ID: nht78-3.40

DATE: 08/30/78

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; John Womack; NHTSA

TO: Utah State Tax Commission

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Thank you for your letter of August 10, 1978, requesting approval to use Utah's proposed Certificate of Title as a substitute for the Federal odometer disclosure form required by 49 CFR Part 580.

The proposed Certificate of Title which you enclosed with your letter differs from the Federal odometer disclosure form in the following ways:

(1) The Utah Certificate of Title contains no reference to State or Federal law;

(2) the set of certifications relating to the distance the vehicle has travelled are shortened by adopting the format recommended by the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators;

(3) the certifications relating to alteration of the odometer are deleted; and

(4) the transferee is not required to sign the statement.

The only suggestions that we have are that you include a reference to either State or Federal law and the signature of the transferee (buyer). The purpose of the reference to the law is to alert the purchaser to the fact that the odometer information is a legal requirement, the violation of which is punishable. The purpose of the transferee's signature is to ensure that he or she has seen the disclosure statement and to prevent him or her from later claiming that no statement was received. With these changes Utah's Certificate of Title will be in substantive conformity with the Federal odometer law, despite its differences from the Federal form. Therefore, pursuant to 49 CFR 580.4(f)(2), I hereby grant your request to use Utah's Certificate of Title, with the changes noted above, as a substitute for the Federal form.

ID: nht91-2.16

DATE: March 7, 1991

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel

TO: Sidney A. Garrett -- President, Brown Cargo Van, Inc.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 4-25-90 from Stephen P. Wood to J. Douglas Smith (Std. 108); Also attached to letter dated 2-15-91 from Sidney A. Garret to U.S. Department of Transportation, NHTSA (OCC 5732)

TEXT:

This is in reply to your letter of February 15, 1991, asking the agency for an interpretation of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 as it pertains to the location of front clearance and identification lamps on truck van bodies.

Specifically, where the chassis-cab is equipped with clearance and identification lamps, you have asked whether this relieves you, as the manufacturer of the van body, from installing additional clearance and identification lamps on the van body. If the answer is no, you have asked whether the van body may be equipped with clearance lamps only, or must it be equipped with both clearance and identification lamps.

We answered a similar request on April 25, 1990, and I enclose a copy of our response for your guidance. With respect to your particular design, the clearance lamps mounted on the cab would not be as near the top of the completed motor vehicle as practicable, and therefore must be located on the van body. However, identification lamps may be mounted on the cab, and your lamps located as shown in your Exhibit 2 would meet Standard No. 108. Identification lamps may also be mounted on the van body, and Exhibit 3 would also meet the location requirements of Standard No. 108.

ID: nht92-1.34

DATE: December 8, 1992

FROM: George D. James, Jr. -- Safety Chairman, Unit 169 WBCCI

TO: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, U.S. Department of Transportation, NHTSA; Attention: Stephen P. Wood -- Assistant Chief Counsel for Rulemaking, U.S. Department of Transportation, NHTSA

TITLE: RE Tekonsha Electronic Brake Control ("Control")

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 5-21-93 from John Womack to George D. James, Jr. (A41; Std. 108)

TEXT: Thank you for your 12/4/92 reply to my 10/24/92 letter objecting to your "approval" of this brake controller. Because your agency does not "approve", "endorse" or offer assurance of compliance of any M.V, equipment, I err in thinking you have "approved" these controllers.

I still believe that using trailer brakes without activating the STOP LIGHTS is an unsafe procedure AND you imply approval.

You state that "at this time we do not have any data indicating a real-world safety problem created by the use of the Tekonsha brake control".

What data do you need to realize that a rear end collision (or a following vehicle choosing to leave the road to avoid one) or chain-reaction collisions caused by a slowing or stopping vehicle WITHOUT STOP LIGHTS BEING ACTIVATED is not a "real world" safety problem?

How many thousands of such accidents have already been recorded? How many violation citations with or without penalties have been made because of inoperating stop lights?

Mr. Wood, I've just talked with the Macon County Sheriff's Department and the State Highway Patrol (North Carolina) and they both confirm that:

1. There'll be a lot more collisions on the highways if vehicles are permitted to run with non-operating stop lights, and

2. Don't get caught here with stop lights not working or you'll for sure be ticketed.

Now by George, you KNOW this is right. YOU DON'T NEED "MORE DATA"! HOW CAN YOU SAY YOUR AGENCY'S GOAL IS MINIMIZING DEATHS AND INJURIES ON THE HIGHWAYS, and still defend your decision re these new brake controllers? HOW CAN YOU SAY YOU NEED MORE DATA INDICATING A POTENTIAL PROBLEM?

