ID: nht94-2.44

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: April 18, 1994

FROM: Mike Parker -- Member of Congress, House of Representatives

TO: Christopher Hart -- Acting Administrator, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 5/31/94 from John Womack to Mike Parker (A42; Std. 222; Part 571.3), letter dated 1/31/94 from Steve Williams to William Moss, and letter dated 1/28/94 from Steve Williams to Terry L. Voy

TEXT:

I have been contacted by Mr. George Duke of the Jones County School District who is seeking to install four nine inch television monitors in a school bus in order to air drug-free videos. The school district has already purchased the equipment but has b een told by the state department of transportation that they must receive approval by the NHTSA. Please provide me suggestions and information which I can share with Mr. Duke to assist him with this endeavor.

Thank you for your time and attention to this matter. I look forward to hearing from you.

ID: nht73-5.37

DATE: 10/31/73

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Lawrence R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: Moore; Weaver; Moore & Bradberry

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Your letter to Secretary Brinegar of October 8, 1973, has been referred to me for reply.

A copy of Part 580, Odometer Disclosure Requirements, is enclosed. This disclosure regulation became effective March 1, 1973, and we assume that the August 1972 date in your letter actually refers to an August 1973 sale which would be subject to the regulation.

Title 15 U.S.C. @ 1989 provides a remedy for a violation of the Act made with intent to defraud. A discrepancy between the odometer reading and the disclosure statement could be the result of error, or misunderstanding of the requirement, and by itself, would not establish an intent to defraud.

We are unfamiliar with the facts in the case you mentioned, and the above statement should not be construed as an opinion or evaluation of the merits of that case.

ID: 77-4.6

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 09/28/77

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

TO: Cantey; Hanger; Gooch; Munn & Collins

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your August 9, 1977, letter asking whether an alterer's responsibility for ensuring the compliance of a vehicle with Federal safety standards, as required in Part 567, Certification, extends only to those aspects of performance that could have been affected by the alteration or whether it extends to the compliance of the entire vehicle with all Federal standards.

The intent of the alteration regulation is to make vehicle alterers responsible for the continued compliance of the vehicles they modify. Therefore, an alterer would be held responsible for any noncompliance of a vehicle caused by his alterations. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration would not hold the alterer liable for noncompliances in a vehicle that were the responsibility of the original vehicle manufacturer and not affected by the alterer's conduct.

ID: nht94-6.24

DATE: April 18, 1994

FROM: Mike Parker -- Member of Congress, House of Representatives

TO: Christopher Hart -- Acting Administrator, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 5/31/94 from John Womack to Mike Parker (A42; Std. 222; Part 571.3), letter dated 1/31/94 from Steve Williams to William Moss, and letter dated 1/28/94 from Steve Williams to Terry L. Voy

TEXT:

I have been contacted by Mr. George Duke of the Jones County School District who is seeking to install four nine inch television monitors in a school bus in order to air drug-free videos. The school district has already purchased the equipment but has been told by the state department of transportation that they must receive approval by the NHTSA. Please provide me suggestions and information which I can share with Mr. Duke to assist him with this endeavor.

Thank you for your time and attention to this matter. I look forward to hearing from you.

ID: 18334.ztv

Mr. Ken Charof
FAX : 212-702-8838

Dear Mr. Charof:

This is in reply to your email of July 5, 1998, to the Department of Transportation.

You write that you want to manufacture "second brake lights" for motorcycles, and inform us that "these lights are not to replace original equipment brake lights. They're in addition to them." You ask "if these lights will need to be approved by the Dept. of Transportation."

The Department does not "approve" items of motor vehicle equipment, but is pleased to advise, as in this instance, of the relationship of the equipment to the applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard. The standard that applies to motor vehicle lighting is Safety Standard No. 108 Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment.

We call the product you wish to manufacture "supplemental stop lamps." Since they are not intended to replace original equipment stop lamps, there are no requirements of Standard No. 108 that apply to these lamps. However, if the supplemental stop lamps are intended as original equipment, the manufacturer of the motorcycle must ensure that these supplemental lamps do not impair the effectiveness of lighting equipment required by Standard No. 108 for motorcycles. As a general guideline, a judgment of impairment may be based upon the intensity of the supplementary lamp and its spacing in relation to other lamps.

Similarly, if you intend to sell these supplemental lamps in the aftermarket, Standard No. 108 does not apply to them. Aftermarket equipment is subject to the restriction that its installation by a manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or motor vehicle repair business must not make inoperative any device or element of design installed in accordance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard. Generally, if the installation of the supplementary lamps would create an impairment, we would consider that their installation as aftermarket equipment would "make inoperative" the original equipment lamp that is being impaired.

Although we do not directly regulate supplementary lighting equipment, it is nevertheless "motor vehicle equipment" under the laws that we administer. Manufacturers of "motor vehicle equipment," such as you intend to be, are required to provide owners with notification and a cost-free remedy in the event that a safety related defect is determined to exist in their products.

