ID: 11524WKM

Mr. Herb Wolff
Sam's International Trade U.S.A.
4501 North Dixie Highway
Oakland Park, FL 33334

Dear Mr. Wolff:

This responds to your letter of January 31, 1996, to Walter Myers of my staff in which you ask whether the terms "textile" or "generic textile" are sufficient descriptions of tire cord composition to comply with paragraph S6.3.2(c) of Federal motor vehicle safety standard (FMVSS) No. 117, Retreaded pneumatic tires. As discussed below, the answer is no.

You explain in your letter that you intend to import a line of bead-to-bead remanufactured tires from England, on which the cord description on the tires reads:

Plies tread 2 steel & 2 textile sidewall 1 textile

or

Plies tread 2 steel & 2 organic textile sidewall 1 organic textile

You state that the purpose of that phraseology is to be descriptive, yet sufficiently generic to use with sidewall construction and tread plies of rayon, nylon, or polyester. You include some tracings from the sidewalls of similarly-labeled remolded tires on which the word "textile" is also used.

The labeling requirement for pneumatic tires is established by section 30123 of Title 49, U.S. Code. That section requires that all tires be permanently and conspicuously labeled with certain safety information, including "the composition of material used in the ply of the tire." That requirement is implemented in paragraph S6.3.2(c) of FMVSS No. 117, which specifies that all tires be labeled with:

(c) The generic name of each cord material used in the plies (both sidewall and tread area) of the tire.

The word "textile" is a generic term that applies to the gamut of woven or knitted fabrics. It is so general that, if not actually misleading, it is noninformative in that it does not distinguish between such natural fabrics or fibers as cotton, wool, and silk, and synthetic fibers such as polyester and nylon, all of which have totally different characteristics. Although tire cords are made from some of the same synthetic materials as textiles, such as nylon and rayon, other textiles such as silk and cotton are not suitable for tire cords. Accordingly, since textiles are commonly understood to be woven or knitted fabrics, merely labeling Atextile@ to describe tire cords does not sufficiently distinguish between tire cord materials and their different characteristics.

Tire cords are made from many different materials such as rayon, nylon, polyester, steel, glass, and various other polyamides, each of which has different composition and different performance characteristics. The many different cord materials and their many different characteristics enable a tire to be specially geared to its anticipated use. Thus, the specific generic composition, such as nylon, rayon, steel, etc., rather than merely Atextile,@ must be labeled on tires to enable tire purchasers to select the characteristics they want in a given tire.

I hope this information is helpful to you. Should you have any further questions or need additional information, feel free to contact this office at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Samuel J. Dubbin Chief Counsel ref: #109#117#119 d:3/29/96

ID: nht72-5.30

DATE: 04/24/72

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Lawrence R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: Truck Equipment & Body Distributors Association

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of March 28, 1972, inquiring whether a State or its political subdivisions (in your particular case it is a county) may elect not to conform to any of the motor vehicle safety standards and the Certification regulations. You state that in the particular case in question the county orders new incomplete vehicles, and then transfers an old body onto the new chassis, creating a completed vehicle.

Under the existing regulations, one who transfers a used body onto a new chassis is, as you have apparently assumed, a final-stage manufacturer, and is responsible for compliance with applicable standards, and the Certification regulations. There is no exemption in the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, or the standards or certification requirements, for countries or other State governmental units that manufacture completed vehicles. Consequently, the county is responsible in the situation you describe for completing the vehicles in question in such a manner that they conform to all applicable motor vehicle safety standards, and for certifying conformity with the standards in accordance with the certification requirements.

We are pleased to be of assistance.

ID: Shih.3

Mr. Simon S. Shih
4 Teal
Irvine, CA 92604

Dear Mr. Shih:

This responds to your e-mail, in which you seek clarification regarding the legality of high intensity discharge (HID) headlamp conversion sets, specifically whether it is legal to manufacture or sell sets of HID headlamps to replace original equipment halogen headlamp sets. We are pleased to have the opportunity to answer your questions related to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment.

