ID: nht94-8.23

DATE: February 9, 1994

FROM: James H. Shuff -- President, Freedom Trailers

TO: Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 7/14/94 from John Womack to James H. Shuff (A42; STD 120; VSA 102(3))

TEXT: I was advised by Mr. George Shifflet of the D.O.T. to contact you and request a ruling on the Park Model Travel Trailers that I am building.

I am custom building park model travel trailers. These units, by ANSI code 119.5, are limited to a maximum of 400 sq, ft. There are park models that are recognized by H.U.D. but they are 500sq. ft. They are intended for recreational use only and not for year round living. These units can be used in the same manner as conventional travel trailers for winter camping in the year round parks. These units can be as wide as 12'.

The units that I am building are to order only. Once they are constructed they will be towed to their campsite and set up. The tires and the rims will be retained by me and used over again. Mr. Shifflet did not seem to think that there would be a problem with this, but suggested that I contact you for an opinion.

ID: nht94-3.9

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: May 27, 1994

FROM: Keith E. Smith -- Piper & Marbury

TO: John G. Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attachment dated 8/18/94: Letter from John Womack to Keith E. Smith (VSA 102(4))

TEXT: As I discussed yesterday with Ken Weinstein of your office, by this letter I seek a declaratory statement, in the form of a letter from the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration ("NHTSA"), that automotive and/or motorcycle braking systems are considered by NHTSA to be "safety devices". I do not desire, nor do I expect NHTSA to make any declaration regarding the safety of a particular braking system.

It is my understanding that the primary purpose of the National Highway Transportation Safety Act (the "Act") is to promote public safety by establishing motor vehicle safety standards. Such standards, as provided in the regulations promulgated under the Act at 49 CFR @@ 571.105 and 571.122, provide minimum safety guidelines by which braking systems are evaluated. Therefore, by implication, it would seem that automotive and/or mortorcycle braking systems must be considered by NHTSA to be "safety de vices".

If the above representations are correct, I would appreciate a letter confirming so. If you should have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me.

ID: mitsu

Steven Sinkez, Vice-President
Mitsubishi Motors of America, Inc.
111 19th Street, N.W. Suite 600
Washington, D.C. 20036

Dear Mr. Sinkez:

This responds to your request for an interpretation of our Vehicle Identification Number regulation, which you made in a July 5, 1995, meeting with Dorothy Nakama and Steve Wood of this office. You asked, after Diamond Star Motors Corporation's (DSM's) name is changed to Mitsubishi Motor Manufacturing of America, Inc. (MMMA), whether that company may continue to use the world manufacturer identifier (WMI) assigned to DSM. As discussed below, the answer is yes.

We understand the facts as follows. When DSM was formed, shares of DSM stock were split between Mitsubishi Corporation and Chrysler Corporation. In 1994, Mitsubishi purchased all of Chrysler's shares in DSM. Mitsubishi now owns 100% of DSM stock. Effective July 1, 1995, Mitsubishi changed DSM's name to MMMA. We have been informed that no changes other than transfers of shares in DSM stock and the name change were made in MMMA's corporate form.

By way of background information, 49 CFR part 565 Vehicle Identification Number - Content Requirements is intended to simplify VIN information retrieval and to increase the accuracy and efficiency of vehicle defect recall campaigns. Section 565.4(a) provides that a portion of the VIN, called the WMI, must "uniquely identify the manufacturer."

The basic issue raised by your question is, if MMMA continues to use the WMI assigned to DSM, whether the WMI will "uniquely identify the manufacturer." In the factual situation at issue, only the company's name is changed, and not the identity of the manufacturer, i.e., MMMA is the same corporation as DSM. Therefore, MMMA may continue to use the WMI assigned to DSM.

I hope this response is helpful. If there are any further questions, please contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at (202) 366- 2992.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

cc: Patrick M. Raher, Esq. Hogan & Hartson L.L.P. 555 13th Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20004

ref: 565#115 d:8/2/95

ID: nht75-2.45

DATE: 06/06/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; J. C. Schultz; NHTSA

TO: State of Vermont

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of April 17, 1975, to this agency asking questions about paragraph S4.6(b) of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, relating to headlamp flashers. Your reference to S4.5.8(b) is out-dated by approximately three years and I am enclosing a copy of Standard No. 108 as it now exists.

