ID: 77-5.5

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/16/77

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Joseph J. Levin Jr.; NHTSA

TO: Lowe Machine Company

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your October 12, 1977, letter asking what regulations apply to you in your capacity as an alterer of motor vehicles.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) promulgates safety standards for motor vehicles. The agency requires persons who alter motor vehicles prior to their first purchase for purposes other than resale to attach a label to each vehicle indicating that it continues to comply with all applicable safety standards. Therefore, if the modification that you intend to perform occurs prior to the first purchase of the vehicle for purposes other than resale, you would be required to attach such a label. I am enclosing a copy of Part 567, Certification (Volume 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 567) which addresses the responsibilities of vehicle alterers.

If you modify vehicles after their first purchase for purposes other than resale, then you need not attach a certification or alterer's label. However, section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (the Act) (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.) prohibits any repair business, dealer, distributor, or manufacturer from rendering inoperative any device or element of design installed on a vehicle in compliance with a safety standard. If your manufacturing operation affected the compliance of any aspect of the vehicle with safety standards in effect on the date of the vehicle's manufacture, you would be in violation of the Act and subject to civil penalties prescribed thereunder.

ID: nht95-4.17

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: September 11, 1995

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Michael A. Knappo

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO: 7/01/95 (EST.) LETTER FROM MICHAEL A. NAPPO TO NHTSA CHIEF COUNSEL; 6/8/93 LETTER FROM JOHN WOMACK TO SHAWN SHIEH; 5/10/91 AND 3/21/91 LETTERS FROM PAUL JACKSON RICE TO CHRIS LAWRENCE; 8/17/89 LETTER FROM STEPHEN P. WOOD TO ALAN S. ELDAHR; 7/8/85 LETTER FROM JEFFREY R. MILLER TO DON BENFIELD (STD. 205)

TEXT: 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).

Enclosures

ID: nht95-1.67

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: February 14, 1995

FROM: Tamera Reuvers -- Quality Assurance Manager, Viracon/Curvlite

TO: Philip Recht -- Chief Council, NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 4/10/95 LETTER FROM PHILIP RECHT TO TAMERA REUVERS (A43; STD. 205)

TEXT: Mr. Recht,

I am respectfully requesting an official ruling/interpretation of 49 CFR Ch. V (10-1-91 Edition) section 571.205 Standard No. 205, Glazing materials. The section in question is section S6. Certification and marking, S6.1 states "Each prime glazing mate rial manufacturer, except as specified below, shall mark the glazing materials it manufactures in accordance with section 6 of ANSI Z26. The material specified in S5.1.2.2 . . . . shall be identified by marks AS 11C, . . . . respectively. A prime glazi ng material manufacturer is one who fabricates, laminates, or tempers the glazing material." Below is our scenario:

We purchase bent tempered product from fabricator "X", which is standard AS-2 designation material according to ANSI Z26. We laminate a piece of SentryGlas tm to the bent tempered product. This now will make the material an AS-15B designation according to ANSI Z26. My question is how should this product be properly marked. Should the primary tempered supplier, fabricator "X", have their marking (AS-2, model number and DOT number) on the product in addition to our marking (AS-15B, model number and Do t number)?

I have never seen a piece of automotive glass with two markings on it. I understand, if we only put our designation on the product, we will be fully responsible for the product. Would it be appropriate to have both prime manufacturers markings on it?

With any inquiries, please feel free to contact me. My hours are 7:00 am to 4:00 pm Monday through Friday. My number is 800-533-0482 Ext. 373.

Immediate attention to this matter would be greatly appreciated.

ID: nht94-1.83

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: March 17, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Andrew Tweddle -- AV Technology Corp. (Troy, MI)

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 11/8/93 from Andrew Tweddle to Walter K. Myers (OCC 9352)

TEXT:

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 t he Army, is not subject to the FMVSS.

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 m ilitary 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.

ID: 8047

Mr. Steve Flint
Century Products Co.
9600 Valley View Road
Macedonia, OH 44056-2096

Dear Mr. Flint:

This responds to your question about the registration form required by S5.8 of Standard 213, "Child Restraint Systems."

