ID: nht78-2.40

DATE: 10/27/78

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; S. P. Wood For J. J. Levin, Jr.; NHTSA

TO: Bridgestone Research Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Oct 17, 1978

Mr. Ken Yoneyama Chief Engineer Bridgestone Research Inc. 350 Fifth Ave., Suite 4202 New York, New York 10001

Dear Mr. Yoneyama:

This is in response to your letter of September 22, 1978, asking whether tires listed in Table 1-A of Appendix A, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 109, New Pneumatic Tires - Passenger Cars, must comply with Part 575.104, Uniform Tire Quality Grading Standars, (UTQGS), if the tires are installed as original equipment on multi-purpose passenger vehicles. You also inquire as to the effective dates for the provision of UTQGS information to first purchasers of new motor vehicles under Part 575.104 (d) (1) (iii).

UTQGS applies to a tire type whose predominant contemplated use is on passenger cars, even if the manufacturer knows the tire type is also used as original equipment on multi-purpose passenger vehicles. A manufacturer's determination to certify a tire as conforming to Standard No. 109, will also determine the tire's classification for purposes of UTQGS. Thus, UTQGS would apply to any tire labeled with a size designation listed in Aappendix A of Standard No. 109, other than a deep tread, winter-type snow tire or space-saver or temporary use spare tire, regardless of the tire's actual use.

On October 23, 1978 NHTSA issued a Federal Register notice (copy enclosed) granting the petition of American Motors Corporation to revise the effective dates for Part 575.104 (d) (1) (iii) to September 1, 1979 for bias-ply tires and March 1, 1980 for bias-belted tires. On the basis of this change, your statement regarding effective dates is correct.

Sincerely,

Joseph J. Levin, Jr. Chief Counsel

September 22, 1978 Ref. No. KY/107

Mr. Richard Hipolit Office of Chief Counsel NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION 400 7th Street, S. W. Washington, D. C. 20590

Dear Mr. Hipolit:

This letter is with reference to rule S575.104, Uniform Tire quality Grading Standards (Docket No. 25; Notice 24), as published in the Federal Register, Vol. 43, 90. 137, July 17, 1978.

We would like to know whether the rule on the "Application" and the "Effective date of the requirements for original equipment tires" can be read as follows:

1. Application

Paragraph (c) on the "Application" states that, "This section applies to new pneumatic tires for use on passenger cars... ."

On the basis of this statement, we understand that the rule is not applied to new pneumatic tires for use on vehicles other than passenger cars, even if the tires are listed on the Table of Standards No. 109.

For instance, a 6.00-16 tire is listed on the Table 1-A of Appendix A in the Standard No. 109, as a tire that is used for passenger cars. However, when the 6.00-16 tires are originally equipped on multipurpose passenger cars, we understand that it is not necessary for the tires to comply with the rule.

Is this correct, or not?

2. Effective Date

For the information requirements to be furnished to the first purchaser of a new motor vehicle, the paragraph (d) (1) (iii) states that, "The information ..... it must contain a statement referring the reader to the tire sidewall for the specific tire grades for the tires... ."

We understand that the information requirements to the first purchaser of a new moter vehicle will become effective on September 1, 1979 for bias ply tires and on March 1, 1980 for bias belted tires on the basis of the molding requirements.

Is this correct, or not?

We would appreciate it if you would inform us as to your opinion and judgement on the above interpretations, as soon as possible.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Yours truly,

KEN YONEYAMA Chief Engineer

KY/sff

ID: nht87-2.51

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/13/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Thomas Wagstaff

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Thomas Wagstaff, Esq. Blackwell, Sanders, Matheny, Weary & Lombardi Five Crown Center 2480 Pershing Road P.O. Box 419777 Kansas City, MO 64141-6777

Dear Mr. Wagstaff:

This letter responds to your inquiry of April 27, 1987. In your letter, you state that you represent a client called Roll-O-Matic Chain Company, and further state that your client is considering a recall of four models of a product called "SureFoot Safet y Walk Ramps." You do not state the nature of the problem that leads your client to consider a recall.

You enclose a customer brochure describing the ramps, providing specifications for them, and explaining their use. The brochure shows that the walk ramp attaches to the rear of a truck trailer, and is used to unload cargo from the trailer. You ask whethe r your client's recall is subject to the notice and reporting requirements of 15 U.S.C. S1391 et seq., and 49 CFR Parts 573 and 577.

