ID: nht75-1.8

DATE: 06/10/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; James C. Schultz; NHTSA

TO: Department of California Highway Patrol

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

June 10, 1975 N40-30 (FWS)

Warren M. Heath, Commander Engineering Section Department of California Highway Patrol P.O. Box 898 Sacremento, California 95804

Dear Commander Heath:

This is a further reply to your letter dated January 21, 1975, asking several questions regarding Standard No. 205, "Glazing materials." We have attempted to incorporate the substance of your questions in our various answers.

1. Prime Glazing Material Manufacturer. A company that buys and then bends or otherwise forms flat plastic glazing material into a motorcycle windshield is not a prime glazing material manufacturer, nor is a company which blows or stretches flat plastic glazing material that is purchased from another company. Prime glazing material manufacturers are only those who fabricate, laminate, or temper the glazing material. In neither of the examples you pose is the material fabricated, laminated, or tempered by the company in question.

2. Marking Requirements. In the amendment to Standard No. 205 published November 11, 1972, (37 FR 24035), it was our intention to limit the use of the DOT symbol and manufacturer's code number to the prime glazing material manufacturer. Persons who cut glazing fabricated by others should not under Standard No. 205 utilize the prime manufacturer's code number or the DOT symbol. Our purpose in structuring the marking requirements this way was to enable us to determine, for purposes of attributing responsibility for conformity, which glazing in a motor vehicle had been manufactured by the prime manufacturer specifically for use in that vehicle, and which glazing had been cut, shaped, or otherwise altered before installation.

(a) You are correct in your interpretation that the DOT symbol and the code number are applied by a prime glazing material manufacturer in addition to the manufacturer's trademark. It was our expectation that the prime manufacturer would furnish his customers with a heat stamp of the markings required by Section 6 of ANS Z26, without the DOT symbol and code number, by which the manufacturer cutting or otherwise shaping the material would mark those pieces he cut or shaped.

(b) Glazing produced by a prime glazing material manufacturer that is not designed for use in a specific vehicle should not contain the DOT symbol or the manufacturer's code number.

(c) The NHTSA has assigned numbers only to prime glazing material manufacturers. We have not inquired, however, whether the company is in fact producing glazing materials for use in specific vehicle applications.

(d) As stated previously, a company which does not manufacture its glazing but which cuts glazing from larger pieces purchased from the producer of the material should not be using the prime manufacturer's code number or the DOT symbol.

(e) You are correct in your conclusion that the marking requirements of the standard do not apply to dealers. However any person (including a dealer) who sells glazing (separately or in a new vehicle) which is improperly marked may be violating Section 108 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act.

3. General Requirements.

(a) Standard No. 205 does presently prohibit dealers from using the prime glazing material manufacturer's code number. If you are aware of instances where this requirement is not being followed, please forward to us the particulars of the cases in question and we will take appropriate action.

(b) Manufacturers who purchase glazing in large sheets and then cut it to fit window frames are not prime manufacturers and may not use the DOT symbol or manufacturer's code number. You are therefore not correct in your statement that a manufacturer of a window assembly may use the prime manufacturer's number even when the window manufactured is for a special application.

(c) The model number of glazing used in motorcycle windshields should be that which is assigned to it by the prime glazing material manufacturer in the glazing's original thickness. ANS Z26 calls for testing plastic glazing materials in substantially flat specimens, and not in molded specimens. However, the Federal standard does not require testing. Manufacturers are required only to use due care in the manufacture of their products. A person "reforming" the plastic does not thereby become a prime glazing material manufacturer.

(d) The markings which should appear on plastic bubbles on minivans should be those of the prime manufacturer (not the DOT symbol or code number) of the glazing material and not those of the person who reshapes the glazing.

(e) A material marked AS4 that was used as a motorcycle windshield would technically fail to conform to the standard as the standard does not provide for the use of AS4 materials in motorcycle windshields. However, if the material also conformed to the requirements of AS6 (which is permitted to be used in motorcycle windshields), the nonconformity would not be considered significant.

(f) Our basic approach has been that the standard applies to the vehicle locations specified in ANS Z26, and to any glazing (glass or plastics) used in those locations. However, opaque plastic materials which are clearly structural materials do not fall within the ambit of Standard No. 205.

(g) Standard No. 205 presently limits the use of plastic glazing materials in buses to readily removable windows, which include push-out windows. Plastic materials may not be used in buses in fixed quarter panels or sliding windows that are not readily removable.

We believe our reasons to be valid for limiting the use of the DOT symbol and manufacturer's code number to glazing manufactured by prime manufacturers for use in a specific vehicle location. However, we would certainly be willing to consider steps you might suggest to facilitate State inspections that are consistent with the purposes of the labeling requirements presently in effect. Such a suggestion should be in the form of a petition to amend Standard No. 205 and should be specific.

Sincerely,

James C. Schultz Chief Counsel

ID: nht75-2.1

DATE: 10/15/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: The B. F. Goodrich Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your August 30, 1975, letter concerning the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards applicable to tires which the manufacturer expects to be used on both passenger cars and trailers.

S2. of Standard No. 109 specifies:

This standard applies to new pneumatic tires for use on passenger cars manufactured after 1948. . . .

