ID: aiam3431

Dear Mr. Biddle: This responds to your recent letter to Mr. Kratzke of my staff describing a situation in which a railroad car full of new tires caught on fire. As a result of the damage caused to the tires by the fire, Firestone's quality control staff determined that the tires could no longer be certified as safe for highway use. The railroad company has refused to pay your claim for damage to the tires unless Firestone releases the damaged tires to the railroad company. You stated that the railroad company will either sell the tires through its salvage outlets or use the tires on company vehicles. You ask whether you can rightfully withhold these tires from the railroad company.; If Firestone releases the tires and the railroad company sell the tire or uses them on the public roads, both Firestone and the railroad company would violate an express provision of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, as amended (15 U.S.C. 1381 *et seq.*) ('the Safety Act'). Therefore, you can rightfully withhold the tires from the railroad company.; Your letter did not indicate whether the damaged tires were tires fo passenger cars or tires for motor vehicles other than passenger cars. In either case, the tire manufacturer is required to certify that each tire fully complies with certain marking requirements and with specified performance requirements (resistance to bead unseating, strength, endurance, and high speed performance) of Safety Standard No. 109 in the case of passenger car tires (49 CFR S571.109) or of Safety Standard No. 119 for tires other than passenger car tires (49 CFR S571.119). This certification is made by the manufacturer by molding the letters 'DOT' into the sidewall of the tire.; As a result of the damage to this particular shipment of tires, you company has determined that this certification is no longer valid. This determination obligates Firestone to remove the 'DOT symbol from the sidewall of the tires.; Without the 'DOT' symbol, these tires would clearly not comply with th requirements of either Standard No. 109 or Standard No. 119. Section 108(a)(1)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(1)(A)). provides:; >>>No person shall manufacture for sale, sell, or offer for sale, o introduce or deliver for introduction in interstate commerce, or import into the United State, any ... item of motor vehicle equipment manufactured on or after the date any applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard takes effect under this title unless it is in conformity with such standard...<<<; Firestone would violate this prohibition if it were to deliver tires t the railroad company which were not certified as complying with the appropriate safety standard. The railroad company would violate this prohibition if it sold or offered to sell uncertified tires, or if uncertified tires were used by the company on the public roads (introduction in interstate commerce). Section 109 of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1398) specifies penalties of up to $1000 for each violation of section 108. Section 109 specifies that the maximum civil penalty which can be imposed for a series of related violations, which this would be, is $800,000 for each violator.; You indicated that Firestone would not release the damaged tires fo use in any case, because of the potential safety hazard. I hope that this response reinforces that position. Should you need any further information on this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Please show this letter to the interested railroad company so that it will realize the serious nature of its contemplated actions.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel

ID: nht87-1.9

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 01/11/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Donald J. Audia

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Dear Mr. Audia:

This is in reply to your letter of December 12, 1986, to Taylor Vinson of this Office asking about the permissibility of manufacturing an aftermarket center highmounted stop lamp utilizing the colors yellow and orange, in addition to red, to signify "t he varying stages of a stopping car."

Under Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment only the color red is permitted for original equipment center highmounted stop lamps, and for those aftermarket lamps manufactured to replace them. The se lamps are generally found on passenger cars manufactured on and after September 1, 1985. Your planned device could not be manufactured and sold for this segment of the aftermarket since it does not conform to Standard No. 108. Further, a dealer, distr ibutor, or motor vehicle repair business could not legally remove an original equipment center highmounted stop lamp and install your device. However, there is no Federal restriction on sale and installation of your device on passenger cars manufactured before September 1, 1985. The device would then be subject to the laws of any State where it would be sold or used. We regret that we are unable to advise you on these laws.

If you have any further questions we would be happy to answer them.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

December 12, 1986

Mr. Taylor Vinson Legal Dept. N.H.T.S.A. Department of Transportation 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D. C. 20590

Dear Mr. Vinson:

My point of reference concerns the "third light" or High-Mounted Stop Lamps. I would like your opinion or your advice with regard to the aforementioned device. Specifically, am I permitted to utilize three different colors, (i.e. yellow, orange, red) to signify, if you will, the varying stages of a stopping car?

