ID: nht70-1.47

DATE: 03/20/70

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Francis Armstrong; NHTSA

TO: A.L. Clark

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of January 14, 1970, to Mr. Jones Forrester, Deputy Director, Office of Standards Praparation, that has ben referred to this office.

The information that you have attained from a firend, that a car built for you for your personal use and imported for purposes other than resale does not have to have a certification label, is correct. It should be noted, however, that the important criteria here is the matter of compliance with standards that are applicable on the date of manufacture.

Section 108(3) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, Public Law 89-563, states:

"A motor vehicle . . . offered for importation in violation of paragraph (1) of subsection (a) shall be refused admission into the United States under joint regulations issued by the Secretary of the Treasury and the Secretary; except that the Secretary of the Treasury and the Secretary may, by such regulations, provide for authorizing the importation of such motor vehice . . . into the United States upon such terms and conditions (including the furnishing of a bond) as may appear to them appropriate to insure that any such motor vehicle . . . will be brought into comformity with any applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard prescribed under this title, or will be exported or abandoned to the United States." A copy of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act is enclosed.

To augment this Section of the Act, 19 C.F.R. 12.80 has been established. This regulation states in essence that no vehicle shall not be refused entry if it bears a valid certification label. In the event the vehicle does not have a valid certification label other provisions for inportation are provided. A copy of that regulation is also enclosed. Iso Automotovcicoli held an Iteriam Temporary Exception Number 68-6, Public Law 90-283, that expired on December 19, 1968. This exemption covers passenger cars manufactured by that firm up to that date.

This company subsequently filed another petition for temporary exemption and was granted Temporary Exemption Number 68-for thair Rivolta model only. Exemption(Illegible word) the Grifo model was withheld because it lacked certain technical information. We are currently in communication with Iso over this matter.

The steps that you should take to free the ear from bond would be for you to contact Iso Automotoveicoli and establish the date of manufacture. If that date is sometime prior to December 19, 1968, an affidavit should be presented to Customs. If on the other hand the car was manufactured after that date, you should seek their advices as to what could be done to bring the vehicle into conformity commensurate with any temporary exemption that might be granted in the mean time. The regulations do not provide any other recourse other than corportation or abandonent to the United States.

ID: nht91-2.3

DATE: February 26, 1991

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Gene Schlanger -- President, ROC Capital, Inc.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 1-3-91 from Gene Schlanger to Taylor Vinson

TEXT:

This is in reply to your FAX of January 3, 1991, to Taylor Vinson of this Office, asking about the permissibility under Federal and State regulations of a lighted sign" on which messages could be scrolled from left to right. Such a sign "is designed to be mounted inside the car, either on a rear or side window." However, "if that is deemed legally inappropriate, the sign can be designed to be placed outside on the roof of the auto." The sign would incorporate LEDs and would not project a beam or flash. You intend to sell it "to the general public."

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has no specific Federal motor vehicle safety standard that addresses your device, nor any prohibition against your selling it. The question arises, however, as to whether and under what circumstances Federal law may allow its use.

As a general rule, aftermarket equipment such as this is acceptable under Federal law provided that its installation by a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business, does not entail removal of, or otherwise rendering inoperative, in whole or in part, equipment installed in accordance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard. This means that removal by any of the persons just mentioned of the high-mounted stop lamp that has been required on passenger cars manufactured on or after September 1, 1985, in order to substitute your lighted sign, would be a violation of Federal law.

The question arises of whether the lighted sign may be installed in the rear window of any other vehicle, or in a passenger car manufactured before September 1, 1985, or on the top of any vehicle, situations where there is no direct removal of safety equipment. The agency regards any impairment of the effectiveness of rear lighting equipment as tantamount to rendering it partially inoperative. Thus, if aftermarket equipment is likely to create confusion or distraction in a following motorist, we regard it as likely to impair the messages that required lighting equipment is supposed to impart. A lighted sign with a changing message is likely to create a distraction, diverting attention from signals sent by stop lamps or turn signal lamps. Thus, we believe that this device has the potential of rendering those lamps partially inoperative within the meaning of the statutory prohibition. Even when installed in a side window, where it may not be visible directly to the rear, the device has the potential of distraction when the vehicle carrying it is approached in other lanes, i.e., at an angle from the rear. We are unable to tell you whether the device is illegal under the laws of each of the 50 States. If you are interested in pursuing this question, we recommend that you consult the American Association of Motor Vehicle

Administrators, 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Va. 22203.

