ID: nht71-1.21

DATE: 09/13/71

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Lawrence R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: Sierracin Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of August 4, 1971, in which you enclosed a copy of the manufacturer's symbol that would be used to identify windshields manufactured by the Sierracin Corporation, and ask whether the symbol is acceptable as illustrated. You also request our comments on requirements for the label location on the product.

The symbol you have enclosed complies with Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205, "Glazing Materials" and, except for the omission of a hyphen between the "DOT" symbol and the manufacturer's code mark, also with the marking requirements proposed in the notice of January 9, 1971 (36 F.R. 326), which would amend certain provisions of the standard. We would consider this deviation to be inconsequential.

With reference to location requirements, the present standard does not specify a location for the windshield marking. The proposed amendment, which is still under consideration, would require the mark to be placed in the lower left hand corner of the windshield.

Sincerely,

August 4, 1971 Ref: SD7108-5

Lawrence R. Schneider Acting Chief Counsel NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC Safety Administration

Dear Mr. Schneider:

Enclosed is a copy (SK-2137) of the Sierracin Corporation's manufacturing symbol to be used to identify automotive windshields of our manufacture.

May we please have your comments regarding its acceptance as shown and an expression of the label location requirement on the product.

Very truly yours,

SIERRACIN CORPORATION

William H. Lawson, Jr., Manager, Market Development

Enclosure

ID: noll.ztv

Mr. Frederick W. Noll
Director of Manufacturing
Orange Blossom Quick Loader
4 Anderson Drive
Albany, NY 12205

Dear Mr. Noll:

This responds to your letter of February 28, 1997, regarding the rear lamp location requirements of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. You ask whether the location of rear taillamps and turn signal lamps shown in the photographs you enclosed comply with the requirements of Standard No. 108. You comment that "the center bar is the only practical area. . . ."

Table II of Standard No. 108 requires rear taillamps and turn signal lamps on vehicles whose overall width exceeds 2032 mm (80 inches) to be located "on the rear" and "as far apart as practicable." In certifying compliance of the vehicle with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards, the manufacturer is certifying that the trailer also meets the rear lamp and reflector location requirements of Standard No. 108.

Unless the manufacturer's determination of practicability is clearly erroneous, it is the policy of this agency not to contest it. In this instance, you have located the lamps on the "center bar" because "the ramp will extend from the original frame of the trailer and we would not be in compliance with the lamps only on the outside corners." We accept, therefore, your representation that the rear taillamps and turn signal lamps shown on the photographs you enclosed are located "as far apart as practicable."

If you have any questions, you may call Taylor Vinson of this office (202-366-5263).

Sincerely,

John Womack

Acting Chief Counsel

ref:108

d:4/4/97

ID: nht74-4.35

DATE: 01/02/74

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: University Club Tower

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your December 10, 1973, question whether a dealer violates the Odometer Disclosure Requirements of the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act and 49 CFR Part 580 if he simply duplicates the disclosure made to him when he bought the car.

If the dealer acts in good faith in making his disclosure, he is entitled to rely on the disclosure made to him as the basis of his statement. On the other hand, collusion between the dealer and the former owner to knowingly make a false disclosure would violate the Act. Either might be subject to suit and damages if intent to defraud can be shown.

We realize that such a burden of proof is difficult to meet and we suggest that, with regard to the dealer, an alternative remedy might be a report of possible misrepresentation to the state agency that licenses dealers.

YOURS TRULY,

December 10, 1973

U.S. Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Attention: Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel

Re: N40-30(TWH)

Thank you for your letter of December 5, 1973 with its enclosed rules and regulations issued by your department.

As you are aware the act states that a purchaser of a used automobile is entitled to rely on the odometer reading unless the seller states that it is inaccurate and the actual mileage is not known. The enforcement provisions of the act state that an inaccurate statement must be made with the intentions to defraud. In my particular case, the dealer has attempted to circumvent this section by obtaining a statement from the person who sold him the automobile in the same wording as the statement he must give his purchaser. In other words, a used car salesman ignores the act completely by acting as a middle man even though he knew or should have known that the mileage was in excess of the odometer reading.

I am aware that this act is so new that there are no reported cases but I would appreciate any assistance you can give me in overcoming this situation and also I wish to make you aware of how the act is being ignored in our area. Please advise me by return mail.

Very truly yours,

ID: nht70-2.46

DATE: 12/18/70

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

TO: Electrical Testing Laboratories, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your request for clarification of S4.4.2 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 (Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment), as published in the Federal Register on October 31, 1970 (35 F.R. 16843).