You asked the reason for the section in question, which provides that "All other lamps shall be steady-burning, except that means may be provided to flash headlamps and side marker lamps for signaling purposes." You also asked whether all motor vehicles, including motorcycles, are "authorized" by this section to use flashing headlamps, and finally whether the standard prohibits States from promulgating regulations to control flashing headlamps.

S4.6(b) was not intended as a regulation of this aspect of motor vehicle performance, in the sense that it would preempt all State regulation of the sale or use of headlamp flashers. It is basically merely an exception to the requirement of Standard 108 that all lamps (other than turn signals, hazard warning signals, and school bus warning signals) be steady-burning. The section, in other words, was included to make it clear that automatic headlamp flashers are not prohibited by the Federal standard. With reference to your questions, this is the only way in which they are "authorized" by Standard 108.

We have concluded, therefore, that State regulation of headlamp flashers is not preempted by the Federal standard.

SINCERELY,

STATE OF VERMONT

DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES

April 17, 1975

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Request is hereby submitted for official interpretation of Federal Safety Standard 108-S4.5.8(b) as follows:

Reason for authorization of standard S 4.5.8 (b).

Are all motor vehicles, including motorcycles, authorized to use flashing headlamp(s)?

Does this Federal Standard prohibit states from promulgating regulations governing control of flashing headlamps.

Thanking you in advance for your prompt reply, I remain

Ernest D. Mathews Chief, Field Services

ID: 11421ZTV

Mr. K. J. Sato
President & CEO
Tekno-Info Corporation
500 Trotwood Place
Louisville, KY 40245-4071

Re: Request for Clarification of S5.1.2(b)

Dear Mr. Sato:

This responds to your letter of December 4, 1995, to Kenneth Hardie of this agency, asking for interpretation of paragraph S5.1.2(b) of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. Your request covers both the present version and the amended one which becomes effective March 1, 1996.

Paragraph S5.1.2 (1996) requires plastic materials used for optical parts such as lenses and reflectors to conform to SAE Recommended Practice J576 JUL91. However, exceptions to this general requirement are set out in subparagraphs (a) through (g). You ask whether plastic materials which conform to J576 JUL91 except for one of the appearance requirements (e.g. delamination) "are considered in compliance with S5.1.2(b) and can be used for lenses (other than those incorporating reflex reflectors)."

S5.1.2(b) states that "[a]fter the outdoor exposure test, the haze and loss of surface luster of plastic materials (other than those incorporating reflex reflectors) used for outer lenses shall not be greater than 30 percent haze as measured by ASTM D 1003-92, Haze and Luminous Transmittance of Transparent Plastic;." The exception to paragraph S5.1.2 set out in S5.1.2(b) is the substitution of the 1992 version of ASTM D 1003 for the 1977 version specified in J576 JUL91. This exception does not affect the basic requirement of paragraph S5.1.2 that plastic materials meet all the appearance requirements of J576 JUL91 including retention of lamination.

You have asked whether this clarification also relates to paragraph S5.1.2(b) as in effect until March 1, 1996. The answer is yes. Paragraph S5.1.2 of the current version is identical to the later version except that it refers to the May 1970 version of SAE J576, while the reference in S5.1.2(b) is to the 1961 version of ASTM D 1003. SAE J576c May 1970 also requires that no delamination appear after the outdoor exposure test.

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

Sincerely,

Samuel J. Dubbin Chief Counsel ref:108 d:2/1/96

ID: nht89-1.83

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/28/89

FROM: THOMAS A. COZ -- SENIOR ATTORNEY NORTH AMERICAN VAN LINES

TO: OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION

TITLE: HIGH-MOUNTED TRAILER STOP LAMPS/TURN SIGNALS

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 08/24/89 FROM STEPHEN P. WOOD -- NHTSA TO THOMAS A. COZ -- NORTH AMERICAN VAN LINES; REDBOOK A34; STANDARD 108; LETTER DATED 01/13/88 FROM L.F. ROLLIN -- DEPARTMENT OF CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL TO THOMAS A. COZ -- NORTH AMERICAN VAN LINES

TEXT: Dear Sir or Madam:

The purpose of this letter is to request an opinion regarding North American Van Lines, Inc. ("NAVL") use of high-mounted stop lamps/turn signals on some of our interstate highway trailer fleet. I raise this question in light of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 ("FMVSS 108") which specifies mounting heights for brake lights and turn signals on interstate motor carrier equipment.

