ID: 1028

Mr. Michael A. Knappo
380-1A Hartford Road
Amherst, NY 14226

Dear Mr. Knappo:

This is in response to your letter regarding a product that you wish to offer for sale in the near future. You have asked for information on how this product might be affected by local and national laws.

According to your letter, "Auto Ad" is a portable advertising unit that is designed with a flexible screen that can be secured to a window with suction cups. The screen is illuminated with LEDs, controlled by a key pad mounted close to the driver. The unit will run off power from the car battery through the cigarette lighter, or "hardwired in." The diagram you enclosed shows "Auto Ad" mounted in the rear side window of a car and a van.

While we do not have information about State or local laws, I am enclosing copies of several letters we have issued in recent years concerning the applicability of Federal law to products which appear to be similar to yours (addressed to Mr. Shawn Shieh, dated June 8, 1993; Mr. Chris Lawrence, dated May 10 and March 21, 1991, Mr. Alan Eldahr, dated August 17, 1989, and Mr. Don Benfield, dated July 8, 1985).

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, you may call Taylor Vinson of this Office (202-366-5263).

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosures ref:108 d:9/11/95

ID: nht92-3.45

DATE: 09/22/92

FROM: LAWRENCE A. BEYER -- ATTORNEY AT LAW

TO: Z. TAYLOR VINSON, ESQ. -- OFFICE OF CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 11-24-92 FROM PAUL J. RICE TO LAWRENCE A. BEYER (A40; PART 592)

TEXT: This letter is in reference to my request to become a Registered Importer. I feel that this request is in keeping with the intention of the Act, in that I am very knowledgeable with the requirements of NHTSA.

I have relocated my office to upstate New York. I am very close to several ports, such as Buffalo, Alexandria Bay, and Champlaign. I would intend to only perform actual modifications on those canadian vehicles which require only minor modifications. I certainly have the ability to do these changes.

Should any major modifications be required, these vehicles would not be accepted and refferal would be made to the other R.I.s.

You expressed concern that I would act as an agent for another R.I. This is not a problem. Since I represent four current R.I.s, it would not be fair to make refferals to only one company. Additionally, as an attorney, I cannot accept kickbacks or refferal fees from non-lawyers.

The facilities I would use are a three car garage, complete set of tools, including pneumatics, and storage space for many vehicles. I would have in my employ several people including a certified electrician and former auto mechanics teacher, as well as a current mechanic at Midas Muffler. Since I have helped set up several other R.I.s record keeping mechanisms, my files would be consistent with NHTSA's standards

ID: 11043

Mr. D. L. O'Connor
Manager
Government & Customer Compliance
The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company
Akron, OH 44316-0001

Dear Mr. O'Connor:

This responds to your telephone conversation with Walter Myers of my staff on July 12, 1995, followed up by your letter of July 13, 1995.

You stated that Goodyear is encountering difficulties in exporting tires to Colombia, South America, in that Colombia wants verification that Goodyear complies with all Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) when placing the DOT symbol on tires. You believe that Colombia will permit importation of Goodyear tires if NHTSA recognizes that Goodyear is a U.S. tire manufacturer in good standing and that Goodyear's placing the DOT symbol on its tires is accepted as valid certification of compliance by the U.S. government.

As Mr. Myers stated in your telephone conversation, other U.S. tire manufacturers and exporters have had similar difficulties with Central and South American countries. All those countries regard the FMVSSs as acceptable assurances of tire safety, but they do not seem to understand or are skeptical of our system of manufacturer self-certification. They want assurances from a responsible U.S. government agency that manufacturer self-certifications are accepted as valid by the U.S. government.

Enclosed is a statement similar to those that we have provided other manufacturers and exporters. Since the Federal government cannot and does not approve, certify or endorse vehicles and equipment, this statement is as far as we can go in getting the Federal government involved in what by law is essentially a manufacturer responsibility.