Section 1419 of Title 15 U.S.C. defines certain terms used in the context of notice-and-recall campaigns. Among those terms is "replacement equipment," there defined as "motor vehicle equipment (including a tire) other than original equipment." The term "motor vehicle equipment" is defined further in 15 U.S.C. S1391 to include "any accessory...to the motor vehicle." In determining whether an item of equipment is an "accessory," the agency assesses two factors: first, whether the item has no ostensible p urpose other than use with a motor vehicle; and second, whether the item is intended to be used principally by ordinary users of motor vehicles.

While it may appear that the safety ramp has purposes other than use with a motor vehicle, the promotional literature you sent specifies truck/trailer deck heights, and illustrates the ramp's use with a truck trailer. Roll-o-Matic apparently promotes the safety ramp for ordinary users in the business of cargo unloading. (Note that although a person may use this product only when the vehicle is not operating, the agency has the authority to regulate both the operational and nonoperational safety of vehic les.

For these reasons, NHTSA would classify your client's product under SS1419 and 1391 as motor vehicle replacement equipment (specifically as an "accessory"), and your client as a manufacturer of such equipment.

Because 49 CFR Parts 573 and 577 apply to "manufacturers" of "replacement equipment," your client is subject to the notice and reporting requirements of these regulations, and incurs certain obligations with respect to motor vehicle safety related defect s under Part B of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act.

I hope you find this information helpful.

Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

April 21, 1987

Ms. Erika Jones Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 7th Street S.W. Room 1519 Federal Express Washington, D.C. 20590

Re: Defect and Non-Compliance Notice and Reporting Requirements

Dear Ms. Jones:

Blackwell Sanders Matheny Weary & Lombardi law firm represents Roll-O-Matic Chain Company, a Kansas City based company. Between the dates December, 1985, and March, 1987, Roll-O-Matic manufactured and sold four models of "SureFoot Safety Walk Ramps." Enc losed herein is a customer brochure describing the ramps, their usage and specifications.

Roll-O-Matic is currently considering a recall of all these model ramps. Roll-O-Matic would replace all the ramps recalled.

Roll-O-Matic requests an official opinion from your office a; to whether a recall of these ramps is subject to the reporting and notification requirements of 15 USC S1391 et seq.. 49 C.F.R. S573. and 49 C.F.R. S577.

We would appreciate as prompt a response as possible.

If you need any additional information, please do not hesitate to call me.

Very truly your

Thomas W. Wagstaff TWW/rmg

Enclosure

SEE HARD COPY FOR GRAPHIC ILLUSTRATIONS

ID: nht73-2.26

DATE: 02/26/73 EST

FROM: ROBERT L. CARTER -- NHTSA ASSOCIATE ADMINISTRATOR FOR MOTOR VEHICLE PROGRAMS

TO: LOUIS C. LUNDSTROM -- DIRECTOR, AUTOMOTIVE SAFETY ENGINEERING ENVIRONMENTAL ACTIVITIES STAFF GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION

COPYEE: C.R. SHARP

TITLE: N40-30 [ZTV]

TEXT: Dear Mr. Lundstrom:

This is in reply to your request of February 1, 1973, for an interpretation of paragraph S5.4.1 of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 105a. You have asked if "a master cylinder with a dam at the 25 percent capacity level" would meet the requirements of the standard.

The paragraph in question requires a "reservoir compartment for each service brake subsystem serviced by the master cylinder" with the further requirement that "loss of fluid from one compartment shall not result in a complete loss of brake fluid from another compartment". In our view, a master cylinder with a dam at the 25 percent level would be compartmentalized within the meaning of S5.4.1.

Sincerely,

ID: 8529

Mr. Bob Davis
Quality Control Manager
Horton Emergency Vehicles
500 Industrial Mile Road
Columbus, OH 43228

Dear Mr. Davis:

This is in response to your letter of April 13, 1993, requesting an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 206 as it affects the rear doors of ambulances that your company manufactures. I apologize for the delay in responding.

You state that your ambulances have two rear doors, and that each has locking mechanisms that can be operated both from the outside and inside of the doors. Your specific question is whether you can eliminate the inside locking mechanism on one of the rear doors without violating Standard No. 206. The language in S4.1.3 of Standard No. 206 that you noted in your letter (i.e., "Each door shall be equipped with a locking mechanism with an operating means in the interior of the vehicle.") refers to side doors, but not to rear doors. Thus, your company's ambulances need not be equipped with locking mechanisms on each rear door.

