ID: 571-111 - Driver Mirror Flat or Convex - Magna Mirrors - 13-001216

ID: 2399y

Mr. Herbert E. Stoel
3772 Prairie Street
Grandville, MI 49418

Dear Mr. Stoel:

This is in reply to your letter to John Womack of this Office, suggesting that the color of taillamps on motor vehicles be green.

The agency is concerned about methods to effectively improve rear lighting and signaling. The issues involved include lamp size, location, operation, combinations and separation, and color. We are learning that changes in lamp function, operation, and color should be approached in a conservative fashion, so as not to confuse the operators of other vehicles.

With specific respect to use of the color green on rear lighting equipment, we are aware that some research suggests a green/red color scheme may enhance driver performance. In such systems, a green lamp indicates that the accelerator pedal is applied, amber that the foot has been lifted from the accelerator pedal, and red, that the brake is being applied. Some years ago, an experiment was conducted with such a system using transit buses in the D.C. area. The results were inconclusive. Although some research suggests a possible improvement in driver performance with green/red lamps, there are no data addressing the possible driver confusion that might arise from multiple color lighting arrays.

Thank you for your suggestion to enhance motor vehicle safety.

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel ref:l08 d:4/8/90

ID: nht70-2.13

DATE: 06/18/70

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; L. R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: Capitol Tire Distributors

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of June 6, 1970, asking if you are violating the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, or, regulations issued pursuant to it, if you distribute tires marked seconds.

Neither the Act nor the regulations prohibit the sale of tires marked seconds. Manufacturers are required to certify that their product complies with Federal motor vehicle safety standards and do so by labeling each tire they they certify with the symbol "DOT". Tires that are certified by the manufacturer and marked "seconds" are not necessarily unsafe, as the "second" may be due to a cosmetic defect not affecting the tire's performance. In such cases, the distributor of the tire would not be in violation of the Act.

Sometimes a tire manufacturer will make a tire that he believes is defective in a way that affects the safety of the tire. Often, that manufacturer will mark the tire "farm use only" or "non-highway use" and then sell it. In such instances, he is supposed to remove the DOT symbol. Enclosed is a copy of a notice of proposed rulemaking dealing with this problem which may be of interest to you or your members.

Thank you for your interest in the motor vehicle safety program.

ID: nht72-1.29

DATE: 06/23/72

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; L. R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: Torino

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of May 15, 1972, inquiring whether the State of Maryland may require tires to be labeled with a "VI" marking. @ection 103(d) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. 15 U.S.C 1992(d), provides in pertinent part:

"Whenever a Federal motor vehicle safety standard established under this title is in effect, no State or political subdivision of a State shall have any authority either to establish, or to continue in effect, with respect to any motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment any safety standard applicable to the same aspect of performance of such vehicle or item of equipment which is not identical to the Federal standard."

This provision, considered with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 109, prohibits the State of Maryland or any State from imposing any safety labeling requirements, for passenger car tires other than these contained in that Federal standard. Any differing safety labeling requirements, including the "VI" you mentioned, are thus (Illegible Word) and void.

ID: 15823.nhf

John L. Oberdorfer, Esq.
Eric A. Kuwana, Esq.
Patton Boggs, L.L.P.
2550 M Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20037-1350

Dear Mr. Oberdorfer and Mr. Kuwana:

This responds to your August 22, 1997, inquiry about whether the R-Series Rough Terrain Lift Trucks (lift trucks) manufactured by your client, Eagle-Picher Industries, are motor vehicles that would have to comply with the applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. You state that the lift trucks are designed and manufactured to lift heavy loads on rough terrain at off-road sites and are used at industrial and construction locations for that purpose. You also state that the lift trucks operate on public roads in exceptional circumstances only and are generally towed or carried on a flat bed truck when moved over public highways. On the basis of the information you provided, it appears that the lift trucks are not motor vehicles.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) interprets and enforces the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. NHTSA's statute defines the term "motor vehicle" as follows:

[A] vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power manufactured primarily for use on the public streets, roads, and highways, but does not include a vehicle operated only on a rail line. 49 USC 30102(a)(6).

Whether NHTSA considers the lift trucks to be motor vehicles depends on their use. In the past, we have concluded that this statutory definition does not 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-road use of the equipment is merely incidental and is not the primary purpose for which they were manufactured. Other construction 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, since the on-highway use is more than "incidental."

Based on the information you provided, it appears that the lift trucks are not "motor vehicles" within the meaning of the statutory definition. This conclusion is based on the statements in your letter and the enclosed brochure that the lift trucks spend extended periods of time at construction or work sites and use the public roads in rare circumstances only, such as crossing a public road to reach an off-road area. It is also based on your statement that the lift trucks are generally towed or loaded onto a trailer or flat bed truck when moved between job sites. Thus, the agency would consider the use of the lift trucks on the public roads to be merely incidental. Since these types of lift trucks are not motor vehicles, they would not be subject to the Federal motor vehicle safety standards.