Similarly, S3. of Standard No. 119 specifies:

This standard applies to new pneumatic tires designed for highway use on multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, buses, trailers and motorcycles manufactured after 1948. . . . (emphasis added)

These standards are mutually exclusive. Therefore, dual markings indicating compliance with the performance requirements of each are not permitted. A tire whose predominant contemplated use is on passenger cars is subject to Standard No. 109, even if the manufacturer knows it will also be marketed as a trailer tire. The choice of standard to which the tire will be certified should be made by the manufacturer. The NHTSA will accept a manufacturer's good faith determination of the applicable standard. You should note that if the tire is certified as conforming with Standard No. 119, its use as original equipment on passenger cars is prohibited by Standard No. 110. (The proposed Standard No. 120, however, would permit the use of passenger car tires on vehicles other than passenger cars, subject to a 10 percent load rating correction factor.)

Please note further that a tire which is subject to Standard No. 109 must be of a size designation listed in Appendix A of that standard. Conversely, any tire labeled with a size designation which is listed in that appendix is subject to Standard No. 109.

The final paragraph of your letter discussed "certain types and classes of equipment [determined by the NHTSA to be] non-trailers by definition." You appear to be referring to vehicles which are not "trailers" because they are not "motor vehicles" or items of "motor vehicle equipment" as the latter terms are defined by the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, as amended. No Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards apply to units which are neither motor vehicles nor motor vehicle equipment. The manufacturers of such units may equip them with tires of their choice.

ATTACH.

The B. F. Goodrich Company August 30, 1975

Office of Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Executive Administration U.S. Department of Transportation

Dear Sir:

We at B. F. Goodrich seek an agency interpretation under current Rules, Regulations, Orders or Standards as to the specific performance requirements called for a passenger tire when its expected use is known or contemplated to be put into service as a trailer tire.

As you are undoubtedly aware, prior to the effective date of MVSS 119 (49CFR 571.119-effective March 1, 1975) certain sizes of passenger tires were used as trailer tires, particularly with certain light trailers such as boating and/or horse trailers. Light trailers of this class appear to meet the definition of a "trailer" as defined by 49CFR 571.3(c) as:

"Trailer means a motor vehicle with or without motive power, designed for carrying persons or property and for being drawn by another motor vehicle."

For certain size tires. The B. F. Goodrich Company has passenger tires, which of course, in order to be marketed as a passenger tire must be in compliance with and meet all requirements of MVSS 109 (49CFR 571.109); in those instances where the tire has the potential for use on a trailer, must such tire additionally meet and comply with all requirements of MVSS 119?

We are aware that MVSS 120, as of current date, remains NPRM for which an effective date is not yet established and which when issued will, to a substantial degree, further identify and control use and application of trailer tires through the designation of rim sizes for such tires.

We additionally seek further clarification as to just how such a dual-use tire should be identified and marketed; e.g. should the tire be marked with the MVSS 109 identification (applicable when sold as a passenger tire) and separately marked with the MVSS 119 identification (applicable when sold as a trailer tire) or in the alternative, would dual identification demonstrating compliance with both passenger and non-passenger tires be acceptable?

Further, it has been brought to our attention that your agency has designated certain types and classes of equipment as non-trailers by definition; such non-trailer equipment is readily illustrated as compressor units, cement mixers, welding units and the like which are frequently used by the construction industry for portable movement in and about construction sites. Normally, such equipment is an integral unit in and by itself, in that it does not carry "persons or property" which are detachable from the unit, which factor could cause such units to be identified as "non-trailers" and accordingly not reach necessity of compliance with requirements recited by MVSS 119. It is understood that such units are not intended for highway use and that when transported from one construction site to another, they are carried on a transport trailer specifically designed for highway movement of such equipment. Many manufacturers of such units desire to continue the use of passenger tires for this type application and if prior interpretations of your agency has identified and placed such units outside the scope of S1 of MVSS 119 (e.g. "for tires for use on multi-purpose passenger vehicles, trucks, buses, trailers, and motorcycles"), we request that such classes of "construction use equipment" be identified so that our passenger tires may be properly marked for such application.

Very truly yours,

C. D. McCarty -- Staff Attorney

cc: R. D. Buehler; J. L. Ginn; W. G. Wilson

ID: nht75-2.49

DATE: 09/05/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Superindendent of Public Instruction, State Of Washington

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of July 15, 1975, to Mr. J. E. Leysath of this agency asking whether the State of Washington's proposed school bus light warning system conflicts with S4.1.4(b)(ii) of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

That section requires an eight lamp signal system to be wired "so that the amber signal lamps are activated only by manual or foot operation, and if activated, are automatically deactivated and red signal lamps automatically activated when the bus entrance door is opened." Under the system Washington proposes, when a school bus stops, a "stop paddle sign" is extended by the operator, activating "a switching system which will terminate the yellow flashing lights and start the red flashing lights," before the door is opened.

