ID: GF002565

Tony Dosmann, President
Dec-O-Art, Inc.
3914 Lexington Park Drive
Elkhart, IN 46514-1194




Dear Mr. Dosmann:

This responds to your letter in which you requested an interpretation of certain requirements in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 110, Tire Selection and Rims and 49 CFR Part 567, Certification. Both regulations require permanently affixed labels. You ask us to explain the meaning of "permanent".

In previous letters of interpretation, we have explained that specifying precisely how a label is to be affixed could be design restrictive. However, when the agency requires a permanently affixed label for a vehicle, the label must be affixed in a manner that would make it likely to stay attached and legible during the lifetime of the vehicle, under normal conditions. We have previously stated that a label affixed to the vehicle using adhesives would be considered adequate. Finally, in previous letters we cautioned that labels should not be attached in a manner where they can be easily detached. I have enclosed copies of several relevant letters.

I hope you find this information helpful. If you need further assistance, please contact George Feygin of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

Enclosure
ref:110
d.4/15/05

ID: nht74-1.43

DATE: 04/28/74

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; E. T. Driver; NHTSA

TO: Mark Bedrossyan

COPYEE: L. OWEN

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of March 21 to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration concerning your "Straight Ahead" directional signal for motor vehicles.

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. "Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment," permits lamps, reflective devices or other motor vehicle equipment in addition to those that are required (headlights, parking lamps, turn signal lamps, etc.) providing that the effectiveness of the required devices is not impaired. It does not appear that your device would impair the effectiveness of the required lamps; therefore, it would be permitted, either as original equipment, or as an aftermarket item.

Since the performance aspects of your device are not covered by Standard No. 108, the individual States are free to regulate the sale and use of your device. If your "Straight Ahead" signal flashes, its use would probably be prohibited in most of the States, because of their restrictions on flashing lights for motor vehicles.

Thank you for your interest in highway safety.

Not controlled

ATTACH.

ATLANTIC ELECTRONICS LABORATORIES

March 21, 1979

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Washington, D.C.

Gentlemen:

Subject: "Straight Ahead"

Directional Signal for Motor Vehicles

Over two decades ago, the use of electrical (Illegible Word) signals on motor vehicles became mandatory nation-wide, this decision has proved both useful and effective in preventing accidents.

It is believed there is room for an additional device, and to fill this need, we have designed the "Straight-Ahead" electrical directional signal for cars and trucks, which is controlled from the dashboard by a switch. This is intended to be used at intersections and certain other road conditions. (Please see the inclosed pictorial representations).

I have already installed such a device on my own car on an experimental basis.

It is respectfully requested that you evaluate this idea, and permit its use, if deemed appropriate, since we plan to market it in kit form.

New car manufacturers are being contacted to bring this new idea to their attention.

An (Illegible Word) reply would be greatly appreciated.

Very truly yours,

Mark B. Bedrossyan

(Graphics omitted)

ID: nht81-1.12

DATE: 02/09/81

FROM: DONALD W. VIERIMAA -- DIRECTOR OF ENGINEERING TRUCK TRAILER MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION

TO: FRANK BERNDT -- CHIEF COUNSEL NHTSA

TITLE: EXCLUSION OF THE TOWBAR OF A PERMANENT TRAILER DOLLY FROM THE FMVSS 108 LENGTH CRITERIA

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 03/10/81, FROM FRANK BERNDT -- NHTSA TO DONALD W. VIERIMAA, NOA 30, REDBOOK A22, STANDARD 108; LETTER DATED 04/04/73 FROM RICHARD B. DYSON -- NHTSA TO PAUL K. WILSON

TEXT: Dear Mr. Berndt:

S4.1.1.3 of FMVSS 108, which does not require intermediate side marker devices on vehicles less that 30 feet long, was interpreted by your office in 1973 as excluding converter dollies and their integral towbars from the overall length determination. Although in our industry, converter dollies, permanent dollies, and their towbars are often indistinguishable in utility, appearance, and length, neither the 1973 letter from the Chief Counsel's Office nor wording in FMVSS 108 specifically excludes permanent dolly towbars from the 30 foot overall length determination. However, S4.3.1.3 of FMVSS 108 does state that "On a trailer, the amber front side marker reflectors and amber front side marker lamps may be located as far forward as practicable exclusive of the trailer tongue." (emphasis added). This language would appear to exclude the towbar from the length determination.

Since permanent and converter dolly towbars are similar in utility and appearance and since lamps need not be located on the towbar in any case, we request your concurrance that both should be excluded from the overall length determination.