In telephone conversations with Deirdre Fujita of my staff, you indicated that your registration form would have certain characteristics. The form would be identical to the ones shown in figures 9a and 9b of Standard 213 and required by S5.8 of the standard, except that cards bearing additional information would be attached to it. The additional information consists of French and Spanish translations of the instructions shown in Figure 9a for filling out the registration form, and a French version of the registration form shown in Figure 9b.

You stated that the Spanish instructions are for the Spanish speaking population in the U.S. You also said that the French form is required by Canada for restraints sold there, and that attaching it to the U.S. (English) form facilitates your compliance with both U.S. and Canadian standards.

We conclude that as long as the English form complies with S5.8 and does not bear any information or writing beyond that required to be on the form, cards bearing the French and Spanish information may be attached to the English form if the information on those cards is presented in a manner that is not likely to confuse consumers in this country about the meaning of the English form or the importance of owner registration. As to whether the additional information is likely to cause confusion, we note the additional information consists solely of French and Spanish translations of the information on the English form. We note further that you indicated to Ms. Fujita that significant numbers of your consumers have been filling in and mailing the tri-lingual registration cards. This return rate indicates that the additional information has not confused the consumers.

We appreciate your recognition of the differing language needs of your customers. NHTSA has suggested to manufacturers that they should consider providing consumer instructions on the use of child restraints not only in English, but also in other languages, to address a possible need for such information. (See, denial of petition for rulemaking from Mr. Mattox, 55 FR 48262, November 20, 1990.)

Please note, however, that NHTSA wishes to maximize the return rates for the registration forms. If information arises that indicates the French and Spanish information is confusing consumers or otherwise negatively affecting return rates, the agency will reconsider whether such information should be permitted.

I hope this information is helpful. Please call Ms. Fujita at (202) 366-2992 if you have further questions.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

ref:213 d:5/24/93

ID: nht93-4.10

DATE: May 24, 1993

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, U.S. Department of Transportation, NHTSA

TO: Steve Flint -- Century Products Co.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to fax transmission dated 1-28-93 from Steve Flint to Dee Fujita

TEXT: This responds to your question about the registration form required by S5.8 of Standard 213, "Child Restraint Systems."

In telephone conversations with Deirdre Fujita of my staff, you indicated that your registration form would have certain characteristics. The form would be identical to the ones shown in figures 9a and 9b of Standard 213 and required by S5.8 of the standard, except that cards bearing additional information would be attached to it. The additional information consists of French and Spanish translations of the instructions shown in Figure 9a for filling out the registration form, and a French version of the registration form shown in Figure 9b.

You stated that the Spanish instructions are for the Spanish speaking population in the U.S. You also said that the French form is required by Canada for restraints sold there, and that attaching it to the U.S. (English) form facilitates your compliance with both U.S. and Canadian standards.

We conclude that as long as the English form complies with S5.8 and does not bear any information or writing beyond that required to be on the form, cards bearing the French and Spanish information may be attached to the English form if the information on those cards is presented in a manner that is not likely to confuse consumers in this country about the meaning of the English form or the importance of owner registration. As to whether the additional information is likely to cause confusion, we note the additional information consists solely of French and Spanish translations of the information on the English form. We note further that you indicated to Ms. Fujita that significant numbers of your consumers have been filling in and mailing the tri-lingual registration cards. This return rate indicates that the additional information has not confused the consumers.

We appreciate your recognition of the differing language needs of your customers. NHTSA has suggested to manufacturers that they should consider providing consumer instructions on the use of child restraints not only in English, but also in other languages, to address a possible need for such information. (See, denial of petition for rulemaking from Mr. Mattox, 55 FR 48262, November 20, 1990.)

Please note, however, that NHTSA wishes to maximize the return rates for the registration forms. If information arises that indicates the French and Spanish information is confusing consumers or otherwise negatively affecting return rates, the agency will reconsider whether such information should be permitted.

I hope this information is helpful. Please call Ms. Fujita at (202) 366-2992

if you have further questions.

ID: 1763y

Samson Helfgott, Esq.
Helfgott & Karas, P.C.
60th Floor
Empire State Building
New York, NY l0ll8-0ll0

Dear Mr. Helfgott:

This is in reply to your letter of January 12, l989, asking whether Federal regulations permit the use of an amber lamp either as original or aftermarket equipment. The lamp would be placed adjacent to the center highmounted stop lamp, but in a separate housing and wholly independent of it. It would be activated when the ignition is turned on, and deactivated whenever the stop lamps are illuminated. The purpose of the amber lamp is to improve conspicuity of the vehicle in order to lessen the braking response time of drivers in vehicles following.