By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized to issue FMVSSs that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. As a preliminary matter, we would clarify that we have no authority either to approve or disapprove motor vehicles or items of motor vehicle equipment. We do advise correspondents of the relationship of their products to applicable FMVSSs and other regulations that we administer. If a product is covered by one or more of our safety standards, its manufacturer must certify compliance of the product with all applicable FMVSSs prior to its importation or offering such product for sale. The symbol "DOT" on replacement lighting equipment is often mistaken for "DOT approval" of the equipment, but, in fact, it reflects the manufacturers own certification of compliance.

We believe that your questions are addressed by our March 13, 2003, letter of interpretation to Mr. Galen Chen (see enclosure). In that letter, we interpreted FMVSS No. 108 as requiring headlamps manufactured to replace original equipment headlamps to comply with all applicable photometry requirements using the replaceable light sources intended for use in the headlighting system on the vehicle for which the replacement headlamp is intended. Unlike other lamps, FMVSS No. 108 specifically regulates headlighting systems, including their light sources (see S7.1, S7.5, and S7.7). We adhered to this interpretation in a recent interpretation to Calcoast-ITL (69 FR 60464 (Oct. 8, 2004))(see enclosure).

Because replaceable light sources are, by regulation, designed to be non-interchangeable, it would not be possible for an HID headlamp conversion set to meet the standards photometry requirements for an original equipment headlamp system using a halogen light source, so the replacement lamps could not be sold for this purpose. Furthermore, a headlamp dealer or motor vehicle repair business could not remove the original halogen headlamps and install HID replacement headlamps without violating 49 U.S.C. 30122. That section prohibits manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and motor vehicle repair businesses from making inoperative equipment installed in accordance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard. We cannot comment on the specific replacement lighting products that you mentioned because we do not have sufficient information on them.

Finally, in a subsequent e-mail, you asked whether our regulations require HID lighting systems to include "auto-leveling" and washing systems, similar to those incorporated in vehicles sold in Europe. The answer is no. FMVSS No. 108 does specify aimability performance requirements under paragraph S7.8 of the standard, but that paragraph does not require an "auto-leveling" capability. The standard also does not contain any requirement for a headlamp washing system.

s it may be of interest to you, we also have enclosed a copy of our November 18, 2002, letter of interpretation to Mr. Jeff Deetz, which relates to kits that substitute the type of light source in existing headlamps.

I hope you find this information useful. If you have further questions, please feel free to contact Eric Stas of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

nclosures
ref:108
d.11/2/04

ID: nht76-5.41

DATE: 04/02/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank A. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Mark Andrews; House of Representatives

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of March 19, 1976, requesting our comments on an inquiry from one of your constituents, Mr. Pat Milloy, concerning the proper format for disclosure of odometer mileage information in compliance with the Federal odometer disclosure regulation (49 CFR Part 580).

Mr. Milloy states in his letter that a Colorado dealer, ordering odometer disclosure forms, has indicated that the required Federal format has been changed. The format referred to by the Colorado dealer differs from the Federal form which Mr. Milloy and his client, Globe-Gazette Printing Company, believe to still be in force.

The Federal odometer disclosure regulation has not been amended since its initial enactment. The format requested by the Colorado dealer (form "B" enclosed in Mr. Milloy's letter) fails to comply with the current Federal odometer disclosure requirements in several respects. The statement referring to the mileage indicated on the odometer at the time of the vehicle's transfer must be phrased to indicate that the disclosure document was executed at the time of the vehicle's transfer, not at some later time. In addition, the statement must be written in such a manner that it is clear it is to be completed by the transferor alone. To satisfy these criteria the statement should read:

"I, , state that the odometer mileage indicated on the vehicle described above, at the time of transfer to is as follows:"

The portion of the document provided for disclosure of the odometer mileage and a statement as to its accuracy is also deficient. Instructions are necessary on this part of the form to ensure that it is completed in a consistent manner by all persons. The number of miles indicated on the odometer at the time of the vehicle's transfer need not appear a second time if the form includes the statement recommended above. If the seller wishes, he may indicate on the form that the actual mileage is over 100,000 miles. In addition, the statement concerning the accuracy of the vehicle's reflected mileage must be more complete than the one included in form "B." Completion of the disclosure document in accordance with these directions may be accomplished as follows:

"(Where applicable, complete line 1 and/or check line 2:)

1. total cumulative miles (if over 100,000).

