ID: 86-2.32

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/23/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Chih-Lo Hwang

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Chih-Lo Hwang Tetley, Inc. 7 High Street Spring Valley, N.Y. 10977

Dear Chih-lo Hwang:

This is in reply to your letter of March 3, 1986, stating that you are a manufacturer of the "center high-mounted collision avoidance lights", and have heard from AAMVA that there is a law prohibiting any selling of a safety device that has not been "DOT" approved. You have asked for a copy of this law.

We are not familiar with the AAMVA position with regard to center high-mounted stop lamps, but we will provide you with our views. First, the phrase "DOT approved" is frequently and mistakenly used to refer to equipment that must be certified as complying with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard. The Department neither "approves" nor "disapproves" motor vehicles and equipment. However, motor vehicles and certain motor vehicle equipment must be certified by their manufacturers as complying with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards.

With respect to the center high-mounted stop lamp, all passenger cars manufactured on or after September 1, 1985, must be equipped with a center high-mounted stop lamp as original equipment and any center high-mounted stop lamp that is manufactured to replace this original equipment must be certified as complying with Federal requirements. If the replacement lamp is not manufactured to comply and certified as complying. then its sale is a violation of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. I am enclosing a copy of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 which contains the requirements for center high-mounted stop lamps.

On the other hand, if the center high-mounted stop lamp is intended for sale in the aftermarket, to be used on a passenger car manufactured before September 1, 1985, which never had one as original equipment, it does not have to be manufactured to and certified as complying with Federal requirements. Nevertheless we encourage aftermarket manufacturer to voluntarily meet the Federal requirements. The lamp, however, may be subject to "approval" by the laws of the State in which the lamp pill be sold or used.

If you have any further questions, we shall be pleased to answer them.

Sincerely.

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

7 HIGH STREET SPRING VALLEY NEW YORK 10977 TEL.(914)352-6803

March 3 1986

Ms.Erika Z Jones Chief Counselor of National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 7 Street S, W. Washington D.C. 20590

Dear Ms Jones:

We are the manufacturer of the center high mounted collision avoidance lights. We have heard from AAMVA there is such law that Prohibited any illegal selling of this safety device item which have not been "DOT" approved, but unfortunately most our buyers do not familiar with this law. We like to prove it to them. Would you kind enough to send us a copy of this law? Your early respond would be deeply appreciated. Thank you.

Very Truly Yours, Tetley Inc.

Chih-Lo Hwang

ID: nht73-5.50

DATE: 12/20/73

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

TO: Jerry Van Dyke

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is to confirm the telephone conversation between you and Mr. Douglas Pritchard of my office concerning cruise control devices for mobile homes. As Mr. Pritchard advised you, Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 124, Accelerator Control Systems, does not preclude the use of cruise control units. While Standard No. 124 requires that the accelerator control device return to "idle" when the operator removes his foot from the accelerator or when the system itself fails, the term "idle position" is defined in Section 4.1 of the Standard to include the position set by a throttle setting device. As is stated in the Preamble to the Standard:

"The rule does not contain requirements for automatic speed control devices. It was found that although nine recall campaigns involving 61,176 vehicles have concerned these devices, no relationship to accelerator overspeed accidents could be established from automatic speed controls. Of the 540 multidisiplinary accident reports that were studied in formulating the final rule, none mentioned the automatic system."

I trust this information will be useful to you.

ID: reposses.etl

Ms. Valerie Phillips
101 Rocky View Drive
Cold Spring, KY 41076

Dear Ms. Phillips:

This is in response to your telephone request for information concerning whether the Federal odometer disclosure law requires an individual whose vehicle has been repossessed by a lender to provide the repossessing lender with an odometer disclosure statement.

The answer to your question is that the Truth in Mileage Act of 1986, as amended (49 U.S.C. 32701-711), the Federal statute that establishes requirements for odometer disclosure, and NHTSA's odometer disclosure regulations (49 CFR Part 580) do not require an odometer disclosure statement from the debtor when a vehicle is repossessed.

NHTSA has stated this position in an official interpretation letter to the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators dated November 8, 1994. I have enclosed a copy of that letter for your information. The agency's statement that Federal odometer disclosure requirements do not apply to vehicle repossessions appears in the first full paragraph on the third page.

In addition, I have enclosed a copy of section 580.3 of NHTSA's odometer disclosure regulations. That section specifically provides that creation of a security interest in a vehicle does not make the parties to the transaction "transferors" and "transferees" who are required to complete and sign an odometer disclosure statement. It follows that if the creation of a security interest does not require an odometer disclosure statement, no such statement is needed for an action taken to protect that interest, such as repossession.