Under the system you describe, the termination of the yellow lamps and activation of the red ones is dependent upon the operator extending the stop paddle sign. Should the operator forget to extend the sign, it does not appear that the system required by S4.1.4 would operate automatically when the door is opened. We therefore conclude that in order to meet S4.1.4 your school buses must be equipped with an override switch that would deactivate the amber lamps and activate the red ones when the door is opened, in the event that the stop paddle sign has not been extended.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

July 15, 1975

J. E. Leyseth -- Motor Vehicle Programs, NHTSA N41-31, Department of Transportation

Dear Mr. Leyseth:

The Transportation, Traffic and Safety Division of the Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction, State of Washington, has a problem concerning the use of an eight light warning system on school buses that requires some help or an interpretation from you. We had thought our problem was connected with Standard 17, but after contacting Dave Soule we learned from him that we need to contact you instead. Mr. Soule did indicate that our proposed system is not in conflict with Standard 17, but would be in conflict with Standard 108, S4.1.4 without an exception from you.

The State of Washington has for many years required their school buses to be equipped with a four light (red) warning system for use in loading and unloading school bus passengers. Motorists are required by law to stop and hold until the students are loaded or unloaded and the warning system is deactivated. In conjunction with the light system, the State has also required for many years the use of a "stop paddle sign" on the side of the bus. The red light warning system is activated and deactivated with the use of the stop paddle sign.

The Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction is currently engaged in activities to have the Washington State Legislature revise existing laws to permit the use of the eight light system. The proposal calls for the use procedure to be as follows: at a predetermined time or distance the driver will activate the yellow warning lights with a manual hand or foot switch. When the bus has stopped the driver will extend the stop paddle sign, which also has two flashing red lights mounted to it. The stop paddle sign, when extended, will activate a switching system which will terminate the yellow flashing lights and start the red flashing lights. When the stop paddle sign is retracted all flashing lights in the warning system are deactivated and the system is ready for the next cycle.

Two additional functions would be required. There must be a switch available to the driver to cancel the yellow warning lights once they have been started in the event that the paddle sign need not be used. The second requirement would be that the red flashing lights must activate when the paddle sign is extended, regardless of whether or not the yellow flashing lights are used.

This proposal conflicts with Standard 108, S4.1.4., (ii), which states that " . . . . the red signal lamps automatically activate when the bus entrance door is opened."

This State has not used the entrance door function in the warning light system for two reasons. Most importantly we wanted the driver to be able to engage the warning and traffic control system, make sure that traffic will indeed stop, before opening the door for students to load or unload. This provides a greater element of safety for the students. The loading cycle is also involved because we try to train students waiting for a bus on the opposite side of a street to hold and not cross the street or highway until the door is opened. This provides the driver with a signaling device to indicate to the students when it is safe to cross, and for them not to begin crossing when the paddle sign goes out or the red flashing lights come on.

The second reason is that many buses in the State of Washington are equipped with air powered entrance doors. Manual doors could possibly allow the driver to accomplish the above, but units with air doors could not accomplish the above procedure.

For the reasons stated this Office is hopeful that our proposed system is substantially in compliance with the spirit of Standard 108, and that an exception or variance could be granted to the State of Washington so that it may implement a system which will allow the stop paddle sign to activate the red flashing warning lights in the eight light system.

My office will be anxious to hear from you or to provide any further information that may be helpful to you on this request.

Thank you for your interest and consideration.

Sincerely, Superintendent of Public Instruction;

Jerry Toner, Consultant, Transportation, Traffic & Safety

ID: nht68-1.15

DATE: 09/12/68

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

TO: California Highway Patrol

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of August 19 inquiring as to the certification responsibility of manufacturers or assemblers of dune buggy kits with respect to conformance with the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. But the issue you raise is far broader and involves the whole area of owner-assembled motor vehicles.

You have stated:

"It is our interpretation that Federal Standard 108 is not applicable to dune buggies that are owner-constructed or reconstructed for the builders personal use."

This interpretation is incorrect. It is a violation of section 108(a)(1) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 for any person to:

". . .introduce or deliver for introduction in interstate commerce . . .any motor vehicle. . manufactured (or assembled) on and after the date any applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard takes effect . . .unless it is in conformity with such standard . . ."

This means that the final assembler of a dune buggy whoever he is, must insure that the completed vehicle conforms to all applicable Standards including No. 108. In the case of dune buggies, this means Standards applicable to multipurpose passenger vehicles since a dune buggy is "constructed. . .with special features for occasional off-road operation." (23 C.F.R. @ 255.3(b)).

It is our understanding that a dune buggy consists of a newly manufactured body mounted on the modified chassis of a passenger car previously in use. An issue is raised by the facts that dune buggies are assembled from both new and used items of motor vehicle equipment and that there is language in the Act which appears to exempt "any motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment after the first purchase of it in good faith for purposes other than resale" (section 108(b)(1). However, since the modification involving used components goes far beyond customizing a used vehicle and results in the end product having a different classification under the Federal Standards and a different purpose than the original vehicle a dune buggy is a "new" motor vehicle for purposes of the Act.

Continuing your interpretation you further state:

"However, those sold as kits or by a manufacturer are required to comply with Federal Standard 108."

