ID: 13472-2.pja

Mr. Garry Bowhall
VP Sales and Engineering
Red River Mfg., Inc.
202 8th St. W.
P.O. Box 732
West Fargo, ND 58078

Dear Mr. Bowhall:

This responds to your letter asking whether your belted-bottom trailers are "special purpose vehicles" under Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 224, Rear Impact Protection. I apologize for the delay in responding. The answer to your question is no.

After January 1998, Standard 224 will require most trailers and semitrailers weighing over 10,000 pounds to be fitted at the rear with an underride guard. Excluded from Standard 224 are "special purpose vehicles." A special purpose vehicle is defined in S4 of the standard as "a trailer or semitrailer having work-performing equipment . . . that, while the vehicle is in transit, resides in or moves through the area that could be occupied by the horizontal member of the rear underride guard . . . ." (Emphasis added.)

Your letter and its enclosed brochures and video explain that you manufacture trailers that discharge their contents by means of a moving belt on the trailer floor that pushes the contents to the rear of the trailer. Your underride guards are currently located 24 inches forward of the vehicle's rear extremity, and you believe that having to locate the guard 12 inches closer to the rear extremity, as will be required by Standard 224, would render your vehicles unusable.

Your vehicle does not meet the definition of a special purpose vehicle. The "special purpose vehicle" exclusion does not apply merely because the vehicle has a "special purpose." The exclusion involves the relationship of work-performing equipment to the guard. The conveyor belt on your vehicles at no time passes through the area where the horizontal member of the underride guard would be located. Moreover, even if it did pass through, it would have to do so while the vehicle is in transit. Because your vehicles do not meet the definition of "special purpose vehicles," they are not excluded from Standard 224.

Under one of our regulations (49 CFR Part 555), vehicle manufacturers may apply for a temporary exemption from the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. Under Sec. 555.6(a), a manufacturer whose yearly production is not more than 10,000 units may ask for an exemption of up to three years on the basis that compliance would cause it substantial economic hardship and that it has attempted in good faith to comply with the standard from which it has asked to be excused. I have enclosed a copy of Part 555 for your information. Please note that it takes three to four months from the date of submittal before a decision can be made on such an application because it has to be submitted for public comment.

If you need further assistance, you may contact Mr. Atelsek of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
ref:224

ID: TOYOTA2002.drn

Chris Tinto, Director
Toyota Motor North America, Inc.
Washington Office
1850 M Street, NW
Suite 600
Washington, DC 20036

Dear Mr. Tinto:

This responds to your request for an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 101, Controls and Displays, with respect to a push button "Power" control that would activate a hybrid electric/gasoline vehicle. As explained below, we agree that the standard's requirements for labeling "Engine Start" and "Engine Stop" controls would not apply to your hybrid vehicles "Power" button, and that identification of the button would be at the option of the manufacturer.

In your letter, you describe a planned Toyota Hybrid System (THS) vehicle that would provide motive power by using both an electric motor and a gasoline engine. This vehicle would be turned on by the driver inserting the key and depressing a "Power" button. "Turning on" this vehicle would mean that the vehicle was activated to be propelled by the electric motor, not that the engine was actuated. After such activation of the vehicle, the engine would automatically start when the ECU determines that the vehicle needs extra power. Similarly, the engine would automatically stop when the ECU determines that the vehicle does not need the engine to provide additional power.

You noted in your letter that Toyota is aware that Standard No. 101 specifies that if a vehicle has an "engine start" and/or "engine stop" control that is separate from the key locking system, the control(s) must be labeled "Engine Start" and "Engine Stop." You stated that Toyota believes these requirements would not apply to this vehicle's "Power" button, because the engine is neither started nor stopped by this button. You also stated that Toyota plans to use the word "Power" along with the ISO power symbol (specified in ISO 2575:2000(E)) to label the button.

We agree that since the button at issue on Toyota's THS vehicle would neither start nor stop the engine, it is not covered by Standard No. 101's requirements for engine start and engine stop controls. Since the standard does not otherwise specify requirements for this control, its identification is at the option of the vehicle manufacturer. Toyota is therefore free to identify it by means of the word "power" and the ISO power symbol.

I note that it is possible that the agency could in the future specify labeling requirements for this type of control. As noted in our most recent semi-annual agenda of regulatory actions, published in the December 9, 2002 Federal Register, we are considering various amendments to Standard No. 101. If we did propose to specify identification requirements for the type of control at issue in your letter, Toyota would, of course, have the opportunity to submit comments.

If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:101
d.1/30/03

ID: nht76-5.39

DATE: 10/28/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; John Womack; NHTSA

TO: Jack B. Schiff

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is to acknowledge receipt of your letter of October 8, 1976, concerning odometer statements issued by auction companies.

As we have indicated in previous letters to you, the statement "no mileage guarantee" does not conform to section 580.6 of title 49, Code of Federal Regulations, the disclosure form. Therefore, any transferor of a motor vehicle who gives such a statement to his buyer is in violation of the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act. This applies equally to all transferors of ownership in motor vehicles, including individuals, dealers, distributors, and auction companies.

