ID: nht81-1.16

DATE: 02/19/81

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Titeflex, Industrial Products Groups

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your recent letter asking whether air compressor discharge hose lines would be considered "brake hose" subject to the requirements of Safety Standard No. 106.

Safety Standard No. 106, Brake Hoses (49 CFR 571.106), defines "brake hose" as:

A flexible conduit manufactured for use in a brake system to transmit or contain the fluid pressure or vacuum used to apply force to a vehicle's brakes.

This definition excludes the line from the air compressor to the supply tank, if that hose does not supply force to the vehicle's brakes in your system. Therefore, your hose would not be required to comply with Safety Standard No. 106.

In response to your question 1(b), any hose that supplies force, either directly or indirectly, to the vehicle's brakes is considered "brake hose", whether or not the hose is "right at the wheel brakes themselves" (as stated in your letter). For example, hose in brake booster systems is generally considered "brake hose."

In answer to your last two questions, there are no other Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards which would be applicable to air compressor discharge hoses. You will have to contact the individual States to see if there are applicable regulations at that level. We are not aware of any such State regulations, however.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

Titeflex INDUSTRIAL PRODUCTS GROUP

October 24, 1980

Office of Chief Counsel -- National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Gentlemen:

The purpose of this letter is to obtain clarifying information concerning your Motor Vehicle Safety Standard #106-74 ("Brake Hoses"), revised 7/7/76, and as amended by Notice #24 effective 5/25/78, copies of which I have.

Our company is a manufacturer of flexible Teflon hose and swaged fittings. We have been asked by numerous motor vehicle end-users (buses, motorcycles, race cars, etc.) throughout the U.S. as to whether or not our hose, fittings, and hose assemblies meet DOT specifications. Accordingly, we would appreciate your response to the questions below:

1. Among other things, paragraph S-4 of #106-74 defines "brake hose" (and "a brake hose assembly") as being" a flexible conduit manufactured for use in a brake system to transmit or contain the fluid pressure or vacuum used to apply force to a motor vehicle's brakes" (this pertains to hydraulic, air, and vacuum brakes).

(a) In public transit buses (e.g., those governed by UMTA's Transit Coach Specifications), must air compressor discharge flexible hose lines (air compressor-to-ping tank) be governed by Standard #106-74? Or are these compressor discharge lines considered only accessory lines and thus do not have to meet these specifications? Are these lines "in the brake system" or not?

(b) It is my understanding that only the actual brake hoses right at the wheel brakes themselves are the hoses which must comply with this standard. Is this correct?

2. This Safety Standard pertains only to "brake hoses". Are there any other Motor Vehicle Safety Standards, on a National basis, with which our hoses/assemblies must comply for any other motor vehicle application?

3. Finally, are there any individual state or local standards which apply for these or other flexible hose applications on any motor vehicle, assuming we comply with your national standards?

Your assistance in helping to clarify this matter will be most appreciated. Thank you in advance for your help.

Sincerely,

Robert J. McGurk -- Manager, Market Development

ID: nht81-1.7

DATE: 01/22/81

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Convenient Machines Inc.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of December 22, 1980, asking "acceptance" of the CUB three-wheeled vehicle "for import certification."

We confirm the advice given you by Mr. Vinson of this office in your recent telephone conversation with him. The CUB is classified as a "motorcycle" for purposes of compliance with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. If CUBs are manufactured to comply with all standards applicable to motorcycles (see Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations, Part 571), and have a label permanently attached certifying that fact (49 CFR 567), this is all that is needed to fulfill the requirements of this agency for importation and sale in the United States, under the joint regulations issued by the Departments of Transportation and Treasury (19 CFR 12.80).

If, in advance of regular production, you wish to import several noncomplying vehicles for purposes of test or experimentation, this is allowable, provided that at the time of entry a statement is attached to the declaration form that will be given the importer, stating the purpose for which the vehicle is being imported, the estimated time it will be on the public roads, and the disposition that will be made at the end of the period allowed (one year, renewable upon request). (19 CFR 12.80(b)(1)(vii)).

SINCERELY,

December 22, 1980

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Office of Chief Council

Following my recent telephone conversation with you, and at the suggestion of Mr. John Carson, we are enclosing photographs and preliminary specifications of our C.B. "CUB" 3 wheeled 2 passenger I.E.C. powered vehicle.