Only assembled vehicles are required to conform to most Federal Standards including No. 108, and there is no legal requirement under the Act that a kit seller furnish lighting equipment meeting the various SAE requirements specified in that Standard. Some Federal Standard however, do establish requirements applicable to equipment items as well as to assembled vehicles. If a kit manufacturer furnishes hydraulic brake hoses (Standard No. 105), new pneumatic tires (Standard No. 109), glazing materials (Standard No. 205), seat belt assemblies (Standard No. 209), and wheel discs, wheel covers, or hub caps (Standard No. 211), then these items must conform to the applicable Standard.

Finally, there appears to be some misunderstanding of the certification required by section 114 of the Act. This certification is required to be furnished only by a manufacturer or distributor, and only to a distributor or dealer upon delivery of a motor vehicle or equipment item to which a Standard or Standards are applicable. No certification is required to be given by a manufacturer to a party not a distributor or dealer. Nor is there any requirement that the assembler per se certify the vehicle. This of course, does not relieve the assembler of his independent obligation to insure that the assembled vehicle meets Federal Standards.

I hope this answers your questions.

Sincerely

Robert M. O'Mahoney

Assistant Chief Counsel for Regulations

August 19, 1968

Ref: 61.A1117.A518

David Fay Office of Standards on Accident Avoidance Motor Vehicle Safety Performance National Highway Safety Bureau

Dear Mr. Fay:

A question has arisen on the application of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 to certain types of constructed dune buggies.

Dune buggies are constructed from various vehicle chassis and bodies but most commonly from Volkswagens. The three basic methods of constructing a dune buggy are:

1. New and used vehicle bodies and chassis are converted into a dune buggy by changing the chassis.

2. New and used vehicle bodies and chassis are converted to dune buggies by modifying both the body and chassis.

3. Dune buggy kits are sold which are comprised of various modified vehicle components.

Vehicle owners have been converting their cars into dune buggies and then, after they are through using them, sell them. Kit manufacturers sell kits to a customer, who in turn assembles the vehicle himself. These are the usual methods of making dune buggies other than buying them directly from a dune buggy manufacturer who assembles the entire vehicle from his own plans.

It is our interpretation that Federal Standard 108 is not applicable to dune buggies that are owner-constructed or reconstructed for the builders personal use. However, those sold as kits or by a manufacturer are required to comply with Federal Standard 108.

A question has arisen concerning whether or not it is the responsibility of the kit seller to certify that the kit, when assembled, will comply with the Federal standards or if the assembler must certify that the completed vehicle complies with the Federal Standards. There is no question of the necessity to certify the vehicle if it is manufactured or assembled by a dune buggy manufacturer. The California Vehicle Code requires dune buggies to comply with the equipment and lighting requirements of California. Inasmuch as the effect of Federal Standard No. 108 on these types of vehicles has been questioned, we request your opinion or concurrence on our interpretation of the applicability to the standard of these vehicles.

Very truly yours,

WARREN M. HEALTH --

Commander

Engineering Section,

DEPT. OF CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL

ID: nht71-4.15

DATE: 09/20/71

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; L. R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: Phillips Petroleum Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of June 29, 1971, requesting that we reconsider certain opinions provided to you in a letter dated June 4, 1971, which was in response to your letter of May 11, 1971. The opinions you wish us to reconsider concern whether certain tires used by Phillips for experimental purposes must comply with Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 109. The facts as you state them are that Phillips purchases new passenger car tires that have been certified as conforming to Standard No. 109, buffs them down, and then applies new tread, consisting of experimental rubber compounds, to them. You state that these experimental tires are tested by using them on the public roads, as well as by other methods.

In our letter to you of June 4 we stated that we consider these tires to be new pneumatic tires, and subject to Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 109. He further stated that we considered the testing of them on public highways to be an introduction of these tires in interstate commerce, and that if the tires failed to conform to the standard, then such testing would be in violation of @ 109(a)(1) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, (11 U.S.C. @ 1397(a)(1)). For the reasons given below, we affirm our earlier opinion. In addition, while not stated in our earlier letter, the failure by Phillips to certify these tires as conforming to Standard No. 109, pursuant to section 114 of the Act (13 U.S.C. @ 1403), Standard No. 109, and the Tire Identification and Recordkeeping regulations (49 CFR Part 574) constitutes a violation of section 108(a)(3) of the Act (15 U.S.C. @ 1397(a)(3)). Each violation of section 108(a)(1) and 108(a)(3) is subject to a civil penalty, as provided in section 109 of the Act, and to other sections as provided in section 110 (15 U.S.C. @@ 1373, 1399).

Your position appears to be that the tires in question are not covered by either Standard No. 109 or Standard No. 117 (Retreaded Pneumatic Tires) as the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act does not apply to the use of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment after the first purchase for a purpose other than resale. You claim that Phillips' activity with respect to these tires is merely to use them and, citing section 108(b)(1) of the Act (15 U.S.C. @ 1397(b)(1)), takes place after the first purchase for a purpose other than resale and is consequently not within the scope of section 108(a)(1). The tires, therefore, need not comply with the standards.

You make a concurrent argument as well, in which you state that the prohibitions in section 108(a)(1) are "restricted to controlling the sale or resale of tires in commercial channels." You go on to state that if this were not true, the government would be forced to control the use and resale of the tires by the consumer. You feel that this argument is substantiated by the exemption in Standard No. 109 concerning the sale (your emphasis) of "reclassified tires."