I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any further questions on this matter, please contact Eileen Leahy, an attorney on my staff, at this address or by telephone at 202-366-5263.

Sincerely,

John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosures (2)
ref:580
d:1/10/97

ID: hen2.jeg

Lawrence F. Henneberger, Esq.
Arent, Fox, Kintner, Plotkin & Kahn
1050 Connecticut Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20036-5339

Dear Mr. Henneberger:

This letter follows up a meeting between you, your client, William A. Leasure, Jr., Executive Director of the Truck Manufacturers Association, and members of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's (NHTSA) staff. In the meeting, you and Mr. Leasure raised concerns about our

September 22, 1997, interpretation letter, addressed to Mr. Leasure, concerning Standard No. 208's air bag labeling requirements. The requirements at issue were established in a final rule published on November 27, 1996. In our interpretation letter, we recognized that the rulemaking establishing the requirements focused on light vehicles. However, based on the regulatory text and purpose of the requirements, we concluded that the requirements also apply to medium and heavy trucks equipped with air bags.

You and Mr. Leasure raised several concerns about our conclusion. Among other things, it was argued that the air bags used on these vehicles are very different than the ones used on light vehicles, and that the specific attention-getting warning labels developed for light vehicles are not needed for medium and heavy vehicles. It was also noted that the "DATES" section of the final rule establishing the labeling requirements identified a compliance date for light vehicles but not for medium or heavy vehicles.

Upon reconsideration, we have decided to revise our previous position and instead interpret the labeling requirements established in the November 27, 1996, final rule as applying only to passenger cars and to trucks, buses and multipurpose passenger vehicles with a GVWR of 8,500 pounds or less and an unloaded vehicle weight of 5,500 pounds or less. These are the vehicles that are required to have air bags under the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (Pub. L. 102-40), and they are the ones that NHTSA intended to address in the rulemaking at issue. We believe that this is supported by the preamble and by the DATES section of the final rule.

We agree with your view that different labels may be appropriate for different types of vehicles than the ones addressed in the rulemaking at issue. However, given our revised interpretation, we do not, at this time, see a need to address this subject in rulemaking. Under our interpretation, the labeling of these other vehicles is at the option of the manufacturer. Thus, if a manufacturer believes that the labels specified in Standard No. 208 are appropriate for other vehicles as well, it is free to use those labels. However, if the manufacturer believes that a different label is more appropriate, it is free to use that label.

If you have any further questions about this subject, please feel free to call Edward Glancy of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
ref:208
d.3/23/99

ID: 21357.ztv

Mr. Gene A. Simpkins, Jr.
1835 - 18^th Avenue A
Moline, IL 61265

Dear Mr. Simpkins:

Senator Fitzgerald has asked us to reply to your e-mail to him regarding whether State laws permit the use of neon undercarriage lighting on motor vehicles.

Your letter asserts that "There is no law, in any state, that prohibits neon lighting." You ask "does this truly represent the legal position held by each state?"

We understand that neon undercarriage lighting is prohibited in Pennsylvania. I regret that we are not conversant with other State lighting laws . We establish the Federal motor vehicle safety standards which must be met at the time a vehicle is sold. Under Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment, neon undercarriage lighting, as a supplemental lighting device, is permitted as original equipment, installed either by the manufacturer or dealer, provided it does not impair the effectiveness of the lighting equipment that the standard requires. I enclose copies of three letters we have written to inquirers on this topic (August 9, 1984, to Lawrence Farhat; July 29, 1993, to Director Shipley of the Ohio Department of Safety; and April 21, 1992, to Allan Schwartz) which discuss the subject under Federal law and explain the relationship between Federal and State lighting laws.

These letters continue to represent our interpretation of Federal law. However, we understand that the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators no longer provides advice about State laws as they did at the time these letters were written. This means that, in order to verify your conclusion, you will have to contact the motor vehicle administration of each State as to whether it prohibits undercarriage neon lighting.

If you have any questions, you may telephone Taylor Vinson of this Office (202-366-5263).

