ID: aiam1171

Dear Mr. Stewart: This is in reply to your letter of May 24, 1973, concerning th procedure for testing seat belt attachment bolts specified in section S5.2(c)(1) of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 209.; The attachment bolts that you describe have extremely long shoulder and are installed in the vehicle by being passed through a hat section before entering the floor pan. Your question is whether the test procedure of S5.2(c)(1) permits the hat section to be used in conjunction with the test fixture shown in Figure 3. It is our opinion that section S5.2(c)(1) permits some discretion in the manner in which the Figure 3 test fixture is to be used and that a hat section duplicating the section used in the vehicle would be permitted as part of the test apparatus. We therefore confirm your impression that you may use the hat section in testing your bolts.; Sincerely, Lawrence R. Schneider, Chief Counsel

ID: baker2.crs

Mr. James Baker
Technical Services
State of New York
Department of Motor Vehicles
Division of Vehicle Safety Services
P.O. Box 2700 ESP
Albany, NY 12220-0700

Dear Mr. Baker:

This is in response to your letter of December 11, 1996 to Coleman Sachs of my staff, seeking clarification of information that this Office previously furnished you on the subject of gross vehicle weight ratings (GVWRs). In response to your letter of October 4, 1996, we supplied you with a number of interpretative letters that this Office has previously issued with regard to this and other related subjects.

In one of these letters, addressed to John Paul Barber, Esquire and dated May 24, 1993, we observed that it would be appropriate for a party who modifies a used vehicle so that its originally assigned GVWR is no longer appropriate "to add a label to the vehicle which indicates the appropriate loaded weight of the modified vehicle." This has prompted you to ask whether "an alterer (e.g. truck shop) that makes modifications of a used truck to allow it to carry additional weight [can] issue an additional label indicating the vehicle's new loaded weight (GVWR)." You have further asked whether the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) will recognize this as the vehicle's GVWR.

As stated in our previous letter to you, NHTSA has long taken the position that the only parties who can assign or modify a vehicle's GVWR are the original manufacturer, a final stage manufacturer, or an alterer, and that modifications to an existing GVWR should only be made when an error has been committed in its assignment. NHTSA's vehicle certification regulations at 49 CFR 567.7 describe an "alterer," as used in this statement, as

a person who alters a vehicle that has been previously certified . . . other than by the addition, substitution, or removal of readily attachable components such as mirrors or tire and rim assemblies, or minor finishing operations such as painting, or who alters the vehicle in such manner that its stated weight ratings are no longer valid, before the first purchase of the vehicle in good faith for purposes other than resale . . . (emphasis added).

Consistent with this description, a person who makes modifications to a used vehicle (i.e, a vehicle that has already been purchased for purposes other than resale) does not qualify as an "alterer," as that term is used in NHTSA's regulations. There is no regulatory requirement for such a person to affix a label to the vehicle once it is modified in such a manner that its GVWR is different from that shown on the original certification label, as there is for alterers under 49 CFR 567.7(b). Absent such a regulatory requirement, this Office stated in its letter to Mr. Barber that when modifications are made to a used vehicle that make the originally assigned GVWR inappropriate for the vehicle as modified, the modifier should add a label to the vehicle that indicates its appropriate loaded weight.

Consistent with this guidance, a party who modifies a used truck to allow it to carry additional weight can affix an informational label that identifies the loaded weight of the vehicle as modified. You have asked whether NHTSA would "recognize" the loaded weight specified by the modifier as the vehicle's GVWR. Because the modifier would not qualify as an original or final stage manufacturer or as a vehicle alterer, he would not be in a position to assign the vehicle a new GVWR. Consequently, NHTSA would not recognize the loaded weight that the modifier specifies on the informational label as the vehicle's GVWR. Nevertheless, the agency is aware that there is a need for the owners and users of the modified vehicle to be apprised as to how heavily it may safely be loaded. For that reason, NHTSA would encourage the modifier to add an informational label identifying the vehicle's new loaded weight.

There is, of course, no legal requirement for the modifier to affix such a label. The only legal requirement that is imposed on commercial entities that make modifications to used vehicles is that they "not knowingly make inoperative any part of a device or element of design installed on or in [the] vehicle . . . in compliance with an applicable motor vehicle safety standard . . . ." 49 U.S.C. 30122(b). The modifier must therefore ensure that the vehicle's brakes and other systems that may be affected by increased vehicle weight remain in compliance with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards once the modifications are performed. Civil penalties can be imposed under 49 U.S.C. 30165(a) for violations of section 30112(b).

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions regarding this matter, feel free to contact Mr. Sachs at the address above, or by telephone at 202-366-5238.