These vehicles will be manufactured in Taiwan for Convenient Machines Inc. We intend to distribute and sell them in the United States following the gradual start of production in March 1981.

We understand that at the present time this vehicle is classified as a 3 wheeled motorcycle. We intend to full comply with the standards and regulations for this classification of vehicle as outlined in the TITLE 49 CODE of REGULATIONS as necessary for a certificate of acceptance for U.S. Customs entry purposes.

The attached photographs show the #1 prototype "CUB" on which certain further improvements are now in work. A more final version is shown in the 1/10th scale 4 view layout which indicates a larger hatchback door and better lite and vent locations. We expect to have 3 samples of these approximately February 15 and several will then be brought here at that time.

We feel that this vehicle not only complies with the regulations but also offers a number of additional safety features which are highly desirable. These are fully described in the enclosed list of features and specifications.

After your review of this material will you kindly send us a letter relative to the acceptance of this vehicle for import certification. If you find there are any requirements omitted please advise us so we can take immediate steps to include them. We will greatly appreciate your reply at the earliest possible date as we are now tooling up for production to commence pending your approval.

If you have any further questions on any aspect of the "CUB" design and specifications please call me at 212 249 2424. I will be out of town from Dec 28 thru January 15 in which case you can contact Mr. Phil Prince at 212 594 6895.

We look forward to your approval of our compliance program on this vehicle and thank you for your cooperation.

Richard H. Arbib Vice President-Design

ID: nht78-4.16

DATE: 02/24/78

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

TO: Emil M. Mrak

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of January 30, 1978, to Ms. Joan Claybrook, Administrator of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), concerning the seat belts in your Cougar automobile.

Your original letter of December 12, 1977, to Secretary Brock Adams, complaining about the seat belts in your automobile has been answered. A copy of our reply is enclosed to this letter and is still relevant to your problem.

As long as the lap-shoulder belt intersection is not less than 6 inches from the vertical centerline of the driver, any other location that is confortable and easy to use is allowable. We suggest that you again contact your dealer to determine if the belt arrangement can be modified to be better suited to your condition and yet have the belt configuration remain within the NHTSA requirements.

SINCERELY,

January 30, 1978

Honorable Joan Claybrook Department of Transportation

Dear Miss Claybrook:

I have been in correspondence with the Ford Motor Company concerning the inadequacies of the seat belts in their new cars, and especially the Cougar.

I am enclosing copies of correspondence that I have had with the Ford Motor Company and the Department of Transportation, and this latter has not been answered.

The present seat belt arrangement is almost impossible for a person of my age to use. If the attachment on the right side of the driver were six inches longer it would be easy to use. As it is, when I drive around town I am not using a seat belt, although I would prefer to use one. When I take longer trips, I use it and, if my wife is along, I have her assistance in attaching it. If she is not along, I struggle and struggle until finally I get it attached.

It is of interest to me that the Ford Motor Company blames the Department of Transportation for this inadequacy. I just can't believe it. If it is the fault of the Department of Transportation I hope the Department will correct it.

If the Department of Transportation can't help in this matter, then I plan to take it up with some member of Congress.

As you well know, we got rid of the interlock system. I think this can be corrected too.

VERY TRULY YOURS, Emil M. Mrak

602 CORDOVA PLACE DAVIS, CA 95616

December 12, 1977

The Honorable Brockman Adam The Secretary of Transportation

Dear Mr. Adams:

Sometime ago I wrote the Ford Company complaining about the inaccessibility of the short portion of the seat belt to a person who is up in years. I pointed out that because of the extreme difficulty of hitching these up, more and more people are failing to use seat belts. Furthermore, the twisting and squirning required could very well result in backbone injuries to elderly people.

I was astounded to receive a letter from the Ford Company indicating that the Federal Standards required such a belt. This is hard for me to believe. In any event, I would appreciate knowing if what they told me is the truth, and if it is, then, the truth, I would strongly recommend that this requirement be revised. If it is not a requirement, then I think the Ford Company should be told to take the blame off the Department of Transportation.

If Congressional help is needed to make such a change, I would be glad to pursue it.

I am enclosing copies of my letter to Mr. Wilson of the Ford Company and also his reply, which as (Illegible Words) astonished me.