Paragraph S4.1.3 of 49 CFR 571.108 Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. l08 Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment allows a supplementary lighting device such as the amber lamp if it does not impair the effectiveness of lighting equipment required by Standard No. l08. The decision regarding impairment is initially that of the manufacturer of the vehicle on which the supplementary device is installed, and which the manufacturer certifies as complying with all applicable Federal safety standards. In this instance you have indicated that the wiring of the amber lamp is independent of the center lamp, and that the amber lamp is inoperative when the stop lamps are on. While your lamp does not appear to impair the effectiveness of the center lamp, you should consider whether your lamp, since it would be a steady-burning amber lamp, might confuse following drivers unused to seeing a steady burning amber lamp on the rear of a vehicle, or because of its brightness. Should the amber lamp create confusion, it may impair the effectiveness of the other rear lamps required by Standard No. l08, each of which (other than the stop lamps) would when in use operate contemporaneously with it, such as an amber turn signal lamp, or a back up lamp. As part of the vehicle manufacturer's certification to Standard No. l08, it must certify that this situation would not occur, if the lamp is to be permissible as an item of original equipment.

As an aftermarket device, the amber lamp is not regulated by Standard No. l08, but is subject to the general prohibition of l5 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A) against rendering inoperative, in whole or in part, equipment installed in accordance with a safety standard. The same considerations as discussed above should be taken into consideration when making this determination.

In addition, the use of this lamp is subject to local laws. We are not able to advise you as to these laws, and suggest that you consult for an opinion the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA 22203.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

ref:l08 d:3/30/89

ID: 18897-1a.wkm

Phillip A. Proger, Esq.
Jones, Day, Reavis & Pogue
Metropolitan Square
1450 G Street, NW
Washington, DC 20005-2088

Dear Mr. Proger:

Reference is made to your meeting with Messrs. Daniel, Myers, and Woods of this agency on October 1, 1998, and to your letter of October 8, 1998⁽¹⁾. You asked us to confirm your interpretation of the indicator lamp requirements of subparagraph S5.3.1 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 105, Hydraulic and electric brake systems, as amended by final rule of March 10, 1995, (60 FR 13216).

You stated that you believe the requirements do not preclude LVBS [Lucas Varity Light Vehicle Braking Systems] and its customers from providing for indicator lamp illumination for purposes not expressly stated in subparagraph S5.3.1. You also stated that you believe that should LVBS or its customers decide to provide for lamp illumination for purposes not expressly required in Standard No. 105, as amended, the lamp activation protocol set forth therein will not apply to these additional lamp illumination strategies.

We begin by noting that we cannot provide so broad an interpretation as you suggest. Moreover, your letter does not provide sufficient detail as to what LVBS may have in mind for us to provide a specific interpretation. It is our general understanding, however, that LVBS is primarily interested in providing for illumination of the separate antilock brake system (ABS) malfunction indicator lamp in circumstances not directly addressed by S5.3.1. The issues raised by that factual situation are addressed below.

The introductory paragraph of subsection S5.3 of Standard No. 105, as amended, requires each vehicle to which the standard applies to have a brake system indicator lamp or lamps that meet the requirements of S5.3.1 through S5.3.5. That provision further requires that vehicles with a gross vehicle weight rating of 10,000 pounds or more have a separate indicator lamp for ABS malfunctions.

Paragraph S5.3.1 of the standard requires that an indicator lamp must be activated when any of the conditions specified therein occur, one of which, at S5.3.1(c), requires the lamp to activate at the occurrence of:

A malfunction that affects the generation or transmission of response or control signals in an antilock brake system, or a total functional electrical failure in a variable proportioning brake system.

NHTSA originally proposed to require that the ABS malfunction indicator lamp (MIL) activate "in the event of any malfunction in the system" (see Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, September 28, 1993, 58 FR 50738, 50749). Several commenters, including fleet operators and brake manufacturers, objected to that proposal, arguing that requiring the MIL to activate for "any" malfunction was impracticable, unreasonably costly, and overly broad. NHTSA, persuaded by the comments and other available information, modified the proposal and decided on the provision quoted above in the final rule of March 10, 1995 (60 FR 13216).

