ID: nht74-5.3

DATE: 02/20/74

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: CIMS COS.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of January 15, 1974, requesting information on the labeling requirements of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 117. The agency has recently amended Standard No. 117 in accordance with the Court of Appeals decision in National Tire Dealers' and Retreaders' Association v. Brinegar. The standard as amended requires only that retreaded tires be permanently labeled with maximum load. All the other information required -- size, tubeless or tube-type, maximum inflation pressure, and radial and bias/belted designations -- may appear on affixed labels. The amendment does allow the use of one permanent label to apply all of the required information

JANUARY 15, 1974

Mr. L. R. Schneider, Chief Counsel NHTSA

Subject: - FMVSS # 117 & RECENT ACTION OF U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

We are aware of the recent United States Court of Appeals action concerning the permanent labeling requirements of Retread Std. 117, and assume that NHTSA will promptly issue a notice to help clarify the requirements.

It is our understanding that; -- Effective February 1st, 1974, each retread tire must have the following information permanently molded into or on one sidewall of the tire:

---Maximum Load Pressure*

---Actual Number of Plies*

* (Required information can be retained from the casing, or added in the retreading process if missing or buffed off.)

Further, -- that the following labeling information is required and must appear on the finished retreaded tire, either- or by use of a permanent or temporary type labeling method:-

-- The Tire SIZE

-- TUBELESS or TUBE-TYPE

-- RADIAL or BIAS/BELTED designation

-- MAXIMUM INFLATION PRESSURE

Our concern in this matter is a sincere interest to help eliminate confusion. We are a major supplier to the Industry of retread tire identification systems and have had considerable contact with Retreaders concerning the labeling requirements of #117.

Evaluating the recent action, we conclude that the Retreader can use one permanent labeling method to comply with both the required permanent and temporary labeling requirements. Many Retreaders have indicated to us their interest in using one permanent labeling method to eliminate the additional burden and cost of using both a permanent and temporary labeling method.

Assuming the use of a permanent labeling method is acceptable for both requirements, a clear statement of this in your notice would be of considerable help to all Retreaders and the Industry.

Thank you for your consideration in this matter.

Paul J. Kruder, President

cc: Mr. M. Kushnick

ID: 3239yy

Mr. Michael E. Kastner
Director of Government Relations
National Truck Equipment Association
1350 New York Avenue NW, Suite 800
Washington, DC 20005-4797

Dear Mr. Kastner:

This responds to your letter of September 4, 1991, asking whether an altered vehicle label must be added under the following circumstances:

An NTEA member receives a truck which is certified as a completed vehicle. This vehicle has not yet been titled or registered for use in any state. The NTEA member then installs a piece of equipment. This piece of equipment would not be considered readily attachable, nor would this equipment modify the completed vehicle's weight ratings. Both the completed truck manufacturer and the equipment manufacturer have stated that installation of this equipment would not affect compliance with any federal motor vehicle safety standard.

If the modification you describe is performed prior to the first purchase in good faith of the vehicle for purposes other than resale, the answer to your question is yes. A person is considered an alterer if (1) they alter the vehicle in any manner "other than by the addition, substitution, or removal of readily attachable components ... or minor finishing operations," or (2) they alter "the vehicle is such a manner that its stated weight ratings are no longer valid." Since the conditions you describe involve equipment which is not readily attachable, the NTEA member would be considered an alterer.

If considered an alterer, the NTEA member would be subject to the certification requirements of 49 CFR 567.7. These requirements include provisions that the alterer supplement the existing manufacturer certification label, which must remain on the vehicle, by affixing an additional label. The label must state that the vehicle as altered conforms to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. The label would also state the alterer and the month and the year in which the alterations were completed.

If the modification you describe is performed after the first purchase in good faith of the vehicle for purposes other than resale, the NTEA member would not be considered an alterer and an alteration label would not have to be attached. Under these conditions, the only provision in Federal law that affects the vehicle's continuing compliance with applicable safety standards is set forth in section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)). That section provides:

No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or in part, any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle ... in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard.

In general, this "render inoperative" provision would require any of these named entities to ensure that any additional equipment installed in a vehicle would not negatively affect the compliance of any component or design on the vehicle with applicable safety standards. Violations of 108(a)(2)(A) are punishable by civil fines up to $1,000 per violation.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have further questions, please contact Mary Versailles of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel /ref:VSA#567 d:12/6/9l

ID: nht91-7.34

DATE: December 6, 1991

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Michael E. Kastner -- Director of Government Relations, National Truck Equipment Association

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 9-4-91 from Michael E. Kastner to Paul J. Rice (OCC 6447)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of September 4, 1991, asking whether an altered vehicle label must be added under the following circumstances.

