ID: nht81-2.27

DATE: 05/19/81

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Bridgestone Tire Co., Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

May 19, 1981

Mr. H. Hayashi Manager for Safety Standards Tire Quality Assurance Dept. Bridgestone Tire Co., Ltd. 2800-1, Ogawa, Higashi-Cho Kodaira-Shi, Tokyo, JAPAN

Dear Mr. Hayashi:

This is in response to your letter of March 26, 1981, requesting, an interpretation of the Uniform Tire Quality Grading (UTQG) Standards (49 CFR S575.104). You ask whether a tire designed for service as a temporary use spare tire, and labeled on its sidewall with the inscription: TEMPORARY USE ONLY FOR SPARE TIRE, INFLATE TO 40 PSI, MAX. SPEED 50 MPH, is exempt from the requirements of the UTQG Standards.

As you note, the "Application" section of the UTQG regulation does not apply to space-saver or temporary use spare tires. Thus, the UTQG Standards would not apply to the tire you describe, which is designed as a temporary use spare tire and is so labeled.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

March 26, 1981

Office of the Chief Counsel, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh Street s.w., Washington,D.C.20590 U.S.A. Subject: Request for official advice in respect to the interpretation of Uniform Tire Quality Grading Standards (49CFR 575.104)

Dear Sirs:

Recently we have a plan to manufacture a temporary use type spare tire with 185/70 R14 size designation for U.S.A. market at the request of some automobile manufacturer. This type temporary use spare tire is designed to comply all the requirements of FMVSS No. 109, including labelling requirements.

In addition, this spare tire is to have the following labelling letters molded on both sidewalls:

Letters to be labelled

1) TEMPORARY USE ONLY FOR SPARE TIRE

2) INFLATE TO 40 PSI

3) MAX. SPEED 50 MPH

Note:- Refer to the attached sheet.

In the section 49CFR 575.104(C), it is provided that "However, this section does not apply to deep tread, winter-type snowtires or to space-saver or temporary use spare tires."

We, therefore, understand that Uniform Tire Quality Grading requirements would not apply to our temporary use type spare tire.

We hope to have your official comments and/or advice on our interpretation of the application of UTQG Standards.

Your kind and early reply would be highly appreciated.

Sincerely yours,

H. HAYASHI MANAGER FOR SAFETY STANDARDS TIRE QUALITY ASSURANCE DEPT.

ID: 1985-02.14

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/16/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Jeffrey R. Miller; NHTSA

TO: Mr. John L. Strickland

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. John L. Strickland J.S. Welding Rt. 5 Box 496 Denham Springs, Louisiana 70726

Dear Mr. Strickland:

I am responding to your February 20, 1985 request for information regarding Federal regulation of trailer manufacturing.

There is no Federal Licensing requirement for the manufacture of trailers, which are considered motor vehicles under Federal law. As a manufacturer of a motor vehicle, however, you must submit identification information to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration under 49 CFR Part 566, Manufacturer Identification. You must also certify that each trailer complies with all applicable Federal regulations. The procedure is specified in 49 CFR Part 567.

At this time, the only safety standards applicable to all trailers are Safety Standard No. 108, Lamps, reflective devices, and associated equipment, Safety Standard No. 120, Tire selection and rims for motor vehicles other than passenger cars, and Safety Standard No. 115, Vehicle Identification Number-Basic Requirements. The content requirements for the vehicle identification number are found at Part 565. Trailers with certain braking systems also must meet Safety Standard No. 106, Brake hoses, Safety Standard No. 116, Motor vehicle brake fluids, and Safety Standard No. 121, Air brake systems. These standards are found in Part 571 of 49 CFR.

I am enclosing an information sheet that explains how you can obtain copies of these regulations. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact me.

Sincerely,

Original Signed By

Jeffrey R. Miller Chief Counsel Enclosure

February 20, 1985

National Hwy. Traffic Safety Admin. Office of Chief Council 400 7th Street Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Sirs:

I need all information on what I need to obtain the necessary manufacturing license for this operation.

The trailers will range from approximately 6' long by 6' wide; 1 axle - gross weight of 750 to 1500 pounds - to 20' long by 6' 6' wide; 3 axles - gross weight of 20,000 pounds.

