ID: 001773ogm

Dr. Barry D. Faguy
Comite DAction Politique Motorcycliste
C.P. 49 007, Place Versailles
Montreal, Quebec, H1N 3T6
Canada

Dear Dr. Faguy:

This responds to your letter seeking information about the labeling requirements in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 218, Motorcycle Helmets (49 CFR 571.218). Your letter correctly notes that section S5.6.1 of Standard No. 218 requires that motorcycle helmets be permanently labeled with a "DOT" mark as the manufacturers certification that the helmet complies with Standard No. 218. You indicate that Quebec courts interpreting Quebec law have held that the "DOT" certification mark must be accompanied by a reference to "FMVSS 218" in order for a helmet worn by a rider to comply with Quebecs helmet law. Your letter further states that an example of such a decision is enclosed for our information. However, the decision you discuss was not in the letter we received. You then ask us to state without "any possible ambiguity" whether S5.6 (e) is intended to require that the legend "FMVSS 218" appear on the exterior of a helmet as evidence that the helmet has been certified as complying with Standard No. 218. You also ask if the legend "FMVSS218" must appear on the DOT label or any other label on the inside or outside of a helmet. Finally, you ask how a law enforcement officer can, through a visual inspection, determine if a motorcycle helmet complies with Standard No. 218.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has the authority under Chapter 301 of Title 49, U.S. Code, to establish Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment, including motorcycle helmets. This statute requires each person manufacturing, selling, or offering for sale any new vehicle, or item of equipment, covered by an FMVSS, to ensure that the new vehicle or equipment item is certified as meeting all applicable FMVSSs. These provisions apply to products manufactured, sold, or offered for sale in the United States. We express no view as to what may be required under the laws of Canada or any of its provinces.

The "DOT" certification mark and other required labels provide important information regarding the helmet, including the fact that the manufacturer has certified that the helmet meets Standard No. 218. Section S5.6.1 of the Standard requires that each helmet be permanently and legibly labeled with certain warnings, identifying information, size, and the DOT certification mark. Our agency requires permanent marking of these items because we believe this information is needed for the life of the helmet. However, S5.6.1 does not require that any label contain the legend "FMVSS218" or "FMVSS 218." Furthermore, Standard No. 218 does not require that a compliant helmet be marked or labeled, either on the outside or the inside, with the legend "FMVSS218" or "FMVSS-218."

You also ask how a law enforcement officer can determine if a motorcycle helmet complies with Standard No. 218 by visual inspection. Whether a law enforcement official's inspection of a helmet is sufficient to justify either the detention of an individual or the issuance of a summons is a matter of state, or in your case, provincial law. As such, this office cannot comment on whether such an action by law enforcement official is in compliance with the laws of Quebec. Similarly, this office cannot render an opinion regarding either the laws of the Province of Quebec or the application of those laws by any court. Accordingly, we are unable to provide any comments on the propriety of the court decisions discussed in your letter or the requirements of Quebecs laws.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions or need some more information on this subject, please do not hesitate to contact Mr. Otto Matheke of my staff at this address, or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

cc:     Dr. Barry D. Faguy


189 Hymus Blvd. Suite #600
Point Claire, Quebec
Canada, H9R-1E9

ref:218
d.5/27/03

ID: 77-1.38

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/04/77

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Wesbar Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Thank you for your frank letter of January 13, 1977, commenting upon the lack of clarity you feel exists in my letter to you of December 6, 1976, interpreting Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

