ID: nht95-2.5

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: March 18, 1995

FROM: Bill Bristol -- Treadway Exports Ltd.

TO: Walter Myers -- Legal Dept., U.S. DOT

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: 1/26/96 letter from Samuel J. Dubbin to Bill Bristol (A44; Std. 109; Std. 119)

TEXT: MR. MYERS: THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME IN ANSWERING MY TELEPHONE CALL AS WE DISCUSSED IN OUR CONVERSATION THE GOVERNMENT OF COLOMBIA NOW REQUIRES THAT ALL TIRES ENTERING THE COUNTRY MUST COMPLY WITH CERTAIN STANDARDS THAT MUST BE CERTIFIED BY AN AGENCY LIKE YOURS. ALSO IT REQUIRES THAT THE TIRE MANUFACTURERS BE MENTIONED IN THE SAME LETTER WHERE THE D.O.T. STANDARDS ARE EXPLAINED. AS YOU CAN SEE THEY ARE ALL REPUTABLE AND WELL KNOWN COMPANIES. PLEASE SEND US YOUR LETTER CERTIFYING THE D.O.T. STANDARDS TH AT ALL TIRES SOLD BY TREADWAY EXPORTS LTD. AND TREADWAY AMERICA INC. THAT HAVE THE D.O.T. ON THEM ARE ROAD WORTHY IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE SAFETY STANDARD CODE.

Enclosure: Declaracion de Calidad y Conformidad (omitted).

Enclosure

January 11, 1995

ASF 3283-20.80

To Whom it may concern:

Subject: Tires manufactured by Uniroyal-Goodrich Canada Inc.

In Canada, the Motor Vehicle Tire Safety Act requires a tire manufacturer or importer to certify that all tires manufactured or imported for the Canadian market comply with the requirements of the Canada Motor Vehicle Tire Safety Regulations (CMVTSR). There is no provision for approval by Transport Canada, the Canadian government department responsible for the application of the Motor Vehicle Tire Safety Act. Tires and certification documentation are randomly inspected by Transport Canada and selec ted tires are tested on behalf of Transport Canada to ensure the validity of tire companies' self certification programs.

We, the Audit Inspection, Vehicle Importation and Component Testing Division of the Road Safety and Motor Vehicle Regulation Directorate, state that all motor vehicle tires, of any size, manufactured by Uniroyal-Goodrich Canada Inc. and bearing the Natio nal Tire Safety Mark (a small maple leaf on one sidewall of the tire) are recognized by us as being produced, tested, and certified by their manufacturer in full conformity with all safety standards applicable in this country.

This document is valid for two years from its date.

Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned by phone at (613)998-2157 or by fax at (613)998-4831.

Yours Truly,

Claude Roy P.Eng. Chief, Audit Inspection, Vehicle Importation and Component Testing Road Safety and Motor Vehicle Regulation

Transport Canada

ID: 20832.ztv

Mr. Joel Martin
1231 SW 3^rd Ave
Suite 123C Building A
Gainesville, FL 32601

Dear Mr. Martin:

Thank you for your fax of October 19, 1999, asking for information on "how I can apply for a financial exemption for a new manufacturer of 49cc Scooters." You relate that the manufacturer "meets all the CFR requirements," but is concerned that one of the lamp manufacturers does not label his product with a DOT symbol. You report, however, that "the light in testing meets the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration testing standards."

Mr. Vinson of this Office, with whom you spoke, recalls that the lamp in question is the headlamp for motor driven cycles. Paragraph S7.2(a) of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment, requires the lens of any headlamp used on a motor vehicle, including motor driven cycles, to be marked with the symbol DOT which shall constitute the certification required by 49 U.S.C. 30115. If the headlamp is not so marked, and if testing of the headlamp shows compliance with the motor driven cycle headlamp specifications of SAE J584 April 1964, that would afford a basis upon which its manufacturer could certify compliance. In that event, a temporary exemption would not be required. Please note that S7.9.5 requires that headlamps meeting SAE J584 must also have the word "motorcycle" permanently marked on the lens.