As it stands in our business at the present we will be building between 10 and 20 trailers a year.

We are new in this field, if you need more information please contact me.

Yours truly,

John L. Strickland J. S. Welding Rt. 5 Box 496 Denham Springs, Louisiana 70726 504 - 6644593

ID: 14261.drn

Timothy D. McDonnell, Esq.
Vice President, General Counsel and Secretary
Trailmobile Corporation
Amoco Building, Suite 6820
200 East Randolph Drive
Chicago, IL 60601

Dear Mr. McDonnell:

This responds to your request for an interpretation whether a world manufacturer identifier (WMI) assigned to Pullman Trailmobile can continue to be used after Pullman was sold to Trailmobile Corporation, which changed Pullman's name to Trailmobile Trailer Corporation (TTC). Under the facts described below, TTC may continue to use the WMI originally assigned to Pullman.

Your letter states that Pullman Trailmobile, a predecessor of TTC, was assigned the WMI "1PT." In 1991, TTC (as Pullman Trailmobile) was sold to Trailmobile Corporation. Today, TTC is still a division of Trailmobile, and manufactures trailers.

In a telephone conversation with Dorothy Nakama of my staff, you explained that Trailmobile is a holding company, does not manufacture motor vehicles, and is not assigned a WMI. You stated that Trailmobile does not intend to merge TTC into Trailmobile, but to keep TTC as a separate division, and to advertise Trailmobile Trailers Corporation as a trade name. You also stated that Trailmobile will continue to be responsible for trailers manufactured in the past with the WMI "1PT."

NHTSA's regulation at 49 CFR Part 565 Vehicle Identification Number Requirements states that the WMI shall "uniquely identify the manufacturer, make and type of the motor vehicle if its manufacturer produces 500 or more motor vehicles of its type annually." (49 CFR section 565.6(a)) In past interpretation letters, NHTSA has interpreted "uniquely identify" to mean that the same WMI cannot be used for two corporate entities if there is a possibility the two entities will be confused.

The facts of your case are similar to those in a March 20, 1997 letter to Monaco Corporation (copy enclosed). As was the case in Monaco, in your case, no WMI is assigned to the parent company (Trailmobile), but a division (TTC) has a WMI. NHTSA was assured in the Monaco case that there are no plans for the parent company, Monaco, to manufacture motor vehicles (which would require assigning a WMI). Similarly, you assure us that since it is a holding company, Trailmobile Corporation itself will not manufacture motor vehicles. You have also assured us that TTC will remain a separate division, and advertised as a trade name.

Because the relevant facts in your case and Monaco's are the same, we arrive at the same decision in your case as we did in Monaco's. Since Trailmobile itself is not assigned a WMI, but its division, TTC has a WMI, we agree that TTC may continue to use the WMI that was assigned to Pullman. Under the facts described, there would be no confusion as to which corporate entity manufactured the motor vehicle.

A copy of this letter will be sent to the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE), which has a contract to administer the WMI system for NHTSA. The SAE will make appropriate notations in its records about Trailmobile Corporation and TTC, and may contact you if it needs further information.

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

Sincerely,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
Enclosure

cc: Ms. Cathy Douds
Society of Automotive Engineers
400 Commonwealth Drive
Warrendale, PA 15096

(Please enclose copy of incoming letter to Ms. Douds also)

ref:565
NCC-20:DNakama:mar:apr/18/97:62992
[U:\NCC20\INTERP\565\14261.DRN]
Interps: Part 565, Redbook (2)
cc: NCC-20, Subj/chron, DN, NPS, NSA

ID: 002023cmc

Mr. John K. Stipancich
Evenflo Company, Inc.
707 Crossroads Court
Vandalia, OH 45377

Dear Mr. Stipancich:

This is in response to your October 29, 2002, letter requesting clarification of the registration provisions under Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 213, Child Restraint Systems. You ask if Evenflo may provide information to consumers allowing for registration of their child restraints through the Internet, in addition to providing the post card required under S5.8 of FMVSS No. 213. You state that a majority of registration cards are not returned and of those that are many are received incomplete, or become illegible while in transit. As explained below, your company may not add any information concerning Internet registration to the required registration form, but you may provide supplemental information that explains how to register via the Internet.