I hope the enclosed statement will be helpful to you. Should you have further questions or need additional information, please feel free to contact Mr. Myers at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosure

ref:571 d:8/9/95

ID: nht81-3.32

DATE: 11/02/81

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Century Motor Coach

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is to follow-up on your phone conversation of September 15, 1981, with Stephen Oesch of my staff concerning the agency's certification requirements for persons who alter certified vehicles. Your specific question was whether an alterer has to certify that the vehicle, as altered, is in compliance with all applicable safety standards affected by the alterations as of the date of the completion of the alterations or as of the date of the manufacture of the original vehicle. As explained below, an alterer may, at his or her option, choose either date.

The agency's certification regulations are set forth in Part 567, Certification (49 CFR Part 567), a copy of which is enclosed. Section 567.7 of the regulation applies to persons who alter certified vehicles. Section 567.7 specifies the content of the certification statement that must be affixed to the vehicle by the alterer. The portion of the regulation pertinent to your question is section 567.7(a) which provides that the alterer must state:

"This vehicle was altered by (individual or corporate name) in (month and year in which alterations were completed) and as altered it conforms to all applicable Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards affected by the alterations and in effect in (month, year)." The second date shall be no earlier than the manufacturing date of the original vehicle, and no later than the date alterations were completed . . . .

Thus, the regulation allows an alterer the option of choosing either the date of original manufacture or the date of completion of the alterations as the date for determining which safety standards apply.

As you requested, I have also enclosed a copy of Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection. Section 4.2.2 specifies the requirements applicable to trucks and multipurpose passenger vehicles with a gross vehicle weight rating of 10,000 pounds or less manufactured on or after January 1, 1976.

If you have any further questions, please let me know.

ENCLS.

ID: nht95-2.18

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: April 3, 1995

FROM: Philip R. Recht -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: David T. Holland -- President, Europa International, Inc.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 2/24/95 LETTER FROM DAVID T. HOLLAND TO MARY VERSAILLES

TEXT: Dear Mr. Holland:

This responds to your letter of February 24, 1995, regarding the passive restraint phase-in requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection. You asked whether an importer which "imports Canadian specificat ion MPV's (multipurpose passenger vehicles), such as the Chrysler Minivan, that meets (sic) the MPV passive restraint requirements of FMVSS 208 . . . . can count these vehicles toward the required percentage."

Section S4.2.5.6.1(a) states, "(a) vehicle that is imported shall be attributed to the importer." Thus, to determine compliance with the passive restraint phase-in requirements, Europa International should (1) count all trucks, buses, and mpv's with a gr oss vehicle weight rating of 8,500 pounds or less and an unloaded vehicle weight of 5,500 pounds or less, (2) count all such vehicles which meet the passive restraint requirements of FMVSS 208, and (3) determine if that class of vehicles is a sufficient percentage of the first class of vehicles to satisfy the phase-in requirements. However, as Mary Versailles of my staff cautioned you on the phone, some manufacturers are installing European (face) air bags but are not certifying that vehicles with such air bags meet the passive restraint requirements of FMVSS 208. Therefore, you should verify that any vehicle with an air bag is in fact certified to FMVSS 208's passive restraint requirements.

I hope this information has been helpful. If you have other questions or need some additional information, please contact Mary Versailles of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht73-1.23

DATE: 08/20/73

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; James B. Gregory; NHTSA

TO: Oregon Traffic Safety Commision

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Thank you for your letter of July 23, 1973, enclosing an amended version of Oregon House Bill 2721.

We note that Section 2 of the Bill no longer requires a mandatory green-yellow-red rear mounted lighting system but specifies that it may be used on an optional basis, in accordance with the suggestions in Mr. Wilson's letter of July 20, 1973. In order to avoid preemption under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, ORS 483.412(3)(b) [Section 3] should be similarly amended to substitute "may" for "shall" so that all references to a mandatory system are removed from the Bill.

Sincerely,

OREGON TRAFFIC SAFETY COMMISSION

July 23, 1973

James E. Wilson -- Associate Administrator, Traffic Safety Programs, U.S. Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

RE: N40-30 (ZTV)

Dear Mr. Wilson:

Attached is an engrossed (amended) version of Oregon House Bill 2721 relating to a series of red-yellow-green taillights.

