ID: nht72-6.6

DATE: 11/07/72

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Francis Armstrong; NHTSA

TO: Urban Economics Research Group

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in further reply to your letter of August 31, 1972, to Mr. Bradford Crittenden, Regional Administrator, NHTSA, San Francisco, California, that has been referred to this office.

It appears from your letter that persons will not be able to ride in the device you plan to manufacture while the vehicle is in motion. If this is the case, the device would not be subject to the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards at this time.

If this is not the case, however, we will need more information, including pictures or drawings, if possible, in order for us to accurately determine whether federal requirements are applicable.

A manufacturer of such a device would be considered a manufacturer of automotive equipment within the meaning of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, copy enclosed. The device and mountings would be expected to be free of safety related defects.

If you have further questions, we will be pleased to answer them.

ID: nht72-5.4

DATE: 11/22/72

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Motor Coach Industries Inc.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of October 23, 1972, in which you ask whether it is permissible under the Certification regulations for you to list alternative tire sizes and gross axle weight ratings on certification labels for vehicles which you sell without tires, but on which you apparently install them before delivery. You indicate that the tires are supplied by the customer, which he either owns, leases, or purchases from you.

Under the Certification regulation, you may if you wish list alternative tire sizes, and alternative gross vehicle or gross axle weight ratings, as you described in your letter. If you install the tires, regardless of whether they are owned by the vehicle purchaser, leased, or purchased from you, the tire you install should be one of the alternative sizes listed on the certification label.

ID: mema.ztv

Lawrence F. Henneberger, Esq.
Christopher H. Grigorian, Esq.
Arent Fox Kintner Plotkin & Kahn, PLLC
1050 Connecticut Ave., NW
Washington, D.C. 20036-5339

Dear Mr. Henneberger and Mr. Gregorian:

This is in reply to your letter of July 29, 2003, on behalf of your client, the Motor & Equipment Manufacturers Association (MEMA), requesting an interpretation of one provision of NHTSAs early warning reporting (EWR) regulation, 49 CFR 579.27(c).

Section 579.27 requires manufacturers to which the section applies to report information about each incident involving one or more deaths in the United States and in, certain instances, in a foreign country "that is identified in a claim against and received by the manufacturer which notice alleges or proves that the death was caused by a possible defect in the manufacturers vehicle or equipment." (Section 579.27(b)). Among the information that must be provided, the manufacturer must separately report "the number of injuries for incidents occurring in the United States" (Section 579.27(c)).

You stated that "a literal reading of subsection (c) of the final rule indicates that in the event an equipment manufacturer reports an incident involving a death, it should also provide in its report the number of injuries, if any, if the incident occurred in the United States." This is correct. You also noted that the language of the final rule is not the same as that in the NPRM. This, too, is correct. As you know, final rules frequently include changes from the NPRM. We believe that the final rule is within the scope of the statute and the proposed rule.

Thank you for your inquiry. If you have any questions, please call Andrew DiMarsico (202) -366-5263.

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:579
d.10/9/03

ID: nht90-2.4

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: APRIL 8, 1990

FROM: CHARLES M.A. SAEDT

TO: NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 4-25-90 LETTER TO CHARLES M.A. SAEDT FROM STEPHEN P. WOOD; (A35; IMPORT) TEXT:

I am a nonresident who stays temporary in Maryland (from may 88 till June 1991).

I am a member of the Dutch Armed forces.

It is my intention to buy a Volkswagen Jetta diesel (European specification) straight from the factory in Germany and then ship this car to the USA.

I will not sell the car and I will take this car back to The Netherlands in June 1991.

I understand that I need to get some kind of exemption to do so when I import this car temporary to the USA.

Please inform me about the exact steps that I have to undertake to import this vehicle temporary to the USA without any problems.

I hope I will hear from you soon.

ID: nht74-3.42

DATE: 05/14/74

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

TO: Dave's Tire & Fuel Oil Corp.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letters of March 21 and April 22, 1974, in which you ask whether a tire sold as a "blemish" must be guaranteed for workmanship, material, and road hazards.

There are no Federal requirements that manufacturers guarantee blemish (or non-blemish) tires. Such guarantees are within the discretion of each manufacturer. However, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 109 (49 CFR @ 571.109) requires all new passenger car tires to meet minimum safety performance levels for high speed performance, endurance, strength, bead unseating, physical dimensions and tradewear indicators. These requirements apply similarly to both blemish and non-blemish tires.

We have enclosed for your information a copy of the Federal Trade Commission's Tire Advertising and Labeling Guides which contain in Guide 11 requirements for the labeling of blemish tires.