I hope this information has been helpful. If you have any further questions feel free to contact David Elias of my office at the above address or by phone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

ref:206 d: 7/27/93

ID: nht95-1.14

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: January 5, 1995

FROM: Ralph T. Welch

TO: NHTSA

TITLE: Re: 1991 Coachmen RV Class C Motorhome, Model: Leprechaun 248 DD MM Ser:1TCC03677M1001007

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 4/10/95 LETTER FROM PHILIP RECHT TO RALPH T. WELCH (A43; STD. 101)

TEXT: On Dec. 15, 1994, I wrote to your office regarding incorrect date of manufacture posted on the outside of this motorhome.

I had another question regarding this motorhome, but overlooked including it in that letter.

Would you please advise me if there are any federal laws or regulations pertaining to the type of odometer installed on a motor vehicle sold in the United States?

We were not told when we purchased this vehicle that it had an odometer that registered kilometers instead of miles per hour. As a result I had to make a number of trips to the dealer's shop for repair. In addition a statement had to be filed with DMV regarding replacement, and the title had an endorsement stating that the mileage was not correct. I have no way of knowing the extent that this affected the value of the coach, but suspect that it did.

The dealer who purchased the coach from the factory, has stated that he did not order this coach to be equipped with this type of odometer.

If further information would be helpful please let me know.

PREVIOUS LETTER:

Nat. Highway Traffic Safety Adm. 400 7th St. S W Washington, D C 20590

December 15 1994

REQUEST FOR INFORMATION RE LABEL, DATE OF MANUFACTURE ON EXTERIOR OF MOTORHOME

Would you advise if it is a violation of Federal Law, or Regulations to place a false date of manufacture on the exterior of a motorhome? When we purchased this motorhome we noticed a label on the outside of the coach stating that the coach was manufact ured 5/91. However after we agreed to purchase the vehicle, we found on closer inspection that the coach manufacturers label on the door post showed a different date. This date was 10/80. This label is only visible when one opens the right hand door a nd bends over to read the label. The label on the outside of the coach is readily observable when one enters the coach.

A photograph of the coach showing the label is enclosed. Also enclosed is a photocopy of letter from Coachmen Industries with a copy of a label, this one with a corrected date. Additional correspondence is enclosed from the manufacturer, furnishing var ious explanations for this false label.

I do not know the reason why this incorrect date was placed on the coach, but I do know that it misled me into thinking that I was buying a coach just over a year old, when I was really getting a coach almost two years old.

Yours truly,

RALPH T. WELCH 840 SE SUMMIT DR ROSEBURG OR 97470 503-673-0586

cc: Coachmen Industries, Thomas Corson, Chairman of Board Coachmen Industries, Michael Pangburn Esq. (w/o enc.)

ID: 8257

Mr. James L. Vasko
527 Old Canyon Road
Fremont, CA 94536

Dear Mr. Vasko:

This is in reply to your letter of January 13, 1993, to the agency in which you call our attention to your invention, the "Front Brake Light System." You have informed us that your invention utilizes "the present turn signal lights . . . to notify the driver and or pedestrian in front of the vehicle that the vehicle is in a braking mode," and that this is accomplished with only the present circuitry. You wish to "open a dialogue" with us and will answer any questions we may have.

We do have some questions about this invention. As you know, the individual front turn signal lamps also operate in tandem as hazard warning signal lamps, and flash simultaneously when the hazard warning switch is activated. We assume that your invention flashes both front signal lamps when the brake pedal is applied, and request confirmation of our assumption. We would also appreciate knowing how this is accomplished without "necessity and expense of adding new, complicated apparatus" as you put it. If, on the other hand, the front signal lamps are activated in a steady-burning state, that would be of interest to us. Finally, we would appreciate your views as to how this device would enhance safety, as our concerns have been directed to warning those to the rear of the vehicle that it is about to stop, rather than those to the front.

When we have this information, we shall be pleased to provide you with an interpretation as to the relationship of your invention to the statutes and regulations that this agency administers. Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

ref:l08 d:2/11/93

ID: 20504.ztv

Mr. Don Thompson
Traffic Manager
Al-Jon, Inc.
14599 2^nd Avenue
Ottumwa, IA 52501-9281

Dear Mr. Thompson:

This is in reply to your letters of August 11 and August 12, 1999, regarding the Al-Jon Impact 5 Car Crusher and Al-Jon 400 Baler. Transport Canada has informed you that these vehicles are trailers, must comply with the Canadian Motor Vehicle Safety Standards for trailers, and must demonstrate compliance before they can be imported into Canada.

You explained to Taylor Vinson of this Office on August 16 that, until recently, Al-Jon has had no problems exporting its car crusher and baler to Canada without the need to comply with Canadian standards. As Mr. Vinson explained to you, Canada is free to adopt whatever regulatory posture it deems appropriate regarding these vehicles, and is not bound by our views in this matter.