Our temporary exemption procedures are set forth in 49 CFR Part 555. Because of the statutory requirement that we afford the public an opportunity to comment on petitions for exemptions, the process from receipt of an acceptable petition to action on it requires three to four months. While you may submit it on behalf of the manufacturer, the manufacturer must sign the petition. If the manufacturer is located outside the United States, it must first designate an agent for service of process pursuant to 49 CFR 551.45.

A person who is not a manufacturer of a motor vehicle certified for sale in the United States may import a non-conforming motor vehicle for research or investigations pursuant to 49 CFR 591.5(j)(1) and (2)(i) after receiving written permission from the agency (49 CFR 591.6(f)(1)).

You may access our regulations at in Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations through website

www.nara.gov/fedreg.

If you have any further questions, you may telephone Mr. Vinson (202-366-5263).

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
ref.567#108
d.12/6/99

ID: nht92-4.8

DATE: September 14, 1992

FROM: Preston Golder -- Road Reflectors

TO: Legal Counsel -- NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 10/5/92 from Paul Jackson Rice to Preston Golder (A-40; Std. 108) and letter dated 4/21/92 from Paul Jackson Rice to Allan Schwartz (Std. 108)

TEXT:

I've been marketing a product for automobiles here in New York State that has become quite popular. I would like to market this product in other states and would first want to find if there were legal problems I might run into. According to the gentlemen I spoke to on the telephone (Mr. Richard Van Iderstine at 202-366-2720) they are not illegal but I should write you to get a written verification of this.

The product is Neon lighting sealed in Lexan plastic with high voltage wires (same as the spark plug wires) extending out of each end. These Neon tubes are sealed and waterproofed at each end of the Lexan. The wires connect in sequence to four of these neon tubes and connect to a power supply that is mounted under the vehicles hood and to the firewall. (enclosed diagram and mounting instructions) They are then connected to a separate toggle switch.

These lights were originally intended for car shows, giving the effect the car was riding on cloud of color.

Young people seeing this effect started purchasing them and a whole new auto accessory was born. They are very popular in both New York and Florida where even neon car clubs have developed.

I was forced to retire two years ago because of a rare lung disease. I soon became bored and as a true entrepreneur soon found a product that even a sagging economy didn't seem to touch. After all most people that buy this product are the young people who are still living at home with mom and pop. They spend their salaries on their vehicles and social life.

I believe this product would do well nationally, however my investors are hesitant because it may be considered illegal in some states, one is California. California with all their car buffs would be a tremendous market for this product.

If you could give me some idea from a Federal standpoint whether we should proceed with trying to market nationally and what problems we may encounter, I would greatly appreciate any help you may be able to give.

I plan on visiting California in November and hope to start marketing this product at that time. I've enclosed several pictures and information.

ID: 77-5.16

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/26/77

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

TO: Wayne Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your oral request to Roger Tilton of my staff for the reasons that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) exempted buses with gross vehicle weight ratings of 10,000 pounds or less from the requirements of Standard No. 221, School Bus Body Joint Strength.

As you know, the NHTSA promulgated the joint strength standard to prevent injuries resulting from the impact of children with the sharp protruding edges of body panel sheets that become unfastened in school bus accidents. This problem, according to the information available to the agency, was particularly acute with respect to large school buses. The agency has no similar data indicating that the joint severance problem is a major factor contributing to injuries in accidents involving smaller school buses. Accordingly, the agency exempted those vehicles from the requirements. Should the NHTSA discover in the future that such problems exist with respect to smaller buses, it would consider extending the requirements to them.

I am enclosing a copy of our last notice on Standard No. 221 that fully outlines our reasons for exempting smaller school buses.

ID: nht75-2.35

DATE: 07/10/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Cooney Equipment Company

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of June 18, 1975, requesting information on forms and information to be used in complying with NHTSA Certification regulations (49 CFR Parts 567, 568) and Manufacturer Identification regulations (49 CFR Part 566).