FMVSS No. 213 establishes an owner registration program for child restraint systems. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) implemented the program to improve the effectiveness of manufacturer campaigns to recall child restraints that contain a safety-related defect or that fail to conform to FMVSS No. 213. By increasing the number of identified child restraint purchasers, the program increases the manufacturers ability to inform owners of restraints about defects or noncompliances in those restraints.

S5.8 of FMVSS No. 213 requires child restraint manufacturers to provide a registration form attached to each child restraint. S5.8(b)(2) requires that the registration form conform in size, content and format to forms depicted in the standard. (See figures 9a and 9b of the standard.) Each form must include a detachable postage-paid postcard, which provides a space for the consumer to record his or her name and address, and must be preprinted with the restraints model name or number and its date of manufacture. Under S5.8 no other information is permitted to appear on the postcard, except for information that distinguishes a particular restraint from another restraint system. ^[1]

We have previously determined that a child restraint manufacturer may include a supplemental form that encourages electronic registration, subject to certain considerations. See our April 19, 2001, letter to Mr. Rosenbaum which permitted the attachment of a supplemental form to the child restraint along with the required registration card. As stated in that letter, we have permitted this when:

1. the registration card required by S5.8 does not bear any information or writing beyond that required to be on the form, and
2. the additional information is presented in a manner not likely to confuse consumers about the purpose of the required form or to obscure the importance of owner registration.

The agency is discussing possible amendments to accommodate electronic registration of child restraint systems. We will keep the information you provided in mind while we consider the possibility of rulemaking on this subject.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please contact Chris Calamita of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:213
d.1/3/03





---




^[1] We have permitted minor variations for the purpose of clarifying the registration instructions. In an October 20, 1993 letter to Evenflo, we permitted the addition of the words "please print" to the form. We determined that "please print" was a minor variation to the wording that clarified the instructions and did not substantially change them.

ID: 77-2.41

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 05/27/77

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

TO: Senate Transportation Committee

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Permit me to comment upon Oregon House Bill 2998 which I understand is to be considered by the Transportation Committee of the Oregon Senate on June 3, 1977.

The Bill would amend ORS 483.404 to require that headlamps on motor vehicles registered in Oregon meet the standards established for such under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 or

". . . the United Nations Agreement concerning the Adoption of Approval and Reciprocal Recognition of Approval for Motor Vehicle Equipment and Parts; done at Geneva on 20 March 1958, as amended and adopted by the Canadian Standards Association (CSA Standard 106.2) or both."

Pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 1392(a) [Section 103(a) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966] Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment (49 CFR 571.108), has been established, effective January 1, 1972, as the Federal standard for headlamps both as original and replacement equipment on motor vehicles. Under 15 U.S.C. 1392(d).

"Whenever a Federal motor vehicle safety standard established under this title is in effect, no State or political subdivision of a State shall have any authority either to establish, or to continue in effect, with respect to any motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment any safety standard applicable to the same aspect of performance of such vehicle or item of equipment which is not identical to the Federal standard." [Emphasis added.]

The United Nations Agreement, and this Agreement as amended by the Canadian Standards Association, permit the use of motor vehicle headlamps that are not of sealed beam construction and whose candlepower output may exceed 75,000, and do not require that they be mechanically aimable. Standard No. 108, on the other hand, requires that headlamps on passenger vehicles be of sealed beam construction, imposes a limit of 75,000 candlepower on all but one type of headlamp, and requires that all headlamps be mechanically aimable. Thus, the United Nations Agreement, and this Agreement as amended by the Canadian Standards Association, do not specify requirements for headlamps that are identical to those of Standard No. 108. This means that if House Bill 2998 is enacted in its present form the language that I quoted from it would, in our opinion, be preempted by 15 U.S.C. 1392(d), and of no legal effect. This means also that any person in Oregon manufacturing for sale, selling, offering for sale, introducing or delivering for introduction in interstate commerce, or importing into the United States a headlamp that did not conform to Standard No. 108, in reliance upon House Bill 2998 were it to be enacted, would be subject to civil penalties for apparent violations of 15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(1)(A) in an amount up to $ 800,000 (15 U.S.C. 1398(a)), and to a restraining order (15 U.S.C.