Sincerely,

John Womack

Acting Chief Counsel

ref:567

d:4/2/97

ID: nht87-2.12

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/17/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: MMC Services Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Nobuyoshi Takechi Technical Manager MMC Services Inc. 3000 Town Center Suite 1960 Southfield, MI 48075

Dear Mr. Takechi:

This is in reply to your letter of April 24, 1987, with reference to the legality of a proposed concealed headlamp design. As we understand the proposed design, the headlamp could be used in the "concealed" position as a forward warning (which you believ e "is similar to the daytime running light principle" and "is useful to avoid accidents") and in the unconcealed position as a headlamp to provide visibility of the roadway ahead. A portion of the vehicle body in front of the concealed headlamp would be clear, allowing the beam from the concealed lamp to shine through it. The steady burning forward warning signal would be given by pulling a spring-loaded switch. Releasing the switch would turn off the headlamp. Thus, the concealed headlamp would not, as a practical matter, be used for providing visibility of the roadway ahead but as an alternative to the vehicle's audible warning device, the horn. The proposed use would be a visual "horn." Finally, you state that the beam pattern and intensity of the l amp "is corresponding to the headlamp's," although you do not explain how this is possible, given the potential for interference from the vehicle's body.

Standard No. 108 prohibits covers or other styling features in front of a required headlamp when it is being used for purposes such as illuminating the roadway ahead or increasing the visibility of the vehicle in conditions of reduced visibility. We do n ot consider this prohibition applicable when a headlamp is being used, in all likelihood momentarily, for forward signalling as described. Further, use in this manner would not appear to impair the lighting equipment required by the standard. Additionall y, headlamps may be wired to flash for signalling purposes, as you have proposed, however, we are unable to advise you whether operation of this device is acceptable under the laws of the individual States. Your letter does not indicate whether the beam utilized is the upper beam or the lower beam; some jurisdictions such as the District of Columbia and Virginia prohibit use of the upper beam for signaling purposes. Others may restrict use of headlamps or a portion of them during daylight hours; we expe ct to learn more about this in comments to the docket on the daytime running lamp proposal. In the meantime, I would advise you to write the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 1201 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20036, for its views on State laws.

You have stated that this use "is similar to the daytime running light principle." However, as proposed by the Government of Canada, and by the U.S. Government in the Federal Register (52 FR 9316) such "DRLs" would be automatically energized, and not ene rgized at the driver's choice as is your device. Therefore, we do not view the operation of your device as similar to the daytime running light principle.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

April 24, 1987

Ms. Erika Jones, Chief Counsel NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION U. S. Department of Transportation 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Ms. Jones:

MMC has been developing concealed headlamps for application to our future models. (See attached). In this design, a portion of the body in front of the concealed headlamps is replaced with a clean material. This will allow the driver to give a steady-state forward warning without having to open the headlamp. The driver gives a forward warning by pull ing a spring-loaded switch, such as the headlamp upper/lower beam changing lever, and the headlamps are turned off by release of this switch. The photometric performance (beam pattern and intensity) is corresponding to the headlamp's.

We believe this function is similar to the daytime running light principle, is useful to avoid accidents, and we find no regulations prohibiting such system.

Please provide us with your opinion as to the legality of this system.

If you have any questions, please contact me at (313) 353-5444. Very truly yours,

Nobuyoshi Takechi Technical Manager

NT/sg MMC SERVICES, INC.