2. [] I further state that the actual mileage differs from the odometer reading for reasons other than odometer calibration error and that the actual mileage is unknown."

The odometer regulation's provisions do not require that the transferee sign the statement nor do they make it necessary to have the document notarized. In addition, the date on which the transferor purchased the vehicle need not be provided.

As long as the requirements of the disclosure regulation are satisfied, there is no limitation on including additional information in the disclosure statement. Thus, modifying the statement "B" format to meet the Federal requirements in the manner described above would be sufficient for compliance by the Colorado dealer. The additional information appearing in form "B" may be retained without affecting compliance.

I hope this letter answers Mr. Milloy's questions concerning the Federal odometer disclosure requirements. If I can be of any further assistance, please do not hesitate to let me know.

SINCERELY,

Congress of the United States House of Representatives

March 19, 1976

Mr. Frank Berndt Acting Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Mr. Jacob, of my staff, informs me that he spoke to you about the matter detailed in the attached (Illegible Word), and that you agreed to respond to it.

I appreciate your cooperation in our effort to clarify what Federal Odometer Disclosure Form should be printed.

I look forward to your response.

MARK ANDREWS Congressman for North Dakota

ID: nht79-2.24

DATE: 10/24/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Toyo Kogyo Co., Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Kei Matsui Toyo Kogyo Co. Ltd. P.O. Box 18, Hiroshima 730-91 Japan

Mr. Matsui:

This is in response to your letter of May 11, 1979, requesting the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's (NHTSA) views on whether the inclusion of optional equipment on certain Mazda models would be sufficient to create a number of different series within that model.

Section 4.5.2 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 115 (Vehicle Identification Number) states that the second section of the vehicle identification number for passenger cars shall be decipherable into the vehicle's line, series, body type, engine type, and restraint system type. "Line" is defined as "a name which a manufacturer applies to a family of vehicles which have a degree of commonality in construction, such as body, chassis or cab type." "Series" is defined as "a name which a manufacturer applies to a subdivision of 'line', denoting price, size, or weight identification, and which is utilized by the manufacturer for marketing purposes."

Based on the facts presented, it is apparent that models equipped with different optional equipment could each be designed a "series" if Mazda desired. Nonetheless, the definition of "series" makes clear that the responsibility for applying and utilizing the "series" designation rests initially with the manufacturer. If the difference between the potential series are superficial and a manufacturer chooses not to designate separate series for marketing reasons because of the superficiality, the agency will not require such a designation.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

May 11, 1979 Our Ref. No. RDE-79-8

Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street SW. Washington, D.C. 20590 U. S. A.

Dear Sir:

Subject: Question on Interpretation of FMVSS No. 115 "Vehicle Identification Number" Docket No. 1-22, Notice 8

We are now developing a system to comply with the requirements of FMVSS No. 115 published in the March 22, 1979 Federal Register. As shown in the attached tables, our vehicles are advertized and sold under the designations given according to their specifications. For example, the Mazda GLC has the designations of "Basic", "Custom", "Decore Package" and "Sports".

Although these designations are utilized for the purpose of sales, they have been only given according to the level of the optional parts installed. Therefore, we think that these designations do not correspond to "Series" stipulated in S3 "Definition".

We would like to confirm whether our interpretation is correct or not. We would appreciate your reviewing our above request and advising us of your comment at your earlist convenience.