VERY TRULY YOURS, Emil M. Mrak

ID: nht74-5.5

DATE: 02/20/74

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: House of Representatives

COPYEE: LAWRENCE R. SCHNEIDER -- CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA; SIGNATURE BY RICHARD B. DYSON

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: In response to your February 11, 1974, request in behalf of a constituent, Mr. Frank Mills of Saint Louis, I would like to discuss the legal implications of modifications to the ignition interlock system on 1974 model passenger cars. I am not familiar with the booklet to which Mr. Mills refers.

The interlock is one part of Standard 208, which like any other safety standard issued under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, applies to new vehicles only. Once a vehicle is sold for purposes other than resale and the buyer takes delivery, he may modify the system or legally have the system modified by an automobile repair service to accommodate circumstances, such as physical incapacity, which make use of the belts unwise or inconvenient.

Whether or not a dealer's disconnection of an interlock system under any given specified set of circumstances would be legally permitted is a conclusion which the courts would determine if called upon to decide such an issue. The position of this agency is that any act by a dealer to disconnect an interlock system which could be related to a sales transaction or the introduction into interstate commerce of a motor vehicle is prohibited. In this respect, we support H.R. 5529 which would prohibit any motor vehicle manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair business from removing or rendering inoperative any Federally-required safety equipment, including interlocks, from new or used vehicles. The prohibition would not apply to vehicle owners.

I have taken the liberty of forwarding a copy of this letter to Mr. Mills at his St. Louis address to assure receipt of the information by February 21, 1974.

February 11, 1974

Larry Schneider Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Will you please advise me on the legal aspects of the clarification of the seat belt law, which information has been requested by one of my constituents, Mr. Frank Mills, President of the Greater St. Louis Automotive Parts and Service Association of St. Louis, Missouri. For your information, I am enclosing herewith a copy of Mr. Mills' letter.

You will note that Mr. Mills has requested this information for use at the next meeting of his Association on February 21, 1974. If it is at all possible, I would like very much to fulfill his request.

Thank you for your cooperation in this instance.

Leonor K. (Mrs. John B.) Sullivan Member of Congress 3rd District, Missouri

Enclosure

GREATER ST. LOUIS AUTOMOTIVE PARTS & SERVICE ASSOCIATION

FEBRUARY 5, 1974

Lenore Sullivan 2221 Rayburn Bldg. Washington D.C. 20515

I am writing to request your booklet on the "Clarification of the Seat Belt" law. It is unlawful for the Automobile Dealers to disconnect this system, but an independent person feels he is not covered by this law. This does not seem logical.

When speaking with your Office, I explained as President of the Greater St. Louis Automotive Club, I wished to look into the proper legal aspects and discuss it at our next meeting, the 21st of February. They informed me, I must send my request to you and you would see it was received on time.

Thanking you in advance for your time and trouble.

Sincerely,

Mr. Frank Mills President

Copy: file

Please mail to:

Mr. Frank Mills 5204 Walsh St. Louis, Missouri 63109

ID: nht95-3.99

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: August 28, 1995

FROM: Lawrence A. Beyer, Esq. -- Attorney for Liphardt & Associates

TO: Administrator -- NHTSA

TITLE: Petition for Exemption for Inconsequential Defect or Noncompliance

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 10/20/95 LETTER FROM JOHN WOMACK TO LAWRENCE A. BEYER (A43; REDBOOK 2; PART 556)

TEXT: This petition for inconsequential defect or noncompliance is submitted under 49 CFR Part 558, on behalf of:

Liphardt & Associates 15 Trade Zone Drive Ronkonkoma, NY

a New York State corporation.

[Illegible Lines]

The non-compliance relates to

49 CFR Part 592.5(f) Notification of change of facility information:

49 CFR Part 592.8(e) Hold period for inspection

49 CFR Part 592.6(f) Poor compliance photography

49 CFR Part 592.6(d) Label may not have correctly identified RI

BACKGROUND:

Liphardt & Associates has been a DOT Registered Importer since 1990, concentrating in the importation of noncomplying vehicles from Europe. However in 1994, due to sudden economic conditions, importation of vehicles from the Canadian market to the US ma rket became viable, and there was significant need for Registered Importers to assist in vehicle importation and certification. The Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance (OVSC) was also deluged with Canadian vehicle importation situations. Liphardt was ap proached by a Customs House Broker in upstate New York, and was requested to set up an additional facility for the processing (modification, documentation and holding) of [Illegible Line] this facility. It turns out that Liphardt's control over these ve hicles was lost, that the processing was handled by persons other than Liphardt authorized personnel and the inconsequential defect or noncompliance occurred. Liphardt notified OVSC of this situation in February, 1995 and conducted its own investigation . In March, 1995, Liphardt voluntarily suspended all Canadian importations, and met informally with NHTSA staff.