ID: bailey.ztv

The Honorable Kay Bailey Hutchison
United States Senate
10440 North Central Expressway, Suite 1160
LB 606
Dallas, TX 75231

Dear Senator Hutchison:

We are replying to your recent inquiry on behalf of your constituent, Walter E. Brown of Tyler. Dr. Brown is the owner of a 1995 BMW. When he attempted to buy a replacement lens for one of his headlamps, he was told by his local dealer that the lens was unavailable, and later, that the part was no longer available and that he would have to replace the entire headlamp assembly. BMW of North America telephoned him and told him that "a new government regulation precluded BMW from selling the lens separately." Dr. Brown was referred to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. He asked that you look into this matter for him.

As Dr. Brown indicated in his letter to you, the applicable regulation is Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 (49 CFR 571.108,Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment). This regulation prescribes requirements for both original and replacement motor vehicle headlamps. Until 1983, all headlamps were required to be sealed and indivisible, so that if the bulb burned out or the lens cracked, the entire headlamp had to be replaced. Because headlamps were sealed, contaminants such as dust and moisture could not enter and the integrity of the reflector over the life of the headlamp was assured.

In 1983, Standard No. 108 was amended to allow non-sealed headlamps with replaceable bulbs. To maintain the integrity of the reflector, replaceable bulbs were required to have a seal at their base, and the headlamp lens had to be bonded to the reflector. These non-sealed headlamps had to pass environmental tests verifying their ability to resist heat, dust, and corrosion. However, the requirement that the lens be bonded to the reflector means that if either the lens or the reflector broke or was defective, the entire lens/reflector unit had to be replaced. This appears to be the type of headlamp that was installed on Dr. Brown's 1995 BMW. Therefore, in order to replace a cracked lens, he has to buy a lens/reflector assembly. This is necessary to ensure that his replacement headlamp provides the same continuing level of safety as his original headlamp.

Since December 1995, one specific type of replaceable bulb headlamp (one incorporating an on-board aiming device) has been permitted to have a lens designed to be replaceable, provided that the lamps pass even more stringent environment tests. However, all 1995 model cars were manufactured before the effective date of this new alternative headlamp requirement, and thus were not permitted to have headlamps with replaceable lenses. Since the headlamps in Dr. Brown's car do not have replaceable lenses, his dealer must replace the complete lens/reflector assembly. This has been the practice since 1983 and is not the result of "a new government regulation." It is the December 1995 regulation, not the older one, that permits replacement lenses for one type of headlamp.

I hope that this explanation will be useful to Dr. Brown.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
ref:108
d.6/23/98