Sincerely yours,

Kei Matsui Manager Development Administration Division

ID: nht78-4.33

DATE: March 27, 1978

FROM: Joseph J. Levin, Jr. - Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Bill Nanninga -- Division of Planning, Wisconsin Department of Transportation

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 8-3-77 from J.J. Levin, Jr. to J.L. O'Connell (VSA 102(14)); Also attached to letter dated 7-12-77 from J.J. Levin, Jr. to J. Thomason (VSA 102(14)); Also attached to letter dated 9-10-90 from P.J. Rice to E. Kultgen (A36; VSA 108(b)(1)); VSA 102 (14); Part 571.3); Also attached to letter dated 5-29-90 from E. Kultgen to S.P. Wood (OCC 4843); Also attached to letter dated 5-10-82 from F. Berndt (signature by S.P. Wood) to M.V. Chauvin

TEXT:

This confirms your March 13, 1978, conversation with Roger Tilton of my staff concerning the applicability of the Federal school bus safety standards to buses designed to transport handicapped adults or other adults to training or rehabilitation facilities. Such vehicles are not considered school buses for purposes of the application of Federal school bus safety standards and would not have to comply with those standards.

You indicated that a state law requires that these buses be labeled school buses although they are not painted school bus yellow nor used to transport school children to and from school or related events. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) discourages the use of the label school bus on vehicles that are not used to transport school children. Further, although the agency would not consider these vehicles to be school buses and would not require their compliance with school bus safety standards, you will probably find very few manufacturers who are willing to mark a bus as a school bus without manufacturing it in compliance with the standards, because the use of such a vehicle as a school bus would subject the manufacturer to liability.

ID: 1985-04.21

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 11/15/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Leo Kagan

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Leo Kagan Director of Marketing Automotive Division Amco Manufacturing Corp. 7425 Fulton Avenue North Hollywood, CA 91605

Dear Mr. Kagan:

This is in reply to your letter of August 19, 1985 to Mr. Vinson of this office requesting an interpretation of Standard No. 108 as it pertains to your design of "a rear deck luggage rack with an approved brake light attached to the crossbar".

Because each passenger car manufactured on or after September 1, 1985, is required to have a center high-mounted stop lamp as original equipment, we shall assume that you wish to produce the luggage rack/center stop lamp as an aftermarket accessory for vehicles manufactured without the lamp before September 1, 1985. The Federal standard does not cover the center high-mounted stop lamp as an aftermarket lamp (except as replacement equipment for original equipment lamps), and there is no Federal prohibition against your marketing this equipment. However, the legality of your design will be determinable under the laws of any State in which a vehicle so equipped is operated.

I hope that this answers your question.

Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

August 19, 1985

Taylor Vinson Legal Counsel NHTSA, Room 5219 U.S. Dept. of Transportation 400 7th St. S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Mr. Vinson:

In a conversation with Dr. Burdett on August 14, he suggested I write you again to obtain a ruling on supplying a rear deck luggage rack with an approved brake light attached to the crossbar - as seen in the enclosed photos.

We deliberately attached the brake light below the bar - rather than above - to eliminate any possibility of accidentally knocking the light off the bar.

If you have any questions, please call me on 800/423-2353. Will look forward to hearing from you - & many thanks for your help. Sincerely,

AMCO MANUFACTURING CORPORATION Leo Kagan Director of Marketing Automotive Division LK:rt

ID: 1939y

Ms. Dixie Lee Christensen
Q. C. Chemist
Nippondenso Mfg. Inc., USA
One Denso Road
Battle Creek, MI 49015

Dear Ms. Christensen:

This is in reply to your letter to the agency asking if there are any Federal regulations concerning the type of data about your products that you should retain, and for what length of time. If there are no data retention requirements, you ask for recommended guidelines. Your company manufactures and supplies component parts to US and Japanese car makers. I regret the delay in responding to your letter.

The Department of Transportation has no regulations of the nature you mention. However, as a manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment, your company comes under the jurisdiction of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act which this agency administers. In the absence of knowledge about the kind of equipment your company manufactures, our guidelines will necessarily be general.

Your letter indicates that your company provides components for use as original equipment in motor vehicles. As a general rule, all items of motor vehicle equipment must be free of defects relating to motor vehicle safety. If a vehicle manufactured with your products is determined by its manufacturer to incorporate a safety related defect that is attributable to your component, the vehicle manufacturer must notify the agency and purchasers of the vehicles affected, and remedy the defect. Your company must also notify the agency, and, if the component has been used in the vehicles of more than one manufacturer, you must notify those manufacturers also. If you have manufactured these components as replacement equipment, then the notification and remedy responsibility falls squarely upon your company. The Act requires that the defect be remedied without charge for a period of 8 years after manufacture. This suggests that you should retain manufacturing, production, and sales records for at least 8 years.