Enclosure

ID: aiam4129

Dear Mr. Griffing: This responds to your letter to Mr. Glen Ludwig, of our Enforcemen division, seeing an interpretation of Standard No. 119, *New Pneumatic Tires for Motor Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars* (49 CFR S571.119). Specifically, you stated that your company would like to label the following information on medium truck tires, in addition to the information specifically required to appear on the tires by Standard No. 119:; >>>1. the load index specified by the International Standard Organization (ISO), and; 2. the speed rating specified by the European Tire and Rim Technica Organisation (ETRTO).<<<; You asked two questions concerning these markings. First, you aske whether Standard No. 119 allows tire manufacturers to place two different load plates on tires, one for Standard No. 119 and one with the ISO load index, even if the maximum load given in pounds is not exactly the kilogram value for the maximum load of the listed ISO load index. The answer to this question depends on whether the ISO load index information is presented in a manner that would obscure or confuse the meaning of the information required to appear on the sidewall of the tire by Standard No. 119, or otherwise defeat the purpose of the required information.; Paragraph S6.5 of Standard No. 119 requires that certain information b labeled on the sidewalls of each tire subject to this standard. The agency has frequently stated in past interpretations that the purpose of these labeling requirements is to provide the consumer, in a clear and straightforward manner, with technical information necessary for the safe use of tires. See, for example, the enclosed April 30, 1980 letter to Mr. Arnold van Ruitenbeek. Standard No. 119 permits tire manufacturers to label additional information on the sidewall of the tires, provided that the additional information does not obscure or confuse the meaning of the required information, or otherwise defeat its purpose.; It is not clear from your letter whether you are proposing to add jus the ISO load index to the required information on the sidewall of the tires, or that load index *and* a separate maximum load rating expressed in kilograms. If you are proposing the former course of action, Standard No. 119 does *not* prohibit tire manufacturers from adding the ISO load index to the information required by Standard No. 119 to appear on the sidewall of the tires, provided that the load index is shown in such a way that it is not confusing to consumers. This agency sent two letters to Michelin Tire Corporation on this subject, dated July 14, 1980 and August 28, 1980. I have enclosed copies of these letters for your information.; If, on the other hand, you are proposing the latter course of action NHTSA has said that the load and inflation pressure information can be expressed in both English units and metric units, provided that the metric units are *equivalent* to the English units. See the enclosed April 5, 1979 letter to Mr. Michael Petler. However, Standard No. 119 does *not* permit a tire manufacturer to list two different maximum load values on its tires. See the enclosed August 18, 1983 letter to Mr. Arnold van Ruitenbeek. Accordingly, if your company's tires were to list one value as the maximum load rating in pounds and a *different* value as the maximum load rating in kilograms, NHTSA would consider such labeling to be a violation of the requirement in S6.5(d) of the Standard.; Your second question was whether this Department put out any specia instructions for tire manufacturers regarding the placement on the tire of the ETRTO and ISO information. As explained above, Standard No. 119 prohibits the addition of information to tire sidewalls only if such information confuses or obscures the meaning of the required information. There are no further 'special instructions' concerning this requirement. In past agency interpretations, the agency has made clear that the ETRTO speed ratings and the ISO load indices may be included in a tire's *size designation* without violating this prohibition. See the enclosed June 25, 1981 letter to Mr. Keigo Ohgiya for the ETRTO speed ratings and the August 28, 1980 letter to Mr. John B. White for the ISO load indices.; This agency position leaves wide latitude for the tire manufacturers t incorporate such additional information onto the tire sidewalls. One of the reasons for allowing this wide latitude is this agency's hope that the tire manufacturers can collectively agree, through the standardization organizations, to a resolution of the potential problems associated with providing additional information. If the tire companies jointly agree on a method of presenting this information that is not confusing to consumers, no 'special instructions' or other actions by this agency would be needed.; Should you have any further questions or need more information on thi subject, please contact Steve Kratzke of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 426- 2992.; Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam1299

Dear Mr. Semark: This is in reply to your letter of October 11, 1973, requesting tha Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 217, Bus window Retention and Release,' be amended to include buses of the same design as school buses within the exemption from the emergency exit requirements specified for school buses' in S5.2.3 of the standard.; The NHTSA takes the position that buses of the same design as buse specifically designed as school buses, regardless of their intended use, are school buses for purposes of Standard No. 217. They are, therefore, exempt from the emergency exit requirements of the standard as specified in S5.2.3. No amendment of the standard is necessary.; Yours truly,Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel

ID: nht90-4.78

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: December 11, 1990

FROM: Chino O'Hara -- Minority Co-Ordinator, Del Mar Manufacturing Company

TO: Office of Chief Council -- NHTSA-NCC

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated January 14, 1991 from Paul Jackson Rice to Chino O'Hara (A37; Std. 108; Std. 121; Std. 302; Std. 105; VSA 108(a)(2)(A))

TEXT:

Del Mar Manufacturing Co, has been in Business for over 20 years, we are a Certified Minority Owned Business here in Southern Cal. Our product (HUSKY-ANTI SQUEEK) is a breakthrough in the Automotive Aftermarket Brake Industry. Currently this product is being tested by GENERAL MOTORS, FORD, CHRYSLER, TOYOTA, HONDA, NISSAN and some military installations. The question keeps coming up (DO WE NEED DOT APPROVAL FOR OUR PRODUCT). If you can answer this question in a written response to us it would be appr eciated.

Attachment

MATERIAL SAFETY DATA SHEET DEL MAR MANUFACTURING CO. 2713-B N. TOWNE AVE. POMONA, CA. 91767 EMERGENCY TELEPHONE: 714-625-0555 SECTION I-PRODUCT IDENTIFICATION

Part Number: AS-88 Product Name: Husky Brake Anti-SqueekChemical Family: Brake Quite

SECTION II-HAZARDOUS INGREDIENTS

Ingredients: % TLVGraphite-Carbon Black: 4.8 --- Aliphatic Solvent : 27.0 400 Aromatic Solvents : 28.0 200

SECTION III-PHYSICAL DATA

Boiling Poin: Deg. F/C 181 F/83 C Specific Gravity: 1.1 Vapor Pressure (MM HG): 33 %Volatile Volume: 68 Vapor Density (AIR=1): 1.3 Evaporation Rate: 1.5Solubility in Water: Miscible Water/oil Dist Coeff: 9 Appearance and Odor: High Viscosity Black Liquid, Slightly Sweet Odor. Physical State: Liquid Freeze Pt.: Deg F/C 10F/-14C Threshold Odor.PPM 5PH: N/A

SECTION IV-FIRE AND EXPLOSION HAZARD

Flammability Classification: Flammable Liquid NFPA Rating: 1,3,0 Flash Point Deg. 54/11 C Extinguishing Media: Extinguish With Dry Chemical Water, ray or Fog Special Fire Fighting Procedures: Use Air Supplied Rescue Equipment in Closed Areas. Cool Exposed Container With Water. Explosive Power: Low Impact Sensitive: NoBurning Rate: Low

SECTION V-HEALTH HAZARD DATA

Threshold Limit Value: 390 PPM Effects of Overexposure: May Cause Dizziness, Light Headache, and Difficulty in Breathing in areas of High Concentration of Vapors. Any Victim Should Seek Air Free of Vapors. Emergency and First Aid Procedures: Eyes, Flush Immediately With Plenty of Waters. Skin, Wash with Soap and Water. If Swallowed, Do Not Induce Vomiting and Contact Physician Immediately.