There are no special forms which the NHTSA provides for manufacturers for purposes of compliance with these requirements. Part 566 information may be furnished on a business letterhead. Part 567 and 568 information should be furnished in any form which complies with the prescribed requirements. You should be particularly aware of Sections 567.5 and 568.6 of these parts, which specify the information to be included on a certification label by a final-stage manufacturer. The Quarterly Report of Vehicles Produced is no longer required to be submitted. Although these requirements may be modified as a result of litigation, the NHTSA will consider compliance with the published requirements to meet any manufacturer's responsibilities for certification under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. @ 1403). Copies of Parts 566, 567, and 568 are enclosed.

If you have any further questions regarding this matter, feel free to write again.

ID: nht75-4.6

DATE: 09/11/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Strick Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your July 17, 1975, question whether a used running gear assembly can be combined with a new platform to qualify as a "repaired" trailer that would not have to conform to the requirements for air brake systems on newly-manufactured trailers (Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems). I have enclosed an interpretive letter which should clarify this matter for you. Briefly, the answer is no, if the "platform" includes the main frame members.

You also asked whether the vehicle must conform to the safety standards if it is assembled for the manufacturer's own use or if it is leased to a third party. Section 108 (a) (1) (A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C 1397 (a) (1) (A)) prohibits not only the sale, but also the introduction or delivery for introduction in interstate commerce of vehicles which do not comply with all applicable safety standards in effect on the date of manufacture. Therefore the answer to your question is yes if the vehicle is ever operated on the public streets or highways.

SINCERELY,

STRICK CORP.

July 17, 1975

James C. Schultz, Esquire Chief Counsel U.S. Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Re: N40-30 (TWH)

Thank you very much for your letter of June 6, 1975 with regard to Standard #121, Air-Brake Systems. I would appreciate very much if you could let me know whether the NHTSA interpretations of the Standard would prohibit the utilization of a used running gear assembly with a new platform, on a platform trailer for our own use in our operations. In addition, we would appreciate advice as to whether or not the lease of such a vehicle to third parties would be prohibited.

Leonard Barkan Vice President and General Counsel

ID: 21078.ztv

M. Guy Dorleans
International and Regulatory Affairs Mgr.
Valeo
34 rue Saint-Andre
93012 Bobigny
France

Dear M. Dorleans:

This is in reply to your letter of December 17, 1999, asking for confirmation that a new headlamp design is in conformance with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

The headlamp incorporates three replaceable light sources. The upper beam is provided by two bulbs called "HB nb1" and "HB nb2." The lower beam is also provided by two bulbs, the first being "LB nb1" (the same bulb as "HB nb1") and by bulb "LB nb2." The headlamp meets the photometric requirements of Table 17-2 in each beam mode.

Paragraph S4 Definitions of Standard No. 108 defines a "replaceable bulb headlamp" in pertinent part as "a headlamp comprising . . . one or two replaceable light sources . . . ." Because the Valeo design incorporates three replaceable light sources, it does not comply with the definition, and thus is not a replaceable bulb headlamp design allowed by Standard No. 108.

We are, however, considering amending the definition of "replaceable bulb headlamp" to allow more than two light sources. On November 12, 1998, we proposed a revision of Standard No. 108 (63 FR 63258). With respect to proposed S7.4.5 Arrangement and marking of upper and lower beams, and S7.5.3 Arrangement and marking of upper and lower beams, we remarked (at 63260) that these paragraphs anticipate "future headlamp designs with an array of light sources . . . ." But we overlooked proposing a corresponding amendment to "replaceable bulb headlamp" which would define it as comprising one or more light sources. Because the proposal presented the issue of multiple-bulb replaceable bulb headlamps, we will consider for purposes of a final rule including a redefinition of "replaceable bulb headlamp" that would accommodate headlamps such as Valeo's. We plan to announce a decision during 2000.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
ref:108
d.3/10/2000

ID: 20811.ztv

Mr. Robert N. Clemens
President
Automobile Consumer Service Corp.
2007 Poole Drive
Huntsville, AL 35810

Dear Mr. Clemens:

This is in reply to your letter of November 2, 1999, to Taylor Vinson of this Office, enclosing copies of "RI policy and Certificate of Insurance with an endorsement [by] National Warranty Insurance Group." You have asked for our approval, so that you may proceed to order the printing of the policies.