Phillips' activity under the Act with respect to the tires in question is not that of a user or consumer, but that of a manufacturer. According to your letter Phillips purchases new passenger tires for the purpose of transforming them into experimental tires. In this regard Phillips is manufacturing a new and different tire, and the original tires are no more than raw materials which become part of the final product manufactured by Phillips. Whether or not Phillips ultimately sells or intends to sell the tires is unimportant in determining whether Phillips is a statutory manufacturer, as the definition of "manufacturer" under the Act (@ 102(3), 15 U.S.C. @ 1391(3)) does not require that the product be manufactured or assembled for sale.

Moreover, you are incorrect in your analysis of the provisions of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. Section 108(a)(1) prescribes more than the manufacturing for sale, or the sale of motor vehicle and motor vehicle equipment. In clear language it also prescribes the introduction of such components in interstate commerce, and prohibits the latter as well as the former activities after the effective date of a motor vehicle safety standard, unless the vehicle or item of equipment conforms to the standard. Contrary to the arguments in your letter, the use of such components on the public highways is an introduction of them in interstate commerce and subject to the prohibitions of section 108(c)(1). The exception to this, "after the first purchase . . . in good faith for purposes other than resale" (@ 108(b)(2)), is intended to exempt used

vehicles (and equipment) manufactured after a standard's effective date, as a continued reading of the section, which authorizes the establishment of used vehicle standards, indicates. It allows, for example, a vehicle or item of equipment that was manufactured after the effective date of applicable standards to be resold without requiring the seller to ensure that the vehicle or equipment is in the same condition with regard to the standards as when it was new. This section is not intended to allow individuals to manufacture vehicles or equipment for their own use on public highways without complying with applicable standards.

Your reference to the treatment of reclassified tires is not in point. The decision in that rulemaking action was to prohibit either the manufacture or the sale of these tires, and the latter course was chosen so that manufacturers would not be required to destroy noncertified tires that would be inexpensive and not unsafe for a narrowly prescribed use. In no way does this exemption reflect the limitation that you suggest on the authority of the NHTSA.

As we stated to you in our letter of June 4, 1971, the tires that you manufacture are not retreaded tires as the casings used in their manufacturer do not come from used tires. However, these tires are new pneumatic tires, and as such are subject to Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 109.

ID: Full Display Mirror System 1 GM Feb 11

ID: 1982-1.1

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 01/05/82

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Cariben, Inc. -- Ernesto Rodriguez

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your letter of September 22, 1981, asking whether any Federal motor vehicle safety standard precludes the importation or sale of your anti-theft device. The device works by blocking the brakes and electric circuits to the motor. In trucks, the clutch is also blocked. Installation of the device requires cutting into a vehicle's braking system.

By way of background information, the agency does not give approvals of vehicles or equipment. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act places the responsibility on the manufacturer to ensure that its vehicles or equipment comply with applicable requirements. A manufacturer then certifies that its vehicles or equipment comply with all applicable standards. We note that the term "manufacturer" is defined by section 102(5) of the Act to mean "any person engaged in the manufacturing or assembling of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, including any person importing motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment for resale." [Emphasis added.]

The agency does not have any regulations covering anti-theft devices that work by preventing release of the brakes. However, since installation of your device requires cutting into a vehicle's braking system, it may affect a vehicle's compliance with other safety standards.

If your device is added to a new motor vehicle prior to its first sale, the person who modifies the vehicle would be an alterer of a previously certified motor vehicle and would be required to certify that, as altered, the vehicle continues to comply with all of the safety standards affected by the alteration. In the case of your device, this would include Safety Standard No. 105, Hydraulic Brake Systems (49 CFR 571.105). You will find the specific certification requirements for alterers at 49 CFR Part 567.7, Certification. On the other hand, you as the manufacturer of the device would have no certification requirements, because we have no safety standards applicable to your equipment. However, an alterer would probably require information from you in order to make the necessary certification.

If your device is installed on a used vehicle by a business such a garage, the installer would not be required to attach a certification label. However, it would have to make sure that it did not knowingly render inoperative the compliance of the vehicle with any safety standard. This is required by section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, which states in relevant part:

No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or in part, any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard. . .

Standard No. 105 includes various requirements that might be affected by installation of your device. We are not able to determine from the drawings included with your letter whether compliance with the standard would be affected. We suggest that you carefully examine all of Standard No. 105's requirements to determine the degree to which installation of your device affects compliance with the standard. Your letter states that when your device is not in use, the vehicle works normally without any interference whatsoever. In addition to requirements specifically concerning stopping performance, the standard also includes requirements related to such things as a split system and the ability to withstand a series of spike stops, which might be affected by your device.

While we do not have any opinion as to the safety of your particular device, we do have a general concern about the safety of anti-theft devices which work by preventing release of the brakes. We note that some manufacturers state in their service manuals that hydraulic brake locking devices should not be used on their vehicles.

Should a safety-related defect be discovered in your device, whether by the agency or yourself, you as the manufacturer would be required under sections 151 et seq. of the Act to notify vehicle owners, purchasers, and dealers and provide a remedy for the defect.