Note that, as passed, the law is permissive. It does not relate to the manufacturer of a vehicle. A vehicle owner may, under the new law, add an accessory with a red-yellow-green series of taillights on his car.

Since this is in addition to the standard taillight system, it does not conflict with 49 CFR @ 571.108 Standard No. 108, Lamps, reflective devices, and associated equipment.

When you are in Oregon we would be pleased to show you this system. We believe it will reduce rear-end collisions substantially.

Sincerely,

Gil W. Bellamy Administrator

[Enclosure Omitted.]

ID: Label_legibility001589

Mr. Randy Kiser
Evenflo Company, Inc.
707 Crossroads Court
Vandalia, OH 45377

Dear Mr. Kiser:

This responds to your February 5, 2004, letter following up on recent correspondence between you and this office concerning the labeling requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 213, Child restraint systems.

Your earlier letter asked about the requirement in S5.5.1 and elsewhere in FMVSS No. 213 that child restraints be "permanently labeled" with certain information. You asked if we would consider the permanency requirement met if attempting to remove the label caused certain results, such as tearing of the label. We replied that, if the label met the described criteria and remained legible for the life of the restraint, we would consider it permanently attached.

In your follow up letter, you ask about a procedure you use to determine the legibility of the labeling. You state that the procedure, which you say was suggested by Transport Canada, involves applying three different cleaning solutions in sequence to the label with a piece of cheesecloth. After each solution is applied, you assess the legibility of the label and deem the wording legible if it is "legible to an observer having corrected visual acuity of 20/40 (Snellen ratio) at a distance of 305 mm." You state that this language is used in FMVSS No. 116, "Brake fluids," regarding legibility of labeling. You wish to know if such a procedure is acceptable for evaluating legibility under FMVSS No. 213.

Under 49 U.S.C. 30112, persons are prohibited from manufacturing or selling any motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment that does not comply with all applicable FMVSSs. However, this prohibition does not apply to a person who had no reason to know, despite exercising reasonable care, that the vehicle or item of equipment does not comply (49 U.S.C. 30112(b)). In our opinion, using the procedure you describe would be an exercise of reasonable care in making your certification. We assume that the procedure would expose the labeling to cleaning solutions representative of those used in the U.S.

If you have any further questions, please contact Deirdre Fujita of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:213
d.5/11/04

ID: nht74-3.9

DATE: 01/01/74 EST

FROM: RICHARD B. DYSON -- NHTSA ASSISTANT CHIEF COUNSEL

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 01/01/75 (EST) LETTER FROM RICHARD B. DYSON -- NHTSA CHIEF COUNSEL TO ALLEN B. FREDHOLD OF K-B AXLE COMPANY INC.; N40-30 (TWH) LETTER DATED 4/16/75 FROM RICHARD B. DYSON -- NHTSA CHIEF COUNSEL TO GEOFFREY R. MYERS OF HALL AND MYERS; UNDATED LETTER FROM RICHARD B. DYSON -- NHTSA CHIEF COUNSEL TO ADDRESSEE UNKNOWN

TEXT: De

This responds to your April 22, 1974, question concerning the certification responsibility of a small manufacturer of trailers that must conform to Standard No. 121, Air brake systems. You ask if road testing of any or all vehicles produced would be necessary to satisfy the requirements.

A manufacturer must "exercise due care" in certifying that the vehicles manufactured by him comply with the applicable standards (National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, @ 108(b)(2), 15 U.S.C. @ 1397(b)(2)). What constitutes due care in a particular case depends on all relevant facts, including such things as the time to elapse before a new effective date, the availability of test equipment to small manufacturers, the limitations of current technology, and above all the diligence evidenced by the manufacturer.

A small manufacturer of standard and custom trailers might fulfill his due care responsibility to assure that each of his trailers is capable of meeting the standard in several ways. For example, he could establish categories of models which share a common brake and axle system and certify them all on the basis of tests on the most adverse configuration in the category. Calculations should be written down in such a case to establish that reasonable care was taken in these decisions.

Alternatively, joint testing might be undertaken with a trade association or with a major supplier of brake and axle components. In the case of standard models, you might be able to rely on the supplier's warranty of his products' capacities.