I will attempt to infiltrate the "after market" and not try to change or enact any new versions unless my innovation is accepted universally.

I ask that you please respond at your earliest convenience. Your response will enable me to continue my research and development.

Enclosed please find my interpretation of the High-Mounted Stop Lamp. Thank you sincerely for your time and consideration.

Respectfully submitted,

Donald J. Audia

ID: JAPIA.ajd

Keiko Utsunomiya
Assistant Director
Japan Auto Parts Industries Association
C/o JETRO Chicago
401 N. Michigan Ave. Suite 660
Chicago, IL 60611

Re:  Request for Interpretation

Dear Ms. Utsunomiya:

This is in reply to your e-mail letter of November 18, 2003, to Mr. Jonathan White of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administrations (NHTSA) Office of Defects Investigations requesting a clarification of several requirements of NHTSAs regulation on reporting of information and communications about potential defects, 49 CFR Part 579.

In your e-mail to Mr. White, you asked whether a supplier has an obligation to report under the following scenario:

Supplier C manufacturers part X for automaker A and B. OEM A received a claim of a fatal accident in relation to a possible defect on X, and recalled vehicles with X. But, OEM A does NOT sell cars in the U.S., so they did not report to NHTSA on the claim and the subsequent recall. OEM B sells cars with X, but has not receive[d] claims on X.

You also stated that your understanding of the above hypothetical is that supplier C does have an obligation to report to NHTSA and requested that we provide you with the legal authority to require that report.

Your question is unclear as to what you understand supplier C needs to report to NHTSA. Based upon the facts in the hypothetical you present, it appears that you pose two questions. First, does a supplier of motor vehicle equipment have an obligation to report a recall campaign that is conducted by a vehicle manufacturer who does not sell motor vehicles in the United States? Pursuant to Subpart B of 49 CFR Part 579, supplier C would not have an obligation to report the recall of the vehicles with part X to NHTSA because OEM A, not supplier C, determined that a safety-related defect existed in part X. See 49 CFR 579.11. In addition, since a foreign government did not require supplier C to conduct a safety-related recall, supplier C is not obligated to report the recall. See 49 CFR 579.12.

Second, does a supplier of motor vehicle equipment have to report a claim of a fatal accident received by a vehicle manufacturer who does not sell motor vehicles in the United States? Pursuant to Subpart C of 49 CFR Part 579, supplier C does not have an obligation to report the fatality claim, since the claim was made against and received by OEM A. See 49 CFR 579.27(b).

If you have any questions, you may phone Andrew DiMarsico of my staff at (202) 366-5263.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:579
d.12/8/03

ID: 86-3.50

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/23/86 EST

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL NHTSA

TO: RUDY VALDEZ -- PRODUCT MANAGER; GASKET COMPANY

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 05/01/86, TO NHTSA, FROM RUDY VALDEZ, OCC- 0618

TEXT: Dear Mr. Valdez:

This is in reply to your letter of May 1, 1986, with reference to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment.

Your first question concerns the legality of an aftermarket splash guard installed behind the rear wheels which would incorporate a decorative light; the illustration you enclose shows the word "Ford" illuminated. Although the lighting equipment that is required by Standard No. 108 must be located on a rigid part of the vehicle, there is no such requirement for aftermarket equipment such as the device that you propose. If an item of aftermarket equipment is installed before the sale of a new vehicle to its first owner, such an item is permissible under Standard No. 108 provided that it does not impair the effectiveness of the required lighting equipment, but no matter when it is installed, it would be subject to regulation by any State in which a vehicle so equipped is registered or operated. We are not familiar with State laws on this subject, and recommend that you contact the Department of Motor Vehicles in States where you intend to sell your device.

