ID: Wolford.2

Kevin M. Wolford, Executive Director
Automotive Manufacturers
Equipment Compliance Agency, Inc. ,
1101 15^th Street, NW, Suite 607
Washington, DC 20005-5020




Dear Mr. Wolford:

This responds to your letter in which you requested clarification of certain issues pertaining to the requirements for replacement lighting equipment under Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment. Specifically, your letter asked whether a manufacturer designing a lamp with a bulb using an indexed base, but which has a series of LEDs, would need to meet the requirements for a "single compartment" lamp or a "three compartment" lamp (i.e. , whether a bulb with several LEDs has a single light source or multiple light sources). You also asked whether it would be permissible under FMVSS No. 108 to develop a lamp with a red bulb that complies with the Economic Commission for Europe (ECE) standard for bulbs. I am pleased to have the opportunity to explain the relevant provisions of our standard.

By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized to issue FMVSSs that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. It is the responsibility of manufacturers to certify that their products conform to all applicable safety standards before they can be offered for sale (see 49 CFR Part 571).

As you are aware, FMVSS No. 108 specifies requirements for original and replacement lamps, reflective devices, and associated equipment. The standard applies to passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, buses, trailers (except pole trailers and trailer converter dollies), and motorcycles. Paragraph S5.8.1 of the standard provides, "Except as provided below, each lamp, reflective device, or item of associated equipment manufactured to replace any lamp, reflective device, or item of associated equipment on any vehicle to which this standard applies, shall be designed to conform to this standard."

We would note that the substantive issues raised in your letter, regarding compliance of certain lamp designs with the requirements of Standard No. 108, have largely been addressed in prior interpretations. The first scenario presented in your letter involves a replacement lamp (non-headlamp) that includes a series of LEDs. You stated that the hypothetical replacement lamp is designed with an indexed base conforming to SAE J567, Lamp Bulb Retention System. Your letter, in effect, asked whether the LEDs, taken together, would be considered a single light source when determining photometric compliance with Standard No. 108 (thereby being subject to the requirements for one lighted section), or whether the LEDs would be considered individual light sources (thereby being subject to the requirements for three lighted sections).

As we explained in our December 30, 1992 letter of interpretation to Mr. T. Kouchi, lamps with LEDs are considered to have multiple light sources, with each LED constituting a single source. The letter goes on to state that "any device that contains more than three lighted sections, or LEDs, need only comply with the requirements prescribed for three lighted sections". We note, however, that in our December 21, 2005 letter of interpretation to Mr. Takayuki Amma (see enclosure), we stated that if a number of LEDs is wired such that failure of any one LED would cause the entire array of LEDs to cease functioning, we would consider the array of LEDs to be a single light source. Furthermore, each array of LEDs wired in this manner would be considered one light source for the purposes of determining number of lighted sections in SAE J588e, Turn Signal Lamps, which is incorporated by reference in FMVSS No. 108. For example, a turn signal lamp that is wired with two arrays of LEDs, operating in the manner described above, would be considered a two-lighted-section lamp.

As to the second issue presented in your letter regarding the permissibility of using a red bulb in a taillamp, such a configuration would be permissible under FMVSS No. 108. Under Table I and Table III of FMVSS No. 108 and appropriate SAE standards incorporated by reference, the color of the light from taillamps and stop lamps must be red (without specifying either bulb color or lens color). The color specifications that such lamps must meet in order to comply with FMVSS No. 108 are contained in SAE Standard No. J578c, Color Specifications for Electric Signaling Devices (February 1977), which S5.1.5 of FMVSS No. 108 incorporates by reference. The ECE regulation mentioned in your letter (E/ECE/324/Rev.1/Add.36/Rev.3/Amend.3) is not a substitute for SAE J578c.

On this point, your letter also questioned whether the interpretation as expressed in our October 5, 2000 letter to Senior Trooper W.L. Hill has been changed. It has not. In that letter, it was stated that we were not aware of any manufacturer certifying a taillamp with a red bulb and a clear lens under FMVSS No. 108. However, the response reflected our understanding that a red bulb/clear lens configuration was not economically feasible at that time, not that such a configuration is impermissible under the standard. Since then, we understand that some manufacturers are currently producing lamps with red LED bulbs and clear lenses that do comply with the standard.

Your letter also raised the separate issue of how the above principles apply to aftermarket manufacturers in light of our notice of interpretation published in the Federal Register on October 8, 2004, which interpreted paragraph S5.8.1 of the standard dealing with replacement lighting equipment (69 FR 60464). In response to several requests for reconsideration of that notice of interpretation, the agency published a revised notice of interpretation in the Federal Register on November 1, 2005 (70 FR 65972). We encourage you to read this latest notice of interpretation (see enclosure).