At first glance, the odometer disclosure statement issued by Floyd Hauhe Auto Auction appears to be in violation of the Federal law because it clearly states that mileage is not guaranteed. However, upon closer inspection, such is not necessarily the case. You will note that their statement says "warranty and mileage are not guaranteed to be good or correct on any car purchased thru this auction." (Emphasis added) Additionally, it says that "this sale is solely a transaction between the buying and selling dealer." This language changes the facts significantly. The vehicle appears not to be as you state in your letter, purchased "from" the auction company. It was instead purchased through the auction, and Floyd Hauhe was not, apparently, a tranferor of ownership in a motor vehicle as defined in Part 580.3 of title 49.

The responsibilities of an auctioneer with regard to the Federal odometer law vary depending upon the capacity in which he is operating. If the auctioneer is conducting business with both the buyer and seller present, the seller is required to disclose the mileage to the buyer at the time of sale and the auctioneer is essentially a by-stander as far as the Federal requirements are concerned. If the auctioneer buys a vehicle, then auctions it, he becomes the transferor and must disclose the mileage. In this case, the auctioneer would not be permitted to state that mileage was not guaranteed. If the auctioneer is acting as consignee for a seller who is not present and who may have delivered the vehicle from hundreds of miles away, he will have to obtain some assurance from the seller concerning the mileage on the vehicle at the time it left the owner's premises before a disclosure is made. As owner, the seller is ultimately responsible for the disclosure statement, but he may have to rely on his driver or the auctioneer to make out the statement at the auction.

It is unclear from the Floyd Hauhe Auto Auction statement as to the capacity in which they are operating. The language on the face of the statement appears to indicate that they are not tranferors and thus are not responsible for issuing odometer statements. If however, they are requested to do so absent sellers, their form is in violation of the Act because it does not provide the transferor's name, address or signature, and because it states that mileage is not guaranteed.

I hope that this information clarifies your questions. If you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to write.

ID: 86-3.17

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 05/07/86

FROM: BENJAMIN R. JACKSON -- EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR AUTOMOBILE IMPORTERS COMPLIANCE ASSOCIATION

TO: BRIAN MCLAUGHLIN -- SENIOR PROGRAM ANALYST OFFICE OF MARKET INCENTIVES NHTSA - DOT

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 07/23/86 EST, TO BENJAMIN R JACKSON, FROM ERIKA Z. JONES REDBOOK A29 (3), PART 541

TEXT: Dear Mr. McLaughlin:

Thank you for your participation at the AICA Annual Meeting. As you are aware, anti-theft parts marking is critical to our industry and we look forward to continuing the dialogue that has begun between AICA and the NHTSA.

I wish to apologize for the sessions running long, thus putting you on later than we both anticipated. However, your presentation was very helpful and informative. The extensive audience questions provided an excellent opportunity for useful exchange of information. One important revelation was your statement about the requirement for marking of non high-theft models with interchangeable parts with a high-theft models. You indicated that this requirement would only be triggered where the two models in question are in domestic production. This is an important interpretation and we would like to have a written statement on this interpretation from NHTSA.

Again, thank you for giving of your time so that we might better understand the practical nature of the parts marking regulations. We look forward to hearing from you.

Sincerely,

ID: 23938.ztv

Mr. Ed Cadoff
Product Manager
Lighting & Electronic Design, Inc.,
141 Cassia Way, Units B & C
Henderson, NV 89014





Dear Mr. Cadoff:

This is in reply to your letter of October 19, 2001, to Richard Van Iderstine of this agency. As you know, delivery of mail to Federal offices in Washington has been delayed since October because of the need to ensure that it was free of anthrax spores, and we did not receive your letter until January 14, 2002.

Your letter concerns an electronic "wide turn" LED message sign that your company has developed, called "Right Lite," intended for the rear of large trucks. You refer to a concern with "interference lighting."

Generally, devices such as yours have been deemed permissible. We are enclosing two letters from this office which discuss this issue with reference to "wide load" LED message signs, the first addressed to Representative Charles Wilson (February 19, 1988), and the second to K. Howard Sharp (June 7, 1995).

If you have further questions about these letters or our regulations, you may telephone Taylor Vinson of this Office (202-366-5263).

Sincerely,

John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosures
NCC-20:ZTVinson:mar:1/25/02:62992:OCC 23938
cc: NCC-01 Subj/Chron
Interp. 108; redbook (2)
Ztv; 23938; U:\ncc20\interp\108\23938.ztv.doc

ID: nht95-3.33

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: June 30, 1995

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: K. Howard Sharpe, Esq. -- Aranson Law Office

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 6/13/95 LETTER FROM K. HOWARD SHARP TO JOHN WOMACK (OCC 10991)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Sharpe:

This responds to your further letter of June 13, 1995, with reference to your client, NYTAF Industries, Inc.

You have informed us that NYTAF will sell in the aftermarket its rear lighting system that displays verbal messages. You ask whether NYTAF must certify compliance with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards as "it is simply a manufacturer of an acce ssory."