You have asked the following questions:

"1. How many flashers constitute a sample for test?"

"2. How many failures, and of what types, are allowed for compliance?"

The safety standards do not specify sampling provisions or failure rates. The reference to test samples in the SAE materials referenced in Standard No. 108 were deleted in the above notice, to bring the standard into conformity with the requirements of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, which requires that all items conform to the standards. It is the manufacturer's responsibility to institute a test program that will ensure that his products meet the standards.

"3. Which sentences or paragraphs in SAE J590b and SAE J345 are specifically referenced for omission?"

I attach copies of the two SAE Standards marked to show omissions.

"4. Does the statement 'tested consecutively' refer to the combination turn signal and hazard warning signal flasher or the SAE standards?"

This statement means that the combination unit is tested first to determine compliance with SAE J590b and then tested in accordance with SAE J945.

"5. * * What statement of test results is available to the testing organization?"

How you state your test results is a question to be decided between you and your clients. If you find that an item fails the standard in a particular respect, I presume that you will so state.

"6. * * Can or should all current tests on these devices be made according to the above modified procedures during this interim period prior to [the effective date of the amendment]?"

As stated above, the method and timing of a manufacturer's tests is not regulated by the Bureau. The test program should be sufficient to legally constitute are care, on a continuing basis, to ensure that all products manufactured after the effective date of a standard meet the applicable requirements.

I hope this answers your questions.

ID: nht76-1.3

DATE: 12/03/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: American Motors Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to American Motors Corporation's (AMC's) September 9, 1976, request for confirmation that Standard No. 101, Control Location, Identification, and Illumination, permits the addition of a "fan" symbol to a control that is identified by the word "fan" in accordance with the requirements of S4.2.1.

The AMC interpretation is incorrect. Section S4.2.1 states in part:

S4.2.1 . . . . A control may, in addition, be identified by a symbol, but only a symbol shown in column 3 or 4 shall be used. However, if the word "None" appears in column 3, no symbol shall be provided. . . .

Table I, whose columns are referred to in S4.2.1, contains an entry for "Heating and Air Conditioning System," and column 3 for that entry contains the word "None". This means that no symbol can be used in addition to the word "fan" on the control for the fan control switch.

The language in the preambles to three proposals to amend Standard No. 101 that you list in your letter does not have the effect of amending the requirements of the standard itself. As you are no doubt aware, a recent proposal would amend Table I to include a symbol for the heating and air conditioning system, but this proposal has not yet been made final. A copy of the proposal is enclosed for your information.

SINCERELY,

American Motors Corporation

September 7, 1976

Robert L. Carter Associate Administrator Motor Vehicle Programs National Highway Traffic Safety Administration U. S. Department Of Transportation

American Motors Corporation (AM) submits this request for an interpretation of the control identification requirements contained in FMVSS 101 as they relate to the fan control switch of the heater and/or air conditioning system.

AM requests this interpretation because of the language contained in Docket 1-18; Notice 7, 10 and 11. Therein, the NHTSA has stated their tentative determination that a fan symbol should be allowed, at the manufacturer's option, to supplement the word "Fan" or "Blower" for purposes of identifying the fan control switch, and has announced its intention to incorporate the internationally accepted ISO fan symbol into Standard 101.

AM is about to release a future heater and air conditioner control assembly which will incorporate the word "Fan" along with the appropriate symbol described in ISO Standard 2575/1 (4.8). AM requests NHTSA's interpretation in order to assure that our incorporation of the ISO fan symbol will not be judged in conflict with the requirements of Standard 101.

A prompt reply to this request would be appreciated in order to facilitate this design decision.

K. W. Schang Director - Vehicle Safety Programs

ID: 9352

Mr. Andrew Tweddle
AV Technology Corp.
2340 Alger
Troy, MI 48083

Dear Mr. Tweddle:

This responds to your request for an interpretation whether AV Technology's armored vehicle is subject to the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSSs). As explained below, a vehicle manufactured to U.S. Army contract specifications, and sold to the Army, is not subject to the FMVSSs.

In your letter, you explained that AV Technology is in the process of responding to a Department of the Army draft specification for an armored security vehicle. AV Technology proposes to offer its Dragoon ASV, an armored security vehicle, with a weapon carrying capability. Your letter states that the Dragoon ASV would be built to U.S. Army specification MIL-STD-1180. In a telephone conversation with Dorothy Nakama of my staff, you stated that the Dragoon ASV would also be built to other applicable military specifications.