In explaining its rationale for that requirement, the agency stated:

Under the modified requirement [of S5.3.1(c)], only those malfunctions that are directly related to the antilock brake system must be indicated. Applying the indicator requirement to the "generation" of response and control signals serves to cover the components in the ABS that produce these signals. These components include wheel speed sensors which produce response signals for the control unit, and the control unit which produces control signals for input into the valves that modulate brake pressure. Applying the indicator requirement to the "transmission" of response and control signals serves to cover the components in the ABS through which the generated signals are transmitted. These components include wiring, connectors, belts used in mechanical systems, and all components through which a generated signal can be transmitted.

60 FR 13246 (emphasis added).

NHTSA explained at page 13245 that the requirement does not apply to malfunctions such as sticking solenoid valves, small air leaks in the solenoid valve, or mechanical binding of a valve.

The purpose of these provisions is to indicate to drivers and inspectors that a malfunction exists in the ABS and that repairs are needed. As we noted in our response to petitions for reconsideration, 60 FR at 63972 (December 13, 1995):

The agency explained [in the final rule of March 10, 1995] that this ABS malfunction lamp format, together with the requirement that the system stores malfunctions until the next key-on, is necessary to enable Federal and State inspectors to determine the operational status of an ABS without moving the vehicle.

Accordingly, these provisions, particularly the conditions that require activation of the MIL, are very specific.

It is our opinion that illumination of the ABS malfunction indicator lamp in circumstances not directly addressed by S5.3.1(c) is permissible only if the additional conditions are directly related to ABS malfunction. Stated another way, any other malfunction conditions programmed into the system must be similar in nature to those specified in S5.3.1(c). Moreover, the lamp activation protocol must be the same. If the conditions programmed into the system differed in nature from the ones specified in S5.3.1(c), or if the lamp activation protocol differed, the meaning of the ABS malfunction lamp would be obscured. Drivers and inspectors would no longer know what was meant by the illumination/non-illumination of the lamp.

If you wish for us to provide a more specific opinion or one addressing other indicator lamps, we would need more specific information as to what LVBS may have in mind, i. e., the specific conditions it would want to program into the system.

I hope this information is helpful to you. Should you have any questions or need additional information, feel free to contact Mr. Myers or Mr. Woods at (202) 366-2992, or (202) 366-6206 respectively.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
Ref:101#105
d.5/14/99

1. We note that you sent us three letters dated October 8, 1998, all referring to the October 1, 1998 meeting and all relating to the malfunction indicator lamp protocol of Standard No. 105. We are responding to the three letters separately.

ID: nht72-6.48

DATE: 12/15/72

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Douglas W. Toms; NHTSA

TO: Chester H. Smith; United States Senate

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Thank you for your letter of October 26, 1972, forwarding the National Tire Dealers & Retreasers Association's (NTDRA) Resolution of October 2, 1972, regarding the Federal Regulation on Tire Identification and Recordkeeping.

The idea of attaching a return card on each tire at the factory to be filled out and returned by the purchaser was given serious consideration during rule making but no practical method was known for attaching a card that would assure retention through delivery to the dealer. Also, the suggestion that the consumer fill out the record card gave no promise of return as far as we could determine from our studies. However, we believe a dealer can be relied upon to record the data in a matter of a few minutes at minimum cost. These factors prevent us from accepting the NTDRA proposal as a reasonable compromise unit would still maintain the needed public interest.

With respect to effectiveness, we believe that the pay-off potential of the regulation, though rather poor in the first year of operation, is continuing to show improvement as time goes on. Although we have no precise count, many tires manufactured prior to May 22, 1971, were in stock and were put on the market during the past 17-month period. As time goes on these pre-regulation tires will gradually disappear from the market and be replaced entirely by the "identified" tires. We would expect that the effectiveness of Part 574 would not reach its full potential until a 3-year period had elapsed.

