lamp cluster will also serve a auxiliary stop lamps (mistakenly referred to as a turn lamp in the November letter). The second device is a clearance lamp meeting requirements of Standard No. 108, which would also serve as an auxiliary stop lamp (also mistakenly referred to a a turn lamp in the November letter). The third device is described as a "tracking lamp" ( the diagram shows this to be the rear side marker lamp required by Standard No. 108) meeting all requirements for such; it will also serve as an auxiliary side turn signal indicator. The fourth device will serve as an intermediate side marker lamp, complying with Standard No. 108's requirements, but will also serve as an auxiliary side turn signal lamp. The devices are intended for use on wide trucks and trailers. In your opinion, the auxiliary functions will not "confuse or inhibit" the functioning of lighting equipment required by Standards No. 108.

With respect to the combination of lamp functions or truck and trailers, Standard No. 108, specifically paragraph S4.4, prohibits only the optical combination of clearance lamps with taillamps or identification lamps. These combinations do not exist in any of your four proposed designs. Under paragraph S4.1.3 supplemental lighting devices are permitted as long as they do not impair the effectiveness of lighting equipment required by Standard No. 108. You have concluded that there would be no impairment. Under the facts as presented in your letter, we have no reason to disagree with that conclusion.

We have noted your request that your letters be accorded confidential treatment because of proprietary commercial information, and your attorney's consent on your behalf that our interpretation may be made public provided that all information identifying you as the writer is deleted. We shall follow this procedure.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

ID: 77-3.28

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/15/77

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

TO: Algus Enterprises, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your June 27, 1977, letter asking whether tires that you export for use on agricultural vehicles are required by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to be labeled with the letters DOT.

The answer to your question is no, unless the tires can also be used on vehicles other than agricultural vehicles. If the tires can be so used, they must be marked with the DOT symbol and meet any Federal requirements applicable to them.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

Algus Enterprises, Inc.

June 27, 1977

J. J. Levin -- Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation

Dear Sir:

Your name was kindly refered to us by Mr. Casanova, in the Tire Division of the Department of Transportation, because we are in need of your assistance.

Our firm specializes in the exportation of tires. Our major market at this time is Venezuela, and we have a small problem there.

A short time back we made a shipment of Agricultural tires to one of our clients. He contacted us this morning informing us that his shipment has not allowed in the country by the government agency "COVENIN" which is responsable for verification of quality on imports to Venezuela.

The reason they objected was that the Agricultural tires did not have the letters D.O.T. on the actual tires. They do have the serial number and brand.

We informed him that Agricultural tires in the U.S. are not required to have the (D.O.T.) on them, only the registration number and tire brand are normal nomenclature on Agricultural tires.

He then informed us that the Venezuela government required a letter from the Department of Transportation confirming and explaining that Agricultural tires are not required to show the (D.O.T.) on the tire.

We respectfully request that you please send us a letter with the information they require, so that we may forward it to them.

It will supply the Venezuelan Government with proper information so that they may conduct their business properly.

In hopes that we may hear from you soon.

I remain,

Sincerely,

Gustavo R. Lima -- Vice-President

cc: files

ID: GF007220-2

Louis J. Carlin, Director
Safety Regulations and Consumer Information
General Motors North America
Mail Code: 480 111 S56
30200 Mound Road
Warren, MI 48090-9010




Dear Mr. Carlin:

This concerns your letter dated October 11, 2004, in which you requested an interpretation of certain requirements in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 110, Tire Selection and Rims. We have reconsidered our response dated January 3, 2005 with respect to permissible load identifications.

In your October 11, 2004 letter, you asked whether S4.3 of FMVSS No. 110, as amended by the final rule responding to petitions for reconsideration (see 69 FR 31306, June 3, 2004) allows a light truck tire load identification of B, C, D, E, or F on the tire information placard. In our response, we stated that S4.3(i) of FMVSS No. 110 permits only a tire load identification XL or "reinforced". We noted, however, that we were considering petitions for reconsideration asking the agency to permit light truck load identifications of B, C, D, E, or F on tire information placards.

We have reconsidered our previous interpretation. While the agency declined to allow load index numbers on the tire placards (see id. at 31311)

, we decided to allow load identifications of XL and "reinforced". The preamble to the final rule did not elaborate on other load identifications (see id. at 31312).

As you note in your letter, load identifications of B, C, D, E, or F are used for light truck tires to identify load carrying capability in the same way XL is used for passenger car tires to identify extra load carrying capability. In permitting the use of XL for passenger car tires, we stated:

"the agency agrees with petitioners that when the vehicles are equipped with these tires, consumers should be made aware of this information so that they know to replace them with tires capable of holding a similar load. "

In making this change, it was not our intent to allow the load identification for passenger car tires, but prohibit it for light truck tires. Accordingly, while S4.3(i) currently specifies only that a tire load identification XL or "reinforced" may appear on the tire information placard (see id. at 31318), we interpret that section to permit use of the corresponding light truck tire load identifications of B, C, D, E, or F. We intend to make this clear in the regulatory text as part of our response to petitions for reconsideration of the June 3, 2004 final rule.

I hope you find this information 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:110
d.2/18/05

ID: 22382

Mr. Donald Myers
Haldex Brake Systems
10930 North Pomona Avenue
Kansas City, MO 64153-1297





Dear Mr. Myers:

This is in response to your letter of November 3, 2000, requesting information on Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 121, "Air Brake Systems." Specifically, you describe the following situation:

Haldex Brake Systems discovered that an internal component to the valve that controls the trailer supply pressure and the tractor parking brakes (made in 1997) was breaking after being in use for several years. This broken component resulted in the lack of separation of the two brake circuits. Haldex determined that this broken component resulted in the air brakes no longer complying with FMVSS No. 121, and that this broken component combined with a major leak in the brake system could result in total loss of the service brakes. Haldex initiated a recall and has been replacing the valves. Haldex has sought reimbursement from its supplier for the cost of the recall, but the supplier has refused, stating that FMVSS No. 121 applies to new motor vehicles only, not to "in service" motor vehicles.

You ask whether FMVSS No. 121 applies to "in service" motor vehicles. The answer is no. FMVSS No. 121 applies only to new motor vehicles. Operational regulations and requirements applicable to "in service" vehicles are administered by the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA). In addition, individual states may have their own requirements setting minimum "in service" equipment and performance standards for heavy trucks.

Moreover, and with direct applicability here, a manufacturer of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment has an obligation to remedy safety-related defects in its products. Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. '30118(c), a manufacturer of a motor vehicle or replacement must notify the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) as well as owners, purchasers, and dealers if the manufacturer:

(1) learns the vehicle or equipment contains a defect and decides in good faith that the defect is related to motor vehicle safety; or

(2) decides in good faith that the vehicle or equipment does not comply with an applicable motor vehicle safety standard.

In addition, the manufacturer must remedy the defect or noncompliance free of charge (49 U.S.C. ' 30120(a)). In this case, the failure of the Haldex brake systems constitutes a defect that is related to motor vehicle safety.

The notification and remedy requirements of Chapter 301 are not generally applicable to suppliers of component parts that are then incorporated into items of motor vehicle equipment by an equipment manufacturer. In such instances, the responsibilities of the supplier are not governed by Chapter 301 and would be determined under other applicable law, such as contract law and the terms of any agreements between the supplier and the equipment manufacturer.

I hope you find this information useful. If you have any further questions regarding this matter, please feel free to contact Otto Matheke in the Office of the Chief Counsel at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel

ref:121
d.7/16/01