SAFETY COMPLIANCE

NHTSA has reviewed compliance packages submitted on these vehicles, and the vast majority have been deemed sufficient for release of compliance bond.

Canadian vehicles, for the most part, differ from US FMVSS only in the following areas:

1. Odometer may not be labeled KM;

2. Passive restraint systems for passenger cars;

Certification Labels must also be affixed to the vehicles in accordance with 49 [Illegible Word]

Many odometers are labeled KM by the original manufacturer. In any event, the odometer/speedometer is routinely changed to a miles based instrument, since the marketability of kilometer based vehicles is severely impaired. All passenger [Illegible Word ] Certification labels may have misnamed the Registered Importer. While this in unfortunate, the purpose of naming the RI on the certification label is to ensure that the responsible RI is known for subsequent defect/recalls. OVSC maintains a very accur ate computer system in which the VIN and the responsible RI are listed. Therefore, if a vehicle with the wrong name listed on the RI section of the certification label was involved in a situation where the actual RI needed to be involved, NHTSA could ea sily provide the correct RI name.

Clearly these defects and non-compliance are not significant and are inconsequential to vehicle safety. Liphardt has tried to work within the regulatory framework to advise OVSC of the situations and seeks this petition and exemption process to finalize this matter.

Liphardt has corrected the cause of the noncompliance and will continue to abide by the duties of a registered importer as defined in 49 CFR 592.

Thank you.

ID: nht68-2.27

DATE: 07/26/68

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; R. M. O'Mahoney; NHTSA

TO: The City of New York Police Department

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of June 21 asking how an owner can be penalized for violating vehicle equipment standards, and, in addition, whether or not taxicab owners may remove head restraints, which will be required on vehicles manufactured on or after January 1, 1969, so as to install a sliding glass panel separating a taxicab driver from his customer required by New York police regulation.

As to the first question, in general, the standards have very little application to vehicle owners at this time. In the future, through State-Federal cooperation with reference to vehicles in used standards, it is possible that some sanctions as to owners will be applied. At the present time the principal effect on owners has to do with imported cars. An owner may not import a vehicle into the United States which does not conform to the Federal motor vehicle safety standards in effect at the time of its manufacture, whether it is new or used.

Your second question is answered in part by my answer to your first question. At this time there is no prohibition against an owner of a vehicle removing an item of safety equipment which the manufacturer must install to conform with the standards. We are aware that some owners, particularly taxicab owners, may remove such required items as seat belts. We view this as unfortunate since it removes a built-in protection for driver and passenger.

The removal of head restraints to accommodate a different kind of safety device presents a more difficult question. If the absence of any sanction prohibiting the removal of the head restraint the question, from a safety point of view, is whether or not the danger from whiplush injuries in rearend collisions, which are, as you know, frequent occurrences in city traffic; is a greater danger than the threat of assault from the taxicab passengers. Certainly the ideal would be to provide both kinds of protection for the driver, and it would seem that it would be possible for manufacturers to provide a design that would afford both sorts of protection.

We have had informal conversations from the City of New York's Washington office concerning what we understood(Illegible Word) proposed city ordinance governing the glass panel separating drivers and passengers in taxicabs. Your letter mentions a "police regulation." Could you supply us with more complete information as to what the City of New York's requirements are and whether they are by city ordinance, State laws, or police regulation? Appropriate citations or copies of applicable laws or regulations would be appreciated.

POLICE DEPARTMENT -- CITY OF NEW YORK

June 21, 1968 Robert M O'Mahoney Counsel Transportation Department.

I have your letter of June 11th with the booklet on Federal motor vehicle safety standards, for which I thank you very much.

I inquire now, relative to these standards:

1. Illustrate how an owner can be penalized for vidating the vehicle equipment standards. The literature on the market concerning violations by the dealer and the manufacturer is clear but what set of circumstances would bring an automobile owner into a breach of the vehicle equipment standards.