The FMVSSs' applicability to vehicles manufactured for and sold to the U.S. military, is addressed at 49 CFR 571.7(c):

(c) Military vehicles. No standard applies to a vehicle or item of equipment manufactured for, and sold directly to, the Armed Forces of the United States in conformity with contractual specifications.

You stated the Dragoon ASV would be manufactured to all applicable military specifications, specified by the Army. The Army is part of the "Armed Forces." Thus, when manufactured to Army contractual specifications, and sold to the Army, the Dragoon ASV is not subject to the FMVSSs.

If you have any questions, please contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel ref:571 d:3/17/94

ID: 11563ZTV

Mr. Mark A. Evans
Photometric Engineer
Calcoast - ITL
P.O. Box 8702
Emeryville, CA 94662

Dear Mr. Evans:

We have received your letter of February 9, 1996, asking for an interpretation of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 as it applies to motorcycle headlamps. Specifically you ask for confirmation that motorcycle headlamps using HB2 and/or HB4 light sources must comply with out-of-focus requirements.

As you note, Table III of Standard No. 108 incorporates by reference SAE Standard J584 Motorcycle and Motor Driven Cycle Headlamps, April 1964 as the basic Federal requirement for motorcycle headlamps. Neither SAE J584 nor any provision of Standard No. 108 limit the types of light sources that may be used in a motorcycle headlamp. This means that Standard No. 108 (SAE J584) may be met with a Type HB2 or Type HB4 replaceable light source.

Part of the requirements of Standard No. 108 (SAE J584) are the "Out-of-Focus Tests on Unsealed Units" specifications of Section K of SAE J575. Thus, we confirm your understanding that motorcycle headlamps using Type HB2 or Type HB4 light sources must comply with the out-of-focus requirements of SAE J575. However, the question arises as to which version of SAE J575 applies, the one in effect in 1964 when SAE J584 was adopted, or a later version.

Paragraph S6.1 of Standard No. 108 states that the SAE Standards included in Table III are those published in the 1970 SAE Handbook, except that, for headlamps, unless otherwise specified, the version of J575 is that of December 1988. Correctly, S6.1 should note that SAE J575 DEC88 is for

headlamps for motor vehicles other than motorcycles. SAE J575 DEC88 is paragraphed by numbers rather than by letters and, in any event, no longer includes an out- of-focus test for unsealed units. The version of SAE J575 that is subreferenced by J584 in Standard No. 108 is correctly SAE J575d, August 1967, the version published in the 1970 SAE Handbook. We appreciate the opportunity to provide this clarification.

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

Sincerely,

Samuel J. Dubbin Chief Counsel ref:108 d:3/4/96

ID: 19809-1.bk!

Mr. Stuart Leopold
President
DGS Enterprises, Ltd.
2800 Covered Bridge Road
Merrick, NY 11566

Dear Mr. Leopold:

This responds to your letter of April 1, 1999, addressed to Walter Myers of my staff, in which you sought clarification of my letter to you of March 30, 1999. You stated that the people to whom you would like to show my March 30 letter might not understand some of the legal discussions. You asked, therefore, that we rephrase the March 30 letter to state that the use of "Tire Mend" is neither endorsed nor prohibited by the Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs).

I am sorry you found that our earlier letter might be difficult for some people to understand. However, there is a limit to the extent to which we can simplify our discussion of how various requirements in 49 U. S. Code, Chapter 301 (Safety Act) might affect your product.

We are charged with enforcing the Safety Act in its entirety and not just the FMVSSs. In considering how a product may be affected by the statutes and regulations we administer, we consider application of the many different parts of the Safety Act. We also consider the various persons who may ultimately read our opinion letters.

I stated in my March 30 letter that because of the self-certification system established by the Safety Act, we neither "approve, disapprove, test, endorse, or certify" motor vehicles, motor vehicle equipment, or related products. I also said in my letter that "the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has not issued any FMVSSs specifically applicable to substances such as 'Tire Mend'".

We cannot make the categorical statement, however, that the use of "Tire Mend" is not prohibited under the Safety Act. I explained the "make inoperative" provision of the Safety Act in my letter. As applied to your product, the issue is not whether the product is expressly addressed in the FMVSSs, but whether a provision of the Safety Act would prohibit the installation of "Tire Mend" if the product adversely affected the compliance of a tire with the FMVSSs. I also explained that the "make inoperative" provision applies only to manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and repair businesses, but does not apply to vehicle owners. Nevertheless, this agency encourages vehicle owners to maintain the safety of their vehicles and equipment and not make changes that would adversely affect compliance with a safety standard.

