ID: aiam3681

Dear Mr. Inoue: This responds to your February 16, 1983, letter to Joseph Innes of thi agency regarding permissible methods for displaying Uniform Tire Quality Grading (UTQG) information on the sidewall of tires. Your first proposed alternative would delete the treadwear grade number, but not the word 'TREADWEAR' itself, from the format established in Option 3 of Figure 1, 49 CFR 575.104. The second proposed alternative would delete both the word 'TREADWEAR' and the numerical grade from the format specified in Option 3, Figure 1. Your proposed alternatives would be used only on tires produced in molds manufactured before August 8, 1983.; In the agency's February 7, 1983, notice suspending the treadwea portion of the UTQGS, tires produced in molds manufactured prior to August 8 were required to display UTQG information on tire sidewalls in one of the formats specified in Figure 1 or in Figure 6 of 49 CFR 575.104. Your first proposed alternative is clearly different from each of the permitted formats. The permitted formats require either that the word 'TREADWEAR' must appear next to the treadwear grade on the tire, or neither the word nor the numerical grade must appear. Your first alternative could confuse tire purchasers, since the display format could be interpreted as attributing the grade which appears after the work (sic) 'TRACTION' to both the treadwear and traction performance of the tire. Therefore, your first proposed alternative would not be permitted under 49 CFR 575.104.; Your second proposed alternative is quite similar to one permitte format, Option 3 in Figure 6. The only difference between your second alternative and Option 3 is that the traction information is centered in the format in Option 3, while it is slightly off-center in your alternative. Your second alternative should in no way be misleading to tire purchasers, however. Further, nothing in our regulations specifies precise centering of the traction information.; Any inconsistency between your proposed format and the permitted one i so small that the agency would, as a matter of prosecutorial discretion, make no attempt to enforce the UTQGS format requirement when your second alternative is used.; If you have further questions on this matter, please contact us. Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel

ID: nht75-3.23

DATE: 08/25/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Compact Van Equipment Co. Inc.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of July 17, 1975, inquiring as to the regulations to which you may be subject by manufacturing and selling interior shelving, interior safety bulkheads, and roof mounted ladder carriers for Ford Econoline vans.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has issued regulations covering the alteration of completed, certified motor vehicles before their sale to a purchaser for purposes other than resale. (49 CFR @@ 567.7 and 567.8; copy enclosed). Under these regulations, an alteration which either (1) invalidates a vehicle's existing weight ratings or (2) involves installation of other than "readily attachable" components gives rise to a responsibility for affixing an alterer label, which identifies the alterer and contains some additional information.

From the description of your products, it appears that no special expertise or tools are required for their installation. They would also seemingly not affect a vehicle's weight ratings. If this assessment is correct, we would accept as reasonable a manufacturer's determination that they are "readily attachable", and that an alterer label is therefore not required when these products are installed.

The only Safety Standard that might apply to your products is Standard No. 302, Flammability of Interior Materials (copy enclosed).

In addition, as items of motor vehicle equipment, your products are subject to the requirements of the National Motor Vehicle and Traffic Safety Act of 1966, as amended, and must therefore be free from safety-related defects.

If you have any further questions, feel free to write again.

SINCERELY,

July 17, 1975

James Holtkamp Office of Chief Council National Highway & Safety Administration Department of Transportation

Persuant to our phone conversation of July 16, '75, I am inquiring about what regulations my company would be subject to when we begin to manufacture and sell interior shelving, interior safety bulkheads, and roof mounted ladder carriers for the small Ford Econoline type van truck.

I am aware of Motor Carrier Safety regulations regarding the use of safety bulkheads on vehicles engaged in inter-state commerce (U. S. Dept. of Transportation, Federal Highway Adm. Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety regulation, Title 49, Chapter 111, subchapter B., Part 393-104

Also, I am aware of certification requirements for vehicles, partiall completed vehicles, and bodies and trailers.

However, to my knowledge there are no regulations pertaining to the type of equipment I am requesting further information on.

Would you be kind enough to pass on to me any information that I should have and outline any regulations that I might be subject to as a manufacturer, or installer of this type equipment.