ID: aiam4246

Dear Mr. Tsujishita: This responds to your letter dated October 30, 1986, seeking a interpretation of 49 CFR Part 581, *Bumper Standard* and seeking our comments on sample reports required under several of our regulations. This letter addresses your question about our bumper standard first, and then comments on your sample reports.; You asked about one of the protective criteria specified in sectio 581.5(c) of Part 581. Part 581 requires vehicles to meet the damage criteria of that section after specified test impacts.; Section 581.5(c)(8) states: >>>The *exterior surfaces* shall have no separations of surfac materials, paint, polymeric coatings, or other covering materials from the surface to which they are bonded, and no permanent deviations from their original contours 30 minutes after completion of each pendulum and barrier impact, except where such damage occurs to the bumper face bar and the components and associated fasteners that directly attach the bumper face bar to the chassis frame. (Emphasis added.)<<<; You stated that you understand 'exterior surfaces' to refer to th exterior body surface which can be observed without the removal of any components, and that it does not mean the body surface which cannot be observed unless components are removed. Based on this understanding, you stated that you believe that two areas of a car, identified in an attached drawing as Area A and Area B, need not conform to the no damage requirement. Both Area A, a radiator support panel located directly under the headlamp, and Area, (sic) B, a fender apron located below the headlamp but along the side of the car, cannot be observed unless the bumper assembly is removed.; You understanding of 'exterior surface,' with respect to Areas A and of your drawing, is correct. Those areas are not exterior surfaces, because they are located behind the bumper assembly and cannot be observed unless that assembly is removed.; *Sample Reports* 1. 49 CFR Part 565, *Vehicle Identification Number - Conten Requirements*; Assuming that the Daihatsu is the only make and type of vehicle yo will sell in the United States, the submission of the unique identifier would comply with S565.6(b). If you are planning to sell other makes, you would also have to include information on those makes in this submission.; The deciphering information would be sufficient under S565.5(d) excep for the information about the engine type. The information you suggest providing describes the engine only as a 'CB'. The term 'engine type is defined at S565.3(d) as 'a power source with *defined* characteristics such as fuel utilized, number of cylinders, displacement and net brake horsepower.' None of these factors can be deciphered from your 'CB' marking. The deciphering information should indicate whether this is a gasoline or diesel engine, the number of cylinders, engine displacement, and net brake horsepower. With this modification, the sample report would comply with the requirements of Part 565.; 2. 49 CFR Part 566, *Manufacturer Identification* The sample identifying information from Daihatsu is sufficient for th purposes of Part 566.; You also asked how accurate this identification must be with respect t the GVWR ranges of the vehicles. As you noted, S566.5(c) requires manufacturers to submit the 'approximate ranges' of GVWR for each type of motor vehicle produced by the manufacturer. The agency explained in the notice of proposed rulemaking for this rule that it was seeking only basic information on the vehicles produced by the manufacturer. *See* 36 FR 7970, at 7971, April 28, 1971. Thus, if you wish to state that you produce passenger cars with a GVWR between 2300 and 2500 pounds, as suggested in your letter, that information would satisfy the requirements of Part 566.; You also asked the purpose of requiring the Part 566 report. Th purpose was explained as follows in the notice of proposed rulemaking:; >>>In order to carry out the provisions of the Act, it is ofte necessary to have certain basic information about the manufacturers of motor vehicles or vehicle equipment subject to the Act. This is particularly so in the area of enforcement and in carrying out the several requirements for communication, inspection, and reporting. It is necessary to have centrally organized and collected information regarding the manufacturer's corporate status, mailing address, items manufactured, and manufacturing location. Moreover, it is necessary to assemble this information so as to make it readily accessible to those having enforcement responsibility under the Act, and provide a means for identifying and classifying manufacturers according to the types of motor vehicles or equipment which they manufacture. A system is also needed whereby NHTSA can provide information to manufacturers of various types of vehicles or equipment. 36 FR 7971, April 28, 1971.<<<; 3. 49 CFR S551.45 *Designation of Agent* You first asked whether your sample designation of agent conforms wit the requirements of 49 CFR S551.45. It does not. Section 551.45 specifies that a designation of agent must include the following six items of information:; 1. A certification by the person or persons signing the designatio that it is valid in form and binding on the manufacturer under the laws, corporate by-laws, or other requirements governing the making of the designation at the time and place where it is made.; Your sample contains no such certification. 2. The full legal name, principal place of business and mailing addres of the manufacturer.; This information is set forth only on the letterhead of you stationery. If the corporate name set forth on your stationery is the full legal name, it would satisfy this requirement. If that is not the full legal name, however, the full legal name must be separately shown. The same principle applies to the requirements to submit your principal place of business and mailing address.; 3. Marks, trade names, or other designation of origin of any of th manufacturer's products which do not bear its name.; It is impossible for us to determine where there are no such marks, i the Daihatsu symbol on your letterhead is the only such mark, or if you have not satisfied this requirement.; 4. A statement that the designation shall remain in effect unti withdrawn or replaced by the manufacturer.; There is not such statement in your sample. 5. A declaration of acceptance duly signed by the agent appointed b the manufacturer.; Your sample would satisfy this requirement. 6. The full legal name and address of the designated agent. Your sample would satisfy this requirement. You then asked what the designated agent does, and whether all report had to be submitted to this agency via the designated agent. The designated agent acts as the agent for foreign manufacturers upon whom service of process, notices, orders, and decisions may be made *for and on behalf of the manufacturer*. Please note that both your designation of agent and acceptance erroneously state that such service may be made by or on behalf of the *agent*. Under the due process clause of our Constitution, a party cannot be bound by the outcome of a legal proceeding unless he or she has been given notice of such proceeding and an opportunity to be heard. Since we cannot go into a Japanese court, the U.S. government must have some device by which it can ensure that a foreign manufacturer is given proper notice of any proceedings affecting it in the United States. Thus, the designation of an agent by Daihatsu helps to ensure that the company will be fully and promptly apprised of any governmental action involving the company.; Hence, foreign manufacturers are *not* required to submit report through their designated agents - the designated agent is only a means for this agency to serve process and so forth on the foreign manufacturer. In fact, we recommend that foreign manufacturers submit reports and other correspondence directly to NHTSA, so as to facilitate the exchange of information.; 4. 49 CFR Part 575.104, *Uniform Tire Quality Grading Standards* The sample report you submitted is exactly that which is specified i Figure 2 of S575.104. It would therefore comply with S575.6(a) and S575.104(d)(1)(iii). Please note that there are typographical errors for the words 'treadwear' and 'passenger' in the sample you submitted.; 5. 49 CFR S575.101, *Vehicle Stopping Distance* Your stopping distance sample report is in the format specified i Figure 1 of S575.101. Accordingly, it would satisfy the requirements of S575.101(c).; 6. 49 CFR Part 537, *Automotive Fuel Economy Reports* Your sample fuel economy report, including the statement as t representativeness, satisfies the requirements of Part 537. Please note that the timing for submitting the reports is set forth in S537.5(b), and that your 1988 pre-model year report is due in December 1987, while your 1988 mid-model year report is due in July 1988.; 7. 49 CFR Part 542, *Procedures for Selecting Lines to be Covered b the Theft Prevention Standard*; Your sample Part 542 submission would satisfy the requirements of tha Part.; Please feel free to contact us if you need any further information o our regulatory requirements.; Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel

ID: 11154

Karen Coffey, Esq.
Chief Counsel
Texas Automobile Dealers Association
1106 Lavaca
P.O. Box 1028
Austin, Texas 78767-1028

FAX: 512-476-2179

Dear Ms. Coffey:

This responds to your letter asking whether a dealer would violate Federal law by disconnecting a malfunctioning motor in an automatic seat belt system of a 1990 model vehicle. You state,

"a consumer has brought their vehicle to a dealership with an automatic seat belt in which the motor on the automatic seat belt continues to run. This continuous running of the seat belt motor causes the battery on the vehicle to run down, rendering the vehicle inoperable."

In a telephone conversation with Edward Glancy of this office, you indicated that the automatic seat belt is stuck in one position. The consumer has requested that the dealership disconnect the motor in lieu of repairing it. You also stated that, in the event of such disconnection, the seat belt may still be connected manually.

As discussed below, it is our opinion that, under the facts stated above, a dealer would not violate Federal law by disconnecting the malfunctioning motor.

By way of background information, Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, required 1990 model cars to be equipped with automatic crash protection at the front outboard seating positions. Automatic seat belts were one means of complying with that requirement.

Federal law (49 U.S.C. 30122, formerly section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act) provides that:

A manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business may not knowingly make inoperative any part of a device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable motor vehicle safety standard . . .

It is our opinion that this requirement does not prohibit a dealer from disconnecting a malfunctioning seat belt motor in the factual situation described above. Since the seat belt motor would already be inoperative when the vehicle was brought to the dealer, we would not consider the subsequent disconnection of the motor as making it inoperative. I note, however, that in servicing the vehicle, the dealer must not make another part of the vehicle or element of design inoperative with respect to the Federal motor vehicle safety standards.

While Federal law does not require dealers or owners to repair a malfunctioning seat belt motor, NHTSA strongly urges such repair, so that the vehicle continues to provide maximum safety protection. We also note that dealers and owners may be affected by State laws in this area, including ones for vehicle inspection and tort law.