ID: nht75-3.17

DATE: 05/01/75

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

TO: University of Maryland School of Law

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of March 18, 1975, to Mr. Carter of this agency. You ask questions concerning publication of notices in the Federal Register concerning temporary exemptions from the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. For convenience I will number your questions, then answer them.

1. "Do you known why Congress has required this form of publication and what purpose it serves?"

The current exemption authority is the second provided the agency by Congress. Our initial authority (P.L. 90-283), in effect from April 10, 1968, to April 10, 1971, did not require publication of notices. There is no legislative history explaining why it was included in 1972. However, the new authority is broader in scope, containing additional bases for exemption, and is now a permanent rather than a temporary part of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966. In the last few years there has been a legislative trend towards affording the general public greater opportunity to participate in all rulemaking decisions that may affect their safety and welfare. It is my guess that this requirement is part of that trend. It also, in my view, has the beneficial and possibly intended effect of insuring greater accountability on the part of the decision makers.

2. "Does NHTSA give notice of receipt of petitions to businesses, or groups in any other fashion than through publication of notices in the Federal Register?"

NHTSA does not issue press releases or otherwise give notice of receipt of these petitions. Trade publications such as Automotive News and services such as Consumer Product Safety Guide (CCH) generally do reference them.

3. "Does NHTSA receive many comments on the petitions or requests for informal appearances under 49 CFR 555.7(c)?"

The petitions generally create little public interest, and we average one or two comments per petition. Many are not commented on at all. The petitions and comments are available for examination in Room 5108 of 400 Seventh Street, S.W., during business hours if you would like to see them. The NHTSA rarely receives a "written request" from a manufacturer pursuant to 555.7(c) to discuss a petition or action taken in response to one. If a manufacturer wishes to meet with us before or at the time of filing a petition, we are willing to do so. These meetings are limited to insuring that the procedural requirements of Part 555 are met and that the petitions contain the necessary information. Arrangements are made by telephone. I do not think we have ever had such a written request from a person other than a manufacturer.

4. "Are the comments or requests in response to some other notice-giving device?" No.

5. "Are the comments or requests generally from the same persons or groups?"

Generally no. Public interest groups commented on the initial petitions in 1973 but have not done so since then. Electric vehicle manufacturers usually support each other's petitions. In 1975 we have published to date 12 petitions by truck, bus and trailer manufacturers seeking exemption from Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems, and these have been opposed by one or more competitors who meet the standard.

If you have any further questions, we shall be happy to answer them.

YOURS TRULY,

UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND SCHOOL OF LAW

March 18, 1975

Robert L. Carter Associate Administrator for Motor Vehicle Program National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

I have been retained as a consultant by the Administrative Conference of the United States to conduct a study on the use of the Federal Register to give notice to interested persons of governmental actions and proposals. I hope you will supply me with some information for assisting in my project.

The Motor Vehicle Safety Act Amendments of 1972, 15 U.S.C. 1410, requires NHTSA to publish in the Federal Register notices of decisions granting exemptions from safety standards and the reasons therefore. I note that in accordance with 49 C.F.R. 555.7 (a), NHTSA also publishes in the Federal Register notices of the receipt of petitions for exemptions and invites comments from interested persons. Do you know why Congress has required this form of publication and what purpose it serves? Does NHSTA give notice of the receipt of petitions to potentially interested persons, businesses or groups in any other fashion than through publication of notices in the Federal Register? Does NHTSA receive many comments on the petitions or requests for informal appearances under 49 C.F.R. 555.7(c)? Are the comments or requests in response to some other notice-giving device? Are the comments or requests received generally from the same persons or groups?

I would very much appreciate your assistance or that of your legal staff in this matter. If you would prefer to discuss these questions with me on the telephone, please feel free to call me at (301) 528-7969.

Edward A. Tomlinson Professor of Law

ID: nht70-1.10

DATE: 05/22/70

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Rodolfo A. Diaz; NHTSA

TO: Micro Machinery Products

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Thank you for your comments and suggestions contained in your April 23, 1970, letter to Mr. Douglas Toms concerning motor vehicle Safety.

In your letter, you ask that the Bureau clarify whether a dealer who sells "Micro-siped" tires that do not comply with Standard No. 109 would be subject to a civil penalty. Section 108(a) of the National Trafic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (15 U.S.C.et seq.) prohibits any person from manufacturing for sale, selling or offering for sale any item of motor vehicle equipment unless it is in conformity with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. The prohibitions specified in the Act, do not apply after the first purchase in good faith for purposes other than resale (108(b)(1)). Therefore, if a dealer offers for sale or sells new tires that have been micro-siped and those tires do not comply with Standard No. 109 he would be subject to a civil penalty of up to $ 1,000 for each tire that did not comply. This penalty provision would not be applicable, however, if the tires to be micro-siped are owned by the user of the tires.