Your second question asks for information on the new center high mounted stop lamp, saying that you have seen some that do not appear to meet Federal requirements. You ask whether we will require retrofitting of vehicles. The new lamp was optional for passenger cars manufactured on or after August 1, 1984, and mandatory for those manufactured on or after September 1, 1985. The coverage of Standard No. 108 also extends to aftermarket items that are manufactured to replace original equipment center high mounted stop lamps, but there are no Federal requirements for

lamps intended for use on cars that were not originally manufactured with them. We encourage manufacturers to meet the Federal specifications as closely as possible, however, and I enclose a copy of the regulation for your information. We have no authority to require retrofitting of vehicles.

I hope that this answers your questions.

ENCLOSURE

Sincerely,

ID: 86-4.17

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/18/86

FROM: ERIKA R. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL NHTSA

TO: ROGER WILLIAMS -- PRESIDENT TECHNICAL HALLMARK ENTERPRISES, INC.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: UNDATED LETTER FROM ROGER WILLIAMS TO NHTSA

TEXT: Dear Mr. Williams:

This is in reply to your letter asking about regulations applicable to the "new lights that are now being seen on the trunk lids, and the rear windows of new automobiles".

The specific legal name for this light is "center high-mounted stop lamp". It was optional for use as original equipment on passenger cars manufactured between August 1, 1984 and September 1, 1985. It has been mandatory original equipment since then. The Federal regulation that requires it is Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment issued by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration of the Department of Transportation. This standard specifies color, minimum illuminated lens area, mode of operation, etc. for original equipment, and for equipment intended to replace that original equipment. The standard does not cover center high-mounted stop lamps intended for use on cars that never had them, and a manufacturer of such aftermarket motor vehicle equipment is subject only to State laws on their design, installation, and use. We encourage aftermarket manufacturers to follow the Federal standard so that the full potential of the lamp may be realized. This means that the lamp should be steady-burning rather than pulsating, and that the lens not have logos, trademarks, or other markings on it to interrupt the transmission of light from the lamp. The standard does not specify the shape of the lamp but virtually all to date have been rectangular (photos of the 1987 Cadil ac Allante show a circular one), and some have exceeded the minimum requirement of a lens area of at least 4 1/2 square inches.

Noting your interest as a prospective manufacturer of these devices, I enclose a copy of Standard No. 108. Sections 4.1.1.41 (page 218), Section 4.3.18 (page 227) and Table III (page 256) provide the relevant requirements for center high-mounted stoplamps. Should you proceed to

manufacture aftermarket lamps, you would be subject to the agency's notification and remedy procedures should a safety related defect occur in them. Otherwise, you would appear to be subject only to State laws.

Sincerely,

ENCLOSURE

ID: 21668.jeg

Romulo R. Frederick, Esq.
Attorney and Counsellor at Law
One River Plaza
4 West Las Olas Boulevard
Suite 700
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301





Dear Mr. Frederick:





This responds to your letter asking about Federal requirements for air bags. You are representing an individual who was seriously injured in a crash where the air bag in his 1995 passenger car failed to deploy. You stated that the automaker is denying liability "based on its Technical Analysis Group's review and conclusion 'the direct frontal collision forces were not within the threshold for deployment', and thus SRS deployment not warranted; even though the impact was well within 30 degrees of direct center of the vehicle." You asked whether there are any regulations governing air bag deployment and the conditions for deployment. Your question is addressed below.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) issues Federal motor vehicle safety standards covering new motor vehicles and new motor vehicle equipment. One of the standards we issued, Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection (49 CFR 571.208) required 1995 passenger cars to provide automatic crash protection. Vehicles equipped with automatic crash protection protect their occupants by means that require no action by vehicle occupants. The only two systems used to meet this requirement were air bags and automatic seat belts. An amendment to Standard No. 208 made air bags mandatory in all passenger cars and light trucks in the late 1990's.

Among other things, Standard No. 208 specifies that vehicles meet certain performance requirements in crash tests. These tests are conducted with instrumented test dummies placed in the front outboard seating positions of the vehicle. During the tests, the forces measured on the dummies may not exceed specified limits. However, the standard does not specify any crash severity threshold where the air bag must, or must not, deploy.