SECTION VI-REACTIVITY DATA

Stability: Yes Conditions to Avoid: Keep Away From Heat, Sparks, Flames or Sources of Ignition. Incompatibility: Strong Oxidizers Hazardous Decomposition Products: No Hazardous Polymerization: No

SECTION VII-SPILL OR LEAK PROCEDURES

Steps to be Taken in Case Material is Released or Spilled: In Case of Spill: Flush Small Amounts to Sewer With Plenty of Water. Remove All Sources of Ignition, Ventilate Area, Clean up With Absorbent Material Contain and Pick up Waste Material, Put in a Sealed Approved Container. Report Quantity: 10,000 lb. Dispose of Waste In Accordance With Federal, State and Local Regulations.

SECTION VIII-SPECIAL PROTECTION INFORMATION

Respiratory Protection: Use Only in Well Ventilated Areas.

Ventilation-Local: Recommended Mechanical : Required Special : Keep Away From Heat and Flame

Protective Gloves: Vinyl or Leather Solvent Resistant Gloves, Eye Protection : Goggles Other Protective Equipment: Vinyl or Leather Apron & If Ventilation is Inadequate, Wear Approved Respiratory Equipment.

SECTION IX - SPECIAL PRECAUTIONS

Precautions To Be Taken In Handling and Storing: Store in Cool Dry Area, Keep Away From Heat, Sparks, Flames, or Sources of Ignition. Adequate Ventilation Required. Avoid Prolonged or Repeated Breathing of Gas, Fumes, Vapor or Spray Mist. Avoid Prolonged or Repeated Contact With Skin. Do Not Take I nternally. In Case of Accident or Illness, Contact Physician Immediately.

Other Precautions: Keep Out of Reach of Children. Read and Follow Directions on The Product Label.

Neither this data sheet nor any statement contained herein grants or extends any license, express or implied, in connection with patents issued or pending which may be the property of the manufacture or others. The information in this data sheet has bee n assembled by the manufacturer based on its own studies and on the work of others. The manufacturer makes no warranties, express or implied, as to the accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of the information contained herein. The manufacturer shall not be liable (regardless of fault) to the vendee, the vendee's employees, or anyone for any direct, special or consequential damages arising out of or in connection with the accuracy, completeness, adequacy, or furnishing of such information.

BRAKE ANTI-SQUEEK APPLICATION INSTRUCTIONS STEP 1 : DISASSEMBLY

A : Remove pads from caliper assembly. B : Sand pad surface using a light to medium sand paper or emery cloth. This will remove the glaze (on used pads). STEP 2 : CLEANING

A : Spray (clean) pad surface liberally with brake cleaner. This removes all contaminants from the pad surface. Let dry completely, approximately one minute. STEP 3 : BRAKE ANTI-SQUEEK APPLICATION

A : Heat metal backing plate until lining is hot to open pores in the lining. Soak pads in brake anti-squeek for 10 minutes face down to allow solution to penetrate the pads. Note: Metal backing plate must be heated up to promote faster drying. STEP 4 : REASSEMBLY & INSTALLATION

When pad surfaces are compltely dry, assemble and reinstate brake assembly.

STEP 5 : TESTING THE BRAKES

It should be noted that brakes will GRAB & GROAN tremendously during the first two or three stops. This is normal. USE HUSKY BRAKE ANTI-SQUEEK, EVERYTIME YOU DO A BRAKE JOB.

Subject: "Husky Brake Anti-squeek (HBAS)" "cure for noisy, nervous brakes" Thank you for stopping at our booth.

The Del Mar manufacturing Co. started business in July 1972 with idea to manufacture and distribute the finest line of automotive chemicals and tire sealing products available at very competative prices. Now after 18 years in business we have reached th is goal of having the highest quality in products available throughout the country for the automobile, bicycle and motorcycle industries. Our products include tire sealers for almost all kinds of tires, brake anti-squeek for disc or regular brakes, D-gu m and Saf-T-Dip: a carburetor parts cleaner and fiberglass metal cleaner and polish. We welcome your orders and look forward to doing business with you.

We have nationwide W.D program for our very unique product "HUSKY BRAKE ANTI-SQUEEK". We have manufacturing representatives in all states except east coast and south eastern states.