By way of background, 49 U.S.C. 30141(c)(1)(C) and 30147(b), as implemented by 49 CFR 592.5(a)(8), (a)(9), and (e) require this agency to ensure that a registered importer (RI) provide and maintain evidence of sufficient financial responsibility to meet certain obligations, principally to notify purchasers and remedy safety-related defects or noncompliances occurring in motor vehicles for which the RI has import certification responsibility. The regulatory method we chose was to require an RI to obtain a "mandatory service insurance policy issued by an independent insurance company," in an amount up to $2,000 for each motor vehicle imported or conformed by the RI.

When the regulation went into effect early in 1990, the initial RIs were unable to find any company registered as an insurer which was willing to issue such a service insurance policy. However, Automobile Consumer Service Corporation developed a "warranty" to serve the same purposes as an insurance policy, and we acceded to this arrangement. We assisted ACSC in drafting an acceptable document, even though we had no information on its financial reserves and its financial ability to honor the "warranty." However, we are not aware of any instance in which one of these warranties was presented to ACSC, let alone presented and not honored.

Nevertheless, the question of the adequacy of reserves to honor policies has continued to concern us. Your letter of November 2 informed us of the willingness of the National Warranty Insurance Risk Retention Group ("National Warranty") to insure ACSC on its issuance of its warranties. In turn, on November 23, 1999, Signet Star Reinsurance Company ("Signet Star") agreed to reinsure National Warranty under its agreement with ACSC, a copy of which you furnished us on November 29.

After reviewing these documents, we have concluded that an RI who obtains an ACSC warranty that is covered by ACSC's agreement with National Warranty, and by National Warranty's agreement with Signet Star, provides a satisfactory assurance of financial ability to fulfill the RI's statutory obligations. You may proceed to order your policies. However, our consent to this arrangement does not preclude us from considering other ways in which the statutory objectives may be effected. Any changes, of course, would be the subject of public notices to afford interested persons an opportunity to comment.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
ref:592
d.2/3/2000

ID: nht80-3.47

DATE: 09/11/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Great Plains Industries Inc.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your letter of July 31, 1980 concerning an evaporative cooler you are considering manufacturing for use on motor vehicles. You explained that the unit would mount just outside the upper portion of the passenger window and would block approximately the upper 3 1/2 inches and protrude to the right of the drip rail approximately 10 inches. The following discussion answers your questions and outlines your responsibilities under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (The Act, 15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq., a copy of which is enclosed)

You first asked whether your evaporative cooler would violate any Federal safety regulations. The agency has not issued any Federal motor vehicle safety standard directly establishing requirements for evaporative coolers. However, as explained below, installation of your cooler may be affected by the agency's proposed standard on direct fields of view. That proposal would prohibit certain obstructions in the driver's field of view. I have enclosed a copy of that notice of proposed rulemaking. 'The agency does not plan to take final action on this proposal until early next year.)

If the field of direct view standard is adopted, then installation of an evaporative cooler in a new vehicle prior to the vehicle's sale to the first purchaser could be affected by section 108(a)(1)(C) of the Act, and the agency's certification regulation (49 CFR 567, a copy of which is enclosed). If a cooler is installed as an add-on item of motor vehicle equipment by a vehicle dealer prior to the vehicle's delivery to the first purchaser, then section 567.7 of the certification regulation would apply. That section provides that a person who alters a previously certified vehicle prior to its first purchase must certify that the vehicle, as altered, still conforms to all applicable standards. Thus, a new vehicle would have to comply with the fields of view requirements with the cooler installed.