Sincerely yours,

ENCLS

ID: 1982-3.26

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 11/30/82

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: CAPACITY OF TEXAS INC.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Dear Mr. Wright:

This responds to your letter of October 11, 1982, concerning regulations specifying the type of steering system required in vehicles. In particular, you asked if a mechanical link is required in the steering system or whether a hydraulic system is acceptable. As explained below, a manufacturer can use either a mechanical or hydraulic system to meet the requirements of the applicable Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards.

There are two Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards that apply to vehicle steering systems: Standard No 203, Impact Protection for the Driver Steering Control System, and Standard No. 204, Steering Column Rearward Displacement. Both standards, copies of which are enclosed, establish performance requirements to protect the driver from steering column-related injuries in a crash. Any type of steering system, either mechanical or hydraulic, can be used as long as it meets the applicable requirements of those standards.

If you have any further questions please let me know.

Sincerely,

Original Signed By Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Room 5219 400-7th Street Southwest Washington, D.C. 20590

I have been investigating all regulations pertaining to the type of steering required in vehicles for (trucks, tractors) highway and off-highway use.

It is my understanding there is no type of regulations requiring a mechanical link in the system, and that a straight hydraulic system is acceptable.

I contacted Steve Oesch, from your department and he researched the issue and found no reference to the type of system allowed.

I would appreciate a letter from you confirming that there are no regulations or requirements that require any certain type of steering arrangement.

Thank you, Sincerely yours,

Gene Wright Vice-President, Manufacturing CAPACITY OF TEXAS, INC.

ID: 7935

The Honorable Connie Mack
United States Senate
1342 Colonial Boulevard, Suite 27
Fort Myers, FL 33907

Dear Senator Mack:

Thank you for your letter of December 12, 1994, addressed to the Intergovernmental & Consumer Affairs office of this Department. You forwarded to us a letter from your constituent, Mr. Howard J. Levy, Vice- President, Used Tire International, of Deerfield Beach, Florida.

Mr. Levy expressed concern in his letters to you and this agency, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), about a proposed bill in the Puerto Rico Senate which would require that used tires imported into Puerto Rico have not less than 5/32 inch tread depth and which would impose a tax of $10 per tire on such imports. Mr. Levy is concerned that the proposed bill would mean the end of the used tire industry on the island. In his letter to this agency, he asked, "Does NHTSA have jurisdiction over these laws in Puerto Rico or does the Puerto Rican Senate control the regulations over highway safety," and requested our help in this matter.

We have carefully evaluated Mr. Levy's concerns. As discussed in our enclosed response to Mr. Levy, however, we have concluded that the laws and regulations that we administer will not be of help to him. Since our opinion is limited to consideration of the laws and regulations that we administer, we have suggested to Mr. Levy that he may wish to consult a private attorney concerning whether the proposed Puerto Rico bill raises other legal issues that are relevant to his concerns.

Sincerely,

Philip R. Recht Chief Counsel

Enclosure ref:109 d:1/17/95

ID: nht70-1.27

DATE: 10/28/70

FROM: ROGER H. COMPTON -- NHTSA OFFICE OF OPERATING SYSTEMS MOTOR VEHICLE PROGRAMS

TO: E. W. BERNITT -- VICE PRESIDENT SAFETY AND QUALITY ASSURANCE AMERICAN MOTORS CORPORATION JEEP CORPORATION

TITLE: NONE

TEXT: Dear Mr. Bernitt:

This is in reply to your letter of October 12, 1970, to Mr. Charles A. Baker of this office in which you requested an interpretation of the phrase "effective projected illuminated area."

Class A turn signal lamps are required by Section S3.1 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, which references SAE Standard J588d in Tables I and III for these lamps. The requirements for the illuminated area of a turn signal lamp are specified in J588d as follows:

"The effective projected illuminated area measured on a plane at right angles to the axis of the lamp must not be less than 12 sq. in. for Class A and 3 1/2 sq. in. for Class B."

In the 45 degree visibility requirements, this standard further states "To be considered visible, the lamp must provide an unobstructed projected illuminated area of outer lens surface, excluding reflex, . . .".

Our interpretation of effective projected illuminated area follows: The effective projected illuminated area is that area of the lens measured on a plane at right angles to the axis of the lamp, excluding reflex reflector, which is not obstructed by an opaque object such as a mounting screw, mounting ring or an ornamental bezel or trim.