1399(a)).

Section 1392(d) and the Act's preemptive effect have been invariably upheld. (See e.g. Chrysler Corp. v. Malloy, 294 F. Supp 524 (U.S.D.C. Vt. 1968), Chrysler Corp. v. Tofany, 419 F.2d 499 (C.C.A. 2 1969)) We would also observe that the interpretation of the preemption language by this agency, as the administering agency, has been viewed by courts as "of controlling weight." (Thorpe v. Housing Authority of Durham, 393 U.S. 268 (1969) quoted with approval in Chrysler Corp. v. Tofany, supra, at 512.)

If you have any questions, Taylor Vinson of this office will be glad to assist you (202-426-9511).

ID: nht78-4.8

DATE: 11/29/78

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

TO: Chrysler Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

FMVSS INTERPRETATION Ms. Joan Claybrook Administrator National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, SW Washington, D.C. 20590

RE: MVSS 101 - Controls and Displays Docket 1-18; Notice 13

By notice published in the Federal Register on June 26, 1978 (43 FR 27541) the NHTSA amended MVSS 101 - Controls and Displays to require the use of ISO symbols on specific controls, telltales and gauges and the use of specified word call-outs to identify certain other controls and displays. The amendment is effective September 1, 1980 and until that date vehicles may comply with either the current or the amended standard.

As amended the standard specifies symbols for separate oil pressure and coolant temperature gauges or telltales. It has been industry practice on some models to combine the monitroing of these two functions into a single telltale to indicate an "engine" malfunction. We believe that combining these two functions is appropriate because the response by the driver to either of these engine malfunctions is the same, safely pull to the side of the road and turn off the engine. We see nothing in the standard to prohibit the continued use of an engine function telltale. Therefore, Chrysler Corporation interprets the requirements of the standard to mean that a telltale which monitors engine function may be identified by the word "Engine".

Therefore, we request the Administrator's concurrence with our interpretation that a telltale which monitors both engine oil pressure and coolant temperature may use the identifying word "Engine". If, however, our interpretation is not correct, this letter should be considered as a petition for reconsideration requesting that S5.2.3 and Table 2 be amended to allow the use of the word "Engine" to identify a telltale which monitors both engine oil pressure and coolant temperature.

Sincerely,

ID: nht93-8.36

DATE: November 30, 1993

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Barry H. Wells -- M.D.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 9/23/93 from Barry H. Wells to Marvin Shaw

TEXT:

Thank you for your letter describing a device you called an "Emergency Brake Technology" (E.B.T.) system that you believe would eliminate jackknifing and improve the stopping distances of tractor trailers. A video tape accompanying your letter stated that the E.B.T. system operates by having a metal wedge slide below each wheel in response to an action by the driver. You requested the opportunity to testify or submit written comments about the benefits of this device. You also requested that the agency test the E.B.T. system.

As Marvin Show of my staff explained to you, NHTSA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) on September 28, 1993, that addresses the lateral stability and control of medium and heavy vehicles. The agency is proposing to require these vehicles to be equipped with an antilock brake system (ABS) and to comply with a 30 mph braking-in-a-curve test on a low coefficient of friction surface. Mr. Shaw advised you that while the agency does not anticipate holding a public hearing on this rulemaking, you could submit written comments to the NPRM. In addition, we have submitted this correspondence, including your incoming letter and the video tape, to the public docket.

We regret that we are unable to fulfill your request for NHTSA to test the E.B.T. system. Given our limited research budget, it is not possible for us to test every automotive safety-related piece of equipment that is introduced into the marketplace.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions about NHTSA's activities, please feel free to contact Marvin Show at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

ID: 9146

Barry H. Wells, M.D.
600 Ridgely Avenue, Suite 130
Annapolis, MD 21401

Dear Dr. Wells:

Thank you for your letter describing a device you called an "Emergency Brake Technology" (E.B.T.) system that you believe would eliminate jackknifing and improve the stopping distances of tractor trailers. A video tape accompanying your letter stated that the E.B.T. system operates by having a metal wedge slide below each wheel in response to an action by the driver. You requested the opportunity to testify or submit written comments about the benefits of this device. You also requested that the agency test the E.B.T. system.