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
Enclosures
ref:108
d.3/30/2000

ID: nht89-2.43

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/24/89

FROM: STEPHEN P. WOOD -- NHTSA ACTING CHIEF COUNSEL

TO: WAYNE KRAUSE -- ENGINEERING SUPERVISOR WALTCO TRUCK EQUIPMENT COMPANY

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 06/21/89 FROM WAYNE KRAUSE -- WALTCO TO STEVEN P. WOOD -- NHTSA; OCC 3668

TEXT: Dear Mr. Krause:

This is in reply to your letter of June 21, 1989, asking for an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

You have enclosed drawings of a rear lighting configuration (tail, stop, and turn signal lamps) intended for installation of your "RGL-Series tail gate lift with the platform stored below floor level of a truck or trailer for transit". You state that the platform in this position would block from view any normal taillamp arrangement, and that in order to comply with the 45 degree visibility requirement of Standard No. 108, you propose to use two sets of lamps. "Light Set 1 is installed above floor leve l (not to exceed 72" for ground) and inside of tail gate rails." The other, "Light Set 2 will be installed under the vehicle body. . . ." Light Set 1 would be visible "from the rear of the vehicle and would act as the primary tail lights." The other arra ngement, Light Set 2, "would act as auxiliary tail lights that would be visible from the side of the vehicle. . . ." You believe that such a configuration is acceptable under paragraph S4.3.1.1.1 (now S5.3.1.1.1) of Standard No. 108, and ask for our comm ents.

Paragraph S5.3.1.1.1 states in pertinent part:

[E]ach lamp shall . . . shall be located so that it meets the visibility requirements specified in any applicable SAE Standard or Recommended Practice. . . . . However, if motor vehicle equipment . . . prevents compliance with this paragraph by any r equired lamp . . . an auxiliary lamp . . . meeting the requirements of this paragraph shall be provided.

While you have developed a novel concept to address the lighting problem posed by the RGL Series, it is not one that is permitted by paragraph S5.3.1.1.1, or by the SAE Standards incorporated by reference in Standard No. 108. The paragraph clearly st ates that "each" lamp shall meet the visibility requirements, and if the vehicle configuration prohibits that, then an auxiliary lamp "meeting the requirements of this paragraph" shall be provided. The basic SAE visibility requirement applicable to lamp s in the array is that they be visible through a horizontal angle from 45 degrees to the left to 45 degrees to the right. This means that if the primary lamp does not meet the visibility requirements, the auxiliary lamp must, and the requirements cannot be met through partial compliance of each lamp. Neither appears to meet the total visibility requirements of Standard No. 108 applicable to each lamp, and thus such a configuration would not meet Federal lighting requirements.

Sincerely,

ID: 1918y

Mr. Wayne Krause
Engineering Supervisor
Waltco Truck Equipment Company
P.O. Box 1186
Gardena, CA 90249-1186

Dear Mr. Krause:

This is in reply to your letter of June 21, l989, asking for an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. l08.

You have enclosed drawings of a rear lighting configuration (tail, stop, and turn signal lamps) intended for installation of your "RGL-Series tail gate lift with the platform stored below floor level of a truck or trailer for transit". You state that the platform in this position would block from view any normal taillamp arrangement, and that in order to comply with the 45 degree visibility requirement of Standard No. l08, you propose to use two sets of lamps. "Light Set l is installed above floor level (not to exceed 72" for ground) and inside of tail gate rails." The other, "Light Set 2 will be installed under the vehicle body...." Light Set l would be visible "from the rear of the vehicle and would act as the primary tail lights." The other arrangement, Light Set 2, "would act as auxiliary tail lights that would be visible from the side of the vehicle...." You believe that such a configuration is acceptable under paragraph S4.3.1.1.1 (now S5.3.1.1.1) of Standard No. l08, and ask for our comments.

Paragraph S5.3.1.1.1 states in pertinent part:

[E]ach lamp shall ... shall be located so that it meets the visibility requirements specified in any applicable SAE Standard or Recommended Practice..... However, if motor vehicle equipment ... prevents compliance with this paragraph by any required lamp...an auxiliary lamp...meeting the requirements of this paragraph shall be provided.

While you have developed a novel concept to address the lighting problem posed by the RGL Series, it is not one that is permitted by paragraph S5.3.1.1.1, or by the SAE Standards incorporated by reference in Standard No. l08. The paragraph clearly states that "each" lamp shall meet the visibility requirements, and if the vehicle configuration prohibits that, then an auxiliary lamp "meeting the requirements of this paragraph" shall be provided. The basic SAE visibility requirement applicable to lamps in the array is that they be visible through a horizontal angle from 45 degrees to the left to 45 degrees to the right. This means that if the primary lamp does not meet the visibility requirements, the auxiliary lamp must, and the requirements cannot be met through partial compliance of each lamp. Neither appears to meet the total visibility requirements of Standard No. l08 applicable to each lamp, and thus such a configuration would not meet Federal lighting requirements.