To assist you in rendering your opinion, I enclose a photograph of a NAVL trailer which has been retrofitted with high-mounted stop lamps/turn signals on both sides of the trailer. In addition, I enclose a copy of "Final Specs," dated January 19, 198 7, pursuant to which NAVL ordered 50 trailers from the Kentucky Manufacturing Company. NAVL has received these new trailers from Kentucky Manufacturing, and they all have the high-mounted stop lamps/turn signals specified in Item 14 of the three-page "F inal Specs" sheets. Finally, I enclose a copy of a VHS-type videocassette which shows the operation of high-mounted stop lamps/turn signals on the highway.

NAVL believes these supplemental high-mounted stop lamps/turn signals are permitted under FMVSS 108. For purposes of clarity, however, NAVL hereby requests your written opinion on this question. Please send your written opinion in response to this l etter to me at the address listed above.

If you have any questions or if you need further clarification of what NAVL is asking you to do, please contact me directly. My telephone number is (219) 429-2224.

Thank you for your assistance in this matter.

Sincerely,

ENCLOSURES

ID: 13962-1.pja

Mr. R.H. Anderson
Senior Manager of Engineering
Landoll Corporation
1900 North Street
P.O. Box 111
Marysville, Kansas 66508

Dear Mr. Anderson:

This responds to your letter concerning our December 10, 1996, interpretation to your associate Mr. Thomas Joyce, regarding Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 224, "Rear Impact Protection." I apologize for the delay in responding. You asked us to reexamine the letter as it would affect your tilt bed trailers.

As we stated in the December 10 letter, to be excluded from Standard 224, work performing equipment on the vehicle must reside in or move through the area specified for the underride guard "while the vehicle is in transit." The quoted language means during the period that the vehicle itself is traveling over the road. Your letter appears to assume that because your frame rails are work performing equipment that move through the area specified for the underride guard, the special purpose vehicle exclusion must apply to your trailers. As the regulation is currently written, that is not so. The fact that the frame rails move out of that area while your vehicle is in transit and, as your letter says, cannot move through that area during transit, means that the exclusion does not apply to your vehicles.

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.

I understand that you and Paul Atelsek of my staff discussed possible engineering solutions that you have not yet explored. If you need further assistance, please contact Mr. Atelsek at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
Enclosure: 49 CFR Part 555
ref:205

d:7/17/97

ID: nht73-4.5

DATE: 04/10/73

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

TO: Toyo Kogyo Co., Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of March 3, 1973, in which you ask two questions regarding your company's practice of maintaining records on replacement parts for vehicles you manufacture. You appear to be under the impression that the retention of such records is necessary for purposes of certification to the Federal motor vehicle safety standards.

There are no requirements for the certification or replacement vehicle parts, unless the parts themselves are subject to a safety standard. At present, Standards Nos. 106, 108, 109, 116, 117, 205, 211, and 213 apply to items of motor vehicle equipment, and it is only with respect to replacement equipment subject to these standards that certification is required under Section 114 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act.

Moreover, the NHTSA does not have specific requirements that manufacturers maintain records as to those equipment items that must be certified. Of course, good manufacturing practice would dictate that manufacturers maintain sufficient records to show that "due care" was exercised in manufacturing the items to conform to the standards. This is the legal standard applicable to manufacturers under the Safety Act. But it is for each manufacturer to determine for himself the extent to which such records should be maintained.

It is possible that any replacement equipment item, whether or not subject to a standard, may be found to contain a safety-related defect. The discovery of a defect by either the

manufacturer or the NHTSA will result in the manufacturer notifying purchasers of whom he has knowledge. (Section 113 of the Safety Act, 15 USC 1402) Here again, good manufacturing practice would require a manufacturer to maintain sufficient records that if a defect is found, the manufacturer will be able to determine the extent of his production in which the defect may exist. A manufacturer who has such records will be able thereby to minimize his burden of notification. However, as in the case of certification, the NHTSA does not have requirements for record retention that manufacturers must follow. It is for the manufacturer to determine the extent to which he should maintain records for these purposes.