You also expressed interest in a list of vehicles that were recalled for defective air bags. NHTSA's Office of Defects Investigation has previously provided that list.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please feel free to call Edward Glancy of my staff at 202-366-2992.





Sincerely,

Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel

ref:208
d.8/4/00

ID: 7505

Captain Robert A. Dewey
Rochester Police Department
Research and Evaluation Section
Civic Center Plaza
Rochester, NY 14614

Dear Captain Dewey:

This responds to your letter of July 6, 1992, inquiring whether a device on your newly acquired police vehicles "which requires the operator to depress the brake pedal in order to remove the car from the park position with the shift lever" is required by Federal law or regulation, and whether you may deactivate the device.

You explained in your letter that the Rochester Police Department has recently acquired 46 new police vehicles, each equipped with a device that requires the brake pedal to be depressed before the transmission can be shifted out of the park position. You stated that you were told by a local Ford dealer that the device was required by a Federal safety standard. You indicated that you recognize the safety advantage of such a feature for the general public, but you see some negative safety implications for police vehicle operators. For example, you believe that an officer under fire could be delayed by this device in responding to the situation. You are also concerned that the presence of the device on some but not all of your vehicles may cause confusion among your officers who drive different cars every day.

Please be advised that the device in question is not required by Federal law or regulation. However, the vast majority of new passenger cars have this safety feature, which is intended to ensure that the driver's foot is on the brake pedal before the automatic transmission can be shifted from the "park" position. I have enclosed for your information a copy of a recent article concerning these devices which appeared in the Detroit News.

Since these devices are not required by any Federal motor vehicle safety standard, there is no Federal requirement that prohibits you or a dealer from deactivating the device. If you decide to deactivate the device, however, we suggest that you consult with the manufacturer concerning how the device can be deactivated without otherwise affecting the vehicle.

I trust this will clarify the matter for you. If you have any further questions on this issue, feel free to contact Walter Myers of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366- 2992.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

ref:102 d:8/20/92

ID: nht80-3.30

DATE: 08/04/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Honorable Lloyd Bentson, United States Senator

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your letter of July 10, 1980, forwarding correspondence from your constituent, Mr. Bob Lacy. Mr. Lacy, a Ford dealer, requested Ford Motor Company to offer locking gasoline caps as an option on all future cars and trucks because of the growing problem of gasoline theft. Ford informed Mr. Lacy that it could not do so because it would require testing all its vehicles twice for compliance with the Federal fuel system safety standard, i.e., with the regular gasoline cap and with the locking cap.

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 301, Fuel System Integrity (49 CFR 571.301), specifies performance requirements to ensure the safety of motor vehicle fuel systems. When subjected to a barrier impact crash test, vehicles cannot show fuel leakage beyond certain specified amounts. The standard is only a performance standard, however, and manufacturers are permitted to use any vehicle design they choose, including any gasoline cap they desire, as long as the standard is met.

Ford's statement that "in order to comply with FMVSS requirements for fuel systems, we would be required to test all our vehicles twice" is incorrect. Standard No. 301 does not require testing; it only requires that the vehicle meet the performance requirements that are specified. The manufacturer's legal responsibility is to exercise due care to ascertain that its vehicles do in fact comply with these performance requirements. Ford may feel it necessary to crash test vehicles with both types of gasoline caps, in order to establish due care, but doing so is not required by the standard. Other methods could be used to determine if the varying gasoline caps would affect compliance. Further, even if a manufacturer desires to do some testing, it is difficult to imagine that the design of the gas caps used for different Ford cars differ sufficiently to warrant testing every type of Ford car.

Finally, I would like to point out that if Ford believes crash testing is necessary for each type of gasoline cap used, it could choose to offer only locking caps rather than offering only regular caps. I suggest that Mr. Lacy contact Ford again to determine why they chose regular caps over locking caps, given Ford's decision that it only wanted to perform tests using one type cap.