In closing, we suggest that the dealer urge the consumer to contact NHTSA's toll-free Auto Safety Hotline about this problem, at 800-424-9393. The agency uses this type of information in performing its safety mission.

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

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

ref:208#VSA d:8/31/95

ID: 11896.ZTV

R. Wender
P.O. Box 456
Flushing, NY 11365-0456

Dear Sir or Madam:

Your letter of April 26, 1996, to the Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance has been forwarded to this Office for reply. You have asked whether there are any Federal regulations that apply to an aftermarket accessory center highmounted stop lamp (we refer to it as a "CHMSL") that you have bought for use on a used station wagon that you bought. As you describe it, the CHMSL is ten inches long, one inch wide, and one inch deep. Mounted inside the rear window, the CHMSL contains four bulbs. When the brake pedal is depressed, each of the four bulbs is lit sequentially, from right to left then back to right.

Each passenger car manufactured on and after September 1, 1985, must be equipped with a CHMSL that conforms to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. Further, any aftermarket CHMSL that is intended to replace the original CHMSL must also meet the requirements of the standard. One of the requirements is that the CHMSL be steady burning when the brake pedal is applied, that is to say, that all light sources must illuminate simultaneously when the brake pedal is applied, and be extinguished simultaneously when the brake pedal is released. The purpose of this is to ensure that the CHMSL is instantly recognized as part of the stop lamp system, so that the driver following can apply the brakes without hesitation or take evasive action if needed. In the aftermarket CHMSL you describe, the four light sources are not illuminated or extinguished simultaneously, and for this reason the lamp could not be used as a replacement CHMSL on cars manufactured on or after September 1, 1985.

Apparently your station wagon was manufactured before September 1, 1985, since its manufacturer did not provide it with a CHMSL. In this situation, the accessory lamp is not replacement equipment covered by Standard No. 108 since it is not replacing an item of required equipment with which the car was originally equipped. However, we administer a law that forbids manufacturers, dealers, distributors, or motor vehicle repair businesses from making modifications that "make inoperative" any original safety equipment on the vehicle installed in accordance with a Federal safety standard. Because of the potential of a flashing CHMSL to cause confusion with the pair of steady-burning stop lamps mounted lower on each side of the vehicle, it is our opinion that the installation of the aftermarket CHMSL would make the regular stop lamps partially inoperative within the meaning of the prohibition.

The prohibition does not apply if the modifications to a vehicle are done by its owner, and you would not be in violation of the Federal statute if you personally installed the CHMSL. However, whether it is legal to use it depends upon the law of the state where the CHMSL is operated. We are not able to advise you about the applicability of New York law to the light and suggest that you contact the state Department of Motor Vehicles for an answer.

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

Sincerely,

Samuel J. Dubbin Chief Counsel

ref:108 d:6/6/96

ID: 18890.jeg

Mr. Meyer Snyder
5134 Bocaw Pl
San Diego, CA 92115-1717

Dear Mr. Snyder:

This responds to your letter asking whether you can have the force of the air bags on your 1995 Toyota Camry "turned down." You asked whether this can be done at your Toyota dealer and, if not, where it could be done, and whether you would have to pay for this modification.

As discussed below, there is no legal impediment to vehicle manufacturers and dealers modifying older vehicles so that they have the same kinds of redesigned air bags being offered on most new vehicles. However, such modifications would likely be very complicated and potentially expensive, and we are not aware of any vehicle manufacturers or dealers which make such modifications. You may wish to ask Toyota about whether it is possible to modify your vehicle in this manner and at what cost.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards that apply to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles and new motor vehicle equipment. One of the standards we have issued is Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection (49 CFR 571.208). Manufacturers install air bags in passenger cars as part of complying with the occupant protection requirements of Standard No. 208.

While the Federal motor vehicle safety standards apply only to new motor vehicles and new motor vehicle equipment, Federal law limits the modifications that can be made by certain businesses to used vehicles. Manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and repair businesses are prohibited from "knowingly making inoperative" any device or element of a design installed on or in a motor vehicle in compliance with an applicable safety standard (49 U.S.C. 30122).