The use of supplementary lighting equipment is subject to regulation by the individual states. I am sorry but we have no information on state laws on this subject, and we advise you to consult the department of motor vehicles in those states where you plan to sell the lamps.

If you have further questions, you may contact Taylor Vinson of this office, by email (Tvinson@NHTSA.DOT.GOV) or by phone (202-366-5263).

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
ref:108
d.8/4/98

ID: 21971.ztv

Mr. Thomas J. Carter, P.E.
Carter Engineering
5735 North Lick Creek Road
Franklin, TN 37064






Dear Mr. Carter:

This is in reply to your fax of August 3, 2000, asking for a clarification of whether headlamp aiming mechanisms are required for motorcycles, and, if so, where they are specified in Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

You reference our letter of December 6, 1999, to Sig. Rotta of Piaggio in which we informed him that we did not intend S7.8.2 of Standard No. 108 to apply to motorcycle headlighting systems, and that we have never required these systems to have aiming mechanisms. You believe that this opinion is contradicted by SAE Recommended Practice J566, "Headlamp Mountings," January 1960, incorporated by reference in Table III of Standard No. 108.

I confirm my earlier statement that Standard No. 108 has never required motorcycle headlighting systems to have aiming mechanisms. SAE J566 requires that headlamps and headlamp mountings be designed and constructed so that:

"1.   The axis of the light beams may be adjusted to the left, right, up, or down from the designed setting, the amount of adjustability to be determined by practical operating conditions and the type of equipment.

2.   The adjustments may be conveniently made by one man with the tools ordinarily available.

3.   When the headlamps are actuated, the aim will not be disturbed under ordinary conditions of service."

As S5.2.1 states, the words "it is recommended that" and "recommendations" or "should be" in SAE Standards and Recommended Practices are read as setting mandatory requirements. Although the word "may" used in SAE J566 is not included in this list, we intend that it be read as a mandate as well. Applying this construction to SAE J566, then, Standard No. 108 requires light beams on all headlamps to be adjustable with the tools ordinarily available, but in no way do I interpret this as imposing a requirement for an "aiming mechanism." The aiming mechanism requirements of Standard No. 108 are imposed by S7.8, and, as I indicated previously, we do not intend S7.8.2 to apply to motorcycle headlamps. We intend the paragraphs of S7.9 Motorcycles and their referenced materials to cover motorcycle headlamps. These do not require motorcycle headlamps to have aiming mechanisms as defined elsewhere in Standard No. 108.

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

Sincerely,

Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel

ref:108
d.9/29/00

ID: 8639

Mr. John Rhein
Fisher-Price, Inc.
636 Girard Ave.
East Aurora, NY 14052

Dear Mr. Rhein:

This responds to your letter about the consumer registration card required by Safety Standard No. 213, "Child Restraint Systems." I apologize for the delay in responding.

You ask about three features of a registration card you wish to produce, and enclosed a sample card setting forth a "proposed format." You first ask whether you may specify "Please Print" on the card. The answer is yes. NHTSA interpreted Standard 213 as permitting this feature, in an October 20, 1993 letter to Mr. Richard Glover of the Evenflo Juvenile Furniture Company.

You also ask whether you may use "open box spaces" for the consumer's name and address, to encourage consumers to print the information clearer (one character per box space). The answer is yes. NHTSA interpreted Standard 213 as permitting "blocked squares" for the consumer's name and address in a June 14, 1993 notice (copy enclosed) denying Evenflo's petition for reconsideration of the rule that established the registration card requirement.

Finally, you ask whether you may enlarge the consumer name and address space of the card, to provide consumers more space to print the information and thus increase the likelihood the information will be legible. The answer, with reference to the sample card you provided, is yes. Under S5.8 of Standard 213, the registration form must conform in size, content and format to forms depicted in the standard (figures 9a and 9b). The figures specify a minimum size for the card. Moreover, in the enclosed June 1993 notice, NHTSA explained that "(f)ormat refers to the general appearance of the form and to aspects such as type size, size and placement of margins, size and placement of the spaces for the consumer's name and address, and overall organization of the printed material."

The sample card you provided meets the minimum size requirement specified in the standard, and the general appearance and overall organization of the card is the same as that depicted in the standard (figure 9a). While the consumer name and address space is slightly larger than depicted in the standard, we conclude that this slight deviation is consistent with the standard's format requirements. This conclusion is based on the fact that this slight change does not affect the general appearance or overall organization of the card, and because the change provides consumers more space to print the information, i.e., it will not detract from the utility of the card.

Please contact Ms. Deirdre Fujita of my staff at (202) 366-2992 if you have any questions.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel ref:213 d:4/14/94

ID: nht87-2.100

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: SEPTEMBER 22, 1987 EST

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

TO: JAN PETER KRYGER -- VICE PRESIDENT, QUICKWHEEL

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: MEMO DATED 9-22-87, TO DEIRDRE HOM, FROM JAN PETER KRYGER, OCC-1071

TEXT: This responds to your letter asking whether any Federal safety standards apply to your product called "Quickwheel" and whether you need approval from the Department of Transportation to market the product. You indicated that Quickwheel is similar to a r oller skate and can be placed under a flat tire in a few seconds, enabling the driver to go on to a service station. You stated that the device has three little wheels and has been "thoroughly tested" in Germany.

