ID: 2786y

Mrs. Erika Z. Jones
Mayer, Brown, & Platt
2000 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20006-1885

Dear Mrs. Jones:

This responds to your letter requesting a confirmation of your telephone conversation with Mr. Stephen Wood of my staff. In that conversation, he informally stated that the attached letter dated January 5, 1990 from Fidelity Tire Manufacturing Company contained the information necessary to comply with the notification requirements in S5.1 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 119 (49 CFR 571.119) for tires and rims not listed in the publication of a specified tire and rim association. This letter confirms that Fidelity's letter would satisfy the requirements of section S5.1.

Section S5.1 requires that a listing of the rims which may be used with each tire produced by a manufacturer be provided to the public. The purpose of this requirement is to ensure that the tire will be mounted only on appropriate rims and that the tire will be mounted on vehicles where its load-carrying capacity will be adequate. That section gives manufacturers the option of using the data provided for the tire size and corresponding rims published in certain standardization organization yearbooks or listing the appropriate information "in a document furnished to dealers of the manufacturer's tires, to any person upon request, and in duplicate to [NHTSA]." Fidelity's letter which includes the appropriate dimensional and load-carrying data for the tire and rim appears to satisfy this requirement.

I hope this explanation is helpful. Please contact Mr. Marvin Shaw of my staff at (202) 366-2992 if you have any further questions.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel ref:ll9 d:l2/6/90

ID: 15643.ztv

Mr. Walter T. Jakobowski
President
Signal Dynamics Corporation
P.O. Box 350441
Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33335

Dear Mr. Jakobowski:

This is in reply to your letter of July 28, 1997, asking for an interpretation regarding the preemptive effect of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

Your company manufactures motorcycle headlamp modulators "that comply with Standard No. 108." You report receiving comments that certain States do not allow use of this equipment. You ask for "an interpretation and a copy of the statutes that provide for Federal Law pre-empting any state laws that would disallow use of said Headlight Modulator."

Section 30103(b) of Title 49, United States Code, provides in pertinent part that:

Paragraph S7.9.4 Motorcycle headlamp modulation (formerly S5.6) of Standard No. 108 specifies that a headlamp on a motorcycle may be wired to modulate, provided that it does so in accordance with the requirements prescribed by that paragraph. Under 49 U.S.C. 30103(b)(1), a State may have its own standard which allows a motorcycle headlamp to be wired to modulate in the same manner as prescribed under S7.9.4. However, since the Federal standard specifically allows a modulation of motorcycle headlamps, a State cannot have a standard prohibiting it. For your information, we are not aware of any State that forbids modulation of motorcycle headlamps.

Taylor Vinson provided you with a copy of 49 U.S.C. 30103(b) on your visit to our Office on July 28. If you have further questions, you may reach him at 202-366-3820.

Sincerely,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel

ref:vsa#108

d.9/11/97

ID: nht69-1.32

DATE: 04/04/69

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; R. H. Compton; NHTSA

TO: Carlisle Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Your December 27, 1968, request for a code number in accordance with Subsection S4.3 of the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 109 and the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (15 U.S.C. 1421 (1)) has been reviewed. Subsection S4.3 of the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 109 applies to passenger car tires; accordingly, the National Highway Safety Bureau has restricted the issuance of code numbers to manufacturers of those tires.

Since Carlisle Tire and Rubber Division does not engage in the manufacture of passanger car tires, and since the code number was requested in anticipation of future tire rule making, the issuance of a code number to the Carlisle Tire and Rubber Division would be premature and not in keeping with the intent of the regulation.

We have enclosed a Mailing List Questionnaire as promised. To assure a flow of specialized mailings which may be of great importance to your particular organization, please complete both sides with the correct information and return it to the Federal Highway Administration, National Highway Safety Bureau, Motor Vehicle Safety Performance Service, Washington, D. C. 20591, Attention: MVSPS List Questionnaire. If you require more than one form or have any inquiries concerning the form, please direct your correspondence to the same address.