The answer is no. The only aftermarket lighting equipment for which certification of compliance is required is equipment that is manufactured to replace any item of required original lighting equipment on a vehicle. The NYTAF system is not intended to replace any item of original equipment, and no certification is required.

However, because the NYTAF system is "manufactured or sold . . . as an accessory or addition to a motor vehicle", it is "motor vehicle equipment" as defined by 49 U.S.C. 30102(a)(7)(B). This means that if either NYTAF or NHTSA determines that there is a safety related defect in the system, NYTAF will be required to notify and remedy according to statutory provisions.

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

ID: nht73-5.16

DATE: 04/12/73

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

TO: District Director of Customs

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of March 15, 1973, to Mr. Armstrong asking "whether a hub cap with a wing type attachment is subject to Standard 211."

Standard No. 211 prohibits wheel discs, wheel nuts, and hub caps that incorporate winged projections. The item that you enclosed appears to be a wheel spinner which, when attached to a wheel disc or hub cap would create an assembly incorporating a winged projection in violation of Standard No. 211. The item itself is not literally prohibited by the standard, but it evidently has no function apart from this end use. I am therefore of the opinion, if the same source is separately shipping spinners and wheel discs/hub caps to which the spinner may be attached, that these items may be refused entry into the United States.

THE DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

BUREAU OF CUSTOMS LOS ANGELES, CALIF.

MAR 15 1973

Francis Armstrong, Director Office of Standards Enforcement Motor Vehicle Programs National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

A question has arisen as to whether a hub cap with a wing type attachment is subject to Standard 211 of the National Traffic Motor Vehicle Safety Act.

A sample of the subject hub cap is forwarded for your inspection and decision.

C. A. MCGONIGLE Senior Import Specialist

Encl.

ID: 0991

K. Howard Sharpe, Esq.
Aranson Law Office
P.O. Box 5296
Grand Forks, ND 52806-5296

Dear Mr. Sharpe:

This responds to your further letter of June 13, 1995, with reference to your client, NYTAF Industries, Inc.

You have informed us that NYTAF will sell in the aftermarket its rear lighting system that displays verbal messages. You ask whether NYTAF must certify compliance with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards as "it is simply a manufacturer of an accessory."

The answer is no. The only aftermarket lighting equipment for which certification of compliance is required is equipment that is manufactured to replace any item of required original lighting equipment on a vehicle. The NYTAF system is not intended to replace any item of original equipment, and no certification is required.

However, because the NYTAF system is "manufactured or sold . . . as an accessory or addition to a motor vehicle", it is "motor vehicle equipment" as defined by 49 U.S.C. 30102(a)(7)(B). This means that if either NYTAF or NHTSA determines that there is a safety related defect in the system, NYTAF will be required to notify and remedy according to statutory provisions.

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

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosure ref:108 d:6/30/95

ID: nht90-4.94

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: December 24, 1990

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Herr T. Spingler

TITLE: None

TEXT:

This is in reply to your FAX of July 19, 1990, to Richard Van Iderstine of this agency asking for confirmation of an oral interpretation provided you by Jere Medlin, Office of Rulemaking, with respect to replaceable bulb headlamps.

Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment, defines (section S3) a replaceable bulb headlamp as "a headlamp comprising a bonded lens and reflector assembly and one or two standardized replaceable light sour ces." In Europe you fix the lens to the reflector assembly with a rubber seal and clips. For the U.S. market you propose to add "silicone-glue at four places between lens and housing to prevent removal of the lens." Mr. Medlin informed you that this w ould be a "bonded lens and reflector assembly."

The standard does not define "bonded", but the intent of the definition is that, once the lens is joined to the reflector assembly, it shall not be separable. Any method of adhesion that accomplishes this would be a sufficient bond for purposes of the d efinition. If the application of silicone glue at four places between the lens and the reflector assembly is sufficient to prevent manual separation of the lens from the assembly, then it would be a sufficient bond.

I hope that this answers your question.

ID: nht95-7.11

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: October 3, 1995

FROM: Tom Byrne -- Vice President, Goodridge (USA) Inc.

TO: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: 12/12/95 letter from Samuel J. Dubbin to Tom Byrne (Redbook (2); Std. 106)

TEXT: Goodridge (UK) Ltd. has been awarded approval/certification for its Brakelines by the TUV Manheim, Germany. The test procedures and requirements were those of FMVSS 106. We are therefore now able to offer Stainless Steel Braided Brakelines that are legal for Street and Highway use in Europe and we believe the United States. We have completed the necessary paperwork and have filed for a USA DOT Manufacturers number.

In order to avoid any possible confusion or irregularity, can you please confirm: * an independent laboratory certification that the line meets the requirements of FMVSS 106 is valid for the United States. * that such a brakeline can be used with an adapter into the master cylinder or caliper (for example, where pipe thread has been used). * are there any special marking requirements for the United States? We are required to tag with our manufacturers name, type of assembly and date of manufacture.

I am submitting to you a copy of our TUV Certificate and an English translation. This is confidential material and I ask that you please give it confidential treatment. I thank you for your consideration of my request and look forward to your timely response. Please feel free to contact me at (408) 452-1664.