If we can provide any further information, please do not hesitate to contact this office.

ID: nht92-8.47

DATE: February 21, 1992

FROM: Masashi Maekawa -- Director, Technical Division, Ichikoh Industries, Ltd.

TO: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: Re: Request for the interpretation of photometric output requirements for tail/stop lamps on passenger cars

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 4/10/92 from Paul Jackson Rice to Masashi Maekawa (A39; Std. 108)

TEXT:

Thank you for your answering letter dated Dec. 18, 1991 to our questions concerning the interpretation of photometer output requirements for tail/stop lamps on passenger cars dated Nov. 27, 1991.

We had some questions as follows regarding positions stated in the letter from NHTSA.

1. NHTSA stated in the letter dated Dec. 18, 1991 as follows;

" It is not possible to consider the two adjacent lamps as one lamp for purpose of measuring the minimum photometrics required under standard No. 108."

But another letter from NHTSA dated June 28, 1985 addressed to Mazda (North America), Inc. stated as follows;

" We also discuss the implications of a stop lamp and tail lamp constructed so that a portion is fixed to the body of the vehicle adjacent to the decklid opening and the remaining portion is mounted on the outboard area of the decklid.

Compliance of a vehicle is determined with respect to its normal driving position, that is to say, with the tailgate, hatch, or decklid closed."

We realized the noticeable difference between those two letters. We have been designing and testing lamps until now according to the interpretation dated June 28, 1985.

2. As the interpretation of the testing method concerning photometer output requirements of lamps mounted onto both the moving vehicle part and the rigid vehicle part is not written in FMVSS No. 108, we have been designing those lamps to comply with photometer output requirements by using both lamps mounted onto the moving vehicle part (Lamp-B) and the rigid vehicle part (Lamp-A), in accordance with the sentence "The device shall be mounted in its normal operating position." of J (Photometry) of SAE J575e incorporated in FMVSS No. 108.

For the reason mentioned above, we would like to ask whether your stance concerning the interpretation of those lamps has been changed or not.

Kindly let us know your opinion concerning the above matters.

ID: nht91-5.35

DATE: September 6, 1991

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Jt Covelli -- President, Jt Covelli Marketing & Media

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter undated from Jt Covelli to Taylor Vinson (OCC 6369)

TEXT:

This responds to your recent undated letter to Taylor Vinson of this Office with respect to whether Federal law allows the use of decals on center highmounted stop lamps. You report that Wisconsin has no law governing the use of a decal on the brake light.

THe subject is a complicated one under Federal law, but I shall try to explain it as simply as possible. There is no restriction under Federal law on the application of a decal to the center stop lamp, if the decal is placed there by the vehicle owner.

Center stop lamps were not required on passenger cars manufactured before September 1, 1985, and there are no Federal restrictions upon application of decals to lamps on pre-1986 model cars that may have been retrofitted with them. With respect to application of the decal on the center lamp of a passenger car manufactured on or after September 1, 1985, Federal law prohibits the application a decal by a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair shop, either before or after its sale to the first owner, if the application of the decal creates a noncompliance with the Federal motor vehicle safety standard on lighting. Conversely, such application is permitted if the lamp remains in compliance with all applicable Federal requirements with the decal installed. For example, the Federal standard calls for a minimum "effective projected luminous area" of 4 1/2 square inches. Application of a decal to a lamp meeting the minimum area requirement would reduce the effective projected luminous area below 4 1/2 square inches, creating a noncompliance. On the other hand, if that area were large enough, and more than 4 1/2 square inches of it remained after the application of a decal, application of the decal would not create a noncompliance with the luminous area specification. The standard also calls for measurement of photometric performance at certain specified test points on the lamp. Obviously, the lamp must continue to provide the minimum photometric performance specified by the standard for those test points with the decal applied. Thus, whether application of a decal by a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair shop creates a noncompliance is dependent upon the size of the lamp and the size, lettering, and transparency of the decal.