ID: nht70-2.27

DATE: 09/23/70

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Lawrence R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: Oshkosh Truck Corporation

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Thank you for your letter of August 27, 1970, concerning the applicability of Federal motor vehicle safety standards and regulations to a fire truck to be manufactured according to specifications in a military contract.

In your letter, you state that the windshield glass specified by the contract for the truck does not conform to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205. You then ask:

Are we on the Military required to obtain an exemption from the(Illegible Word) for this or any other exception in military contracts that do not conform to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards and Regulations?

The answer to your question is no. Section 571.7(c) of 49 CFR, Part 571, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards, Subpart A - General, provides that "(n)o standard applies to a vehicle or item or equipment manufactured for, and sold directly to, the Armed Forces of the United States in conformity with contractual specifications." Consequently, no exemption need be obtained, since no standard applies to the fire truck. However, if the truck, although manufactured for the Armed Forces, were sold to someone other than the Armed Forces, it would be required to comply with all applicable standards, including Standard No. 205.

You also ask:

Does this type of vehicle require a certification label as specified in part 367 - certification?

The answer again is no. Section 567.2 of Part 567 (formerly 367) provides, in relevant part, that the Certification Regulations apply "to manufacturers . . . of motor vehicles to which one or more standards are applicable." Since, under section 571.7(c), no standards are applicable to the fire truck, the Certification Regulations do not require you to provide a certification label with the fire truck.

If we can be of any further assistance to you, please write.

ID: 1982-1.22

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/08/82

FROM: SENATE

TITLE: SENATE BILL NO 1317; AMENDED IN SENATE 03/08/82

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 11/28/89 FROM STEPHEN P WOOD -- NHTSA TO WILLIAM E ALKIRE -- BRAKELIGHT ENHANCER, REDBOOK A34, STANDARD 108; LETTER DATED 08/24/89 FROM WILLIAM E. ALKIRE -- BRAKELIGHT ENHANCER, TO TAYLOR VINSON -- NHTSA, RE BRAKELIGHT ENHANCER; OCC 3876; SENATE BILL NO 684, CHAPTER 410; APPROVED 07/27/83

TEXT: AMENDED IN SENATE MARCH 8, 1982

SENATE BILL

No. 1317

Introduced by Senator Johnson

January 7, 1982

An act to amend Section 25251.5 of the Vehicle Code, relating to vehicles.

LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST

SB 1317, as amended, Johnson. Vehicles.

Existing law permits a motor vehicle to be equipped with a system in which an amber light is mounted on the rear of a vehicle to communicate a component of deceleration.

This bill would authorize a motor vehicle to be equipped with 2 amber lamps which may be operated after deceleration as specified either separately or in combination with another lamp system.

Vote: majority. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: no. State-mandated local program: no.

The people of the State of California do enact as follows:

ID: nht87-2.31

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: JULY 7, 1987

FROM: LACY H. THORNBURG -- ATTORNEY GENERAL, STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA; EDWIN M. SPEAS, JR. -- SPECIAL DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL, STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA

TO: ERIKA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO MEMO DATED 2-19-88, FROM ERIKA Z. JONES-NHTSA, TO EDWIN SPEARS JR., REDBOOK A31

TEXT: As suggested by Deirere Hom, I am writing to seek assistance with an issue facing some public school systems in North Carolina.

Some school systems have purchased vans that do not meet federal schoolbus specifications. These vans are used primarily to transport teachers and administrators, but are also used from time to time to transport students to extracurricular activities .

I am familiar with the definitions of "schoolbus" in 15 U.S.C. @ 1391(14) and in 49 C.F.R. @ 571.3, but am uncertain about how these definitions apply to the circumstance described above. My specific questions are:

1. Are school systems prohibited by federal law from using vans that do not meet federal school bus standards to transport students to extracurricular activities on a regular basis or on an occasional basis?