ENC.

ID: nht72-1.11

DATE: 05/04/72

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

TO: British Leyland Motors, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of April 19 calling our attention to Mr. Whitehead's letter of February 8 addressed to Docket No. 70-27. We regret the delay in answering Mr. Whitehead's question. Communications addressed to the docket, which arrive in large volume, are normally filed without reply. We request that letters requesting a reply be addressed to the Administrator, not the docket, so that they will be promptly assigned for action.

Mr. Whitehead asked whether a display of "red letters" when the lamp is lit would satisfy the proposed revision of Standard No. 105, and recommended that the words "red lens" be deleted from paragraphs S4.3.2c and S4.7.2d of the proposed amendment to Standard No. 105. The red letters described appear to satisfy the intent of the proposal, and the suggestion for rewording will be considered when the final rule is issued.

ID: nht71-5.42

DATE: 10/14/71

FROM: E. T. DRIVER -- NHTSA; SIGNATURE BY CHARLES A. BAKER

TO: Cox Tire Machinery Company, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Your letter of September 29, 1971, to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration requesting an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 117, has been referred to this office for reply.

Within S5 of Standard No. 117, it states that retreaded tires must conform to S4.2.1 of Standard No. 109. S4.2.1 of Standard No. 109 requires a treadwear indicator that will provide a visual indication that the tire has worn to a tread depth of 1/16 inch. For your information, we have enclosed copies of Standards No. 109 and No. 117.

ENCLS.

COX Fire Machinery Company, Inc.

SEPTEMBER 29, 1971

Highway Safety Bureau Federal Highway Administration

Gentlemen:

Our company is engaged in the sale of retreading equipment and in this business we are constantly calling on tire dealers. A number of our customers have asked whether after retreading standards go into effect will wear indicators be necessary in retreaded tires.

I would appreciate an interpetation of the MVSS 117 in this regard.

Yours very truly,

J. T. Flynt President

ID: 2840o

Mr. C. I. Nielsen III
Vice President
General Sales Manager
Wesbar Corporation
P. O. Box 577
West Bend, WI 53095

Dear Mr. Nielsen:

This is in reply to your letter of February 17, 1988, asking for an interpretation of paragraph S4.l.l.7 of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, which applies to turn signal lamps. In pertinent part this section requires turn signal lamps for vehicles whose overall width is 80 inches or more to "have an effective projected luminous area not less than 12 square inches." Your design has a lens area of 12 square inches incorporating an integral Class A reflex reflector, and you have asked whether you may include the "illuminated (by the turn signal bulb) reflex reflector portion of the turn signal lens" in your calculation.

We assume from your letter that the light shines through the reflector when the turn signal is activated, and that the reflector is not opaque. In this instance, the reflector area may be included as part of "the effective projected luminous area" within the meaning of S4.l.l.7.

I hope that this answers your question.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

ref:108 d:3/l6/88

ID: nht70-2.11

DATE: 06/03/70

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; George C. Nield; NHTSA

TO: Toyo Kogyo Co. Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Thank you for your letter of May 20 in which you ask "whether the Station Wagon should be construed as a Passenger Car or a Multipurpose Passenger Vehicle".

You are correct in your interpretation that a station wagon "does not normally fall under" the category of multipurpose passenger vehicle. However, if a station wagon "is constructed on a truck chassis" or "with special features for occasional off-road operation", such as four-wheel drive, it would be considered a multipurpose passenger vehicle. I hope this clarifies the matter for you.

ID: 1917y

Ms. Gay M. Arthur
20096 Park Hill Dr.
Barrington, IL 60010

Dear Ms Arthur:

This is in reply to your letter to Taylor Vinson of this Office. You have asked if "detachable, lighted novelty items are legally allowable on passenger cars," specifically "for the exterior roof."

You appear to have in mind an item of aftermarket equipment, that is to say, an item which is not original equipment on a car, but one that the vehicle owner purchases during the course of his ownership. There is no restriction under Federal law as to roof-mounted novelty items if they are installed by the vehicle owner. If they are installed by a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business, they are permissible as long as they do not render inoperative, in whole or in part, equipment that is installed pursuant to a Federal motor vehicle safety standard. For example, if installation of the novelty light affected the wiring and hence the performance of lighting equipment installed on the vehicle by its manufacturer, that would be a "rendering inoperative" within the meaning of the prohibition.

Use of the novelty light would be determined by the laws of a State in which it is operated. We are unable to advise you on State laws, and suggest that, for further information, you consult the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA 22203.

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel ref:l08 d:7/24/89