Unlike many other jelly type products which are applied to the back of the plate, HBAS is applied directly on the pad surface which will stop BRAKE SQUEEKING and will produce a surface that gives better braking.

The following are unique features of HBAS: * Quiets noisy brakes. * Will stop brake squeaking and eliminate pad squeal. * Produce a surface that gives better braking. * Recommended for use on old or new pads, either metallic, semi-metallic, or organic or non-asbestos organic.

Here is some suggested approach that shows you why you should use HUSKY BRAKE ANTI-SQUEEK.

1. 87% of all brake job "comebacks" are squeek related. 2. Husky brake anti-squeek should be applied to all brake jobs as "insurance" against squeek comebacks. 3. One can of HBAS will treat 8-10 brake jobs making it a very in- expensive item to the mechanic, less than $0.50 per brake job. (average brake job - $185.00).

This product has been accepted by a great number of new and used car dealers and many big name chains specializing in brake jobs throughout the unites states. We invite you to try this effective solution to a particularly irritating source of noise poll ution. You will be amazed to see the results of your brakes after HBAS application.

This product has been endorsed by top two undercar distributors, TRUSTAR and CYGNUS for their members, private label under their name.

Thank you very much for your time. Please don't hesitate to call us for any question you may have.

BRAKE SQUEAKS DRIVING YOU NUTS !!! Nationally 28% of the brake jobs done come back, of which 87.0% are from squeaks.

The reason is because of lack of time, training and competitive cost of the brake job.

A large part of the squeaks are caused from the rotor and brake pad vibration. Squeaks are vibrations.

To help you understand more fully, think of the rotor being trued up by grinding away the rotor surface from the center to the outside edge of the rotor. By doing so, even on a fine cut, you leave grooves very much like a phonograph record has.

When you install the brake pads face surface to the rotor with groves, the brake pad is softer than the rotor and the rotor cuts grooves in the brake pad. When the rotor turns, the grooves and the brake pads try to follow the rotor grooves to the outsid e edge of the rotor, very much like the record player arm and needle follows the grooves in the phonograph record. We call this record effect, causing a squeak.

With the brake pad it can only travel so far and then snaps back and starts all over again until the rotor and brake pad wear together to a smooth working surface. It takes about 3000 to 5000 miles for this to happen.

This is by far the largest cause of squeaks in the brakes today.

To help correct this , there is a product called "HUSKY", it is an anti- squeek compound, made by Del Mar Manufacturing Company.

It is a compound that is applied to the face surface of the brake pad which soaks into the padding material and has graphite in it to help the pad to slip and not drag on the rotor, therefore eliminating the pad and rotor wearing together to cause a sque ak.

For a few cents per brake job, you can be assured that your customer's brake job will not come back with that all too frequent squeak that cost you time and money and most of all your customers trust you did the job right the first time.

Attachment

One page advertisement for Husky Brake Anti-Squeek (Text and graphics omitted)

ID: motor_vehicle_definition

Mr. M. James Lester
Director
NaturalForm, Inc.
1407 N. Batavia Street, Suite 111
Orange, CA 92867





Dear Mr. Lester:

This is in reply to your letter of March 30, 2001, asking for an interpretation that small utility trucks and vans you wish to import from Korea are not "motor vehicles" subject to regulation by this agency. You enclosed a flyer which describes the vehicles you wish to import as follows: (1) a "Coach" van, designed to seat 7 passengers; (2) a "Panel Van," designed to seat 2 passengers; and (3) two types of flatbed trucks-each designed to seat two passengers-one for standard cargo and the other for long cargo.

We note that we addressed the importation of similar vehicles manufactured by Asia Motors in our letter of August 11, 2000, to Daryl R. Nelson of Fleet Golf and Industrial Vehicles, Inc. In your letter, you list five factors that this agency has considered in determining whether a vehicle is a "motor vehicle" subject to our motor vehicle safety regulations. After each factor, you provide facts about your situation. These factors are:

1. Whether the vehicle will be advertised for use on-road as well as off-road, or whether it will be advertised exclusively for off-road use. You represent that "All advertising, brochures, and promotional materials will clearly state that these vehicles are intended for use off-road only." You further indicate that "use [of the vehicles] in any other capacity will serve to void the warranty." This factor suggests that the vehicles should not be considered motor vehicles.

2. Whether the vehicle's manufacturer or dealers will assist the vehicle's purchasers in obtaining certificates of origin or title documents to register the vehicle for on-road use. You addressed this factor by stating that "any MCO or MSO would have to come though our company, and under no circumstance would we ever assist in obtaining such documents for the purpose of registering these vehicles for on-road use." This factor would indicate that the vehicles should not be considered motor vehicles.

3. Whether the vehicles will be sold by dealers also selling vehicles that are classified as motor vehicles. You replied that your company "do[es] not intend to market these vehicles through automobile or truck dealers, but instead will market through golf car, turf and industrial vehicle dealers." According to your letter, such dealers "primarily sell vehicles for off-road use in such applications as[:] maintenance and material handling on golf course grounds, park grounds, large industrial plants, etc." While golf courses, park grounds, and large industrial plants may have roadways, these are generally not roads used by the general public. Accordingly, this factor suggests that the vehicles should not be considered motor vehicles.