Finally, in addition to the provisions of Federal law discussed above, there is a possibility of liability in tort should your device prove to be unsafe in operation. You may wish to consult a local lawyer concerning liability in tort.

SINCERELY,

Sept. 22, 1981

U.S. Dept. of Transportation Nat. Highway Traffic Safety Adm.

Att: Chief Counsel Office

Gentlemen:

Cariben Inc. restpectfully submit for your consideration and judgement the following request and corresponding data:

I- WE have the oportunity to import from Europe to be marqueted in our country an unique and efficient Antitheft Devise for Cars, Trucks and Containers or Vans identified as: U.F.006- 00I2 and 00I2 I. R; Patented by the U.S. Dept. of Commerce Dossier #5320.U2.12US.I

2-The most important and vital feature of the Devises are that once you turned the key on, the brackes and all elecric circuits to the motor are blocked except the one that goes to the horn that will blow if somebody tampered with the vehicle. In the trucks also the clutch is blocked, and in the containers or Vans the brackes are blocked mecanically and hidraulically.

3- The Antitheft works in conjunction with the master cylinder controling the flux of the bracke fluid to the brackes and the electricity going from the battery to the ignition and to the coil.

4- When the Antitheft is not in use then the vehicle works normally without any interference whatsoever.

We respectfully beg your office to determine if this Anti-thefts so badly needed in our country, as all of us knows, violates the already standards established by your office for articles of this nature. We have already make contact with Sea-Land, Navieras de Puerto Rico, Sears, T.S.S. and others and we need your ruling in this case.

Thanks in advance for your kind attention to this letter.

We remain,

By: Ernesto Rodriguez

(Enclosure Omitted.)

ID: 1983-2.9

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 05/20/83

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company -- Tom Caine, Law Dept.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

ATTACHMT: 2/24/83 letter from Frank Berndt to Garvin-Fram Inc.

TEXT:

Tom Caine, Esq. Law Department The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company Akron, Ohio 44316-0001

Dear Mr. Caine:

This responds to your request for a clarification concerning a letter of interpretation issued by the agency with respect to the responsibilities of various parties after tires have been damaged by a fire and the manufacturer has determined that the DOT certification on the sidewall is no longer valid. Specifically, I stated in a February 24, 1983, letter to Mr. Jack Garvin that, in the event of fire damage to tires, the manufacturer whose certification appears on the sidewall must determine whether that certification is still valid after the fire damage. Further, I stated that if the certification is no longer valid, the manufacturer must remove its DOT symbol from the sidewall of the tires, and those tires cannot be sold.

You stated that you understand this duty exists when the damaged tires are still within the control of the manufacturer. However, you have a problem with the interpretation when control of the damaged tires has passed from the manufacturer to a third party, such as an independent dealer or a salvage company. You noted that Goodyear has had a continuing problem with common carriers, insurance companies, and salvage companies which try to sell tires after Goodyear has determined that the certification on those tires is no longer valid.

I certainly did not mean to imply in my previous interpretation that a tire manufacturer is required to physically seize fire-damaged tires in situations where physical control over those tires has passed to some third party. In those situations, the tire manufacturer can simply notify the controlling party that the tires can no longer be certified as complying with the applicable safety standard (Standard No. 109 for passenger car tires and Standard No. 119 for all other tires for use on motor vehicles), and the tires cannot legally be sold. It would be helpful for enforcement purposes if the tire manufacturer were to forward a copy of any such notification to a controlling party to this agency's Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance.

As you correctly noted in your letter, section 108 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, as amended (15 U.S.C. 1397), prohibits any party from offering for sale or introducing into commerce any tire which the party knows does not conform to the requirements of the applicable safety standards. A party which has been directly informed by a tire manufacturer that a group of tires no longer complies with the applicable safety standard could not sell those tires or otherwise introduce them into commerce without violating section 108. Section 109 of the Safety Act subjects a party to a civil penalty of up to $1000 for a violation of section 108, and each tire sold in these circumstances would be a separate violation of section 108. Additionally, section S6 of Standard No. 109 prohibits the sale or introduction into commerce for any purpose of tires designed for use on passenger cars if those tires do not comply with all the requirements of Standard No. 109. This would make it illegal for a third party to sell fire-damaged passenger car tires as farm-use tires or non-highway tires.

Please note that this letter does not address any responsibilities which the tire manufacturer or salvager/seller may have to a consumer who in good faith buys a fire-damaged tire. If you have any further questions in this area, please contact Steve Kratzke of my staff at (202) 426-2992.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

March 22, 1983

Mr Frank Berndt -- NHTSA

Your recent opinion letter (copy attached) addressed to Mr Jack Garvin, Schaumburg, Illinois, concerning highway tires damaged by fire has come to my attention.

You indicate that if the tire manufacturer determines that its original certification is no longer valid because of fire damage, then it is the manufacturer's responsibility to remove the DOT symbol from the sidewall of the damaged tires.

We have no problem with the position you spell out so long as the damaged tires are within the control (title and possession) of the manufacturer. However, we do have a problem with respect to tires which have been sold (title passed) to independent dealers or resold by dealers to salvage companies or in the possession of a common carrier or its salvage company.