However, we will discuss the status of these vehicles under the laws that we administer. You state that these vehicles are "car crushers" and "balers," and not "trailers." We have no definitions for "car crushers" and "balers." The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration regulates "motor vehicles." In part, a "motor vehicle" is statutorily defined as "a vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power and manufactured primarily for use on the public streets, roads, and highways." (49 U.S.C. 30102(a)(6)). A "trailer" is defined as a "motor vehicle with or without motive power, designed for carrying persons or property and for being drawn by another motor vehicle."

The type of equipment you produce is not easily categorized under our statutory definition of "motor vehicle." On the one hand, you state that your car crusher was made portable "to allow the scrap dealer to go on location" to crush discarded cars, and that the baler is also portable. Your literature also calls your car crusher "road legal." Both items of equipment therefore appear to be designed to be used on the highways, in the sense of being drawn by another vehicle while moving from site to site. On the other hand, the items of equipment perform their functions off the public roads.

Whether we would consider your equipment to be motor vehicles depends on their use. For example, we interpret our statutory definition not to encompass mobile construction equipment, such as cranes and scrapers, which use the highway only to move between job sites and which typically spend extended periods of time at a single job site. In such cases, the on-highway use of the vehicle is merely incidental and is not the primary purpose for which the vehicle was manufactured. In contrast are instances where vehicles, such as dump trucks, frequently use the highway going to and from job sites, and stay at a job site for only a limited time. Such vehicles are considered motor vehicles for purposes of the statute we administer, since the on-highway use is more than "incidental."

Similarly, if your items of equipment typically spend extended periods at a job site, and only use the public roads infrequently to move between job sites, we would not consider them to be motor vehicles under our statute. We would instead consider the use of your devices on the public roads to be incidental and not their primary purpose. However, if your items of equipment used the roads more than on an incidental basis, they would be considered motor vehicles and subject to our standards that apply to trailers.

We note that our interpretation of the statutory definition of motor vehicle is partly based on judicial decisions. In the past, we interpreted the term more broadly.

Recently, Transport Canada informed us that the Canada Motor Vehicle Safety Act, in pertinent part, defines "motor vehicle" as "any vehicle that is capable of being driven or drawn on roads by any means other than muscular power exclusively. . . ." This definition differs from ours in that it applies to all trailers, not just those manufactured primarily for use on the public roads. This statutory difference in definitions explains why Canada may regulate vehicles under its law that we do not regulate under our Federal motor vehicle safety law.

You may phone Taylor Vinson again if you have questions (202-366-5263).

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
ref:571
d.11/5/99

ID: nht75-6.38

DATE: 10/10/75

FROM: WILLIAM T. COLEMAN -- SECRETARY OF TRANSPORTATION

TO: HONORABLE BARBER B. CONABLE -- HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED SEPTEMBER 5, 1975 FROM BARBER CONABLE TO HON. WILLIAM T. COLEMAN; LETTER DATED AUGUST 7, 1975 FROM F. J. GUPPENBERGER TO REP. BARBER CONABLE

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of September 5, 1975, requesting information concerning an inquiry from one of your constituents, Mr. F. J. Guppenberger, relating to the permissibility of raising cars' rear bumpers.

Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 215, Exterior Protection, imposes performance requirements on automobile bumper systems. One of these requirements specifies impacts at certain heights, and has the effect of requiring bumpers to be manufactured at fairly uniform heights.

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Pub. L. 89-563), as recently amended (Pub. L. 93-492), prohibits any manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business from knowingly rendering inoperative, in whole or in 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 motor vehicle safety standard (@ 108(a) (2) (A)). Therefore, if the bumper were raised by one of the above classes of persons causing it no longer to comply with the Standard No. 215 requirements, a violation of the Act would have occurred. That law does not, however, prohibit an individual from altering the bumper on his own car.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, the agency that administers the Traffic Safety Act, is not authorized by that Act to prohibit vehicles with raised bumpers from operating on the highways. Except for certain limited areas such as motor carriers in interstate commerce, the regulation of vehicles operating on the highways is within the authority of the States.