4. Whether the vehicle has affixed to it a warning label stating that the vehicle is not intended for use on the public roads. You have informed us that the vehicles you wish to import will have a 2-inch by 7-inch yellow and black label mounted on the rear headed "WARNING" and which states that "This vehicle is for off-road use only. The use of this vehicle is not intended for on-road use, and it does not meet US DOT regulations for on-road use. It is illegal for use as a licensed vehicle!" As this agency's regulations concern on-road vehicles rather than on-road use, we would ask that you change the second sentence of the warning label to read as follows: "This vehicle is not intended for on-road use, and it does not meet US DOT regulations for on-road vehicles." With this change, this factor would indicate that the vehicles are not motor vehicles.

5. Whether states or foreign countries have permitted or are likely to permit the vehicle to be registered for on-road use. You state that "it is your understanding that some foreign countries do allow the use of these vehicles on-road in some circumstances." For purposes of this interpretation, we assume that they are operated there without the 25 mph-speed governor that you will install on the ones that your company intends to import into the United States. Since the vehicles closely resemble small trucks and vans used on the public roads, we believe it is likely that states would permit them to be registered for highway use. Therefore, this factor suggests that the vehicles should be considered motor vehicles.

Based on the representations in your letter and considering all the five factors discussed above, on balance, we believe that your vehicles are not "motor vehicles." However, we will reexamine this conclusion if we learn, for example, the vehicles are in fact used on the public roads by a substantial number of owners.

If you have any questions, you may contact Robert Knop of this Office at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel

ref:571
d.6/26/01

ID: 86-3.10

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 05/02/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Michael A. Doherty; NHTSA

TO: Michael A. Doherty, Esq. -- Kassel, Neuwirth and Geiger

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Michael A. Doherty, Esq. Kassel, Neuwirth & Geiger 845 Third Avenue New York, NY 10022

This responds to your letter to Stephen Kratzke of my staff, in which you asked for an interpretation of the requirements of 49 CFR S575.104, Uniform Tire quality Grading Standards (UTQGS). Specifically, you stated that your firm is the registered agent for a foreign tire manufacturer and that you would like a clarification of what information the manufacturer is required to provide to this agency under the UTQGS.

Before responding specifically to the statements in your letter, I would like to point out that the requirements for tire manufacturers to furnish UTQGS information to this agency are set forth in three different regulatory provisions. The first of these is 49 CFR S575.6(d)(2), which provides: "Each brand name owner of tires and each manufacturer of tires for which there is no brand name owner shall submit to the Administrator 10 copies of the information specified in Subpart B of this part that is applicable to the ... tires offered for sale, at least 30 days before it is first provided for examination by prospective purchasers pursuant to paragraph (c) of this section." This language makes clear that the only information the tire manufacturers must provide to this agency is information that will be provided for examination by prospective purchasers in accordance with 49 CFR S575.6(c).

The second regulatory provision addressing information to be provided by tire manufacturers is 49 CFR S575.6(c). That section provides that the tire manufacturer shall provide each of its dealers with a brochure setting forth the UTQGS information for each of its tires offered for sale by that dealer. The third regulatory provision is 49 CFR S575.104(d)(1)(ii), which requires that the information required by S575.6(c) shall list all possible grades for tires and restate verbatim the explanation for each performance area in which the tires are graded, as specified in Figure 2 of S575.104, although not necessarily in the same format as Figure 2. This section also requires that the information clearly and unambiguously indicate the grade in each performance area assigned to each of the manufacturer's tires sold by the dealer.

With this background, I will now address each of your statements, in the order they were presented in your letter. Each of my explanations will cite the applicable regulatory provision that is the authority for that explanation.

1. To register each new tire design, or each change in the applicable UTQG information with respect to an already registered tire design, the tire manufacturer must submit to DOT ten (10) copies of a brochure containing the tire design and UTQG information for the tire including the information set forth in the three paragraphs of 49 CFR 5575.104, Figure 2, Parts I and II of the Regulations.

Response: Tire manufacturers are not required to "register" tire designs with the agency. The manufacturers are only required to provide this agency with advance copies of the UTQGS information that will be furnished to their dealers. 49 CFR 5575.6(d)(2). If the tire manufacturer wishes to add a new tire design to the UTQGS information previously supplied to the agency, or to change some of the previously supplied information, the tire manufacturer must furnish this agency with 10 copies of a brochure showing all of the manufacturer's tire designs, including those designs for which the previously submitted information is unchanged, and the grades assigned to those tire designs. 49 CFR S575.6(c). This brochure must also include the explanations for the various possible grades set forth in Figure 2 of S575.104. 49 CFR S575.104(d)(1)(ii). For your information, I have enclosed a copy of a typical brochure furnished to this agency by a tire manufacturer.