An NTEA member receives a truck which is certified as a completed vehicle. This vehicle has not yet been titled or registered for use in any state. The NTEA member then installs a piece of equipment. This piece of equipment would not be considered readily attachable, nor would this equipment modify the completed vehicle's weight ratings. Both the completed truck manufacturer and the equipment manufacturer have stated that installation of this equipment would not affect compliance with any federal motor vehicle safety standard.

If the modification you describe is performed prior to the first purchase in good faith of the vehicle for purposes other than resale, the answer to your question is yes. A person is considered an alterer if (1) they alter the vehicle in any manner "other than by the addition, substitution, or removal of readily attachable components ... or minor finishing operations," or (2) they alter "the vehicle is such a manner that its stated weight ratings are no longer valid." Since the conditions you describe involve equipment which is not readily attachable, the NTEA member would be considered an alterer.

If considered an alterer, the NTEA member would be subject to the certification requirements of 49 CFR S567.7. These requirements include provisions that the alterer supplement the existing manufacturer certification label, which must remain on the vehicle, by affixing an additional label. The label must state that the vehicle as altered conforms to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. The label would also state the alterer and the month and the year in which the alterations were completed.

If the modification you describe is performed after the first purchase in good faith of the vehicle for purposes other than resale, the NTEA member would not be considered an alterer and an alteration label would not have to be attached. Under these conditions, the only provision in Federal law that affects the vehicle's continuing compliance with applicable safety standards is set forth in section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)). That section provides:

No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or in part, any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle ... in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard.

In general, this "render inoperative" provision would require any of these named entities to ensure that any additional equipment installed in a vehicle would not negatively affect the compliance of any component or design on the vehicle with applicable safety standards. Violations of S108(a)(2)(A) are punishable by civil fines up to $1,000 per violation.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have further questions, please contact Mary Versailles of my staff at this address or my telephone at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht95-4.100

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: December 11, 1995

FROM: Samuel J. Dubbin -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Mr. William Shapiro -- Manager, Regulatory Compliance and Consumer Affairs, Volvo Cars of North America, Inc.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: 10/16/95 letter from William Shapiro to John Womack (occ 11298)

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of October 16, 1995, to John Womack, requesting that we confirm your interpretation of certain provisions in the Bumper Standard, 49 CFR Part 581. As described in your letter, Volvo is contemplating attaching a device to the bumper face bar of its vehicles that will be used for purposes other than mitigating the effects of a low speed collision. In a telephone conversation on November 22, 1995, Steven Kraitz of your Office informed Coleman Sachs of my staff that the device will be some form of radar equipment, and that Volvo has yet to decide whether it will be offered as optional or as standard equipment on its vehicles.

You are of the opinion that even though this device could be damaged or destroyed in a low speed collision, the vehicles on which it is installed will still be in compliance with the Bumper Standard because it is not one of the components or systems that are specified in 49 CFR 581.5(c)(1) through (6) as having to remain operational after Bumper Standard compliance testing is performed. You further characterize this device as being "part of the bumper face bar" for the purposes of 49 CFR 581.5(c)(8). That section provides:

The exterior surfaces shall have no separations of surface materials, paint, polymeric coatings, or other covering materials from the surface to which they are bonded, and no permanent deviations from their original contours . . . except where such damag e occurs to the bumper face bar and the components and associated fasteners that directly attach the bumper face bar to the chassis frame.

We disagree with your opinion that the radar device that Volvo is considering for its vehicles is either an integral part of the bumper face bar, or a component that is needed to attach the bumper face bar to the chassis frame. Consequently, the device w ould not fall within the exception in 49 CFR 581.5(c)(8) quoted above.

Conditions for Bumper Standard compliance tests are specified at 49 CFR 581.6. Paragraph (a)(5) of that section states that "[running] lights, fog lamps, and equipment mounted on the bumper face bar are removed from the vehicle if they are optional equip ment." Therefore, if the radar device is to be offered as optional equipment, it must be removed from the test vehicle before Bumper Standard compliance testing is performed. In this circumstance, the vehicle's compliance with the Bumper Standard would not be affected if the device were unable to withstand low speed collisions. If the device is to be offered as standard equipment, however, it must remain on the vehicle while Bumper Standard compliance tests are performed, and must withstand those test s free of damage to meet the protective criteria specified in 49 CFR 581.5(c)(8).

If you have any further questions regarding this issue, feel free to contact Mr. Sachs at the above address, or by telephone at (202) 366-5238.