ID: nht87-3.22

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 11/09/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: D. Burkard; H.T. Ebner -- Alfred Teves GMBH

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. D. Burkard Mr. H. T. Ebner Alfred Teves GMBH Postfach 900120 6000 Frankfurt 90 FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF GERMANY

Dear Mr. Burkard and Mr. Ebner:

This responds to your letter concerning the brake fluid reservoir labeling requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 105, Hydraulic Brake Systems. You enclosed a sample and drawing of a new labeling design and asked whether it complies wi th the standard, even if there is no warning on the filler cap. Your labeling consists of a white plastic sleeve which is inserted over the mouth of the reservoir, such that the following lettering, in red, surrounds the filler cap: WARNING--CLEAN FILLER CAP BEFORE REMOVING. USE ONLY DOT 4 BRAKE FLUID FROM A SEALED CONTAINER. The plastic sleeve can be removed undamaged by lifting it over the mouth of the reservoir. You stated that the material is resistant to DOT brake fluid. Your question is addressed below.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, it is the responsibility of the manufac turer to ensure that its vehicles or equipment comply with applicable standards. The following represents our opinion based on the facts provided in your letter.

Section S5.4.3 of Standard No. 105 reads as follows:

S5.4.3 Reservoir labeling--Each vehicle shall have a brake fluid warning statement that reads as follows, in letters at least one-eighth of an inch high: "WARNING, Clean filler cap before removing, Use only fluid from a sealed container". (Inserting the recommended type of brake fluid as specified in 49 CFR 571.116, e.g., "DOT 3"). The lettering shall be--

(a) Permanently affixed, engraved, or embossed;

(b) Located so as to be visible by direct view, either on or within 4 inches of the brake fluid reservoir filler plug or cap; and

(c) Of a color that contrasts with its background, if it is not engraved or embossed.

It is our opinion that your new design would not comply with the requirement in section S5.4.3 that the lettering be permanently affixed, engraved, or embossed. Since the lettering is obviously not engraved or embossed, I will discuss the only remaining option, that the lettering be "permanently affixed." The dictionary defines "affix" as follows: to attach physically (as by nails or glue) . . . ." The word "permanent" is defined as "continuing or enduring (as in the same state, status, place) without f undamental or marked change: not subject to fluctuation or alteration: fixed or intended to be fixed . . . ." (Webster's Third New International Dictionary, unabridged edition.) In light of these definitions, we do not believe that your brake fluid warni ng lettering would be "permanently affixed." Since your design permits the lettering to easily be removed and replaced, its physical attachment cannot be considered to be continuing or enduring and not subject to fluctuation or alteration. However, it ma y be possible for you to attach the lettering to the reservoir in a manner that it would be permanently affixed. One such method would appear to be bonding, although there may be other methods as well.

Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Ms. Kathleen DeMeter Assistant Chief Counsel for General Law National Highway Traffic Safety Administration U.S. Department of Transport 400 Seventh Street S.W. Washington DC 20 590 U.S.A.

Hauptverwaltung

Your Ref. Our Ref. Extension Date TPV/Eb/ik -2991 07.08.1987

Re.: Brake fluid reservoir labeling Our request for interpretation of FMVSS 105

Dear Ms. DeMeter,

Thank you very much for your letter of July, 1987.

The drawing No. 3-04066-26 concerning reservoir labeling is released for publication.

In anticipation that nothing will stand against further actions in interpretation of our matter,

Sincerely, Alfred Teves GMBH ppa. D. Burkard I.A. H.T. Ebner

ID: nht95-2.77

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: May 11, 1995

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Scott E. Mack -- Senior Product Manager, Philips Lighting Company

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 4/24/95 LETTER FROM SCOTT E. MACK TO CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA (OCC 10269)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Mack:

This is in reply to your letter of April 24, 1995, requesting a confirmation of your interpretation that "Philips Color Clear (TM) Halogen Headlights . . . are in compliance with FMVSS-108."

The product in questions "appears to be colored when not in use" but "when lighted it produces white light as defined by J579C." You have provided a report from ETL Testing Laboratories which "indicates that the color of the light is identical to that of a standard halogen headlight."

There is no definition of white light in SAE J579c Sealed Beam Headlamp Units for Motor Vehicles, December 1978. We believe you mean SAE J578d Color Specification for Lighting Devices, September 1978 which does contain a definition expressed in chromati city coordinates. The report you supplied indicates that the Philips lamp provides a light within the color coordinates for white when equipped with a red, black, blue, or white insert. As Standard No. 108 contains no requirements for the color of glas s lamp lenses or bulbs, only the light emitted from the lamp, we confirm your conclusion that the Philips Color Clear (TM) headlamp has been designed to conform to the color requirements of Standard No. 108.

We appreciated your visit to NHTSA on April 26 to demonstrate the lamp with its various inserts. I understand that the light produced by the lamp, and by a standard headlamp, appeared identical to the naked eye in a side by side comparison.

If you have any further questions, you may refer them to Taylor Vinson of this Office (202-366-5263).