2. Such brochures must be sent to all U.S. dealers of the manufacturer's tires and be delivered to purchasers when they examine and/or buy the manufacturer's tires. The brochures must be sent to the dealers with the first lot of each new design.

Response: The brochures must be sent to all dealers of the manufacturer's tires and furnished to all prospective and actual purchasers of those tires upon request. Brochures incorporating information on new tire designs must be furnished to dealers of the manufacturer's tires not later than the first day on which the manufacturer authorizes the tires to be put on general public display and sold to consumers. 49 CFR S575.6(c).

3. The ten (10) copies of the UTQG brochure must be submitted to DOT at least 30 days before such brochure is first provided to tire purchasers for examination.

Response: Your statement is correct. 49 CFR S575.6(d)(2).

4. Photographs of tires are not required to be submitted to DOT.

Response: Your statement is correct. There is no regulatory requirement that photographs of tires be provided to this agency.

5. UTQG labels are not required to be submitted to DOT.

Response: Your statement is correct. There is no regulatory requirement that UTQGS labels be provided to this agency.

6. If a tire manufacturer intends to market a tire that is already registered under a new or private brand name, all that is required is a letter to DOT setting forth the pattern code, tire size(s) and UTQG characteristics of the tire already registered and indicating that the tire will be sold under the additional brand name.

Response: This statement is inaccurate. If changed marketing practices by the tire manufacturer cause the UTQGS brochures submitted to its dealers and this agency to be either incomplete or incorrect, the tire manufacturer must revise its brochure. Ten copies of the revised brochure must be submitted to this agency 30 days before the marketing change takes effect, and revised brochures must be provided to each of the manufacturer's dealers not later than the day on which the marketing change takes effect. 49 CFR SS575.6(c) and (d)(2). The tire manufacturer may enclose a letter with its brochure explaining the change, but such a letter is not required.

7. If a private brand tire made by the tire manufacturer gets a new tire design, the manufacturer does not have to provide the updated UTQG information to DOT -- the brand name owner for the tire design would be required to provide the information.

Response: Your statement is correct. 49 CFR SS575.6(c) and (d)(2).

Should you have any further questions or need more information in this area, please feel free to contact Mr. Kratzke at this address or by telephone at (202) 426-2992.

Sincerely,

Original Signed By

Erika Z. Jones

Chief Counsel

Enclosure

February 18, 1986

Steven Kratsky, Esq. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration U.S. Department of Transportation 900 7th Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590 Re: Registration with the Department of Transportation ("DOT:) of Uniform Tire Quality Grading ("UTQG")

Dear Mr. Kratsky:

We are the registered agent of Hankook Tire Manufacturing Co., Ltd. of Seoul, Korea ("Hankook") a manufacturer of tires imported into the United States.

Pursuant to our recent telephone conversation with Mr. Nelson Gordy and you, this will confirm that the procedures for providing UTQG information to the consumer and registering it with the DOT are as follows:

1. To register each new tire design (pattern code), or each change in the applicable UTQG information with respect to an already registered tire design, Hankook must submit to DOT ten (10) copies of a brochure containing the tire pattern code and UTQG information for the tire including the information set forth the three paragraphs of 49 C.F.R. 575.104, Figure 2, Parts I and II of the Regulations.

2. Such brochures must be sent to U.S. dealers of Hankook and be delivered to purchasers when they examine and/or buy Hankook tires. The brochures must be sent to the dealers with the first lot of each new design.

3. The ten (10) copies of the UTQG brochure must be submitted to DOT at least thirty (30) days before such brochure is first provided to tire purchasers for examination.

4. Photographs of tires are not required to be submitted to DOT.

5. UTQG labels are not required to be submitted to DOT.

Steven Kratsky, Esq. Page 2

6. If Hankook intends to market a tire that is already registered under a new or private brand name, all that is required is a letter to the DOT setting forth the pattern code, tire size(s) and UTQG characteristics of the tire already registered and indicating that the tire will be sold under the additional brand name.

7. If a private brand tire has a new tire pattern code, Hankook is not required to register the tire with DOT -- the U.S. distributor of the private brand tires is required to register.

If the foregoing does not accurately and completely state the procedures related to registration of UTQG information with DOT, please advise us in writing at your earliest convenience.