As a lawyer it is obvious to me that the best regulatory practice is to be as specific as possible in establishing requirements and prohibitions. When a regulation itself is unclear, however, its interpretation may necessarily be imprecise. Because the term "optical combination" in S4.4.1 is not defined, my answers were necessarily worded in general terms though with the thought of establishing a general framework of guidance for you. They were not intended to be "a masterpiece of bureaucratic weasel words." My letter meant, in plain English, that where tail lamps and clearance lamps are in a single compartment we don't want one lamp to perform, or to be perceived as performing, the function of the other. It is evident from your letter and others that our previous interpretations of the term "optical combination" have been found to be ambiguous and lacking in the objective criteria that a Federal motor vehicle safety standard must provide. We have reviewed the matter, and now wish to modify our previous interpretation. In our view a lamp is "optically combined" when the same light source (i.e. bulb) and the same lens area fulfill two or more functions (e.g. taillamp and stop lamp, clearance lamp and turn signal lamp). A dual filament bulb would be regarded as the "same light source". In determining conformance, the photometric requirements for clearance and taillamp functions, where two bulbs are located in a single compartment, must be met with only the bulb energized that is designed to perform the specific function. But the 15 candlepower maximum under Standard No. 108, however, would be determined with both the taillamp and clearance lamp bulb energized. Further, the lamp must be located to meet requirements for both clearance and taillamps. Our re-interpretation means that the issue of light spill-over from one area of the lamp to another is irrelevant to conformance.

SINCERELY,

January 13, 1977

Frank Berndt Acting Chief Counsel U.S. Dept. of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Refer: N40-30 Your letter of December 6, 1976

A combination of a Christmas holiday with the family in Arizona and year end activity here in our plant has prevented our sending you a reply to the referenced letter at an earlier date.

As far as we are concerned, your response to our October 28 letter is a masterpiece of bureaucratic weasel words and one which avoids positive answers or defensible positions on the specific questions we submitted.

Discussing first your lengthy second paragraph; from line 6 we quote: ". . . . Standard 108 does not require separate compartments (i.e. and opaque barrier) for tail lamps and clearance lamps . . . " Perhaps you can give some scientific explanation how two lamps can be in the same compartment and not interfere optically with one another. The degree of candlepower emanating from each bulb is dependent on their respective candlepowers and in the case of tail and clearance lamp bulbs, the lumens generated are not very far apart since clearance lamp bulbs deliver 2 c.p. and tail lamp bulbs 3 c.p. If tail lamp and clearance lamp bulbs were positioned relatively close together in the single compartment (a condition you state is permissible) I submit that a "driver in a following vehicle" could not possibly interpret one lamp from the other.

May we refer you to line 15 of the second paragraph of your letter and we quote: "there is no appreciable amount of incidental light emitted from the lens of the clearance lamp . . . " To any engineer or attorney involved with compliance regulations, the words "appreciable amount" are incongruous when applied to a standard such as 108, the purpose of which is to spell out specific optical values, tests, and locations for lights. DOT 108 standard permits no deviation from the SAE standards referenced, which standards positively indicate optical values for lamps. Nor does DOT 108 permit any option on the number and types of lamps required on a trailer or where these lamps shall be located. "Appreciable" has no measureable value, therefore, we ask, whose judgement will prevail when evaluating the design and testing of a lamp, the manufacturer or your compliance people. How would you legally defend your position that a light has an "appreciable" amount of spill, hence is illegal, in the absence of an applicable photometric standard.

We also object to the language: "The amount of light spill appears to be so small . . ." (sce para. 2 line 17). What numerical candlepower value do you assign to the words "appears to" as a measure of whether or not a lamp conforms to the published standard? Would we receive approval from your compliance group on a lamp we have marked "DOT" on the basis of our contention that to us the lamp "appears to" meet the photometric standards?

How evasive can a response to our specific question be than your blanket reply of: "If you apply this general principle to the questions you asked, then I think you will have the answers."

We refer you to page 2, lines 2, 3, and 4 of your letter, which we quote: "The principle is necessarily dependent upon the candlepower output of any lamp to which it is applied, a value not given in your questions." Of course we didn't specify "candlepower output". Those values are specified in DOT 108. Or perhaps you were unaware that clearance lamp bulbs and tail lamp bulbs are manufactured to *SAE J573f which specified: Typical Service Trade No. Mean Spherical Candela M ** 57 2 candlepower at 14 volts T *** 1157 3 candlepower at 14 volts

* Photometric tests performed under SAE J592e and SAE J585d are always made using 2 c.p. and 3 c.p. bulb respectively.