I hope this explanation of my March 30 letter is helpful to you.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
ref:119
d.6/23/99

ID: nht71-5.51

DATE: 06/04/71

FROM: DAVID SCHMELTZER FOR L. R. SCHNEIDER -- NHTSA

TO: Phillips Petroleum Company

COPYEE: PESKOE; ARMSTRONG; DRIVER

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of May 11, 1971, in which you request an opinion on whether certain tires manufactured by Phillips Petroleum Company are subject to the requirements governing tires that have been issued pursuant to the National Traffic and Motor Vehicles Safety Act (15 U.S.C. @ 1391 et seq.) You state that the tires in question result from Phillips' efforts to develop improved tread rubber, and are manufactured by purchasing new tires, buffing them down, and then retreading the remaining casings with experimental tread rubber compounds, You state further that after the casings have been retreaded, the tread rubber compounds are evaluated by stationary wheel testing, road testing, or both, and indicate that some of the road testing takes place on the public highways.

We agree with your conclusion that these tires are not retreaded pneumatic tires under Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 117, because they are not manufactured from used tires. However, in our view these tires are new pneumatic tires, and accordingly are subject to the requirements of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 109.

Section 108(a)(1) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. @ 1397(a)(1)) provides that no person shall --

"manufacture for sale, sell, offer for sale, or introduce or deliver for introduction in interstate commerce any motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment manufactured on or after the date any applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard takes effect . . . unless it is in conformity with such standard."

Phillips' use of the public roads for testing these tires is an introduction of them in interstate concerns and is prohibited by section 108(a)(1) if the tires do not conform to Standard No. 109.

One objective of the Act that you did not mention in your letter is the prevention of possibly hazardous motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment from being used on the public highways, where they may endanger not only the driver of the vehicle in question, but other users of the highway as well. The tires need not be manufactured for sale to the general public in order for a violation of section 108(a)(1) to occur.

However, if the testing of these tires is confined to the laboratory or to private roads, the prohibition of the Act will not apply to them.

I trust this answers your question. If you have further questions, please write.

ID: nht91-3.45

DATE: May 9, 1991

FROM: Erika Z. Jones -- Mayer, Brown & Platt

TO: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 7-8-91 from Paul Jackson Rice to Erika Z. Jones (A38; Part 565)

TEXT:

I am writing on behalf of a client to seek NHTSA's interpretation of 49 CFR Part 565 relating to the vehicle identification number. In particular, my client is interested in knowing NHTSA's views with respect to two issues involving the unique World Manufacturer Identifier assigned by the Society for Automotive Engineers under NHTSA's supervision.

We have framed our questions in the context of a hypothetical corporation with two subsidiaries. The XYZ Company manufactures motor vehicles for sale in the United States and Europe. XYZ certifies that the motor vehicles offered for sale in the United States comply with vehicle safety standards, and accepts all responsibilities of a manufacturer under the Vehicle Safety Act. XYZ has two wholly-owned subsidiaries: the ABC Company, which performs assembly and marketing functions in the United States for the U.S.-certified vehicles manufactured by XYZ, and the DEF Corporation, which performs assembly and marketing functions solely for vehicles sold outside the United States. As we understand NHTSA's interpretations, we assume that the world manufacturer identification component of the Vehicle Identification Number required by Part 565 of NHTSA's rules should identify XYZ as the manufacturer for any vehicle offered for sale in the United States, even if the actual assembly and/or marketing was performed by the ABC Company.

Our first question is whether there are any implications under NHTSA rules, particularly Part 565, if the DEF Company (the subsidiary that assembles and markets vehicles solely outside the United States) were to obtain a world manufacturer identification code from the SAE in its own name, for use solely on vehicles offered for sale outside the United States.

Our second question is whether NHTSA would have any objection if the XYZ Company were to request the SAE to include in its next directory of world manufacturer identifiers a simple notation (such as a parenthetical or a footnote) indicating that XYZ has authorized its subsidiary, ABC, to use one of XYZ's world manufacturer identification codes on vehicles assembled or marketed by ABC. In our view, such an illustrative parenthetical would provide helpful information to users of the SAE reference material, while having no effect on NHTSA's requirements, which would continue to apply to XYZ as the certifying manufacturer.

I look forward to your response. Please call me if you have any questions.