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Safety Act) authorizes the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to issue safety standards for new motor vehicles and new motor vehicles equipment. All motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment manufactured or imported for sale in the United States must comply with all applicable safety standards. NHTSA does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or equipment. The Safety Act places the responsibility on the manufacturer to ensure that its vehicles or equipment comply with applicable requirements. The following represents our opinion based on the facts provided in your letter.

NHTSA does not have any safety standards covering a roller-skate-like device intended to be placed under a flat tire in order to enable the driver to continue driving. However, should a safety-related defect be discovered in your device, whether by the agency or yourself, you as the manufacturer would be required by the Safety Act to notify purchasers and provide a remedy for the defect.

While no Federal motor vehicle safety standards apply to Quickwheel, we note that the performance of the device is relevant to safety in many of the same respects as tires, which are covered by safety standards. Given this potential safety significance, we urge you to carefully review

whether the testing conducted in Germany covered the full range of real-world driving conditions and experiences that may be encountered by Quickwheel, and if not, to conduct such additional testing and/or analysis as may be necessary to ensure that the product will perform in a safe manner.

You also asked for an explanation of the Code of Federal Regulations. You will find such an explanation on the last page of an enclosed information sheet entitled "Information for New Manufacturers of Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Equipment." You may also find other parts of the information sheet to be of interest.

ID: 2670o

Mr. Jan Peter Kryger
Vice President, Sales and Marketing
Quickwheel, Inc.
P.O. Box 39l
Cos Cob, Connecticut 06830

Dear Mr. Kryger:

This responds to your letter asking whether any Federal safety standards apply to your product called "Quickwheel" and whether you need approval from the Department of Transportation to market the product. You indicated that Quickwheel is similar to a roller skate and can be placed under a flat tire in a few seconds, enabling the driver to go on to a service station. You stated that the device has three little wheels and has been "thoroughly tested" in Germany.

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Safety Act) authorizes the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to issue safety standards for new motor vehicles and new motor vehicle equipment. All motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment manufactured or imported for sale in the United States must comply with all applicable safety standards. NHTSA does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or equipment. The Safety Act places the responsibility on the manufacturer to ensure that its vehicles or equipment comply with applicable requirements. The following represents our opinion based on the facts provided in your letter.

NHTSA does not have any safety standards covering a roller-skate-like device intended to be placed under a flat tire in order to enable the driver to continue driving. However, should a safety-related defect be discovered in your device, whether by the agency or yourself, you as the manufacturer would be required by the Safety Act to notify purchasers and provide a remedy for the defect.

While no Federal motor vehicle safety standards apply to Quickwheel, we note that the performance of the device is relevant to safety in many of the same respects as tires, which are covered by safety standards. Given this potential safety significance, we urge you to carefully review whether the testing conducted in Germany covered the full range of real-world driving conditions and experiences that may be encountered by Quickwheel, and if not, to conduct such additional testing and/or analysis as may be necessary to ensure that the product will perform in a safe manner.

You also asked for an explanation of the Code of Federal Regulations. You will find such an explanation on the last page of an enclosed information sheet entitled "Information for New Manufacturers of Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Equipment." You may also find other parts of the information sheet to be of interest.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Enclosure

ref:571 d:2/ll/88

ID: nht80-4.12

DATE: 10/20/80

FROM: Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: OVSC

TITLE: OVSC Investigatory Activities Concerning Possible Violations of UTQGS Treadwear Grading Requirements

TEXT: This responds to your request for direction concerning when the Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, Enforcement, must open a formal standards enforcement investigation (known as a "CIR" [certification information request] of a possible noncompliance with the treadwear grading requirements of the Uniform Tire Quality Grading Standards (UTQGS), 49 CER 575.104.

UTQGS is a consumer information regulation. While the regulation does require tire manufacturers to provide grading information in the important safety areas of traction and temperature resistance, the treadwear grades, on the other hand, are primarily economic rather than safety information. Moreover, as a consumer information regulation, UTQGS requires no minimum level of safety performance, but, rather, requires relative ranking information. Under these circumstances, we do not believe that it is imperative that a CIR be opened immediately whenever there is a testing result indicating that a small number of tires may be at variance with their manufacturer's rating. OVSC may conduct further testing and/or analysis, including inquiry to the manufacturer, prior to opening a CIR. (Any records of these activities will be treated according to the particular applicability of the Freedom of Information Act.) Such a practice is akin to the Office of Defects Investigation conducting a preliminary inquiry of engineering analysis, which may or may not lead to the opening of a formal defect case investigation.

So that the public and the industry may understand this direction, we are placing a copy of this memorandum in the Interpretations File in the Technical Reference Library, and sending a copy to the Rubber Manufacturers Association.