It is noted for your information that section 569.7(c) of the Regrooved Tire Regulation (formerly 369.7(c), copy enclosed) prohibits the sale, offer for sale, or introduction in interstate commerce "siped tires produced by cutting the tread surface of a regrooved or regroovable tire without removing rubber, if the tire cord material is damaged as a result of the siping process, or if the tire is siped deeper than the original, retread, or regrooved groove depth."

Your interest in the motor vehicle safety program is greatly appreciated.

ID: 9709

Air Mail

Mr. Jerry Steffy Triumph Designs Ltd. Jacknell Road Dodwells Bridge Industrial Estate Hinckley, Leicestershire LE10 3BS England

Dear Mr. Steffy:

This responds to your request to Mr. David Elias, formerly of this office, for an interpretation concerning whether a motorcycle certification label may be placed in a location other than that specified in 49 CFR Part 567, Certification. As explained below, the answer is yes, the agency has permitted an alternative location in certain circumstances.

49 CFR '567.4(e) states that motorcycle certification labels "shall be affixed to a permanent member of the vehicle as close as is practicable to the intersection of the steering post with the handle bars, in a location such that it is easily readable without moving any part of the vehicle except the steering system." In your letter, you seem to refer to this intersection as the "headstock area," and ask whether the certification label can be placed elsewhere.

In an interpretation letter of November 23, 1982, to Suzuki Motor Co., Ltd., (copy enclosed) NHTSA permitted the motorcycle certification label to be placed "on the down tubes in front of the engine on either the right or left side." The agency permitted the alternate location because some Suzuki motorcycles were equipped with fairings, obscuring labels placed in the specified location.

Your inquiry seems to imply that Triumph's design would cause a certification label placed in the location specified in '567.4(e) to be obscured. If that is the case, please contact Mr. George Shifflett of NHTSA's Office of Vehicle Safety

Compliance at (202) 366-5307. NHTSA would be happy to work with you on finding an alternative location for your certification label.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please contact Ms. Dorothy Nakama of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosure

ref:567 d:6/9/94

ID: 77-1.25

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/17/77

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Nissan Motor Co., Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your January 6, 1977, question regarding the effective date of the recent amendment to Standard No. 116, Motor Vehicle Brake Fluids, that specifies color coding requirements for brake fluids (41 FR 54942, December 16, 1976). You asked whether motor vehicles manufactured after the effective date for the color coding requirements (September 1, 1978) may be equipped with brake fluids manufactured prior to that date that do not conform to the color coding requirements.

The answer to your question is yes. Paragraph S5.3 of Standard No. 116 specifies that motor vehicles having hydraulic brake systems shall be equipped with brake fluid that has been manufactured and packaged in conformity with the requirements of the standard. The agency interprets this to mean that vehicles shall be equipped with any brake fluid that conformed to the requirements of Standard No. 116 at the time the brake fluid was manufactured.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

NISSAN MOTOR CO., LTD.

January 6, 1977

Frank A. Berndt -- Acting Chief Counsel, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Mr. Berndt:

I would like to take this time to ask you for your interpretation regarding the effective date of brake fluid color coding requirements (MVSS 116, Docket 71-13; Notice 12) for the motor vehicles.

My understanding is that even on and after September 1, 1978 the motor vehicles can be equipped with brake fluid manufactured before that date which do not meet the color coding requirement of S.5.1.14 because FMVSS 116 except S5.3 does not apply to the motor vehicle manufacturer but to the brake fluid manufacturer. Is my understanding correct?

Thank you for your attention to this matter. We look forward to hearing your interpretation of the above.

Very truly yours, Tokio Iinuma -- Staff, Safety

ID: nht73-4.25

DATE: 06/01/73

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Grove Manufacturing Company

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of April 23, 1973, requesting our confirmation of certain issues discussed by you, and Michael Peskoe and David Fay of NHTSA, in a meeting in Mr. Peskoe's office on April 19, 1973.

It is correct that the NHTSA does not presently employ safety inspectors to inspect vehicles in service. Such inspections are made by inspectors of the Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety in the Federal Highway Administration, and it is true that their primary interest is the enforcement of the Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety regulations (49 CFR Parts 301-398). But if these investigators note violations of NHTSA regulations, the information will be forwarded to NHTSA and appropriate action will be taken.