2. Has the Secretary adopted any regulations that define the term "significantly" as it appears in 15 U.S.C. @ 1391 (14)?

Any assistance you could give me with these questions would be appreciated.

ID: nht92-1.41

DATE: December 7, 1992

FROM: W. C. Burke -- Captain, Commander, Commercial and Technical Services Section

TO: Paul Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: File No.: 62.A8383.A9181.5242C

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 3-31-93 from John Womack to W. C. Burke (A41; Std. 205)

TEXT: Recently, Mr. Greg Bragg from our California Highway Patrol (CHP) Commercial and Technical Services section spoke with Mr. Marvin Shore and Mr. Clark Harper of your administration regarding the marking requirements of safety glazing installed in motor vehicles.

The specific issue they talked about was whether or not a glass installer replacing glass in a motor vehicle according to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) 205 is required to mark the glazing. FMVSS 205, S6.4 states "Each manufacturer or distributor who cuts a section of glazing material to which this standard applies, for use in a motor vehicle or camper, shall mark that material in accordance with section 6 of ANS Z26." According to the definitions contained in the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, an installer replacing glass in a motor vehicle would be a dealer and would, therefore, be exempt from the marking requirements.

We are inquiring about this matter because California has adopted FMVSS 205 and some of our CHP personnel have found school buses with replacement glass that is not marked. We have subsequently taken law enforcement action against these school districts. It has been our longtime understanding that all glass installed in a motor vehicle must be marked. However, after careful examination of the wording contained in both the FMVSS 205 and the Safety Act of 1966, it appears that the installer of replacement glass does not have to mark the glazing material and that our past interpretation of this Federal Standard may be in need of further review.

We, therefore, request a written interpretation from you on whether or not FMVSS 205 requires an installer (or dealer) who cuts sections of glass from a larger, marked section to mark each individual smaller section (if not already marked) prior to installing them as replacement windows.

Your immediate response to this question is greatly appreciated. If you have any questions regarding this matter please contact either Mr. Greg Bragg or Mr. Kyle Larsen of our Commercial and Technical Services Section at (916) 445-1865.

ID: 1983-2.7

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 05/17/83

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Eaton Limited

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your recent letter asking a question concerning Safety Standard No. 106, Brake Hoses. You note that there is an ambiguity in the formula referenced in paragraph S8.3.2(e) of that standard as set forth in the Code of Federal Regulations. Specifically, you ask whether the entire fraction that is specified is multiplied by "100" or whether only the denominator of the fraction is multiplied by "100".

The correct formula is as follows:

(W3-W4) - (W1-W2) / (W1-W2) X 100

The formula as specified in the Code of Federal Regulations should, therefore, include additional brackets around the fraction, separating the fraction from the "X 100" figure. We will notify the Federal Register concerning this error.

I hope this has clarified any misunderstanding you may have had.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

APRIL 11, 1983

Office of Vehicle Safety Standards, Crash Avoidance Division, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration,

Dear Sirs,

I have been comparing Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard number 106-74, Brake Hoses, with the Code of Federal Regulations - Title 49 - S571,106 - Standard 106 - Brake Hoses.

I would draw your attention to paragraph S8.3.2(e) ref calculation of the percentage increase in volume. In 106-74 the formula is given as:-

Percent of increase = (W3-W4) - (W1-W2) / (W1-W2) x 100

In S571,106 the formula is given as:-

Percent of increase = [(W3-W4) - W1-W2)] / (W1-W2) x 100

This could be interpreted as:-

Percent of increase = [(W3-W4) - (W1-W2)] / (W1-W2) x 100

which is not the same as the formula given in 106-74.

This, I believe, could lead to problems. I enclose the appropriate pages from the standards mentioned with the paragraph highlighted in red.

I should be pleased to receive your comments as we are endeavouring to get a potential supplier of hoses to comply with S.571.106.