** M - Marker, Clearance, Identification

*** T - Tail

These are the lamps and respective candlepowers you will find in all tail lamps and clearance lamps.

Therefore, with such a small candlepower difference between clearance and tail lamp output, the "spill" (to quote your letter) from one to the other, with bulbs exposed in the same compartment, equate one another.

We read with surprise in your letter that "certification is dependent upon a manufacturer's good faith in attempting to achieve compliance." We would like to believe that statement, but the actual experiences of many trailer manufacturers with your compliance people, doesn't bear out what you say. The compliance man recognizes but one criteria: does it or does it not meet the specific requirements of the published standard.

At this moment in time the DOT is quibbling over a specific interpretation of S 4.4.1 with such indecisive language as: "appears to be", "appreciable amount", "good faith". It could be that your indefinite position merely covers a too hasty interpretation by one of your staff, but whatever the reason, please either resolve this problem in terms of specific numbers, or rewrite S 4.4.1 so that there can be no possible misinterpretation of your requirements.

You asked the writer to comment on combining tail and clearance lamp. This combination for boat trailers and some camping trailers is an extremely sensible approach. The 108 standard blankets big semi trailers and small duck boat trailers with the same sets of rules, which rules for a semi trailer are as totally practical as they are totally impractical for a small boat trailer.

In the matter of boat trailers, the over 80" lighting requirements are almost impossible to meet. For example, consider a boat trailer carrying a sail boat. It is virtually impossible to locate an identification light bar that won't be swept off or severely bent when the boat is launched. Use of an identification light bar on a trailer should be eliminated. Very few are operable after a launching.

The trailer manufacturer certifies his trailer as meeting the DOT standards, when it leaves his plant. The dimensions of the boats that trailer may carry vary wiedely and many a trailer's actual width is exceeded by the hull it carries. This is knowledge the trailer manufacturer would not have when he produced the trailer.

It would be economical as well as practical to permit a boat trailer manufacturer to mount his tail lamp in such a position that it would serve the dual purpose of clearance and tail lamp, with no detriment to safety. If anything, we would consider such an arrangement a safer condition than the use of seperate lights.

In conclusion, would you please give us specific answers to the questions posed in paragraph 6 of letter of October 28, 1976, at your earliest convenience. For your convenience a copy of same is attached.

B. R. Weber Executive Vice President

cc: SEN. WILLIAM PROXMIRE; SEN. GAYLOR NELSON

ID: 2644o

C.D. Black, Engineering Manager
Legislation, Compliance
Product Development
Jaguar Cars, Inc.
600 Willow Tree Road
Leonia, NJ 07605

Dear Ms. Black:

This is in reply to your letters of June 8 and October l7, 1987, with respect to an electrically-operated headlamp leveling system that Jaguar intends to offer on passenger cars beginning with the l989 model year. Such a device is required by EEC regulations. You have informed us that the system does not allow lamps to be adjusted above the "zero" position, only downward to compensate for rear end loading of the vehicle. There is no provision for automatic return to the "zero" position when the engine is turned off. Further, there will be no indication to the driver from the vehicle instrumentation that re-aim is necessary when the headlamps are adjusted downward. You have concluded, for the six reasons given in your letter of June 8 that "no aspect of FMVSS l08 . . . is contravened by this proposed installation."

The sole restriction that Standard No. l08 imposes upon an item of motor vehicle equipment not covered by the standard but which a manufacturer wishes to add to a vehicle as original equipment is that it not impair the effectiveness of the lighting equipment that the standard requires (S4.l.3). If a manufacturer concludes that the unrequired equipment would not impair the effectiveness of the required lighting equipment, it may certify that the vehicle complies with Standard No. 108. Based on our understanding of your system, it does not appear to impair the effectiveness of the required equipment. However, we urge you to consider the possible consequences if the driver forgets to return the system to the "zero" position from either of the two adjustment positions. These possibilities are a concern because the system does not automatically return to that position, and no warning is provided to the driver that the headlamps are not in their original design position. On the other hand, if properly used, the system could enhance headlighting effectiveness by ensuring that the headlamp provides the same lighting performance under all conditions of vehicle load.

We hope the information is helpful.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel ref:l08 d:2/11/88

ID: 24604.ztv

Jeff Barnett, President
Consumer Imports, LLC
Box 56
Allen, TX 75002

Dear Mr. Barnett:

This is in reply to your letter asking for an interpretation of our regulations with respect to a product you wish to import and sell, called "Signalfly."

Signalfly consists of four components: a receiver module unit (RMU), a fused transmitter module unit (Fused TMU), a transmitter infrared unit (TIU), and an A/C charger. The RMU houses the LED light sources of the lamp. It is affixed to a motorcycle helmet through an adhesive material. The Fused TMU is connected to the motorcycles stop lamp wiring. The TIU is mounted on the rear of the motorcycle. The charger is used to recharge the RMU when it is not in use. When the motorcyclist applies the brakes, the RMU affixed to the motorcyclists helmet "flashes approximately 1.5 flashes per second."

The components of Signalfly are defined as "motor vehicle equipment" under our regulations. There are no Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) that directly apply to these individual items of motor vehicle equipment. However, when the components operate as a system, they raise issues that impact two Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS).

The first standard affected is FMVSS No. 218, Motorcycle Helmets, and the second is FMVSS No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment.

Specifically, FMVSS No. 218 (S5.5) prohibits a motorcycle helmet from having a rigid projection on the outside of a helmet shell, except for "those required for operation of essential accessories, and shall not protrude more than 0.20 inch (5 mm)." We do not regard Signalfly as an "essential accessory" within the meaning of the phrase. This means that a motorcycle helmet to which Signalfly is attached would not comply with FMVSS No. 218. Although we understand Signalfly is intended to be sold in the aftermarket, I would like to point out that under 49 U.S.C. 30112(a), it is a violation to manufacture for sale, sell, or offer for sale a motorcycle helmet that fails to comply with FMVSS No. 218. This means that a helmet may not be sold with the RMU attached to the helmet, or as part of the sale of a new helmet. A helmet owner who buys Signalfly and attaches the RMU would not be in violation of Federal regulations but, in our view, would be deprived of the head protection that FMVSS No. 218 seeks to assure. Whether it is legal for a person to operate a motorcycle while wearing a helmet with the RMU attached is not a Federal question, but a question to be answered under the laws of each jurisdiction in which Signalfly is used. We also raise the possibility that the RMU may cover or obstruct the DOT symbol that constitutes the manufacturers certification that the helmet complies with FMVSS No. 218. I might add that we are also concerned that the adhesive attachment to the helmet might cause a chemical reaction to the shell and reduce the dynamic impact performance of the helmet (see S5.6.1(f)(2)). It is this agencys policy to discourage motorcycle helmet users from modifying their helmets.

In relation to the FMVSS including FMVSS No. 108, we also administer a law that forbids manufacturers, dealers, distributors, or motor vehicle repair businesses from making "inoperative" any original equipment on a vehicle that is installed in accordance with a Federal safety standard, such as a stop lamp on a motorcycle. Because of the potential of an additional, flashing, stop lamp to cause confusion with the required steady-burning stop lamp, it is our opinion that the installation and use of the Signalfly would make the required stop lamp partially "inoperative" within the meaning of the prohibition. However, the prohibition would not apply if the motorcycle's owner installed the Signalfly. Whether it is legal to use the device on public roads depends upon the law of the state where the Signalfly is operated. We are not able to advise you about the applicability of State law.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:108
d.12/6/02

ID: aiam0683

Dear Mr. Kennebeck: This is in reply to your letter of April 10, 1972, on the subject o the label required by Standard 207 to be affixed to a seat that is not intended for use while the vehicle is in motion.; Although S4.4 of Standard 207 does not require the warning to b verbal, it is our impression that the concept is difficult to convey by nonverbal symbols. A quick review of personnel in the NHTSA revealed that most of them were familiar enough with the international sign system to know that something was being forbidden, but were unsure as to what the forbidden act was. Of the two symbols, the one showing the vehicle in motion appeared to be more understandable, but not by much.; It is our conclusion that neither of the symbols is adequate to giv the warning intended by S4.4. This is not to say that the symbols would not be adequate in other countries whose citizens are more familiar with symbolic labeling. I might add that the label need not contain the exact words of the standard. It would be acceptable, for example, to say 'Do not ride in this seat,' if you find that shortening the phrase would make the label less cumbersome.; Sincerely, Richard B. Dyson