You may be interested in the following data concerning tire recalls: No. of Tires Recalled NHTSA Voluntary 1970 160,899 28,823 1971 78,050 157,143 1972 (incomplete) 100,000 76,915 338,949 262,881 Grand Total 601,830

These statistics show that almost 45 percent of tire recalls have been initiated on a voluntary basis by the tire manufacturer, and that voluntary recalls during 1971 and 1972 appear to have increased considerably over 1970. Although we have no exact figures on percentage of returns, we take this as an indication that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's tire safety program is removing dangerous tires from the road and the system we are using is showing considerable success toward reaching ultimate objectives. We are very much encouraged in the trend of Part 574 toward effectiveness of recalls.

We want to assure you that although the rule making docket reflects exploration of many ideas concerning tire identification and recordkeeping, we are still receptive to any new proposal that would appear promising in improving the present system.

Sincerely,

Enclosure

ATTACH.

United States Senate SELECT COMMITTEE ON SMALL BUSINESS

October 26, 1972

Douglas W. Toms -- Administrator, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Dr. Toms:

We enclose a copy of a Resolution adopted by the 52nd annual convention of the National Tire Dealers & Retreaders Association, Inc.

Could you inform us, please, of the consideration being given by your Administration to the NTDRA's proposal? Do you think their plan might represent a reasonable compromise between the public interest in tire safety and the obvious interest of tire dealers in lessening their burden of wholly uncompensated Federal paperwork?

With best wishes,

Sincerely,

Chester H. Smith Staff Director - General Counsel

cc: Thomas J. McIntyre -- Chairman, Subcommittee on Government Regulation

October 16, 1972

Chester H. Smith -- Staff Director & General Counsel, Senate Small Business Committee

Dear Mr. Smith:

We believe the attached Resolution adopted at our recent Convention on Tire Identification and Record Keeping will be of interest to you.

Sincerely,

NATIONAL TIRE DEALERS AND RETREADERS ASSOCIATION, INC.; Philip P. Friedlander -- Director of Communications

enc.

RESOLUTION

52ND ANNUAL CONVENTION NATIONAL TIRE DEALERS & RETREADERS ASSOCIATION INC. OCTOBER 2, 1972 WHEREAS the National Tire Dealers and Retreaders Association has received a number of complaints from its members on the difficulties of registering the name and address of each purchaser of tires as required by the Tire Identification and Record Keeping Regulation as well as the attendant costs for the retailer without recovery, and;

WHEREAS the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has failed to provide a uniform form for such records in spite of requests by tire dealers and others in the industry;

WHEREAS some of the recalls that were conducted during nineteen hundred and seventy two have been for tires manufactured prior to the registration requirement of May of nineteen hundred and seventy one;

WHEREAS the burden on the retailer and consumer alike has not been offset by appropriate advantages to the consumer;

NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the National Tire Dealers and Retreaders Association in Annual Convention assembled this second day of October, nineteen hundred and seventy two, that this Association urges the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to re-examine its current program which requires the seller to register the first purchaser of a new tire and retreaded tire and that it consider a voluntary system of registration by the tire purchaser utilizing an uniform form supplied by tire manufacturers and distributed at the time of sale for the consumer to fill out and mail back to a designated place rather than to leave the entire burden with the individual tire dealer.

ID: nht92-5.21

DATE: July 13, 1992

FROM: Carrie Minna

TO: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Consulate, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 7/31/92 from Paul Jackson Rice to Carrie Minna (A39; VSA 102(3))

TEXT:

After making an initial inquiry to the D.O.T regarding my questions, I was referred to you for additional information.

I would like to know if I could import the enclosed vehicles into the U.S. to use in certain communities for transportation. The communities that I would be interested in using these vehicles for would be small guarded gate communities such as Golf resorts, small island communities and possible elderly communities. These communities already utilize golf carts as a means of transportation along with a usual modes of transportation. They would not be used for the main highways although they have the capability of moving at 80KMS per hour. I was also interested in them as a mode of transportation for the island of Santa Catalina off the Southern California coast. This island for many years only had electric vehicles. I believe this vehicle would be an excellent means of transportation for this particular island community.

I have supplied you with some information regarding these vehicles. I am contacting the company that manufactures the engine to see if it meets with the E.P.A. standards for the U.S.

Any information you can provide me would be most helpful.

I await your response.

(Brochure omitted)