Some components must also comply with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard, and be so certified by its manufacturer, whether it is used as original or replacement equipment. Notification and remedy is also required if a noncompliance is determined to exist, with remedy at no cost to a purchaser for the 8-year period. We do not know whether your products are directly covered by a Federal motor vehicle safety standard, and would be pleased to answer any further questions you may have.

I have enclosed an information sheet for new manufacturers of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. For a fuller understanding of the responsibilities of equipment manufacturers, you should consult the regulations of this agency at Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations Part V (available from your local office of the U.S. Government Printing Office as "Title 49 Code of Regulations Parts 400 to 999").

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosure

ref:VSA#573 d:8/7/89

ID: 3231yy

Mr. Gene Byrd
Legris Incorporated
244 Paul Rd.
Rochester, N.Y. 14624

Dear Mr. Byrd:

This responds to your September 23, 1991 letter asking about the air pressure requirement specified in S7.3.8 of Standard 106, Brake Hoses. Your letter has been referred to my office for reply.

Paragraph S7.3.8 states that an air brake hose assembly shall contain air pressure of 200 psi for 5 minutes without loss of more than 5 psi. You ask whether Standard 106 specifies the length of the hose for an assembly tested to S7.3.8. The answer is no; the standard does not have a generic specification for hose length. Instead, each brake hose assembly is required to meet this requirement as manufactured and sold.

For purposes of compliance testing, NHTSA obtains a brake hose assembly specimen by purchasing it on the market or directly from the manufacturer. The length of the hose might vary from assembly to assembly, depending on the particular configuration of an assembly. The assembly is tested as sold to obtain performance results that indicate the assembly's real world performance.

While S7.3.8 is a performance requirement for assemblies, we understand that your company (an end fitting manufacturer) seeks to ensure that an assembly made with your fitting will not fail to meet S7.3.8 due to the fitting. Since an assembly is tested to S7.3.8 in the configuration in which it is sold, you could test to the requirement using the length of hose that will be used with your fitting. Legris might be able to avoid duplicative tests by conducting "worst case" testing, such as tests using a fitting with a hose of a length most likely to exhibit an excessive loss of air pressure.

Please contact us if you have further questions.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel /ref:106 d:ll/l5/9l

ID: nht91-7.31

DATE: December 5, 1991

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA; (Signature by Steve Wood)

TO: Gene Byrd -- Legris Incorporated

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 9-23-91 from Gene Byrd to Vernon Bloom (OCC 6551)

TEXT:

This responds to your September 23, 1991 letter asking about the air pressure requirement specified in S7.3.8 of Standard 106, Brake Hoses. Your letter has been referred to my office for reply.

Paragraph S7.3.8 states that an air brake hose assembly shall contain air pressure of 200 psi for 5 minutes without loss of more than 5 psi. You ask whether Standard 106 specifies the length of the hose for an assembly tested to S7.3.8. The answer is no; the standard does not have a generic specification for hose length. Instead, each brake hose assembly is required to meet this requirement as manufactured and sold.

For purposes of compliance testing, NHTSA obtains a brake hose assembly specimen by purchasing it on the market or directly from the manufacturer. The length of the hose might vary from assembly to assembly, depending on the particular configuration of an assembly. The assembly is tested as sold to obtain performance results that indicate the assembly's real world performance.

While S7.3.8 is a performance requirement for assemblies, we understand that your company (an end fitting manufacturer) seeks to ensure that an assembly made with your fitting will not fail to meet S7.3.8 due to the fitting. Since an assembly is tested to S7.3.8 in the configuration in which it is sold, you could test to the requirement using the length of hose that will be used with your fitting. Legris might be able to avoid duplicative tests by conducting "worst case" testing, such as tests using a fitting with a hose of a length most likely to exhibit an excessive loss of air pressure.

Please contact us if you have further questions.