Yours faithfully,

N. COPE

Standards Engineer -- EATON LIMITED TRUCK COMPONENTS OPERATIONS

ID: nht81-1.24

DATE: 03/03/81

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Stanley H. Backaitis; NHTSA

TO: Alderson Research Tabouletiones

COPYEE: MR. ARMSTRONG; MR. FINKELSTEIN; MR. STEPHENSON; MR. OATES

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

ATTACHMT: 3/7/80 letter from Frank Berndt (NHTSA) to Fiat Motors of North America (Std. 208)

TEXT: Per your telephone request of March 3, 1981, enclosed is a copy of a letter of interpretation on dummy shoes sizes which was written to Fiat Motors of North America on March 7, 1980. As you indicated in your telephone call, the above interpretation responds satisfactorily to the needs outlined in your January 30, 1981, letter to this Agency.

ALDERSON RESEARCH LABORATORIES. INC.

January 30, 1981

Stanley H. Backaitis National Highway Traffic Safety Admin.

DEAR STAN:

From time to time over the past few years, some of our overseas customers have asked us to obtain for them shoes which meet Section 8.19 of the Part 572 test dummy requirements. As you are aware, this calls for Size 11-EE shoes meeting the configuration, size, sole and heel thickness specifications of MIL-S-13192, with a weight of 1.25 +/- .2 pounds. In the past we have been able to obtain these from a firm named Altama Delta Corporation, in Darien, Georgia. However, this week they advised us that they no longer have a Government contract to produce shoes to this specification and they could not advise us of any other firm currently producing this type shoe.

We have been in touch with the Bostonian/Hanover Shoe Company, as well as the Freeman Shoe Company in Wisconsin. In both instances, we have been advised that they make what they call a military shoe which they distribute through PX stores, but neither source could advise us as to how closely their products compared to the MIL Spec. requirements.

I would appreciate your advising us in the event that you are able to locate a source for the shoes which meets Part 572 as currently written. If not, would it be possible to amend the Part 572 wording so it would coincide with what is currently available in the marketplace.

SINCERELY,

Alan H. Raphael President

ID: nht71-3.42

DATE: 07/19/71

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Lawrence R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: Harley-Davidson Motor Co., Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of June 21, 1971, concerning a dispute you are having with your supplier of glazing materials concerning who is the "prime glazing material manufacturer" as specified in S3.4 of Standard No. 205, and who would consequently be required to obtain a manufacturers' code number under S5.2 of the proposed amendment to Standard No. 205, published January 9, 1971 (Docket 71-1, Notice 1) (36 F.R. 326). You indicate that you purchase the glazing material from your supplier, and cut it to size for motorcycle windshields. You state that your supplier claims that although he manufactures the material to specification, he considers it to be purely a raw material, and that he is not a motor vehicle window or windshield manufacturer.

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205 applies to "glazing materials for use in . . . " specified types of motor vehicles, one of which is motorcycles. It applies to glazing material that is manufactured for use in these vehicles before as well as after it has been cut to size or installed in the motor vehicle.

If a manufacturer is producing glazing materials that he knows are for use in motor vehicles he is, under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, manufacturing glazing (1) which must comply with Standard No. 205 and (2) which he must certify, as specified in section 114 of the Act, and the Certification regulations (49 CFR Part 567, copy enclosed) as complying with the standard. A prime glazing material manufacturer may certify the material by the alternative method specified in S3.4 of Standard No. 205.

The standard clearly distinguishes between the prime manufacturer and those who merely cut the material, and places responsibility for compliance and certification on the former as well as the latter.

A producer of the basic glazing material, to be used in motor vehicles, is a "prime glazing material manufacturer" under the standard, and would be required to obtain the manufacturers' code mark under S5.2 of the proposed standard.

That proposal is currently under consideration, however, and it is recommended that no action be taken until a final regualtion is published.

ENCLOSURE