Neither of these methods would require road testing of each vehicle manufactured, nor would every model have to be road tested. A manufacturer must simply satisfy himself that the trailer is capable of meeting the stopping performance requirements if it were tested by the NHTSA.

Yours truly,

ID: nht74-2.39

DATE: 03/18/74

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Continental Gummu-Werke

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of January 29, 1974, raising certain questions about the effective date (September 1, 1974) of the Uniform Tire Quality Grading regulation. You pose two hypothetical questions, asking whether tires must be quality graded when they are to be placed on vehicles manufactured or imported after September 1, 1974. In the first situation, the tires are manufactured in July 1974, while the vehicle is manufactured in August 1974 and imported in October 1974. In the second, the tires are manufactured in August 1974; the vehicle is manufactured in September 1974 and imported in November 1974.

The Quality Grading regulation applies to tires rather than vehicles. Its effective date of September 1, 1974, means that all passenger-car tires manufactured on or after that date must be graded in accordance with the regulation. There is no requirement, however, that vehicle manufacturers must use tires manufactured after that date. In each hypothetical question you present, the tires are manufactured before September 1, 1974, and therefore are not required to be graded. The date of manufacture or importation of the vehicle is immaterial.

Yours truly,

ATTACH.

Our Ref.: 61011-Ga-gs

January 29, 1974

Subject: U.T.Q.G. - Docket 25 Notice 7

Gentlemen:

As you know, the tire industry is faced with considerable difficulties in adhering to the date set, i.e. September 1, 1974.

This applies in particular to tires we supply to European vehicle manufacturers whose passenger car production is partly shipped to the United States.

Tires for such vehicles which arrive for instance in the United States in September 1974, have to be manufactured by us already in June. Therefore, your interpretation of paragraph 575.4a, reading as under, is very important for us:

". . . . . . . each section set forth in Support B of this Part applies according to its terms to motorvehicles and tires manufactured after the eff. date indicated, . . . . .".

To clarify matters, please permit us to put up for discussion the following two possibilities: Case Production Date Date of Import No. Tires Car of the Cars into USA 1 July 1974 August 1974 October 1974 2 August 1974 September 1974 November 1974

We would be very much obliged if you would inform us as to whether the tires of the vehicles in the above two cases have also to be provided with the statutory U.T.Q.G. marking.

Looking forward to hearing from you, we remain

Yours very truly, Continental Gummi-Werke Aktiengesellschaft; NEBE; (Illegible Word)

ID: nht95-1.82

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: March 1, 1995 EST

FROM: Marshall S. Reagle -- Sate-Lite Mfg. Co.

TO: Pat Boyd -- NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 4/17/95 LETTER FROM PHILIP RECHT TO MARSHALL S. REAGLE (A43; STD. 108)

TEXT: Dear Pat:

As I stated in my telephone conversation on Monday, February 27, 1995, I would send you a confirming letter of my interpretation of FMVSS 108 and our discussion regarding retro-reflectors.

You stated that any retro-reflector would have to be made in intervals of 4 inches. The center or 0 degree would be at the two inch mark and the reflective reading would have to comply with S5.7.2.1 (b) and (c) of FMVSS 108.

Also, that regardless of size, 4, 8, or 12 inches in length, your testing requirements and standards are strictly for a 4 inches segment, (ie. you would mask off any area of a retro-reflector other than 4 inches and test the segment alone.) The width of the retro-reflector has not been established as with sheeting, therefore, as long as the photometric requirements are achieved, the width is a variable.

Below is a sketch of how NHTSA is asking the retro-reflector to function:

TOP VIEW

45 degrees L 30 degrees L 0 degrees 30 degrees R 45 degrees R

45L-30L, 30R-45R 30L-0-30RRED 75 MILLICANDELAS/LUX RED 300 MILLECANDILAS/LUX CLR 300 " " CLR 1250 " "

Please review this letter and sketch with legal counsel as soon as possible, we would like to begin work on this project immediately.

Thank you for your time and efforts in this. I appreciate all of your input.