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel

ref:l08 d:7/24/89

ID: nht79-4.2

DATE: 10/30/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Wanger Electric Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

NOA-30

Mr. J. W. Kourik Chief Engineer, Brake Products Wagner Electric Corporation 11444 Lackland Road St. Louis, Missouri 63141

Dear Mr. Kourik:

This responds to your September 17, 1979, letter asking whether Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems, permits manufacturers to install antilock devices on only one axle of a multi-axle vehicle. The answer to your question is yes.

As you know, the decision in PACCAR v. NHTSA, 573 F.2d 632 (9th Cir. 1978); cert. den'd, 439 U.S. 862 (Oct. 2, 1978) invalidated the antilock requirements as they apply to trucks and trailers. Accordingly, the anti-lock provisions of the standard no longer apply to those vehicles. A manufacturer that desires to install anti-lock devices can do so at its own discretion and to any extent that it considers appropriate. This includes the installation of antilock devices on only one axle. Of course, any installation of devices affecting braking must not impair the brake system's compliance with the standard.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

September 17, 1979

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Office of Chief Counsel Room 5219 Nassif Building Washington, D.C. 20590

Gentlemen:

Wagner agrees with the NHTSA position recognizing the benefits of antilock in their recommendation that antilock systems on existing vehicles be maintained in proper working condition.

In regard to existing and newly manufactured equipment, Wagner is aware that according to Notice 26 of Docket 75-16 dated 8/9/79:

"...the court's remand (9th District Court of Appeals, PACCAR vs. NHTSA and DOT)...precludes the agency from enforcing compliance with any road test requirement for trucks and trailers at any speed on wet or dry surfaces."

And also, as stated in Notice 01 of Docket 79-03 dated 2/15/79:

"...users...may order antilock according to their choice on new vehicles."

Wagner interprets that it is acceptable for manufacturers to equip fewer than all axles of a multi-axle vehicle for antilock control. Therefore, users who do elect to use antilock may choose, for example, a single anti-lock system for only one axle (in lieu of tandem control or axle-by-axle control) on a tandem axle trailer.

Wagner requests confirmation on our interpretation regarding acceptability of installations where fewer than all axles on a vehicle are under antilock control.

Very truly yours,

WAGNER ELECTRIC CORPORATION

J. W. Kourik, Chief Engineer Brake Products

JWK:DSQ:san

ID: nht88-4.42

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/19/88 EST

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA CHIEF COUNSEL

TO: TRACY L. CLARK, JR. -- VICE PRESIDENT - COTTLE INDUSTRIES

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: SEPTEMBER 27, 1988 LETTER FROM CLARK TO JONES AND COTTLE INDUSTRIES BROCHURE

TEXT: Thank you for your letter in which you requested confirmation of your company's status as an alterer of motor vehicles, pursuant to 49 CFR Part 567.7. You stated that your company, Cottle Industries, takes a new Honda moped that is certified as complyin g with all applicable safety standards, removes the plastic body shell and seating components, and adapts the vehicle for the use of wheelchair riders. Now called the Chariot, the modified moped allows the wheelchair bound to gain access to public roads and highways without having to ride in vans. You assert that the Honda front end and drive train components continue to retain their integrity. You enclosed a brochure describing the Chariot.

I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our regulations to you. Some background information on Federal motor vehicle safety laws and regulations may be helpful. As you are aware, our agency is authorized, under the National Traffic and Motor V ehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. @1381 et seq.; Safety Act), to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and certain items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA, however does not approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, nor do we endors e any commercial products. Instead, the Safety Act establishes a "self-certification" process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards.

Based on the facts set forth in your letter, it appears that Cottle Industries would be considered an alterer for the purposes of Part 567, Certification (copy enclosed). Alterers that are required to affix certification labels in accordance with $ 567. 7 are defined in that section as follows:

A person who alters a vehicle that has previously been certified in accordance with @567.4 or @567.5, 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, . . . before the first purchase of the vehicle in

good faith for purposes other than resale, shall allow the original certification label to remain on the vehicle, and shall affix to the vehicle an additional label of the type and in the manner and form described in $ 567.4, containing the following inf ormation: * * * * *

Cottle Industries does alter previously certified vehicles (the Honda mopeds)before the first purchase of the mopeds in good faith for purposes other than resale. The only conditions in which Cottle would not be required to affix its own certification l abels to each moped that it modifies would be:

1. The modifications consisted solely of "readily attachable components;" or

2. The modifications were only "minor finishing operations."

Based on the information you have provided, neither of these exceptions would apply in your company's case. Your company cuts the frame of the Honda moped being modified into two sections and then welds those sections to a new tubular steel frame. This new steel frame for the vehicle is not a "readily attachable component." Similarly, the operations performed by your company on the Honda mopeds appear to be far more sophisticated than "minor finishing operations." Accordingly, Cottle Industries appear s to be an alterer subject to the requirements of 49 CFR @ 567.7. In this case, @567.7 requires that:

(1) The alterer supplement the existing manufacturer certification label by affixing an additional label stating that the vehicle as altered conforms to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards as well as stating the firm or individual na me of the alterer and the month and the year in which the alterations were completed (see @567.7(a));(2) The modified values for the vehicle be provided as specified in @567.4(g) (3) and (5), if the gross vehicle weight ratings or any of the gross axle w eight ratings of the vehicle as altered are different from those shown on the original certification label (see @567.7(b)); and:

(3) The type classification be provided, if the vehicle as altered has a different type of classification from that shown on the original certification.

In addition to these certification requirements, an alterer is considered a "manufacturer" for the purposes of the Safety Act. Among other things, this means an alterer is responsible for notification and remedy of defects related to motor vehicle safet y and noncompliances with applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards, as specified in sections 151-160 of the Safety Act, and alterers are subject to the requirements of 49 CFR Part 573, Defect and Noncompliance Reports.

For the purposes of our safety standards, the Chariot would appear to be classified as a "motorcycle." A "motorcycle" is defined at 49 CFR @571.3 as "a motor vehicle with motive power having a seat or saddle for the use of the rider and designed to trave l on not more than three wheels in

contact with the ground." I am enclosing a publication entitled "Federal Vehicle Safety Standards and Procedures," which indicates those standards that apply to motorcycles. I am also enclosing a general information sheet for new manufacturers that give s a general description of the applicable regulations, and explains how to get copies of those regulations.

You also indicated that your company plans to leave in place on the altered vehicles the vehicle identification number (VIN) originally assigned by Honda to the vehicles. Standard No. 115, Vehicle Identification Number - Basic Requirements (49 CFR @571. 115) applies to all motorcycles. Section S4.1 of Standard No. 115 provides in part that: "Vehicle alterers, as specified in 49 CFR @567.7, shall utilize the VIN assigned by the original manufacturer of the vehicle." Accordingly, your company as an alter er is required to leave in place the VINs originally assigned by Honda.

If you have any further questions or need additional information on this subject, please feel free to contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Enclosures

ID: 2984yy

Eric G. Hoffman, Esq.
Russell & Hoffman, Inc.
2000 NCNB Plaza
300 Convent Street
San Antonio, Texas 78205-3793

Dear Mr. Hoffman:

This responds to your letter of March 26, 1991, addressed to Mr. Harry Thompson, asking about a private school's use of "mini-vans which are designed to carry more than 10 passengers." Your letter was referred to our office for reply. You stated that the school has become aware of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Safety Act) and is concerned whether the operation of the vans is in compliance with applicable regulations under the Act. You asked a number of questions related to that concern.

I am pleased to have this opportunity to clarify the operation of Federal law as it applies to school buses. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) defines "school bus" as a motor vehicle designed for carrying 11 or more persons, including a driver, and sold for transporting students to and from school or school-related events. Therefore, the vehicles refered to in your letter would be considered school buses under federal law.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has issued Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to all new school buses. These standards impose obligations on the manufacturers and sellers of new motor vehicles, not upon the subsequent users of these vehicles. It is a violation of Federal law for any person to sell as a school bus any new vehicle that does not comply with all school bus safety standards. If your client believes that they have been sold noncomplying vehicles, and that the dealer knew of their intended use, the school should contact NHTSA's Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, at the address given above, and inform them of the apparent violation of Federal law.

Without violating any provision of Federal law, a school may use a vehicle to transport school children, even if the vehicle does not comply with Federal school bus regulations. This is so because the individual States have authority over the activities of a user of a school bus. Since the various questions you ask assume that the Safety Act regulates users of school buses, we are unable to provide specific answers to those questions. To determine whether the private school your firm represents may use noncomplying vans, you must look to state law.

I must emphasize NHTSA's position that a vehicle meeting Federal school bus regulations is the safest way to transport students. I encourage the school your firm represents to give its most careful consideration to the possible consequences of transporting students in vehicles that do not comply with these regulations.

I hope you find this information helpful. If you have further questions, please contact Mary Versailles of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

ref:571.3 "school bus" d:4/29/9l