ID: nht90-1.3

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: 01/01/90 EST

FROM: Charles T. Thomas -- Prestige Travel

TO: Chief Counsel -- NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 7-3-90 to Charles T. Thomas from P. J. Rice; (A35; Part 591) TEXT:

In September, 1988, I returned to the United States after working in Saudi Arabia for a period of approximately twelve (12) years. While in Saudi Arabia and during November 1987, I purchased a 1985 Jaguar from a Saudi national with the intent to ship th e car to the United States for my own personal use when I decided to return to the United States.

When I was preparing to return, I was advised by the American Consulate in Dhahran that I would not be able to ship the car to the States because of the EPA pollution restrictions and because there were no agencies approved by the EPA to convert the car to U.S. pollution safeguard standards. As I did not want to give up the car, I shipped it to Germany to have it held until I could arrange to have it shipped to the States. On arrival in the United States in September 1988, I contacted the EPA and was t old that there were no agencies approved to convert the car. The car is still in Germany.

During March 1990, I was told that the EPA had changed their requirements that required mandatory conversion of imported vehicles if certain conditions were met regarding the purchase of the vehicle. I applied for a waiver for having to have the car con verted to EPA standards and my application was approved.

When preparing to have the car shipped, I was informed that the DOT has set forth certain requirements for importing cars. I have received a copy of DECLARATION OMB 2127-0002 and, under Section 10 of the Declaration, I find that my "assigned place of em ployment has been outside the United States at all times between October 31, 1988 and the Custom entry date listed". This is the only condition I cannot meet and I request a formal waiver of this requirement for my circumstance.

I need my car for my own personal use and I cannot afford to purchase a car at this time. Also, I am a professional engineer and have spent approximately 30 years of my career in resident in foreign countries. I have already made arrangements to have m y car converted to DOT safety standards at my expense. I feel that a consideration to waiver the above requirement is warranted.

Thank you for your consideration and I look forward to your prompt decision regarding my request.

ID: nht95-7.46

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: November 28, 1995

FROM: Samuel J. Dubbin -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Phyllis Armstrong -- General Sales Manager, Saturn of Puyallup, Inc., Washington

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 5/17/95 LETTER FROM Phyllis Armstrong to Phillip Reckt; Also attached to 7/20/89 letter from Kathleen DeMeter to B.L. Swank

TEXT: Dear Ms. Armstrong:

This is in response to the letter in which you requested this office to confirm in writing that the information you received from Mr. Richard Morse, Chief of the Odometer Fraud Staff of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), concerning the proper completion of odometer disclosure statements for Saturn vehicles that have been towed. The question arises because the odometer on the Saturn is designed not to register miles when the vehicle is being towed.

NHTSA's interpretation of the Truth in Mileage Act of 1986 ("TIMA," 49 U.S.C. Chapter 327) and the regulations implementing TIMA (49 CFR Part 580) is that when a vehicle has been towed, but its odometer is not capable of registering towed mileage, the proper way to complete the odometer disclosure statement is to record the number of miles showing on the odometer. It is permissible in such a situation for the transferor to certify that this number is the actual mileage on the vehicle, assuming there are no other reasons to believe that the reading on the odometer does not reflect actual miles driven.

The situation you describe is comparable to that in which the odometer is disconnected and the drive wheels of the vehicle are off the pavement while it is being towed. In a 1989 interpretation letter, the Chief Counsel of NHTSA stated that when the vehicle is being towed with its drive wheels off the pavement and the odometer disconnected, the mileage driven while being towed does not count, and need not be added to the mileage showing on the odometer. That letter also stated that the transferor may certify in this circumstance that the mileage on the odometer, exclusive of the towed mileage, is the actual mileage. I have enclosed a copy of that letter for your information.

P2

I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any further questions on Federal odometer disclosure requirements, you may contact Mr. Morse or Ms. Eileen Leahy, an attorney on my staff, at the above address. You may reach Ms. Leahy at (202) 366-5263, and Mr. Morse at (202) 366-4761.

Sincerely,