As Marvin Shaw of my staff explained to you, NHTSA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) on September 28, 1993, that addresses the lateral stability and control of medium and heavy vehicles. The agency is proposing to require these vehicles to be equipped with an antilock brake system (ABS) and to comply with a 30 mph braking-in-a-curve test on a low coefficient of friction surface. Mr. Shaw advised you that while the agency does not anticipate holding a public hearing on this rulemaking, you could submit written comments to the NPRM. In addition, we have submitted this correspondence, including your incoming letter and the video tape, to the public docket.

We regret that we are unable to fulfill your request for NHTSA to test the E.B.T. system. Given our limited research budget, it is not possible for us to test every automotive safety- related piece of equipment that is introduced into the marketplace.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions about NHTSA's activities, please feel free to contact Marvin Shaw at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel ref:121 d:11/30/93

ID: nht70-1.36

DATE: 01/22/70

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

TO: Pacer Performance Products

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Thank you for your letter of October 31, 1969 requesting information about the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards and their applicability to wheels manufactured by Pacer. We have enclosed a copy of the April, 1969, edition of the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards, along with amendments relevant to your inquiry.

You have requested information as to how you can comply with Standards No. 109 and 110. These Standards, as you will notice, are applicable to new passenger car tires add to wheels and tires mounted on new passenger cars, so that if a wheel manufactured by Pacer is placed on a passenger car before the car is sold to the first purchaser, the wheel and the tire must conform to the requirements of Standards No. 109 and 110. To comply the tire and rim must meet the performance requirements of Standard 109, and the rim must be able to retain a deflated tire during a stop from 60 miles per hour, as required by paragraph S4.4.1(b) of Standard No. 110. There are no other requirements applicable to wheels and rims as such.

The National Highway Safety Bureau issues no certificate of compliance, although it maintains surveillance over product safely through its own testing program. The Gregon manufacturer to whom you refer may have requested the Bureau's opinion as to whether a particular wheel design would violate Standard No. 211, a standard applicable to wheel nuts, wheel discs and hub caps as items of motor vehicle equipment which prohibits certain tyres of hazardous projections on wheels. In response to such requests, the Bureau has occasionally issued interpretations of Standard No. 211, but these are in no way equivalent to a certificate of compliance.

I trust this information will be helpful to you. Should you have additional questions, please advise us and we will try to provide further clarification.

ID: nht76-2.48

DATE: 02/26/76

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

TO: Peterbilt Motors Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of February 6, 1976, asking whether it would violate Standard No. 108 to wire truck tractors to permit "the customers to activate the truck trailer tail lamps when the tractor marker lamps are activated rather than when the headlamps are activated."

S4.5.3 of Standard No. 108 which requires the tail lamps to be illuminated when the headlamps are activated applies only to single motor vehicles and not combinations thereof. Therefore we confirm your understanding that the wiring circuitry you propose to install will not violate Standard No. 108.

Yours truly,

ATTACH.

February 6, 1976

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

Reference: FMVSS-108, Section 4.5.3

Gentlemen:

Peterbilt Motors Company has been requested to construct a fleet of truck tractors. These tractors will, of course, comply with the above referenced regulation, including the referenced sub-section regarding tail lamp operation.

However, we have been further requested to provide electrical wiring and circuitry on the tractors to the tractor cabs which will permit the customer to activate the truck trailer tail lamps when the tractor marker lamps are activated rather than when the headlamps are activated.

Through telephone contact with your office, we were informed that our providing such circuitry would not be in violation of the referenced regulation.

Therefore, by this letter we wish to confirm your telephone remarks and to state our intention that, unless otherwise notified, we will provide the circuitry requested by this customer.

Sincerely,

Arlen E. Riggs -- Legal Manager

cc: K.R. Brownstein - Corporate Legal