ID: nht95-7.57

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: December 11, 1995

FROM: Samuel J. Dubbin -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Mr. William Shapiro -- Manager, Regulatory Compliance and Consumer Affairs, Volvo Cars of North America, Inc.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: 10/16/95 letter from William Shapiro to John Womack (occ 11298)

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of October 16, 1995, to John Womack, requesting that we confirm your interpretation of certain provisions in the Bumper Standard, 49 CFR Part 581. As described in your letter, Volvo is contemplating attaching a device to the bumper face bar of its vehicles that will be used for purposes other than mitigating the effects of a low speed collision. In a telephone conversation on November 22, 1995, Steven Kraitz of your Office informed Coleman Sachs of my staff that the device will be some form of radar equipment, and that Volvo has yet to decide whether it will be offered as optional or as standard equipment on its vehicles.

You are of the opinion that even though this device could be damaged or destroyed in a low speed collision, the vehicles on which it is installed will still be in compliance with the Bumper Standard because it is not one of the components or systems that are specified in 49 CFR 581.5(c)(1) through (6) as having to remain operational after Bumper Standard compliance testing is performed. You further characterize this device as being "part of the bumper face bar" for the purposes of 49 CFR 581.5(c)(8). That section provides:

The exterior surfaces shall have no separations of surface materials, paint, polymeric coatings, or other covering materials from the surface to which they are bonded, and no permanent deviations from their original contours . . . except where such damage occurs to the bumper face bar and the components and associated fasteners that directly attach the bumper face bar to the chassis frame.

We disagree with your opinion that the radar device that Volvo is considering for its vehicles is either an integral part of the bumper face bar, or a component that is needed to attach the bumper face bar to the chassis frame. Consequently, the device would not fall within the exception in 49 CFR 581.5(c)(8) quoted above.

Conditions for Bumper Standard compliance tests are specified at 49 CFR 581.6. Paragraph (a)(5) of that section states that "[running] lights, fog lamps, and equipment mounted on the bumper face bar are removed from the vehicle if they are optional equipment." Therefore, if the radar device is to be offered as optional equipment, it must be removed from the test vehicle before Bumper Standard compliance testing is performed. In this circumstance, the vehicle's compliance with the Bumper Standard would not be affected if the device were unable to withstand low speed collisions. If the device is to be offered as standard equipment, however, it must remain on the vehicle while Bumper Standard compliance tests are performed, and must withstand those tests free of damage to meet the protective criteria specified in 49 CFR 581.5(c)(8).

If you have any further questions regarding this issue, feel free to contact Mr. Sachs at the above address, or by telephone at (202) 366-5238.

ID: nht79-1.29

DATE: 11/06/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; John Womack; NHTSA

TO: Hein, Smith & Berezin

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

06 NOV 1979

Mr. Lawrence D. Smith Hein, Smith & Berezin 25 East Salem Street Hackensack, New Jersey 07601

Dear Mr. Smith:

This is in response to your letter of October 1, 1979, asking whether the Federal Government has any rule, regulations or statutes that obligate an insurance carrier to maintain a log of odometer readings with respect to vehicles declared a total loss. If a vehicle is repairable and will subsequently be used as a motor vehicle, disclosure of the actual miles would have to be made to the purchaser and those statements would have to be maintained by the insurance carrier for four years. However, if the vehicle is so badly damaged that it cannot be returned to the road, it will have ceased to be a motor vehicle for purposes of the regulations. Disclosure and retention would, therefore, not be required. In those instances where disclosure and retention are required, the format is specified in 49 CFR Part 580. For your information, I have enclosed copies of the relevant portions of the regulations, along with a sample disclosure form.

Sincerely,

John Womack Assistant Chief Counsel for General Law & Legislation Enclosure

October 1, 1979

United States Department of Transportation 400 Seventh Street, S.W.

Washington, D.C. 20590

Gentlemen:

I am an Attorney in the State of New Jersey, andrepresent several insurance companies. Recently, inquiry was addressed to me by one of my clients, requesting that I ascertain whether the State of New Jersey or the Federal Government has any rules, regulations or statutes that obligate an insurance carrier to maintain a log of odometer readings with respect to vehicles declared a total loss as the result of an automobile accident where the carrier, on paying its assured, takes title to the totaled vehicle and then sells that vehicle for salvage. I would appreciate any information you can provide me, together with copies of any pertinent rules, regulations or statutory citations.

I thank you, in advance, for your cooperation and assistance.