ID: 20862.ztv

Herr P. Binder
Valeo
Stuttgarter Strasse 119
74321 Bietigheim-Bissingen
Germany

Dear Herr Binder:

This is in reply to your fax of October 29, 1999, to Taylor Vinson of this Office. You have asked whether certain rear lighting configurations comply with the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. The vehicle in question is equipped with a spoiler. You tell us that "if the rear foglamp/and or the Backup lamp will be switched on and the spoiler is in rest position (e.g. low speed or stationary vehicle) the spoiler will be extend[ed] first of all." The time to extend/restore the spoiler is about 4 seconds.

In the first configuration, your "Variant A," the rear fog lamp and/or backup lamp will be covered by the spoiler when it is not extended. The fog lamp is not an item of lighting equipment required by Standard No. 108 and it is immaterial to compliance with the standard if the spoiler covers it. The backup lamp, however, is an item of required equipment. Paragraph S5.1.3 prohibits motor vehicle equipment that impairs the effectiveness of lighting equipment required by Standard No. 108. In order not to impair the effectiveness of the backup lamp, the spoiler must be deployed at the time the backup lamp is activated (i.e. when the transmission is placed in reverse gear), at least to a position that allows the entire backup lamp to be instantly visible. We read your description as indicating that the spoiler is deployed during a 4-second period after the backup lamp is switched on; this is not acceptable. Nor would a configuration be acceptable in which activation of the backup lamps is delayed for 4 seconds when the transmission is placed in reverse gear, to allow deployment of the spoiler.

In "Variant B," the rear fog lamp and/or backup lamp are located in the spoiler "and therefore movable." However, "if the spoiler is in rest position the lamps are covered, if the spoiler is extended the lamps are visible." We don't quite understand how a backup lamp integrated into the rear spoiler is covered when the spoiler is at rest, but, as we advised in the previous paragraph, the backup lamp must not be obscured by the spoiler at any time when the lamp has been activated, and the lamp is activated when the transmission is placed in reverse gear. Furthermore, the backup lamp as installed in the spoiler, must comply with all photometric and visibility requirements that apply to backup lamps when it is activated.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
ref.108
d.11/24/99

ID: nht88-1.7

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 01/01/88 (EST)

FROM: PAUL RENEAU

TO: U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 08/26/88 TO PAUL A. RENEAU FROM ERIKA Z. JONES, REDBOOK A32, STANDARD 118

TEXT: Dear Engineer:

Would you please review the following information and inform me as to whether the design of the power-operated window system described and specified meets rule no. 118, titled "Power-Operated Window Systems" as amended in 1983.

SPECIFICATION: As per rule no. 118, S1 in the schematic corresponds to the ignition key switch. S1 is closed in the "ON" or "ACCESSORY" position. Closing S1 activates transistor Q1 which deactivates transistor Q2. Q2 supplies voltage/current to transi stors Q3 and Q4. Q3 drives power relay K1 and Q4 drives power relay K2. Both relays have normally open contacts which supply voltage to drive electric window and/or partition motors. With S1 in the "ON" or "ACCESSORY" position, normal power window and /or partition function exists. When the key that controls S1 is returned to the "OFF" position, Q1 is deactivated after capacitor C1 discharges through resistor R1 for a time period determined by RC timing circuit; D1, C1, R1 and Q1. Q2 is activated upo n deactivation of Q1 and supplies voltage/current to Q3 and Q4. Q3 is driven by RC timing circuit; C2, R3 for a time period determined by the values of C2 and R3. Q3, as stated, drives normally-open relay K1 which in turn drives electric motor M1. Q4 operates in a similar manner driving motor M2. Upon deactivation of Q3 and Q4, relays K1 and K2, and consequently, motors M1 and M2 are deactivated. With R3 and R4 as potentiometers, the corresponding motor activation can be adjusted for only as long a s required to close the said window and/or partition. S2 is closed when either front door is opened. This switch (es) corresponds to switches currently used on vehicle door posts to activate interior/courtesy lights and the door-ajar indicator. These switches are widely used and proven reliable in the industry. Opening either front door closes switch S2 and short circuits the RC timing circuits driving K1 and K2 thus instantaneously stopping motors M1 and M2. The said circuits are reactivated ONLY by closing S1 which requires that the key be in the ignition and in the "ON" or "ACCESSORY" position. This insures that the driver would almost certainly have to be in the vehicle.