It is correct that components of a vehicle service may be added, removed, or relocated at the discretion of a vehicle owner without violating NHTSA regulations. However, gross vehicle and axle weight ratings established by the vehicle manufacturer must be based on configurations of the vehicle which the manufacturer expects will be utilized in service. It is also correct that the weight imposed on each axle should not exceed the certified weight rating for each axle, but may be less than the certified weight rating.

Finally, it is correct that gross axle weight ratings may be established with a view towards the weight limitations of States in which the vehicle will be used.

Gross axle and vehicle weight ratings, under NHTSA regulations, are manufacturers' figures, and may be set at any level as long as the figures are consistent with the limitations specified in the NHTSA certification regulations. However, the weight ratings must also, of course, be consistent with the vehicle's load-carrying capacity.

ID: 1982-2.18

DATE: 06/30/82 EST

FROM: FRANK BERNDT -- CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TO: MIKE SMITH -- PRESIDENT, FLEET TIRE SERVICE

TITLE: NCA-30

ATTACHMT: MEMO DATED 3-23-82, FROM MIKE SMITH-FLEET TIRE SERVICE, TO NHTSA

TEXT: This responds to your recent letter to this agency asking about requirements for importing and retreading truck tire casings. In your letter and through a phone conversation with Mr. Kratzke of my staff on April 23, you stated that you had imported 220 truck tire casings from Belgium for the purpose of retreading. These casings all had DOT numbers on them. You buffed the tires for retreading, and then had a local police officer ascertain that each casing had indeed been buffed. This procedure would fully satisfy our requirements for retreaded truck tires.

As you probably know, there is no Federal safety standard for retreaded tires for motor vehicles other than passenger cars. However, before June 18, 1981, any such tires to be imported for retreading had to have a DOT symbol on the sidewall, or some other certification by the original manufacturer that the tires, as originally manufactured, complied with our standard for new truck tires. On June 18, 1981, the agency issued an interpretation stating that tires to be retreated for motor vehicles other than passenger cars could be imported solely for the purposes of retreading without having a DOT certification, providing that certain conditions were met. I have enclosed a copy of this interpretation for your information.

One of the conditions which the U.S. Customs Service has established for such activity is that the importer file an affidavit stating that casings without a DOT number will be buffed and retreaded, and none will be sold without retreading. The steps you took with this shipment of tires to show that each tire was actually retreaded were unnecessary, since your tires all had a DOT symbol on the sidewall, and could legally have been sold as used tires.

Your efforts to ensure that your retreading operation fully complied with all legal requirements are commendable. Efforts like yours will help make our roads as safe as possible for everyone using them. Should you have any further questions, or need any further information, please contact Mr. Kratzke at this address or by phone at (202) 426-2992. ENCLOSURE

ID: nht89-2.38

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/21/89

FROM: STEPHEN P. WOOD -- NHTSA

TO: Anonymous (confidential)

TITLE: NONE

TEXT: Dear

This is in reply to your letter of June 30, 1989, to John Donaldson of this Office titled "Request for Interpretation", submitted on behalf of your client. You request "that all identifying references to myself, my firm and [my client] in this letter and the responsive letter of interpretation" be deleted. Your request is granted on the basis that it relates to confidential business information and may be withheld under applicable Departmental regulations, 49 CFR Part 512.

You describe a lamp system as follows:

"The product is a headlamp consisting of a plastic lens and reflector, arc tubes (two each for high and low beam) and electronics for instant start and re-start of the headlamps as well as management of the operating current. A 12 volt connection is supplied for connection of vehicle line voltage".

You have asked for a letter "confirming" that this lamp system is designed to conform to the integral beam headlamp requirements of paragraph S7.4 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, "subject only to compliance with the appropriate photomet ric requirements of FMVSS 108."

A headlighting system of the nature described must be designed to conform to all the pertinent requirements of S5.5, S7.1, S7.2, and S7.7, as well as S7.4, including mechanical aim and environmental requirements. However, since this headlamp does not us e filaments for converting the electrical energy to light energy, certain configurations of such systems may not conform, because some requirements are predicated upon the existence of filaments (e.g., S5.5.9 and S7.4(f)). If the headlamp you describe m eets all requirements, then it would appear to be an integral beam headlighting system designed to conform to S7.4. Whether the headlamp in fact meets those requirements is for the lamp manufacturer to determine, as it must assure the manufacturer of the vehicle on which it

2

is installed that he may certify compliance of the vehicle with Standard No. 108. Further, the headlamp manufacturer itself must certify compliance of replacement equipment. If the headlamp is incompatible with these requirements and cannot meet them, then it would not appear to be an integral beam system. In that case, rulemaking would be required to accommodate it within the framework of Standard No. 108.

Sincerely,