Very truly yours,

HEIN, SMITH & BEREZIN

Lawrence D. Smith

LDS/kd

ID: nht91-7.48

DATE: December 16, 1991

FROM: William R. Willen -- Managing Counsel, Product Legal Group, American Honda Motor Co., Inc.

TO: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 1/28/92 from Paul Jackson Rice (Stephen P. Wood) to William R. Willen, Esq. (A39; Std. 123)

TEXT:

I am writing to you seeking an interpretation.

FMVSS 123, in section 5.2.1. contains the following language: "if a motorcycle is equipped with a self proportioning, or an antilock braking device utilizing a single control for both front and rear brakes, the control shall be located and operable in the same manner as a rear brake control."

Honda is in the final stages of developing an advanced version of their proportional braking system for motorcycles. It offers:

a) Full proportioning front and rear when utilizing either the front hand control, or the rear foot control.

In order to fully comply with the "letter" of the standard, this system would seem to be out of compliance when the front hand brake is applied.

Honda feels that it is an obvious safety advantage to offer the full extent of proportioning, with "any" brake application! Honda also feels that the authors of 123 did not foresee the possibility of proportioning, being available with the application of the right, front handlebar lever.

Since the "full spirit" of FMVSS 123 is being met, Honda is seeking an interpretation of this system that would permit the use of these advancements. Telephone conversations have taken place between Doug Toms, an advisor on the project, and Steve Wood. Honda stands ready to answer any questions, or provide additional technical detail should that be desired.

Honda will be conducting sales "decision meetings" on Jan. 22, and 23, 1992. It would be most helpful if some "feeling" for your response could be gained by telephone just prior to those dates.

ID: codemk-3

Mr. Jerel M. Sachs
General Manager, Automotive Glass
Import Products Glass (IPG)
385 West Street
West Bridgewater, MA 02379

Dear Mr. Sachs:

This responds to your June 26, 1995, letter requesting a manufacturer's code mark for automotive glazing to comply with the marking requirements in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 205, Glazing Materials. You stated in your letter that you "intend to engage in the manufacture and/or contract manufacture of automotive safety glass in the United States and overseas." Your letter also stated that you were negotiating for the tooling, machinery, and the code mark of Lin's Glass Company in Taiwan.

In a June 29, 1995, phone conversation between Paul Atelsek and a member of your staff, we learned that IPG only imports and distributes, but does not actually make, glazing. He was also told that Lin's has gone out of business, and that you had switched to another supplier in Taiwan. In a July 13, 1995, phone conversation with Mr. Atelsek, you confirmed that IPG makes no glazing and that your new supplier has a code mark assigned by NHTSA, but said that you preferred to use a "fresh" number assigned to your company. You said that other companies that do not make glazing have code marks assigned to them, and named another company that you said imports "cheap" Chinese glass and applies its own manufacturer's code mark in order to disguise the origin of the glass from its buyers. In a July 13, 1995, letter in support of your request, you stated that IPG would be doing contract manufacturing with a supplier who is also supplying other customers, and that having your own number would help you monitor quality control and track your product in the marketplace. You believe that having your own number would also benefit NHTSA because the agency would have an easier time implementing a recall through IPG than through the Taiwanese supplier.

As Mr. Atelsek explained on the telephone, we cannot issue a number to your company because you are not a "prime glazing manufacturer." Standard 205, at S6.1, defines "prime glazing material manufacturer" as "one who fabricates, laminates, or

tempers the glazing material." As your company does none of these things, we cannot issue a code mark to IPG. To show you that this is a matter of longstanding legal interpretation, I have enclosed some interpretation letters we have written to others asking this question and related questions.

The glass should be marked with the number we have assigned to your supplier, the prime glazing manufacturer in Taiwan. The practice you mentioned of using code marks to disguise the identity of the manufacturer is directly contrary to our policy. This code mark is supposed to help NHTSA identify the prime manufacturer of the glazing material for purposes of defect and noncompliance recall campaigns. Therefore, the code mark on a particular piece of glazing needs to refer to the company that actually made the glazing, and code marks should never be applied to glazing made by anyone else.

I hope this information is helpful. Please feel free to contact Mr. Atelsek at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992 if you have any further questions or need additional information.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosures

ref:205 d:8/4/95

ID: nht76-1.25

DATE: 11/04/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Universal Imports;

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your September 13, 1976, letter concerning "a line of racing/rally tires that are not Department of Transportation marked."

I understand from your recent telephone conversation with Mark Schwimmer of my staff that the tires with which you are concerned are of the following size designations: 165/70 HR 10 ; 225/60 HR 14 ; 225/60 HR 13 ; and 195/70 HR 13.