Please note, that normally my company would not take title to any vehicle that our equipment is manufactured for.

Wade H. Barrineau, 111 President

ID: nht94-2.8

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: March 31, 1994

FROM: Mark M. McGregor

TO: Office of Chief Counsel -- NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 4/28/94 from John Womack to Mark M. McGregor (A42; Std. 108; VSA Sec. 108(a)(2)(A))

TEXT:

I have been instructed to contact your office in an effort to determine any federal regulations that may apply to a new invention, which I wish to market in the United States.

This invention is a "Safe Driving Distance Indicator Light." It is a simple electric light that can either be built into the rear of an automobile or installed on the rear bumper. This light would emit one color (possibly green), which could be seen by the driver of a following automobile. If the following automobile is following closer than the "predetermined" safe distance, the indicator light that is attached to the lead automobile would change color, possibly from the original green color to red. This new color (red) would then be viewed by the following automobile, indicating that he is following at an unsafe (too close) distance.

The goal of this invention is to reduce the number of rear-end automobile accidents in the United States. The shape and size can vary from a small square device to a long, thin shape. The light would come on automatically as soon as the engine is start ed and automatically dimmed when the headlights are turned on. Refinements could be made by the manufacturer, such as incorporation of a manual or automatic adjustment for various road conditions or speeds. Although since the object of the apparatus is to act as a reminder or warning and not as an accurate measuring instrument, I feel that these would be unnecessary.

I am considering applying for a U.S. patent on this invention and would greatly appreciate it if you could advise me of any and all legal restrictions or regulations that would apply.

If further information is necessary, please feel free to contact me. Your prompt attention on this matter would be greatly appreciated.

ID: nht94-7.13

DATE: March 31, 1994

FROM: Mark M. McGregor

TO: Office of Chief Counsel -- NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 4/28/94 from John Womack to Mark M. McGregor (A42; Std. 108; VSA Sec. 108(a)(2)(A))

TEXT:

I have been instructed to contact your office in an effort to determine any federal regulations that may apply to a new invention, which I wish to market in the United States.

This invention is a "Safe Driving Distance Indicator Light." It is a simple electric light that can either be built into the rear of an automobile or installed on the rear bumper. This light would emit one color (possibly green), which could be seen by the driver of a following automobile. If the following automobile is following closer than the "predetermined" safe distance, the indicator light that is attached to the lead automobile would change color, possibly from the original green color to red. This new color (red) would then be viewed by the following automobile, indicating that he is following at an unsafe (too close) distance.

The goal of this invention is to reduce the number of rear-end automobile accidents in the United States. The shape and size can vary from a small square device to a long, thin shape. The light would come on automatically as soon as the engine is started and automatically dimmed when the headlights are turned on. Refinements could be made by the manufacturer, such as incorporation of a manual or automatic adjustment for various road conditions or speeds. Although since the object of the apparatus is to act as a reminder or warning and not as an accurate measuring instrument, I feel that these would be unnecessary.

I am considering applying for a U.S. patent on this invention and would greatly appreciate it if you could advise me of any and all legal restrictions or regulations that would apply.

If further information is necessary, please feel free to contact me. Your prompt attention on this matter would be greatly appreciated.

ID: 1985-02.5

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/28/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Jeffrey R. Miller; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Robert M. Levy

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Robert M. Levy Manager, Design Engineering Abex Corporation Signal-Stat Division P.O. Box 438 Somerset, New Jersey 08873-3492

Dear Mr. Levy:

This is in reply to your letter of February 25, 1985, to Frank Berndt, the former Chief Counsel of this agency, asking for clarification of an interpretation of Safety Standard No. 108 that tnis agency furnished last year to Wesbar Corp.

On May 16, 1984, Wesbar asked whether the correct minimum effective luminous lens area on stop lamps and turn signal lamps was 8 square inches or 12 square inches, when intended for use on trailers whose overall width is 80 inches or greater. This office advised Wesbar on July 3, 1984, that, as specified in SAE J586c for stop.lamps and SAE J588e for turn signal lamps, the answer was 8 square inches. Your letter calls to our attention the fact that these SAE standards require each stop and turn signal lamp to have a minimum of 12 square inches in those vehicle configurations where two stop or turn signal lamps are mounted on the same side of the vehicle and are closer to each other than 22 inches.