2

SPECIFICATION cont.

In the event that a door is opened while the ignition key is in the "ON" or "ACCESSORY" position, the RC timing circuit supplying Q3 and Q4 are shorted. If both front doors are not closed prior to returning the ignition key to the "OFF" position, the sy stem remains totally deactivated. It should be noted that in addition to the requirements of the NHTSA, this system also employs an "OFF/ON" switch which is easily accessible to the driver. This switch is not shown on the schematic, however, it supplie s ground to the system, and must be in the "ON" position prior to turning the ignition key from the "ON" or "ACCESSORY" position to "OFF" in order to activate the system. This switch allows the system to be turned off when it is not needed (cold weather ) or if the ignition key switch is not used to deactivate the system.

It is understood that component electrical ratings must be maintained as in any electrical device.

If you have any questions or require further information, please contact me.

Thank you for you time and promptness in reviewing this matter.

ENCLOSURE

(DIAGRAM OMITTED)

ID: nht72-4.20

DATE: 02/28/72

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Nissan Motor Company, Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of February 7, 1972, in which you stated your understanding of how Standard 210 applies to two shoulder belt assembly configurations.

In Figure 1, you show a shoulder belt that passes through a slotted plate (A) bolted to the roof rail. Contrary to the impression you have received, the plate is not a part of the anchorage, but is rather a part of the seatbelt assembly. The anchorage consists of the reinforced roof rail structure, including the bolt hole and any retaining ridges or projections on the roof rail. Plates such as Hardware (A) that bolt onto the roof rail are similar in function to the floor mounted attachment plates that have always been considered as part of the seatbelt assembly, and are similarly treated.

The same remarks apply to the plate shown as (B) in Figure 2. This is also a part of the seatbelt assembly, and not part of the anchorage.

The anchorage strength test should be conducted as you show in Figure 3 and 4, using the complete Type 2 assembly provided with the vehicle.

We regret the misunderstanding about the classification of the attachment hardware and hope that it has not caused you inconvenience.

YOURS TRULY,

NISSAN MOTOR CO., LTD.

February 7, 1972

Lawrence Schneider National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

This is in confirmation of my discussion with Mr. Hunter and Mr. Hitchcock on February 2, 1972, regarding MVSS 210.

Through the above meeting, we understood the following:

1. In the case of Figure 1, the hardware (A) attached on the roof side rail should be treated as an upper torso seat belt anchorage.

2. In the case of Figure 2:

a. The hardware (B) should be treated the same as Figure 1.

b. The intermediate hardware (C) should not be treated as a seat belt anchorage, but handled as a hardware which must conform to MVSS 209 requirement.

3. Seat belt anchorage strength test should be conducted by using the actual Type 2 seat belt set including retractors, and hardware as described in Figure 3 and 4.

NISSAN MOTOR COMPANY, LTD.

Satoshi Nishibori Engineering Representative Liaison Office in U.S.A.