A manufacturer, dealer or other business which modified the air bags on your 1995 Toyota Camry would not violate the "make inoperative" provision if, after the modification, the vehicle continued to meet the relevant requirements in effect either on the date of manufacture or as later amended. In 1997 NHTSA amended Standard No. 208 to make it easier for manufacturers to quickly redesign their air bags, e.g., by reducing the power as compared to previous years. Compliance with the amended requirements would thus not violate the "make inoperative" provision. As noted earlier, however, the modifications that would need to be made to an existing vehicle so that it would have redesigned air bags would likely be very complicated and potentially expensive, and we are not aware of any vehicle manufacturers or dealers which make such modifications.

I am pleased to hear that you do not want your air bags turned off. The vast majority of persons, including short persons, are much safer with air bags. Among other things, an air bag will minimize the risk of violently striking the steering wheel and dashboard in a moderate to severe crash.

I would also like to point out that there are a few basic steps that you can take to minimize air bag risks, including wearing your safety belts and, when driving, keeping at least 10 inches between the center of the air bag cover and your breastbone. I have enclosed an information brochure, written in the context of making an informed decision about on-off switches, which provides additional information concerning how you can reduce air bag risks.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
Enclosure
ref:208
d.2/3/99

ID: 1982-1.36

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/30/82

FROM: FRANK BERNDT -- NHTSA CHIEF COUNSEL

TO: ARMOND CARDARELLI -- DIRECTOR, SAFETY EQUIPMENT SERVICE AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF MOTOR VEHICLE ADMINISTRATORS

TITLE: NOA-30

TEXT: Dear Mr. Cardarelli:

The purpose of this letter is to call your attention to a practice of the AAMVA which we believe should be reviewed.

Recently we received copies of Certificate of Equipment Approval Nos. 800643, 800641, 800642, and 800193, rendered "Candle Power Inc." of Rockville, Maryland. In each instance, the Certificate describes the item as a "Motorcycle Headlamp Unit," specifies its use "on Motorcycles" and states that the unit is "in compliance with the United States Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108." It is the implications of AAMVA's certification of compliance that we question.

First of all, we believe that a legal certification of conformance with Federal motor vehicle safety standards can be made only by the manufacturer of the unit. We believe that the role of the independent test laboratories is to provide data indicating compliance upon which a manufacturer can base its certification, but that a single test report cannot alone establish certification. It has been the policy of this agency never to judge conformance on the basis of test results of a single lamp because of the multitude of test points to be met and variables in the manufacturing process and the quality control procedures of the individual manufacturers. Indeed, the agency has said that test failures will not lead to a noncompliance determination if they are "random" or "occasional." We therefore believe it is inappropriate for the AAMVA Certificate to state that a lamp conforms to Standard No. 108 when that statement is made on the basis of a single test report submitted by the manufacturer and when it is intended to cover production for five years after the issuance of the Certificate. On the other hand, it would not be inappropriate for the Certificate to state that the test report showed the unit in compliance with appropriate SAE requirements.

P2

With respect to Candlepower's headlamps, they are unsealed units which we believe to be intended primarily for use on passenger cars but which may also meet the requirements of J584 for motorcycle use. In our litigation presently pending against importers of these headlamps, we are taking the position that the manufacturer, with knowledge of the capacity for dual use of these headlamps, must certify conformance (in the words of 15 U.S.C. 1413) "with all applicable safety standards" which means standards applicable to both passenger car and motorcycle headlamps. We do not approve of a split certification whereby a headlamp capable of two end uses is certified only for one. We therefore view the AAMVA statement of compliance with Standard No. 108 inappropriate from this standpoint as well. On the other hand, it would not be inappropriate for the Certificate to state that the unit complies with SAE J584.

We request that AAMVA review its practice with regard to statements of Federal conformity on its approval certificates and that you provide us with its view.

Sincerely,

ID: 1982-2.22

DATE: 07/23/82

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Regal Tire Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

July 23, 1983

Regal Tire Corporation 4309 County Line Road Chalfont, PA 18914

Dear Sir:

At the request of the office of the Honorable Peter Peyser, M.C., we are writing this letter to you to explain the significance of certain items of information molded on the sidewall of new tires.