Very truly yours,

Michael A. Doherty

ID: aiam3455

Dear Mr. Hingtgen: This responds to your recent inquiry to Joseph F. Zemaitis, Moto Vehicle Program Director, Region IX, regarding the applicability of Safety Standard No. 205, *Glazing Materials*, to auxiliary wind deflectors. You state that this office informed you last October that your auxiliary wind deflector must comply with Standard No. 205. However, G. & C. Mills Plastics, Inc., the manufacturer of the 'Weathershield,' has shown you correspondence from NHTSA and the Department of Commerce implying that the Federal motor vehicle safety standards do not apply to auxiliary wind deflectors. You consider this disparate treatment to be unfair, and you ask for an explanation.; Our position on the applicability of the Federal motor vehicle safet standards to your auxiliary wind deflector was stated in our October 8, 1980, letter (copy enclosed) and it remains unchanged. In that letter, we stated that on the basis of the information you provided in your letter of August 13, 1980, we find your wind deflector to be subject to Standard No. 205. This is because paragraphs S1 and S3 of Standard No. 205 provide that the regulation applies to all glazing materials used in motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. Section 102(4) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, as amended in 1974 (the Act), defines 'motor vehicle equipment' to include any 'accessory or addition to the motor vehicle.' Since an auxiliary wind deflector is an accessory to the motor vehicle, it is an item of motor vehicle equipment, and the glazing used in the deflector must comply with the requirements of Standard No. 205.; Mr. Zemaitis is presently in the process of obtaining from G. & C Mills Plastics, Inc. some additional information about the nature and use of the 'Weathershield.' If the 'Weathershield' is in fact an auxiliary wind deflector, then the glazing materials it contains must comply with Standard No. 205. The responsibilities and liabilities imposed by the Act on you as a manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment to which a safety standard applies (as discussed in our October 8, 1980, letter) would be equally applicable to G. & C. Mills Plastics, Inc.; The information that was provided to Mr. L. J. A. Mills by NHTSA an the Department of Commerce in 1979 is misleading. The July 13, 1979, letter from this agency states that ' t he NHTSA safety regulations apply to new vehicles--they do not apply to aftermarket applications where the driver installs various devices on his car.' The letter also states that 'the law does not allow a dealer or manufacturer to install devices which adversely affect the original safety standards established by the NHTSA.' These statements imply that the Federal motor vehicle safety standards do not apply to accessory equipment such as auxiliary wind deflectors which are designed to be installed on the vehicle by the vehicle owner, and that manufacturers of such equipment are not required to comply with any applicable regulations. This is *not* the case. It is true that an individual person can modify his or her own vehicle or equipment in any fashion without violating the Act. But this does not mean that the safety standards do not apply to equipment that is designed to be installed on the vehicle by the vehicle owner, or that the manufacturers or sellers of such equipment do not have to comply with applicable regulations. Section 108(a)(1)(A) of the Act prohibits any person from manufacturing for sale or selling any item of motor vehicle equipment that does not comply with all applicable safety standards in effect on the date of manufacture. The ability of an individual to install a noncomplying device on his vehicle without penalty is irrelevant to the obligation of the manufacturer or seller of that device to ensure that the device complies with *all* applicable safety standards. Thus, while an individual can install an auxiliary wind deflector that does not comply with Standard No. 205 on his own vehicle, you violate the Act if you manufacture or sell such a device.; The Department of Commerce states in its letter of August 8, 1979, tha 'the Department of Transportation does not have to approve your accessory item unless it involves the safe operation of an automobile, such as brakes, lights, etc.' This statement implies that the Department of Transportation 'approves' those items of motor vehicle equipment that are 'safety-related.' This is not true. NHTSA is empowered under the Act to establish Federal motor vehicle safety standards regarding motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. All motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment must comply with all applicable Federal safety standards in effect on the date of manufacture. NHTSA does not grant approval of vehicles or equipment prior to their sale. Rather, the Act provides that it is the manufacturer's responsibility to determine whether its vehicles or equipment are in compliance with all applicable safety standards and to certify its vehicles or equipment in accordance with that determination. The certification requirements for a manufacturer of auxiliary wind deflectors are discussed on page 2 of our letter of October 8, 1980. A manufacturer or seller of a vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment that does not comply with all applicable Federal safety standards in effect on the date of its manufacture or that does not properly certify its products violates Section 108(a)(1)(A) of the Act. This is discussed on page 2 of our October 8, 1980, letter. The Department of Commerce is not empowered or authorized to make statements or issue interpretations regarding the authority or regulations of the Department of Transportation or NHTSA. Therefore, the August 8, 1979, letter from Commerce may not be relied upon.; We intend to contact G. & C. Mills, Inc. and inform them that th 'Weathershield' must comply with Standard No. 205 if it is an auxiliary wind deflector. We hope this letter satisfies your concerns. Please contact Ms. Joan Griffin of my staff (202-426-9511) if you have further questions.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam0837

Dear Mr. Milby: This is in reply to your letter of August 22, 1972, regarding th applicability of the requirements of S5 and S6 of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208 to trucks and multipurpose passenger vehicles conforming to S4.3.2 and to buses conforming to S4.4.2 of the standard.; Although sections S6.2 and S6.3 have been amended to refer to bel systems, the reference applies only to vehicles that are required by S4 to meet the injury criteria by use of seat belts. Vehicles manufactured under the options of S4.3.2 and S4.4.2 are not required by the terms of those sections to meet either the occupant crash protection requirements of S5 or the injury criteria of S6. Such vehicles are therefore not affected by the amendments to S6.2 and S6.3, and continue to be exempt from compliance with S5 and S6.; Sincerely, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel