ID: nht88-3.83

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 11/01/88

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA

TO: JOHN S. CROCKENBERG

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 02/26/88 FROM JOHN S. CROCKENBERG TO ERIKA Z JONES; OCC-1696 NCC - 20

TEXT: Dear Mr. Crockenberg:

This is in response to your letter of February 26, 1988, concerning antiglare plexiglass shields. I regret the delay in our response. You asked whether Standard No. 103, Windshield Defrosting and Defogging Systems, Standard No. 111, Rearview Mirrors, o r any other Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard applies to your product, a 4" x 6" x 1/8" parallelogram with rounded corners made of transparent bronze plexiglass with an attached 1/2" diameter suction cup. You noted that this device, which adheres to the interior of automobile windows, deflects obstructive sunglare where conventional sun visors cannot be placed. You also asked what other agency's regulations you should be aware of before you begin to manufacture and market this device, if none of ou r standards apply.

You are correct in assuming that Standard No. 103 and Standard No. 111 do not apply to your product. The only Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard that is relevant to your product is Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials. S2 states that one purpose of t his standard is to "ensure a necessary degree of transparency in motor vehicle windows for driver visibility." S1 and S3 note that Standard No. 205 applies to glazing materials in both motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. I am enclosing an agency "fact sheet," which concerns the tinting of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. I also am enclosing two previous NHTSA interpretation letters, which concern products similar to your antiglare shield. These letters to Susan House on December 20 , 1985 and to Jeffrey Richard on April 16, 1985 explain the effect of Standard No. 205 on a manufacturer of such a product.

In response to your second question, I have enclosed a copy of an information sheet for new manufacturers of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. This identifies other agencies whose regulations might be applicable to a new manufacturer's product s.

I hope this information is helpful.

ENCLOSURES

ID: nht68-1.1

DATE: 05/29/68

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; R. M. O'Mahoney; NHTSA

TO: Royal Brass, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Thank you for your letter of April 26, 1968, concerning certification of brake hoses. Hydraulic brake hose for use in passenger cars and multipurpose passenger vehicles manufactured after January 1 1968 must comply with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 106. Hydraulic Brake Hoses - Passenger Cars and Mutipurpose Passenger Vehicles.

At the time of delivery of the completed brake hose assembly to a distributor or dealer the manufacturer of the completed brake hose assembly must certify that it complies with the applicable standard. In the case of equipment such as the brake hose assembly the certification may be in the form of a label or tag on the completed brake hose assembly or on the outside of the container in which the brake hose assembly is delivered.

For your information I have enclosed a copy of the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards, the notice published in the Federal Register concerning certification and a copy of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966. Particular attention should be paid to sections 108 and 114 of the Act.

I hope this letter and the enclosures are adequately responsive to your questions.

Sincerely,

April 26, 1968

U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration

Attn: Robert M. O'Mahoney

Gentlemen:

We are manufacturer and distributor of automotive brass fittings, steel hydraulic fittings, hydraulic brake fittings, hydraulic brake hose assemblies, and make equipment for the assembly of hydraulic hoses and hydraulic brake hoses. The bulk brake hose is purchased from Inland Rubber Division of General Motors. All of our fittings are made to SAE specifications as shown in the SAE Handbook. What type of certification must we give to our customers? We sell to original equipment manufacturers, trucking companies, jobbers, and garages.

An early reply will be appreciated.

Very truly yours,

ROYAL BRASS, INC. -- R. R. McLain

Sales Manager

ID: 3138o

Mr. John S. Crockenberg
156 Holland Road
Ormond Beach, FL 32074

Dear Mr. Crockenberg:

This is in response to your letter of February 26, 1988, concerning antiglare plexiglass shields. I regret the delay in our response. You asked whether Standard No. 103, Windshield Defrosting and Defogging Systems, Standard No. 111, Rearview Mirrors, or any other Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard applies to your product, a 4" x 6" x 1/8" parallelogram with rounded corners made of transparent bronze plexiglass with an attached 1/2" diameter suction cup. You noted that this device, which adheres to the interior of automobile windows, deflects obstructive sunglare where conventional sun visors cannot be placed. You also asked what other agency's regulations you should be aware of before you begin to manufacture and market this device, if none of our standards apply.

You are correct in assuming that Standard No. 103 and Standard No. 111 do not apply to your product. The only Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard that is relevant to your product is Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials. S2 states that one purpose of this standard is to "ensure a necessary degree of transparency in motor vehicle windows for driver visibility." S1 and S3 note that Standard No. 205 applies to glazing materials in both motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. I am enclosing an agency "fact sheet," which concerns the tinting of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. I also am enclosing two previous NHTSA interpretation letters, which concern products similar to your antiglare shield. These letters to Susan House on December 20, 1985 and to Jeffrey Richard on April 16, 1985 explain the effect of Standard No. 205 on a manufacturer of such a product.

In response to your second question, I have enclosed a copy of an information sheet for new manufacturers of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. This identifies other agencies whose regulations might be applicable to a new manufacturer's products.

I hope this information is helpful.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Enclosures

/ref:205 d:ll/l/88

ID: nht72-1.27

DATE: 11/21/72

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

TO: Klein Tire Sales

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of November 1, 1972, asking whether you may sell tires from which the manufacturer has removed his name and DOT marking, if you tell the purchaser that the tires cannot be sold except for farm use, and if the buyer signs a sales invoice to that effect.

The information I gave you over the phone is incorrect. The answer to your question is that you may not sell such tires. Passenger car tires manufactured before October 1, 1972, can not be made eligible by their manufacturer for sales as farm use tires unless the manufacture has reclassified them in the manner specified in paragraph S6 of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 109. This provision required the manufacturer to permanently label a tire with the words "UNSAFE FOR HIGHWAY USE", and to affix labels to the tread which state that the tire should not be used on a passenger car and that the sale of the tire for such use may subject the seller to civil penalties. A dealer who sells a nonconforming tire which the manufacturer has not reclassified in this manner will be in violation of section 108(a)(1) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, and likewise subject to civil penalties.

A recent amendment to Standard No. 109 prohibits manufacturers from reclassifying any tire after October 1, 1972, and requires them to destroy tires manufactured after that date which they will not certify.

With respect to reports on tires which you mention were obtained for testing purposes by Mr. Loewenstern of NHTSA, these tires, which were not purchased by Mr. Loewenstern but by a New Jersey State Policeman on behalf of NHTSA, were not purchased for testing purposes. Rather, they were purchased for the purpose of obtaining evidence against you that you were selling tires in violation of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. The NHTSA does not return tires which have been purchased for evidentiary purposes.

ID: 1982-1.17

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/18/82

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Consumer and Technical Affairs, Woodhill Permatex

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your recent letter concerning a product you manufacture which is used to repair breaks in automobile windshields. You ask whether such a repair product would conflict with any present motor vehicle safety standards.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has issued Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205 which specifies performance and location requirements for glazing materials used on motor vehicles (copy enclosed). This standard would not apply to a repair product such as you describe, however. There is no Federal regulation which would prohibit the use of such a product or process in the repair of windshields which have previously been installed in vehicles and damaged in use. Using such a material or process in a new windshield which may require repair as a result of damage sustained, for example, in shipment could cause the windshield to fail to meet the performance requirements of Safety Standard No. 205, which would be the responsibility of the person selling the windshield. Therefore, we do not recommend use of windshield repair kits prior to the first purchase of a new windshield by a consumer.

Please contact Hugh Oates of my staff if you have any further questions.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

January 26, 1982

Legal Counsel -- National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Sir:

We are manufacturers and marketers of maintenance, service and repair products for the professional and the do-it-yourselfer for use around the home and in the repair of vehicles.

It has come to our attention that there exists a need to develop a product to repair stone damaged and bulls eye breaks in automobile windshields.

My question is whether or not such a repair product would conflict with any present motor vehicle safety standards.

Your prompt counsel would be appreciated since we are beginning to formulate plans for our next fiscal year.

Very truly yours, Robert J. Carter -- Director, Consumer and Technical Affairs, WOODHILL PERMATEX

ID: nht93-2.36

DATE: March 30, 1993

FROM: Arvind V. Rajan -- Vice President, Marketing and Planning, Solectria Corporation

TO: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 4-26-93 from John Womack to Arvind V. Rajan (A41; Part 591)

TEXT: The Solectria Corporation is a manufacturer of electric vehicles and advanced EV components, based in Massachusetts. We currently produce the Solectria Force, which is a Geo Metro that has been converted to electric drive. In order to serve the needs of vehicle customers in Southeast Asia and the Caribbean, we need to use a vehicle chassis with right-hand steering. Since the Geo Metro is only available in left-hand steering we will need to import an equivalent vehicle, the Suzuki Swift, from Japan. After we receive the vehicle, we will convert it to electric, and immediately export it.

The Suzuki Swift with right-hand drive may not be certified for use in the United States by NHTSA. However, as the vehicles will never be used on public roads in the United States and will not be sold to U.S. customers, we believe that we will be allowed to import them into the U.S. Mr. Frank Turpin of NHTSA has confirmed this view. However, the U.S. Customs Office has informed us that it will need written confirmation from the Department of Transportation before releasing such vehicles to us.

We would appreciate written confirmation from the D.O.T. that we are indeed permitted to import such vehicles for the purposes mentioned above. If you have any questions, please call me at (508) 658-2231 or fax me at (508) 658-3224. Thank you for your time and attention, and we look forward to hearing from you.

ID: nht71-2.43

DATE: 05/06/71

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Lawrence R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: The Flxible Company

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of April 19, 1971 and to confirm that if you sell buses to a bus fleet owner, with tires, the name and address of the fleet owner and some means which you can identify the type of tires sold with the bus would be a sufficient record.

In the case where the bus owner purchased the tires from someone other than you, it is not your responsibility to maintain the records, but rather the responsibility of the person selling the tires to the bus fleet owner.

ID: nht72-6.22

DATE: 02/15/72

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

TO: Wells Manufacturing Corp.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: In your letter of February 2 you refer to paragraph S4.5.1 of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 and its reference to SAE Recommended Practice J564a, Headlamp Beam Switching, April 1964. You ask "whether there is anything in your Docket related to Rule #108 to bring it up to either J564b or J564c."

Perhaps you misread S4.5.1, but it does allow conformance with J564b as an alternative to J564a. No proposal has been issued requiring or allowing conformance with J564c.

ID: 1984-2.15

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/03/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Wesbar Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. C. I. Nielsen III Vice President - Marketing Wesbar Corporation Box 577 West Bend, Wisconsin 53095

Dear Mr. Nielsen:

This is in reply to your letter of May 16, 1984, to Mr. Vinson of this office seeking an interpretation of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. You wish to know whether the minimum effective projected luminous lens area for stop lamps and turn signal lamps on trailers whose overall width is 80 inches or greater is 8 square inches or 12 square inches. You cite an apparent conflict between paragraph S4.1.1.6 and SAE Standard J586d, and paragraph S4.1.1.7 and SAE Standard J588f. You have asked for an interpretation so that Wesbar may properly design a "combination tail lamp."

First, we will confirm the advice provided by "D.O.T. staff people" that the latest SAE revisions, J586d and J588f, have not been adopted.

You do not state the intended use of your proposed lamp, so we will assume that it will be sold to trailer manufacturers as original equipment, and to the aftermarket as replacement equipment. As original equipment, it must comply with the requirements specified in Table I of Standard No. 108, SAE J586c for stop lamps and SAE J588e for turn signal lamps. Paragraph 3.2 of each standard specifies a minimum effective projected luminous lens area of 8 square inches.

Paragraphs S4.1.1.6 and S4.1.1.7 become relevant, however, if Wesbar intends the lamp as replacement equipment on trailers manufactured before September 1, 1978, and after January 1, 1972 (turn signal lamps) and January 1, 1973 ( stop lamps). Under paragraphs S4.1.1.6 and S4.1.1.7 replacement stop and turn signal lamps for trailers manufactured within the 1972-1978 time frame may meet either J586b or J586c, and either J588d or J588e. We note that neither J586b nor paragraph S4.1.1.6 establish a minimum luminous lens area for stop lamps. However, a manufacturer who chooses to comply with paragraph S4.1.1.7 rather than J588e would have to provide the minimum specified luminous lens area of 12 square inches for turn signal lamps of trailers whose overall width was 80 inches or more, the requirement specified in J588d for Class A turn signal lamps. We view this interpretation as one of historical interest than current relevance.

In summary, if Wesbar designs its lamp to the 8-inch requirement, it would appear to meet specifications for application either as original or replacement equipment.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

May 16, 1984

Department of Transportation 400 - 7th Street SW Washington, D.C. 20590

Attention: Mr. Taylor Vincent, Legal Counsel

Dear Mr. Vincent:

Re: Request for D.O.T. 108 Interpretation

Wesbar is a lamp manufacturer currently designing a new submersible boat trailer lamp, which we would like to introduce this fall at the national trade show. The reason we are writing you at this time is that we find we have a need for a written interpretation clarifying a section of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 regarding the lamps used on trailers over 80 inches wide.

The need for the interpretation arrives from several sources, which include the latest SAE Engineering Handbook, several D.O.T. staff, and the marketplace. The area needing clarification is the number of square inches actually needed (of effective projected luminous area) for a STOP LAMP (D.O.T.-108, S4.1.1.6 vs. SAE J586d) and a TURN LAMP (D.O.T.-108, S4.1.1.7 vs SAE J588f). The current SAE Handbook calls out 8 square inches of "effective projected luminous lens" area as the minimum for either a turn or stop lamp used on a trailer 80 inches or more in width. We followed this up by questioning several D.O.T. staff people. They stated the latest SAE standards revisions had not been adopted by D.O.T. and therefore the 12 square inch requirement (of effective projected luminous lens area) must still be met when the light is used on trailers 80 inches or more in width. This was consistent until one staff member learned of Peterson Manufacturing's (Anderson Marine Division) #450 series "8-in-one", which is promoted for use on over 80 inch wide trailers, that has only 8 square inches of lens -- then we were told 8 square inches would be sufficient.

As you are probably well aware, the U.S. marketplace is more price competitive and quality conscious than ever before. Therefore, while we, as a lamp manufacturer, sincerely wish to meet every letter of the law, we also need to be as up-to-date and cost competitive as possible, and this is why we have been directed to you. Is the old standard still current or is a new generation of tail lights, such as Peterson's #450 series submersible tail light, now acceptable to meet the standard?

Thank you in advance for your time and consideration in reviewing this matter. It is important that we receive your written interpretation as soon as possible for it will have great impact on the design and cost of our new proposed combination tail light, as well as keep us "on schedule" for its introduction.

Sincerely,

WESBAR CORPORATION

C. I. Nielsen III Vice President - Marketing

CIN:mk

ID: featherlite(9-15-03).mtg

Mr. Norman L. Helmke
Director of Administration
Featherlite, Inc.
P.O. Box 320
Cresco, IA 52136

Dear Mr. Helmke:

This is in reply to your letter of September 15, 2003, with regard to the reporting of property damage claims under the early warning reporting (EWR) regulation (Subpart C of 49 CFR Part 579).

You advised us that Featherlite, Inc. manufactures a wide variety of trailers, including horse and livestock trailers. You indicated that the company receives property damage claims involving injuries to horses hauled in horse trailers, but that the injuries are not caused by failed components of the trailer. You explain that the injuries, in almost every case, are caused by the actions of the horse itself. With this background you ask whether an injury to a horse, not attributable to a failed component of the trailer, is a reportable property damage claim, and, if so, what is the proper code to use.

Under 49 CFR 579.24(c), a manufacturer of 500 or more trailers per year is required to make

[s]eparate reports on the number of those property damage claims, consumer complaints, warranty claims and field reports which involve the systems and components that are specified in codes 02 through 21 in paragraph (b)(2) of this section, or a fire (code 23). . . . No reporting is necessary if the system or component involved was not specified in such codes, and the incident did not involve a fire.

Property damage is defined as physical injury to tangible property. See 49 CFR 579.4(c).

A horse is tangible property. However, based on your premise that the claim did not refer to a system or component set forth in section 579.24(b)(2) or a fire, no report is necessary under the EWR regulations. The last sentence of section 579.24(c) specifically

confirms that no reporting is necessary in this instance as does the preamble to the final rule where we stated that "we will require reporting of property damage claims only when one or more specified vehicle components or systems has been identified as giving rise to the incident or damage, or there was a fire . . . ." 67 FR 45822, 45846. Please note that in the event that a system or component referred to in Section 579.24(b)(2) was identified in the claim, you would have to report it even if it is disputed.

If you have any questions, you may call Andrew DiMarsico of this Office (202-366-5263).

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:579
d.10/30/03