Part 574, Tire identification and recordkeeping (49 CFR 574), requires that each new tire to be sold in the United States have a serial number molded on one of its sidewalls. That number identifies the tire's manufacturer, date of manufacture, and size. This information is designed to ensure the proper identification of all tires subject to a recall by the manufacturer for correction of a safety-related defect or of a failure to comply with a safety standard. The serial number is not a guarantee of quality or of compliance with any safety standard.

Each new tire is also required by Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards Nos. 109, New pneumatic tires, and 119, New pneumatic tires for vehicles other than passenger cars (49 CFR 571.109 and 571.119), to have the symbol "DOT" appear on one of its sidewalls. This symbol is a certification by the tire's manufacturer that the tire fully complies with all requirements of the applicable safety standard. The symbol does not guarantee the quality of a tire in areas of performance unregulated by the safety standards.

Neither the serial number nor the DOT symbol constitute a representation that a tire is free from any safety-related defect.

If you have any questions regarding these matters, please contact me.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel June 2, 1982

Ms. Carol Walls U. S. Dept. of Transportation Office of Congressional Relations 400 7th Street, SW Room 10408 Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Ms. Walls:

Attached is the request for certification about which we spoke today. Regal Tire is interested in receiving a letter or other appropriate document on DOT letterhead confirming the intent of the DOT serial number on the tires themselves.

Thank you for your help in this matter.

Sincerely,

F. H. Brewer, III Administrative Assistant to the Congressman

FHB/lb

CERTIFICATE

TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:

WE CONFIRM THAT TIRES MANUFACTURED IN U.S.A. HAVING D.O.T. SERIAL NUMBERS BRANDED ON SIDEWALL MEANS FOLLOWING:

A. EACH TIRE MEETS OR EXCEEDS U. S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION SAFETY STANDARDS.

B. EACH TIRE HAS BEEN TESTED AND GUARANTEED BY MANUFACTURER TO THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION THAT IT IS FREE FROM ANY DEFECT AND OF FIRST QUALITY.

ID: 1984-2.41

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/31/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Continental Products Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Jack DiMaio Technical Service Dept. Continental Products Corporation 1200 Wall Street West Lyndhurst, New Jersey 07071

Dear Mr. DiMaio:

This responds to your recent letter seeking an interpretation of the requirements of Standard No. 119, New Pneumatic Tires for Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars (49 CFR S571.119). Specifically, you asked whether it is necessary to mold the DOT symbol on the sidewall of a motorcycle tire used for racing on a production motorcycle, if the production motorcycle is to be used only on the race track. Standard No. 119 requires the DOT certification to appear on new motorcycle tires designed for highway use. If these tires are designed for use only on a race track, they need not have a DOT symbol on the sidewall.

Section S6.5( a) of Standard No. 119 specifies that each tire subject to the standard shall be marked with the symbol DOT, which shall constitute a certification that the tire conforms to applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. However, section S3 specifies: "This standard applies to new pneumatic tires designed for highway use on...motorcycles manufactured after 1948" emphasis added. Thus, the relevant question in determining whether the DOT certification must appear on the sidewall of a tire is whether the tire is designed for highway use.

It is not clear from your letter whether these tires are designed for highway use. You noted that the motorcycles on which the tire is mounted are intended for use only on race tracks. If these tires are not designed for use on other motorcycles, the DOT symbol need not be molded on the sidewall of the tires. If, on the other hand, the tires are also designed for use on other motorcycles which wil1 be used on the highways, the DOT symbol must be molded on the sidewall of the tires. This is a determination which must be made in the first instance by Continental, but may be reexamined by this agency.

Please feel free to contact me if you need any further information on this matter.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

June 20, 1984 NHTSA 400 7th Street S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Attn: Frank Berndt Dear Mr. Berndt,

In a recent visit to Continental A. G., in Hanover, Germany, the question of high speed motor cycle racing tires camp up. The question is as follows.

Is it necessary to mold the DOT approval on the sidewall of a motor cycle tire used for racing on a production racing motor cycle to be used on the race track only?

Your early response to the above questions would be greatly appreciated along with any comments relating to this subject.

Sincerely, Jack DiMaio Technical Service Dept.