We have had a continuing problem with common carriers, insurance companies and salvage companies who insist that there is a salvage value even though we have determined that the tires are no longer certifiable and should be scrapped.

It appears to me that the basic law 15 USCA S1397(a)(1) prohibits any person from selling a non-certifiable highway tire for resale unless the person did not have reason to know the tire was not certifiable. Accordingly, it would seem that when the manufacturer notifies a salvage company or common carrier that a tire is no longer certifiable, the responsibility for compliance with the law has shifted to the salvage company or common carrier involved. In addition, I have to assume that 49 CFR 571.109 S6. (nonconforming tires) applies in this situation and would prohibit a salvage company or common carrier from reclassifying a highway auto tire as a "farm use only" tire or "non-highway" tire.

Will you please advise me as to your position concerning the tire manufacturer's responsibility under the circumstances set forth above.

Sincerely

Attorney

T D Caine ph Attachment (2/24/83 letter from Frank Berndt to Garvin-Fram Inc. omitted here.)

ID: 1984-2.5

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/01/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Stephen P. Wood; NHTSA

TO: Intec -- Christopher Moore

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Christopher Moore Intec 23132 La Cadena Languna Hills, California 92653

This responds to your April 24, 1984 letter regarding the installation of a closed circuit television viewing system in new vehicles, as an alternative to rearview mirror systems. The television system provides a view of the area behind the vehicle from a monitor screen placed on or near the dash.

As you note in your letter, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 111 specifies the use of rearview mirrors to provide improved rearward and side visibility in new motor vehicles. No provision is made for alternative means of compliance such as closed circuit television systems, so such alternative systems are not authorized. However, the closed circuit system could be used as a supplement to a mirror system which meets the requirements of Standard 111.

The only options available to a vehicle manufacturer seeking to use a closed circuit system as a replacement for the required mirror system would be to file a petition to amend the standard or a petition for an exemption from the standard. Requirements applicable to these petitions are set forth in Title 49 of the Code af Federal Regulations, Parts 552 and 555, respectively. These petitions are only granted in the limited circumstances set forth in those regulations.

If you have further questions on this matter, please contact us.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

April 24, 1984

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Office of the Chief Counsel 400 Seventh Street. S.W. Washington. D.C. 20590 Attention: Mr. Frank A. Berndt, Chief Counsel

Dear Mr. Berndt:

We are the manufacturers of the INTEC "Car Vision" System, a closed circuit television system for vehicular applications. The system is used extensively in the recreational vehicle industry, on refuse and construction equipment and various other commerical vehicles.

Recently, we have had an inquiry from a foreign auto manufacturer via Chrysler Corporation asking about the system for automobiles. The company wishes to replace the existing mirrors with CCTV rearview system but was not familiar with the applicable laws.

After discussing the situation with Mr. Michael Finkelstein, the Associate Administrator for Research and Development and his associate Mr. Robert Henderson, they suggested we talk to your office. Our question is to what extent can a CCTV system replace or enhance the rearview mirrors on an Automobile? We know the current NHTSA Standard No. 111 specifies requirements for rearview mirrors, but no mention of alternatives is provided. Would a CCTV system be a possible replacement?

Enclosed is our sales brochure which outlines the system's technical specifications. We are recommending to Chrysler that a chip camera be substituted for the standard tube model. Chip cameras are not subject to tube burn and are durable enough for vehicular applications.

After you have had a chance to review our literature. I look forward to discussing further the system and any comments and suggestions regarding the law.

Thank you in advance for your time.

Sincerely,

INTEC

Christopher Moore Enclosures Sales CM/gw Attachment --

INTEC CAR VISION

"A must to ensure safety on any large vehicle"

(Insert Diagram)

INTEC'S Car Vision can prevent accidents and ensure safety.

INTEC'S Car Vision can prevent traffic accidents by providing the driver in a large vehicle to see backward clearly when changing lanes, backing-up or when towing any other vehicle. With the aid of Intec's Car Vision, the diver can confirm that the tow hitch is in place and that the vehicle he is towing is alright. The field of view of the Car Vision is from directly downward to the rear bumper to outwards 7 times the height of the installed camera. See diagram with field of view height and width.

Attractive and Compact Monitor with distance grid on screen.

The TV Monitor installed in the divers section is attractive and compact in design. The Monitor can be surface mounted or recessed into the instrument panel. The Monitor has 2 modes brightness switch, one for bright sunshine and the other for night usage.

Shock-proof, vibration-proof and weather-proof construction.

The camera and monitor of INTEC'S Car Vision can withstand locks of 4.4 G's. The Camera does not resonate with any kind of vibration emitted by the vehicle. The Camera is completely weatherproof and can be used on tractors, road rollers and just about any self-propelled outdoor equipment with divers cabs or canopies to cover the monitor.

It serves as another eye for the driver.

On many occasions the diver must watch the situation in the rear, including the objects in a blind spot even when driving forward. For example, a tractor diver must watch what is ahead of him and also his tillage performance in the rear. The INTEC'S Car Vision permits him to see directly behind the vehicle and a lane to each side.