Whether or not your cooler is covered by a Federal safety standard, as a manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment you are required to comply with the provisions of the Act pertaining to safety-related defects (sections 151-159, 15 U.S.C. 1411-1419). Thus, if your company learns of a defect relating to motor vehicle safety in its evaporative coolers, you would be required to notify this agency, as well as owners, purchasers or dealers of the equipment, concerning the defect and to remedy the defect without charge. Parts 573, 576, 577 and 579 of the agency's regulations (49 CFR 573, 576, 577 and 579) define in detail a manufacturer's defect recordkeeping, reporting notification and remedy responsibilities with regard to safety-related defects. I have enclosed copies of those (Illegible Word).

You also asked whether you must check each state code prior to sale of your evaporative cooler in that state, since some states may have regulations that are more restrictive than the Federal regulations. In the absence of a Federal standard directly affecting evaporative coolers, state regulations would govern the sale of your cooler. If there was a Federal standard affecting the installation of your cooler, then the Federal regulation may preempt conflicting State regulations. Section 103(d) of the Act provides that no State may have a standard "applicable to the same aspect of performance" of a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment, unless the state standard is "identical to the Federal standard." The Act does authorize State to establish higher standards of performance than the applicable Federal standard for vehicles or equipment procured for its own use. A determination of whether a Federal standard on direct fields of view would preempt a state standard on the same subject can only be made on a case-by-case basis after final action is taken on the field of view proposal and after reviewing the particular State standard.

You also asked whether you could use certain statements on your cooler advising people to check state regulations before installing the cooler. The validity of such statements would be regulated by state law. Finally, you asked how you could obtain copies of state vehicle codes and information about obtaining a wavier or amendment of such codes. A law library may have copies of such codes. Otherwise, you will probably have to write to each State agency regulating motor vehicles to obtain a copy of their codes.

I hope this information is of help to you. Please contact Steve Oesch of my office if you have any further questions about Federal regulations affecting your product at (202-426-2992).

ID: nht80-3.24

DATE: 07/30/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Volkswagon of America, Inc., Dietmar K. Haenchen, Administrator, Vehicle Regulations

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Dietmar K. Haenchen Administrator Vehicle Regulations Volkswagen of America, Inc. 27621 Parkview Boulevard Warren, Michigan 48092

Dear Mr. Haenchen:

This is in reply to your letter of April 2, 1980, asking for information of your interpretation of Section 4.3.1 of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

This section states that lamps "shall be securely mounted on a rigid part of the vehicle ... that is not designed to be removed except for repair." It is your belief that this section would allow a configuration in which back-up lamps and license plate lamps could be mounted on the deck lid.

We concur with this interpretation. The requirement for rigidity is meant to insure that lamps and reflectors do not sway in the wind on hinges or flexible mud flamps when the vehicle is in motion. The passenger cars you propose to manufacture will normally be operated with the deck lid closed and the lamps in full view on a rigid part of the vehicle as the standard requires. However, placement of a stop lamp and taillamp on a deck lid could be viewed as a defect in performance, and hence a safety related defect requiring notification and remedy.

Sincerely

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

2 April 1980

CERTIFIED MAIL

Subject: Interpretation - FMVSS 108

Dear Mr. Berndt:

Volkswagen requests your concurrence of our interpretation of FMVSS 108; lamps, reflective devices, and associated equipment as it applies to the mounting of lamps as specified in section S4.3.

Subsection S4.3.1 states ...each lamp, reflective device, and item of associated equipment shall be securely mounted on a rigid part of the vehicle other than glazing that is not designed to be removed except for repair,...

It is Volkswagen's opinion that the above requirement would not preclude the mounting of lamps on movable flaps such as a deck lid since the deck lid is a rigid structure removed only for repair. With this rationale, present planning by Audi NSU Auto Union is to incorporate the backup lamps and license plate lamps into the deck lid of several future models (see attached sketch).

Marx Elliott of the NHTSA in a phone conversation with a member of my staff, indicated that he thought Volkswagen's interpretation was correct, however, he recommended that we obtain a interpretation from your office.

Response to this request at your earliest convenience will be greatly appreciated.

Sincerely,

VOLKSWAGEN OF AMERICA, INC.

Dietmar K. Haenchen

Encl.