Thank you for calling this oversight to our attention. Indeed, SAE J586c and J588e establish this exception to the general minimum requirement of 8 square inches. We are furnishing a copy of this letter to Wesbar and apologize for any confusion that the earlier letter has caused.

Sincerely,

Jeffrey R. Miller Chief Counsel

cc: Mr. C.I. Nielsen III Vice President - Marketing Wesbar Corporation Box 577 West Bend, Wisconsin 53095

ID: nht79-4.49

DATE: 05/23/79

FROM: J. C. ECKHOLD DIRECTOR AUTOMOTIVE SAFETY OFFICE

TO: JOAN B. CLAYBROOK -- ADMINISTRATOR NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION

TITLE: REQUEST FOR CLARIFICATION OF DAYLIGHT CONDITIONS FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD 101-80; CONTROLS AND DISPLAYS (DOCKET NO. 1-18; NOTICE 13)

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 7/20/79 [EST] FROM FRANK BERNDT, CHIEF COUNSEL OF NHTSA TO J. C. ECKHOLD OF FORD MOTOR COMPANY

TEXT: In considering various aspects of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) 101-80 (43 Fed. Reg. 27541, dated June 26, 1978) Ford Motor Company (Ford) seeks clarification of certain portions of Section 5.3.3.

That portion of Section 5.3.3 for which Ford seeks clarification reads in pertinent part:

". . . The light intensity of each tell-tale shall not be variable and shall be such that, when activated, that tell-tale and its identification are visible to the driver under all daytime and nighttime conditions. . . ." (Emphasis added.)

Ford testing experience indicates that under certain possible, but infrequent, morning or evening sun lighting conditions the angle, intensity and color characteristics of sun lighting may cause transitory reflection characteristics that obscure either the intensity or color, or both, of the required tell-tale indicators at times when the angle of reflected sunlight is virtually the same as the viewing angle of the driver.

Because tell-tale illumination level may not be variable, tell-tale intensity must represent a compromise between daytime and nighttime visibility requirements.

Ford suggests that consideration be given to issuing clarifying language to specify that the situations as described are not intended to be included in the requirement that tell-tale indicators must be visible under all daytime and nighttime conditions.

Your early consideration of this request will be appreciated.

Very truly yours,

ID: nht72-6.9

DATE: 08/10/72

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Oshkosh Truck Corporation

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of June 30, 1972, requesting information on a proper course of action to take concerning your placement of incorrect information on certification labels.

The placement of incorrect information of the type you describe (an overstatement of gross axle weight rating) may be a "safety related defect" under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. This would be the case if loading the vehicle to the specified rating would result in an unsafe operating condition.

Whether a defect exists is to be determined in the first instance by the vehicle manufacturer. If you determine that a defect exists, section 113 of the Act (15 U.S.C. 1402) requires that you notify first purchasers by certified mail, describing the defect, its effect on safety, and measures to be taken to correct it. The determination that a defect exists can also be made independently by NHTSA, which would then order the manufacturer to send the required notification. Regulations issued by NHTSA (Defect Reports, 49 CFR Part 573) require manufacturers of vehicles having safety defects to submit certain information to NHTSA, and to compile a list of affected owners.

Replacing the improper labels, as you have suggested, would be an appropriate action to take to rectify this situation and satisfy the Certification regulations.

ID: nht94-4.100

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: December 7, 1994

FROM: Philip R. Recht -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Tom Determan -- Engineering Manager, Brownie Tank Mfg. Co.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 9/2/94 FROM TOM DETERMAN TO TAYLOR VINSON

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of September 2, 1994, to Taylor Vinson of this Office. You have inquired about the mounting height requirements specified in Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 for side marker lamps and reflex reflectors installed on t ank trucks.

You understand that "side marker lamps must be mounted at any height above 15" from ground level, and reflex reflectors must be mounted between 15" and 60" from ground level."