The above interpretation allows the area of rings or other configurations (raised portions) molded in the lens to be considered part of the total effective area, even if this area does not contribute significantly to the total light output.

Sincerely,

ID: nht92-4.46

DATE: August 7, 1992

FROM: S. Watanabe -- Manager, Automotive Equipment Legal & Homologation Sect., Stanley Electric Co., Ltd.; Signature by P.P. F. Nakayama

TO: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: Re: Location of R/C and CHMSL equipped on passenger cars

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 8/21/92 from Paul J. Rice to S. Watanabe (A39; Std. 108)

TEXT:

We would like to ask you about the legality of 2 mounting locations (as shown in Fig. 1 and Fig. 2 in attachment) of R/C (tail & stop lamp) and CHMSL (center high mounted stop lamp) equipped on passenger cars for U.S. of less than 80 inches overall width.

In Fig. 1, for R/C, its height above road surface measured from center of item on vehicle at curb weight is 72 inches, and CHMSL is located 3 inches below the rear window. Wlile in Fig. 2, the height of R/C is 72 inches same as Fig. 1, CHMSL is located above the rear window and between two R/C located on each side of the vertical centerline.

We think the mounting locations of these lamps shown in Fig. 1 & 2 conform to the location requirements of table IV in FMVSS 108.

It would be very much appreciated for us to have your opinion about the legality of locations of these lamps.

(Drawings omitted)

ID: nht78-4.4

DATE: 02/02/78

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; John Womack; NHTSA

TO: Eagle Equipment Company

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Our Regional Office in San Francisco has forwarded to us for reply your request for an interpretation of 49 CFR Part 580, Odometer Disclosure Requirements.

The question you raised is who executes the odometer statement when the vehicles are owned by and registered in your name, but turned over to a leasing company who in turn sells the vehicles. Section 408 of the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act requires each transferor of a motor vehicle to issue an odometer disclosure statement to each transferee. The transferor is defined in 49 CFR Section 580.3 as "any person who transfers his ownership in a motor vehicle . . . " Therefore, you as the owner of the vehicle are required to execute the statement. However, since you never see the vehicles, but rely on the leasing company to sell them for you, you may also rely on the leasing company to act as your agent and execute the odometer statements for you. Since you are the legal owner of the vehicles, it is your responsibility to execute the statements. If you are concerned about the possiblity that thee leasing company may alter the odometer or make an improper disclosure, you may find it advisable to protect yourself by requiring the leasing company to indemnify you in the event of liability under the Act.

ID: 7906

The Honorable Bob Graham
United States Senate
Post Office Box 3050
Tallahassee, FL 32515

Dear Senator Graham:

Thank you for your letter of December 15, 1994, addressed to John Womack of this office. You forwarded to us a letter from your constituent, Mr. Howard Levy, Vice-President, Used Tire International, of Deerfield Beach, Florida.

Mr. Levy expressed concern in his letters to you and this agency, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) about a proposed bill in the Puerto Rico Senate which would require that used tires imported into Puerto Rico have not less than 5/32 inch tread depth and which would impose a tax of $10 per tire on such imports. Mr. Levy is concerned that the proposed bill would mean the end of the used tire industry on the island. In his letter to this agency, he asked "Does NHTSA have jurisdiction over these laws in Puerto Rico or does the Puerto Rican Senate control the regulations over highway safety," and requested our help in this matter.

We have carefully evaluated Mr. Levy's concerns. As discussed in our enclosed response to Mr. Levy, however, we have concluded that the laws and regulations that we administer will not be of help to him. Since our opinion is limited to consideration of the laws and regulations that we administer, we have suggested to Mr. Levy that he may wish to consult a private attorney concerning whether the proposed Puerto Rico bill raises other legal issues that are relevant to his concerns.

Sincerely,

Philip R. Recht Chief Counsel

Enclosure ref:109 d:1/17/95

ID: nht92-8.49

DATE: February 19, 1992

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Richard W. Balsama, Esq.

TITLE: None

TEXT:

In response to your inquiry concerning the applicability of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards to new motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment offered for sale in the territories of the United States, I refer you to the definition of "State" in section 102 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1391):

(8) "State" includes each of the several States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Guam, the Virgin Islands, the Canal Zone, and American Samoa.

Section 108 of the Act (15 U.S.C. 1397) in turn provides that a new motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment may not be offered for sale in the United States unless it conforms to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards.

Based on these provisions, the answer to your inquiry is that the vehicles and equipment in question must conform to the standards.