2. In New York City taxicabs require (by police regulation) a sliding panel isolating the taxi driver from his customer. When future taxicabs come from the assembly line, with the headrest included, there will be interference with the glass panel. Question: are the taxicab owners permitted to remove the headrest in this type of a case or do your standards forbid removal thereof?

Thank you once again Bob for your reply to my first communication and I hope you can furnish us the information desired in this letter.

ID: nht90-4.91

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: December 24, 1990

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Fred Ciampi -- Fred's Welding Service

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 10-17-90 from F. Ciampi to Office of the Chief Counsel, NHTSA (OCC 5342)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter requesting information concerning Federal requirements governing the manufacture of utility trailers. Your letter indicated that you plan to manufacture trailers.

First, please be aware that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has authority to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and certain items of motor vehicle equipment. For purposes of this authority, trailers are co nsidered motor vehicles. NHTSA does not approve motor vehicles or equipment, nor does the agency endorse any commercial products. Instead, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act establishes a certification process under which each manufacture r must certify that its product meets agency safety standards, or other applicable standards. Periodically, NHTSA tests whether vehicles or equipment comply with these standards, and may investigate alleged safety-related product defects.

The following Federal safety standards apply to trailers: Safety Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment, Safety Standard No. 115, Vehicle identification Number--Basic Requirements, and Safety Standard No. 119, New Pneumatic Tires for Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars. The content requirements for the vehicle identification number are found at 49 CFR Part 565. In addition, depending on the type of braking system used, trailers must meet Safety Standard No. 106, Brake Hos es, Safety Standard No. 116, Motor Vehicle Brake Fluids, and Safety Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems. All of these standards are found in 49 CFR Part 571.

In addition, as a manufacturer of motor vehicles, you would be required to submit identification information to this agency in accordance with 49 CFR Part 566, Manufacturer Identification. You would also be required to certify that each trailer complies with all applicable Federal safety standards. This certification procedure is set out in 49 CFR Part 567.

You may find a copy of 49 CFR at a Federal Depository Library in your State. If you so choose, you may purchase a copy of Title 49 from the United States Government Printing Office (GPO), Washington, D.C. 20402, (202) 783-3238. With respect to laws gov erning trailer manufacture, the principal statute is the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. You may obtain a copy of this Act from GPO. You may wish to note especially S151 of the Act, which requires a manufacturer of a motor vehicle or moto r vehicle equipment to conduct notice and recall campaigns if you or this agency find that your product has a safety-related defect.

There may be State regulations that apply to trailer manufacture and use. In many states, a person cannot register a new vehicle unless he or she has a statement or certificate of origin. I understand that the Recreation Vehicle Industry Association wil l supply a small quantity of form statements or certificates upon request. You may contact that organization by writing them at 1896 Preston White Drive, Reston, VA 22090; or calling (800) 336-0154. You may wish to contact the local Department of Trans portation or Motor Vehicle Administration in the states for which you have an interest for further information on state requirements.

I hope you find this information helpful. Please do not hesitate to contact this office at (202) 366-2992 if you have specific questions.

ID: nht90-2.100

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/25/90

FROM: PAUL JACKSON RICE -- NHTSA CHIEF COUNSEL

TO: LAWRENCE J. SMITH -- U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 05/30/90 FROM NANCY L. BRUCE -- DOT TO LAWRENCE J. SMITH -- CONGRESS; LETTER DATED 05/25/90 FROM LAWRENCE J. SMITH -- CONGRESS TO NANCY BRUCE -- DOT; NEWSPAPER ARTICLE; UNDATED BY UPI; US SUES 4 AUTO TINTING SHOPS; OCC 4842; NEWSPAPER ARTICLE DATED 03/30/90; BY STEVE MOORE -- BUSINESS MARKETS; LOCAL CRAFTSMAN UNSWAYED BY FEDERAL CIVIL LAWSUITS; NEWSPAPER ARTICLE DATED 03/29/90 BY BRUCE VIELMETTI -- ST PETERSBURG TIMES; US CRACKS DOWN ON WINDOW TINTERS; NEWSPAPER ARTICLE DATED 03/29/90 FROM JIM LEUSNER -- ORLANDO SENTINEL; US SUES CAR - WINDOW TINTERS - LET THERE BE MORE LIGHT; 1984 FLORIDA AUTO TINT LAW; PRESS RELEASE DATED 03/28/90 BY UNITED STATES ATTORNEY MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TEXT: I am writing in response to your letter forwarding correspondence from your constituent, Mr. Joel Leitson, with respect to litigation recently brought by the United States against several firms that install plastic film, or "tint," on automobile windows.

You have asked about the statutory authority under which these suits were brought. Pursuant to section 103 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 ("Safety Act"), 15 U.S.C. @ 1392, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration ("NHTSA") has issued safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. One of the standards that we have issued under this authority is Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials (49 CFR @ 571.205), which applies to all new vehicles and all new glazing materials for use in motor vehicles. Among the requirements set forth in Standard No. 205 are specifications for minimum levels of light transmittance (70 percent light transmittance in areas requisite for driving visibility, which includes all windows in passenger cars).

Section 108(a)(i)(A) of the Safety Act, 15 U.S.C. @ 1397(a)(1)(A), provides that no person may manufacture or sell any vehicle unless it is in conformity with all applicable safety standards. Pursuant to section 108(b)(1) of the Safety Act, 15 U.S.C. @ 1397(b)(1), this paragraph does not apply after a vehicle is first sold to a consumer. However, both before and after the first sale, section 108(a)(2) of the Safety Act, 15 U.S.C. @ 1397(a)(2), provides that "No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or part, any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard. . . ."

Thus, by installing tint firm on automobiles that reduces the light transmittance of their glass below 70 percent, the firms in question have been rendering those vehicles "inoperative," in violation of the Safety Act. The same principle would apply to a service station that removed an airbag or a safety belt from a vehicle, since such an action would create

a noncompliance with the occupant protection requirements of NHTSA's standards.

You also asked for our comments on whether Florida's statutes are preempted by these suits. We assume that you are referring to the provision of Florida law that prohibits the operation of any vehicle in the State of Florida that has glazing with less than 35 percent light transmittance. This statute, and similar statutes adopted by other states, do not purport to legitimize conduct -- the rendering inoperative of glazing by tint installation firms -- that is illegal under the Safety Act. Thus, there is no conflict with Federal law, and Florida may continue to enforce its operating rules.

I hope that this responds to your questions. If we can be of further assistance, please let me know.

ID: nht88-2.29

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 05/19/88

FROM: SPENCER A. DARBY -- SATE-LITE MFG CO

TO: JOAN TILGHMAN -- NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION

TITLE: REQUEST FOR INTERPRETATION OF FMVSS 125

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 11/07/88 FROM ERIKA Z JONES TO SPENCER A DARBY, REDBOOK A32, STANDARD 125; TELECOPY DATED 08/30/88 FROM SPENCER A DARBY TO JOAN TILGHMAN RE 2166

TEXT: Dear Ms. Tilghman:

Sate-Lite Manufacturing Co. is one of the countries leading manufacturers of FMVSS 125 complaint Emergency Warning Triangles, and has been so since 1974. In a recent engineering review of the current FMVSS 125, some serious concerns have arisen, and I w ould appreciate your interpretation of the three areas stated below.

We understand that the applicable law requiring the three bi-directional emergency reflective triangles to be carried by vehicles over 80" wide used in" interstate commerce is a requirement of the Federal Highway Administration. And we further understan d that the triangles when used must be in conformance to FMVSS 125 as administered by NHTSA.

QUESTION #1: If the FHA requires three triangles, and since Para S5.1.5.(c) requires that "Figure 3" be included in the instructions for erection, why does Figure 3 show a passenger vehicle with only one triangle erected? For years Sate-Lite has placed the generally accepted diagrams for the over 80" tractor-trailer rig on either a divided highway, or a two lane highway on the inside of the container for the three triangles, as well as on the lower arm of the individual triangle, (see enclosed samples) per the S5.1.5.(c) requirement and is now concerned about the correctness of this practice. When used by the trucking industry, are these currently used diagrams correct, and in compliance with the requirements of S5.1.5?

QUESTION #2: More and more single triangles are being used in a non-required manner by passenger cars, especially the European imports. For this application, Sate-Lite has included on the inside cover of the single triangle container the "Figure 3" diag ram for proper erection of a single triangle when used by a passenger car. However, the triangle itself does not have the single triangle placement diagram for lack of room on the moldings. It is our opinion that since the single triangle is not regula ted for under 80" vehicle width usage, and since the usage by a passenger car owner is voluntary, the diagram does not have to be on the triangle itself. Is this a correct assumption?

QUESTION #3: Should not FMVSS 125 be amended to include a "Figure 4" for over 80" vehicles on a dividend highway, and a "Figure 5" for over 80" vehicles on a two lane highway? And if amended, should not Para S5.1.5 be revised to include specific ere ction requirements depending on the type vehicle?

As a major supplier of the Emergency Warning Triangles to the industry, we are naturally concerned. Our sales are to a few OEM Lighting manufacturers, or representatives, who then resell them to the ultimate consumer. We have no control over the end us age, and would not know if it were to be used as required by the FHA on over 80" wide trucks, or individually by the driver of an automobile or van. I can see problems arising if we were required to manufacturer two or three versions of the triangle, di ffering only in the erection diagram molded into the lower arm. Please advise

If I have raised more questions than I have asked, please feel free to call me at 312-647-1515 and we can discuss them of the phone.

Thank you for your kind assistance.

ENCLOSURE

ID: certlab3.crs

Ms. Michele Mor
Professional Micro Computer Service, Inc.
2525 Honolulu Avenue
Montrose, CA 91020

Dear Ms. Mor:

This is in response to the memorandum of July 29, 1997 that you telefaxed to Coleman Sachs of my staff, forwarding for our review a format for a vehicle certification label (which you refer to as a "VIN label") that your company is proposing to offer to clients who manufacture trailers for sale in both the United States and Canada. Your memo requested that we disregard your letter of July 15, 1997, forwarding for our review an earlier version of the certification label format that you withdrew after speaking to David Coleman of our Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance.

Certification requirements for vehicles manufactured for sale in the United States are set forth in this agency's regulations at 49 CFR Part 567. Section 567.4 of those regulations specifies the contents and format of the certification label that manufacturers are required to affix to new motor vehicles to which one or more of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards apply. To meet those requirements, the following modifications would have to be made to the certification label format that your company has most recently proposed:

1. Section 567.4(g)(2) requires the certification label to specify the vehicle's "month and year of manufacture." The first line of your company's label format contains the word "date" followed by a colon. We recommend that this heading be changed to "date of manufacture" or "manufactured in" to better identify the date provided.
2. Section 567.4(g)(3) specifies that the certification label must include the vehicle's gross vehicle weight rating, or "GVWR," "followed by the appropriate value in pounds . . . ." The second line of your company's label format contains the letters "GVWR/PNBV" followed by the abbreviation "KG," which presumably represents "kilograms." To comply with section 567.4(g)(3), the GVWR value must be specified in pounds. If you wish to provide a metric equivalent for this value, it should be specified in kilograms, with that word fully spelled out, followed by the corresponding value in pounds, appearing in parentheses. With this format, the entry for GVWR/PNBV would be as follows:

   GVWR/PNBV: ________ kilograms (________ pounds)

3. Section 567.4(g)(4) specifies that the certification label must include the gross axle weight rating, or "GAWR," "followed by the appropriate value in pounds for each axle, identified in order from front to rear . . . ." The third line of your company's label format contains the letters "GAWR/PNBE," followed by the abbreviation "KG." To comply with section 567.4(g)(4), the GAWR of each axle should be specified in pounds. If you wish to provide a metric equivalent for this value, it should be specified in kilograms, with that word fully spelled out, followed by the corresponding value in pounds, appearing in parentheses, as set forth in the above format for GVWR/PNBV entries.

We note that your company's proposed label format also includes information on the size designation for tires and rims and the recommended cold inflation pressure for tires that is required under Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 120, Tire Selection and Rims for Motor Vehicles other than Passenger Cars, as found at 49 CFR 571.120. Paragraph S5.3 of that standard requires the cold inflation pressure to be identified first in metric units (kPa) and then in English units (psi). On your company's proposed certification label, English units are listed before metric units under the heading "COLD INFL PRESS." To comply with paragraph S5.3 of Standard No. 120, this order of presentation should be reversed.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions regarding vehicle certification requirements, do not hesitate to contact Mr. Sachs at 202-366-5238.

Sincerely,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
ref:567
d.7/31/97