Fig 1

[GRAPHICS OMITTED]

Fig. 2

[GRAPHIC OMITTED]

FIG 3

[GRAPHIC OMITTED]

ID: nht94-1.90

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: March 21, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: James E. Schlesinger -- Esq., Schlesinger, Arkwright & Garvey

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 12/2/93 from James E. Schlesinger to Walter K. Myers (OCC-9388), letter dated 12/23/92 from James E. Schlesinger to Walter K. Myers, and letter dated 2/23/93 from John Womack to James E. Schlesinger

TEXT:

This responds to your letter addressed to Walter Myers of this office in which you posed certain questions relating to the Uniform Tire Quality Grading Standards (UTQGS), 49 CFR 575.104. Reference is also made to our letter to you dated February 23, 199 3, in which we addressed certain other of your questions concerning the UTQGS.

In your most recent letter, you set forth a very complicated factual scenario about certain events which occurred during 1990-91, and which involved three companies. At the end of the letter you asked, with respect to each company, whether the company w as in violation of one or more provisions of 49 CFR Part 575. You also asked whether, in addition to the penalties for violation of the UTQGS as set forth in S109 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, 15 U.S.C. S1381, et seq. (Act or Saf ety Act), there are "additional sanctions requiring the manufacturer or brand name owner to recall unlawful product or notification procedures intended to identify unlawful product in the marketplace."

The purpose of our interpretation letters is to explain or clarify the meaning of our standards and regulations. Our letters are not intended to be adjudicative in nature. Given that the issues you raise about the three companies concern past conduct, involve complicated factual issues, and ultimately relate to whether a violation of the UTQGS has occurred, we do not believe that it would be appropriate to issue an interpretation letter concerning them.

It would be appropriate, however, to clarify a statement made in our February 23, 1993, letter. The second paragraph from the bottom of page 2 of that letter states:

Although both the Act and the UTQGS are silent as to whether tires can be imported or distributed without the UTQGS information, there would be no point in doing so since the tires cannot legally be sold without that information.

Please note that S102(5) of the Safety Act defines "manufacturer" as including any person importing motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Therefore, an importation of noncomplying tires would be considered a manufacture of noncomplying tires under t he Act. Thus, if a tire is required to be manufactured with certain information molded into or onto the tire sidewall, it may not be imported without such molded information. Any person doing so would be in violation of S108(a) of the Act.

Should you wish this agency to investigate whether there has been a violation of the UTQGS, you may write to Mr. William A. Boehly, this agency's Associate Administrator for Enforcement, at this address, providing all relevant facts in detail. If you wi sh to discuss enforcement policies with this office, you may contact Kenneth Weinstein, Esq., our Assistant Chief Counsel for Litigation, at this address or at (202) 366-5263.

With respect to your last question, we assume you are referring to Part B of the Safety Act, 15 U.S.C. S1411, et seq., which requires manufacturers of motor vehicles and items of replacement equipment to provide notification of, and a remedy for, safety- related defects and noncompliance with Federal motor vehicle safety standards prescribed pursuant to S103 of the Act. Those provisions do not apply to tires that fail to comply with the UTQGS, since the UTQGS were not "prescribed pursuant to section 103. " Rather, they were prescribed as consumer information regulations pursuant to S203 and 112(d) of the Safety Act.

I hope this information is helpful to you.

ID: aiam1517

Dear Mr. Nield:#This is in response to your letter of JUne 10, 1974, i which you asked for our interpretation of the preemption provisions of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (sec. 103(d)) with respect to the Pennsylvania position on brake hose. A letter that you enclosed from the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation advised a manufacturer's representative that 'Pennsylvania will continue to approve brake hoses under the SAE Standards for air, hydraulic and vacuum hose,' and that the State 'will continue to require the hose be identified in the same manner as our present regulations.' with the Federally-required labeling placed on 'a separate line' from the State's labeling.#Section 103(d) of the Act, 15 U.S.C 1392(d), plainly prohibits any State from establishing or continuing in effect a safety standard applicable to an item of motor vehicle equipment, where there is an applicable Federal standard, unless the State standard is 'identical to the Federal standard.' This preemption provision takes effect whenever a Federal standard is applicable to the same aspect of performance as the State standard. When the new Federal standard on brake hoses comes into effect, with its testing and labeling requirements, any differing State standards, as Pennsylvania's appear to be will be preempted and void.#Sincerely, Lawrence R, Schneider,Chief Counsel;