You are correct. Standard No. 108 (Tables II and IV) specifies that side reflex reflectors on trucks shall be mounted not less than 15 inches nor more than 60 inches above the road surface, and that side marker lamps must be mounted not less than 15 inc hes above the road surface. This means that side marker lamps may be placed at heights greater than 60 inches.

Noting your thought that enforcement personnel are mistakenly applying requirements for trailers to tank trucks of your customers, I would like to say that the requirements are the same for trailers, except that, under Table II which applies to trailers whose overall width is 80 inches or more, the rear side marker lamps are subject to the same 60-inch height limitation as the side reflex reflectors.

I hope that this is helpful in resolving your problem.

ID: nht72-3.19

DATE: 01/13/72

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Lawrence R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: Libbey-Owens-Ford Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: You have requested that Libbey-Owens-Ford Company be exempted from the requirements of Part 566. Your request is denied for the reasons set forth below.

You state that Libbey-Owens-Ford is a manufacturer of automotive safety glass which has been assigned a DOT number under the "certification alternative" of Standard No. 203. You draw an analogy to the exemption of tire manufacturers from the manufacturer identification regulation, based on your (Illegible Word) under other NHTSA regulations to submit (Illegible Words) meets the requirements of Part 566.

However, the analogy is incorrect in that manufacturers of glassing materials are not specifically required by Standard 205 to submit the data required by Part 566. If manufacturers meet the certification requirements of $ 114 of the Act, no admittal of information is required. If they do choose the certification alternative, as Libbey-Owens-Ford has done, it is still not clear that the requirements of Part 566 will be met.

By contract, under Part 574 submittal of information is (Illegible Word) for all covered tire manufacturers. Moreover, that regulation in its "Identification mark" occasion requires submittal of specific information which has been found to meet the requirements of Part 566.

The purpose of Part 566 is to establish a centrally organized system to collect information regarding the manufacturer's corporate status, mailing address, and items manufactured. Such a system has been found necessary for efficient enforcement of the Act as well as distribution of information to manufacturers. These purposes cannot be accomplished if individual manufacturers in particular industries are greater exemption from coverage.

ID: nht90-4.69

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: November 30, 1990

FROM: Leonard M. Anderson -- Vice President, Engineering, Miller Trailers, Inc.

TO: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 3-19-91 from Paul Jackson Rice to Leonard M. Anderson (A37; Part 565; Part 566); Also attached to letter dated 12-24-84 from Erika Z. Jones to Richard E. Bond (A29; Part 565); Also attached to letter dated 5-30-86 to A dministrator, Attention VIN- Coordinator NHTSA, from Richard E. Bond (OCC 769)

TEXT:

Miller Trailers, Inc. requests interpretation of the World Manufacturer Identifier (WMI) requirement in Part 565, Vehicle Identification Number-Content Requirements.

Oshkosh Truck Corporation, Oshkosh Wisconsin is currently in the process of purchasing the assets of Miller Trailers, Inc. Upon the finalization of this purchase, Miller Trailers, Inc. will become Oshkosh Trailer Division and the existing Miller Traile rs, Inc. will cease to exist as a manufacturing entity.

Miller Trailers, Inc. has a WMI which was assigned prior to the effective date of S-115. Our unique identifier is "1ML". Our specific question is whether our existing WMI can be continued when we become Oshkosh Trailer Division of Oshkosh Truck Corpora tion?

The personnel and the responsibility for certification of Miller's highway semi-trailers will continue to be the responsibility of these same personnel located at the same facilities whose identity will become Oshkosh Trailer Division.

Also, the responsibility for maintaining records showing first ownership will remain the responsibility of Oshkosh Trailer Division.

Oshkosh Truck Corporation has its own WMI, however, the vehicles manufactured by Oshkosh are primarily powered vehicles. Oshkosh has manufactured specialized trailers as a part of a military system, however, these products are not at all similar to the commercial highway trailers manufactured by Miller Trailers, Inc.

It is believed that the purchase of Miller Trailer's assets by Oshkosh Truck Corporation will be completed in December, 1990 at which time ongoing trailer production will be the responsibility of Oshkosh Trailer Division rather than Miller Trailers, Inc.

We would appreciate your prompt response to this matter.