Ultra wide-angle lens yield remarkable wide view.

The ultra wide-angle lens of the Car Vision camera has a local length of only 6.5mm. Its field extends from directly below the lens downward to about 15m away from it horizontally. Because of this unique feature, the Car Vision can be used not only on vehicles but also on sea going vessels and aircrafts. Waterproofing permits all weather outdoor use of TV Camera.

The TV Camera has an airtight, waterproof, all-weather type case. It is extremely suitable as an outdoor-operated camera.

*Insert diagrams here

ID: 1984-3.4

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/17/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Firma Laupp

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Kevin C. Graves Firma Laupp Lerchenfelder Str. 63 1070 Wien Austria

Dear Mr. Graves:

This responds to your recent letter to Mr. Stephen Oesch, of my staff, asking for information about testing your client's child restraint system for use in automobiles. You indicated that you were interested in making arrangements for testing that child restraint system under the U.S. requirements. You also stated that the restraint has been tested for compliance with the European ECE Regulation 44, and asked for instructions on how to proceed with testing, how much time should be allowed for testing, and an estimate of the costs involved in testing.

Every child restraint system for use in motor vehicles sold in or imported into the United States must be certified as complying with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 213, Child Restraint Systems (49 CFR S571.213) (copy enclosed). This standard sets forth performance and labeling requirements which must be satisfied by the child restraint system. This country does not follow the European practice of requiring the manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment to deliver the equipment to specified institutes for testing before the product can be sold. For our purposes, the manufacturer itself must certify that the child restraint system fully satisfies all requirements of Standard No. 213. Further, this agency does not require that the manufacturer's certification be based on a specified number of tests or any tests at all; we only require that the certification be made with the exercise of due care on the part of the manufacturer. It is up to the individual manufacturer in the first instance to determine what data, test results, or other information it needs to enable it to certify that its child restraint systems comply with Standard No. 213. Certainly we recommend that a manufacturer selling child restraint systems in the United States test the systems according to the test procedures specified in the standard. Once a manufacturer determines that its child restraints meet the requirements of Standard No. 213, it certifies that compliance by labeling that certification onto the child restraint, as specified in section S5.5 of Standard No. 213.

If your client decides to market its child restraint system in the United States, I would like to call your attention to the requirements of 49 CFR S551.45 (copy enclosed). That section requires that before offering any item of motor vehicle equipment for importation into the United States, a manufacturer must designate an agent for the service of process. The designation of the agent for the service of process must contain the following six items in order to be valid under S551.45:

1. A certification that the designation is valid in form and binding on the manufacturer under the laws, corporate by-laws, or other requirements governing the making of the designation at the time and place where it is made;

2. The full legal name, principal place of business, and mailing address of the manufacturer;

3. Marks, trade names, or other designations of the origin of any of the manufacturer's products which do not bear its name;

4. A statement that the designation shall remain in effect until withdrawn or replaced by the manufacturer;

5. A declaration of acceptance duly signed by the agent appointed, which may be an individual, a firm, or a U.S. corporation; and

6. The full legal name and address of the designated agent.

In addition, the designation must be signed by one with authority to appoint the agent, and the signer's name and title should be clearly indicated beneath his or her signature. This designation should be mailed to the address shown in S551.45(b).

Should you need further information on this subject, please feel free to contact Mr. Steve Kratzke of my staff at this address.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel Enclosures

Stephen Oesch Office of Chief Council N.H.T.S.A. 400 Seventh Street SW. Washington D.C.

Kevin Graves Firma Laupp Lerchenfelder Str. 63 1 0 7 0 W I E N Austria telex # 13/6592 telephone 01143/222/93-82-04

April 11, 1984

Dear Mr. Oesch,

We are an Austrian Exporting firm who represent the manufacturer of a unique childrens automotive restraint seat. We are interested in making contacts with the appropriate department in order to make arrangements for testing the seat under your requirements.

We have recently undergone tests in Holland at the "Institut voor Wegtran-sportmiddelen" (Institute for road transport vehicles) or TNO under the classification of ECE regulation forty-four. It is my understanding that these requirements were to be incorporated into a United Nations regulation and therefore would suffice your particular requirements. However, I have not yet heard that this has actually taken place. Therefore I would appreciate it if you could give us the necessarry instructions on how to proceed, how much lead time we should allow for the required tests.

I have read the documents under the Standards for Vehicles and Equipment-Seating Restraints, and Occupant Protection, number 5120, 5135 dated 1980 but with amendments dated as recent as 9/27/82 by the Commerce Clearing House for the Consumer Product Safety Guide. Having passed all the required tests for TNO, must we actually retest for NHTSA or DOT or does the TNO test suffice? If not then which stipulations in particular must we pay attention to? The requirements and actual tests appear to be quite similar.

I would greatly appreciate it if you could assign to our firm one person to handle all communications. We have found that matters proceed with much less confusion this way, especially considering the complexities involved. As far as supplying information if it makes any difference I am a U.S. citizen. Please instruct us how to proceed, how much time we should allow for testing, and what the costs involved are. We thank you very much for your cooperation and look forward to hearing from you.

Sincerely,

Kevin C Graves