If NHTSA were to receive additional information indicating that the lift trucks use the public roads on more than an incidental basis, the agency would reassess this interpretation. If the lift trucks were found to be motor vehicles, Eagle-Picher Industries would be a motor vehicle manufacturer, and would be required to submit identification information to this agency in accordance with 49 CFR Part 566, Manufacturer Identification. Eagle-Picher would also be required to certify that each vehicle complies with all applicable Federal safety standards. This certification procedure is set out in 49 CFR Part 567.

Please note that some states may require an off-road vehicle to be registered. Thus, you may wish to contact the Department of Motor Vehicles in any state in which Eagle-Picher's products will be sold or operated about requirements for the use of the lift trucks.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have further questions regarding NHTSA's safety standards, please contact Nicole Fradette of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
ref:VSA
d.10/1/97

ID: nht68-3.10

DATE: 10/31/68

FROM: F. ARMSTRONG -- NHTSA; SIGNATURE BY JOSEPH R. O'GORMAN

TO: Rockford Motors Incorporated

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Thank you for your letter of July 30, 1969, in which you request additional information in regard to certification requirements.

The statement in your letter to the effect that because detailed label requirements are now being prepared, you are not required to affix a certification label on your motorcycles currently being manufactured is not exactly correct. The "Certification Requirement Notice," published in the Federal Register, Volume 32, Number 215, dated November 4, 1967, a copy of which is enclosed, states that a certification label or tag should be affixed to each applicable motor vehicle if manufactured on or after January 1, 1968. In your case the only safety standard that currently involves motorcycles is Number 205, "Glazing Materials," pertaining to windshields. On January 1, 1969, another safety standard, Number 108, "Lamps, Reflecting Devices, and Associated Equipment," will involve motorcycles manufactured on or after that date.

For your immediate information, a copy of the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards with Amendments is enclosed, with particular attention called to Table III, page MVSS 108-18 (1965) and Table IV, page MVSS 108-20 and 21 (1969).

In regard to your question as to whether you have to add the year of manufacture to your serial numbers, this is not a specific requirement, but would be an aid to clarifying the serial numbering system that identifies applicable vehicles as manufactured on or after January 1, 1968.

The study involving the possibility of specific changes to certification requirements is currently in the proposed rule making category and if changes do become finalized they will be published in the Federal Register.

Please furnish this office with the requirements shown in paragraph 3 in the enclosed Certification Requirement Notice at your earliest convenience.

I trust this information will be of assistance to you in regard to your inquiries.

ID: nht92-1.22

DATE: December 16, 1992

FROM: Bryan D. Patton -- International Automobile Ent. Inc. D.B.A. ERA Replica Automobile

TO: Paul Jackson Rice -- Office of Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 5-12-93 from John Womack to Bryan D. Patton (A41/ Std. 106)

TEXT: I am writing you in regards to a conversation I had with Zack Fraser, an Engineer in the safety compliance division of NHTSA (Phone 202-366-2830).

I asked Mr. Fraser which US DOT regulations had to be met for tubing used for hydraulic brake lines in an automotive application. Mr. Fraser responded that there were no codes of regulations dealing specifically with these lines in this application.

He did say that in the absence of federal regulations that the SAE standard would generally be used to determine suitability of a material to be used in such an application.

If possible, I would like a statement of fact from NHTSA recognizing that:

1) International Automobile Enterprises Inc. has contacted you in this matter.

2) There are no specific federal codes or regulations regarding the use of tubing for use as automotive hydraulic brake lines.

3) The SAE standard would be used to determine such suitability in the absence of a specific federal code or regulation.

Our purpose for requesting this documentation is to be able to substantiate that International Automobile Enterprises Inc. has made an effort in good faith to research all applicable federal motor vehicle safety standards, or any SAE specifications used in place of federal specifications.

Not being an attorney, I suspect the above statements may have to be reworded or altered, but these statements are true to the best of my knowledge based on my conversations with Mr. Fraser.

Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.

ID: 18747.ztv

The Honorable Sam Farr
House of Representatives
701 Ocean Street
Santa Cruz, CA 95060

Dear Mr. Farr:

We are replying to your recent letter to the Department on behalf of your constituent, Ed Krumwiede of Aptos. Mr. Krumwiede has asked several questions regarding DOT regulation of imported car accessories.

Specifically, he would like to import three types of accessories for the Jeep Cherokee and asks whether they are regulated by the Department. The three types are:

"1) An exterior carrier for the spare tire, which would bolt onto the undercarriage of the vehicle;

"2) A metal guard for the vehicle's front grille to protect it from flying rocks or other hazards; and

"3) Similar guards for the vehicle's taillights."

This equipment is "regulated" but we have no requirements directly applicable to any of the items and which would affect the ability of Mr. Krumwiede to import and sell them.

More specifically, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is the agency within the Department of Transportation which is authorized to regulate the safety aspects of motor vehicle equipment, such as the accessories that Mr. Krumwiede would like to import. However, NHTSA has issued no Federal motor vehicle safety standard that applies to any of the three items of equipment listed above. Nevertheless, if Mr. Krumwiede imports motor vehicle equipment for resale, he becomes its "manufacturer" under our laws, and is responsible for notification and recalling the equipment if either he or NHTSA determines that the equipment contains a defect related to motor vehicle safety.

Mr. Krumwiede has a further responsibility if he intends to install the equipment on Jeep Cherokees. As a dealer in motor vehicle equipment, he must ensure that the equipment, as installed, does not result in the Jeep becoming noncompliant with any of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards to which it has been certified as complying. Specific concerns that

Mr. Krumweide should consider are whether the exterior tire carrier might obscure the center highmounted stop lamp, whether the grille guards in some manner might be placed in front of the headlamps and other front and front-side lamps as well, and whether the taillamp guards might prevent these lamps (and other rear and side lighting functions that may be housed in the same lamp) from complying with the full range of photometric and visibility requirements specified in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment. This standard specifically prohibits grilles and covers over headlamps when they are in use. A final concern is whether the grille guard might affect the operation of air bags. I have enclosed copies of two letters addressing lamp guards and grille guards, one dated October 27, 1994 addressed to Thomas L. Wright, and the other dated July 3, 1997, addressed to Steve Brookmire. The obligation under Federal law to ensure continued conformance applies only to manufacturers, dealers, distributors, and motor vehicle repair businesses, and does not extend to a vehicle owner personally installing the equipment. However, we urge vehicle owners not to degrade the safety of their vehicles.

The vehicle owner is also subject to state laws regarding the safe function and use of vehicles. Many states refer to Standard No. 108 and may not permit grille guards even if the owner personally installs them. We are not conversant with state laws and Mr. Krumweide should seek a clarification from the Department of Motor Vehicles in the states where he intends to sell the grille guards

For interpretations of Federal regulations, Mr. Krumweide may telephone Taylor Vinson of this Office (202-366-5263). For information on the procedures to be followed in importing the equipment, he should call George Entwistle, Equipment and Imports Division, Office of Safety Assurance (202-366-5306).

I hope that this information is helpful to your constituent.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
Enclosures
ref:591
d.10/15/98

ID: nht78-4.3

DATE: 02/02/78

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; John Womack; NHTSA

TO: Jerome Avenue Dealers Association

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of December 1, 1977, requesting information on the Federal odometer disclosure law.

You asked whether an employee has the authority to sign an odometer disclosure statement relating to the purchase of vehicles sold dealer to dealer. Section 580.4 of Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations, requires each transferor of a motor vehicle to furnish to the transferee a written statement of the mileage traveled by the vehicle. "Transferor" is defined as "any person who transfers his ownership in a motor vehicle by sale, gift, or any means other than by creation of a security interest." In a dealer-to-dealer transaction, as in all other transactions, the owner of the vehicle is responsible for signing the disclosure statement. He may assign that responsibility to an employee or representative. The transferor, however, as the owner of the vehicle, nevertheless remains liable for the actions of his employee.

You also raised the question in your telephone call of January 18, with Kathy DeMater of my staff, whether in a wholesale transaction all vehicles could be listed on one invoice as long as separate disclosure statements are issued for each. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration is concerned with the issuance of correct mileage statements for each vehicle and does not have any objection to all the vehicles being listed in one invoice.

The sample "Odometer Statement" which you enclosed with your letter meets all of the requirements of the Federal regulation. Thank you for your cooporation in preparing the revised statements.

ID: nht72-2.26

DATE: 01/11/72

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

TO: Westinghouse Electric Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: In your letter of December 22, 1971 to Lawrence R. Schueider you ask for a clarification of the relationship between 49 CFR Part 566 "Manufacturer Identification, and 49 CFR @ 571.108, Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment. Specifically you ask whether identifying information is required for miniature bulbs.

Standard No. 108 establishes performance requirements for items of motor vehicle lighting equipment, and incorporates by reference certain SAE standards that specify requirements lamps must meet in laboratory tests when assembled. The SAE standard that applies to bulbs: J573d, Lamp Bulbs and Sealed Units, is not incorporated by reference, and Standard No. 108 contains no requirements for the output of bulbs furnished with a lamp assembly. When a lamp is tested for conformity, the production bulb is removed and a calibrated bulb substituted, in accordance with Paragraph 0 of SAE Standard J575d, Tests for Motor Vehicle Lighting Devices and Components; the test bulb is to be "representative of Standard bulbs in regular production" and must be "selected for accuracy in accordance with specifications listed in . . . SAE J573." In summary, Standard No. 108 does not specify performance requirements for lamp bulbs, and production bulbs are not used in lamp testing. Therefore, Standard No. 108 does not apply to bulbs and bulb manufactures are not required to certify conformance to Federal standards, or to submit information pursuant to the Manufacturer Identification regulations.