Section S6 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 109, New Pneumatic Tires -- Passenger Cars, reads as follows:

S6. Nonconforming tires. No tire of a type and size designation specified in Table I of Appendix A that is designed for use on passenger cars and manufactured on or after October 1, 1972, but does not conform to all the requirements of this standard, shall be sold, offered for sale, introduced or delivered for introduction in interstate commerce, or imported into the United States, for any purpose. (emphasis added)

because the size designations of the tires in question all appear in Table I of Appendix A, these tires are subject to the prohibitions of S6 unless they were manufactured before October 1, 1972. "All the requirements of the standard" include both performance and labeling requirements.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

Universal Imports

FRANK BERNDT -- ACTING CHIEF COUNSEL, National Highway Traffic Safety Association

September 13, 1976/Letter #7725

Dear Mr. Berndt:

Universal Tire and it's affiliates are involved in practically every aspect of the tire industry except retreading. The import aspect of our business has just been offered a line of racing/rally tires that are not Department Of Transportation marked.

As you are probably aware there exists today an ever growing extremely viable market for off road racing and rally oriented products.

It is our desire to approach this new market from retail, wholesale and mail order standpoints. We are especially concerned with our responsibilities with regard to selling these race/rally tires since they are not Department Of Transportation marked. Please keep in mind that we wish not only to adhere to the letter of the law but to the spirit of the law as well. Any guidance you can offer us regarding the sale of these tires would be greatly appreciated.

Again, as we see it we have three separate sets of selling circumstances: retail, wholesale and mail order (retail), and would like guidelines from you for all three.

Thanking you in advance for any assistance you might furnish, we remain

Most cordially,

William G. Mathews, III -- Division Manager

ID: nht89-3.8

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 10/04/89

FROM: DELL RANDLE

TO: GEORGE MILLER -- CONGRESS

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 12/1/89 FROM STEPHEN P. WOOD -- NHTSA TO U.S. CONGRESSMAN GEORGE MILLER; REDBOOK A34; STANDARD 125; LETTER DATED 10/17/89 FROM NANCY L. BRUCE -- D.O.T OFFICE OF CONGRESSIONAL AFFAIRS TO GEORGE MILLER, U.S. HOUSE OF REPR ESENTATIVES; LETTER DATED 10/12/89 FROM GEORGE MILLER, U.S. CONGRESSMAN TO NANCY BRUCE -- D.O.T OFFICE OF CONGRESSIONAL AFFAIRS; LETTER DATED 9/8/89 FROM ELIZABETH M LUCAS -- NATIONAL SAFETY COUNCIL, PRODUCT DEVELOPMENT TO DELL RANDLE OF SHIKARI CONSULTA NT FIRM LTD.

TEXT: Dear Congressman George Miller:

This letter is in regards to a safety device, which I designed, The Shi-Lite Holder, to eliminate the danger and the inconvience for stranded motorist. This eliminates motorist from leaving their car to place safety devices upon the freeway.

Description of Shi-Lite Holder:

* made of light wire, hooks on car window * after raising holder which is 17 inches above the roof of the car * two 3 inch red reflectors * two red high intensive light sticks * sit in a lantern container * Light sticks are non flammable * non toxic

On or about February 9, 1989, I was in contact with Assemblyman, Robert J. Campbell. He informed me that I should contact Captain Bob Hayworth of CHP, to evaluate the Shi-Lite, that it confirms with current Laws. Upon meeting with Captain Hayworth he i nformed me I would have to make a change on the product, change being no red could be seen from the front by oncoming traffic, this was corrected.

On or about April 12, 1989, I was in the office of Mr. Bernard Trenton, Commercial and Technical, Service Section, Sacramento, to get the final approval by his office. Mr. Trenton and his assistant, Mr. Kyle Larsen, evaluated and approved that the Shi-L ite holder meets all State requirement.

On or about May 18, 1989, a letter and picture was sent to National Safety Council, Chicago, IL. C/O Ms. Liz Lucas. In her letter dated September 8, 1989, they declined the product, reason being the Shi-Lite does not meet Federal Requirements as set by the Department of Transportation.

On or about September 21, 1989, I spoke with Dr. August and Mr. Harper in Washington, D.C. Dr. August mailed me D.O.T. Standard No. 125 Sec 571.125 on warning devices. I see nothing in the standard that relates to the Shi-Lite.

Since I see nothing in the regulations governing the Shi-Lite and its functioning and national rejected it on those basis, being a federal ruling, I would like for your office to look into this matter, since the rejection was based on Federal regulations .

Sincerely,