In that second notice, we have decided to adopt a less restrictive interpretation of S5.8.1, which, simply stated, requires that a lamp (or other item of lighting equipment) manufactured to replace a lamp on a vehicle to which Standard No. 108 applies, is permitted so long as the vehicle manufacturer could have certified the vehicle to the standard using the replacement lamp instead of the lamp actually used (including replacement headlamps using different light sources than the original equipment headlamps). In light of our revised interpretation of S5.8.1, we believe that there would not be a significant difference in the treatment accorded to original equipment manufacturers and aftermarket/replacement equipment manufacturers.

If you have further questions, please feel free to contact Eric Stas of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Wood
Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosures
ref:108
d.1/5/06

ID: nht73-3.9

DATE: 01/11/73

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; R. B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Pilot, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: In your letter of December 15, 1972, to the Department, you ask "Do the regulations require that the brake lite be activated prior to the onset on any brake pressure due to pedal travel can some brake pressure be on before the brake lite lights?"

Paragraph S4.5.4 of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 Lamps Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment requires that "the stop lamps shall be activated upon application of the service brake." The standard does not state a specific time or brake line pressure at which activation shall occur so that some brake pressure is permitted at the activation point.

ID: 8326

March 30, 1993

Mr. Marty D. Pope President Wheels "R" Rollin, Inc. 6702 North Highway 66 Claremore, OK 74017

Dear Mr. Pope:

This responds to your February 18, 1993 letter to Walter Myers of this office. You stated in your letter and in telephone conversations with Mr. Myers that your firm obtains used wheels from salvage yards, mostly passenger car wheels, refurbishes them by sandblasting and refinishing them, then sells them to manufacturers of utility trailers. You asked how to "bring the wheels manufactured before 1977 up to standards" (referring to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 120, Tire selection and rims for motor vehicles other than passenger cars), and whether it is possible to "stamp the wheels previous to 1977 with a regulation code to approve their usability." "Wheels" refers to the wheel rim and the hub to which the rim is attached.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized by the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.) (Safety Act) to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS's) for new motor vehicles (including trailers) and new items of motor vehicle equipment (including tires and wheels). The purpose of Standard 120 is to provide safe operational performance by ensuring that vehicles to which it applies are equipped with tires of adequate size and load rating and with rims of appropriate size and type designation. The standard applies to new trailers, and to rims manufactured on or after August 1, 1977. Violations of any of the standards are punishable by civil fines of up to $1,000 per violation, with a maximum fine of up to $800,000 for a related series of violations.

You ask about our requirements for the rims of the wheels you refurbish. The answer depends on whether the rim is intended to be installed on a new trailer or intended as a replacement rim for a used trailer.

If the rim is intended for a new trailer, the new trailer manufacturer must certify that the vehicle complies with Standard 120. Standard 120 establishes two requirements for the vehicle. First, S5.1.1 requires that the rims on a new trailer be listed by the manufacturer of the tires mounted on the trailer as suitable for use with those tires. Second, the rims on a new trailer must meet the rim marking requirements of S5.2 of Standard 120. Since the rims you refurbish were originally passenger car rims, they will not have the required markings, regardless of date of manufacture, because Standard 120 does not apply to passenger car rims. Therefore, trailer manufacturers may not install passenger car rims on new trailers unless those rims are marked in accordance with Standard 120.

If the rim is intended as a replacement rim on a used trailer, different requirements apply. The rim marking requirements of S5.2 of Standard 120 apply only to new rims manufactured on or after August 1, 1977. Refurbished wheels sold for used trailers are considered used wheels instead of new wheels for purposes of Standard 120, and are thus not subject to the rim marking requirements of the standard. As pointed out above, however, a new or refurbished rim installed on a new trailer must meet the rim selection and marking requirements of Standard 120 (S5.1.1 and S5.2).

Relatedly, you ask about marking a used rim with the information required by Standard 120 for new rims. Any rim, new or used, that is installed on a new vehicle must be marked with the "regulation code" (i.e., the "DOT" symbol constituting the manufacturer's certification of compliance with Standard 120) and the other information required by the standard. However, a rim manufactured prior to August 1, 1977, that is sold as a replacement rim must not be marked with the DOT symbol. NHTSA has long held that manufacturers may not show the DOT certification on items of motor vehicle equipment to which no Federal motor vehicle safety standard applies. The reason for that decision is that such a certification would be false and misleading to NHTSA and to consumers who might assume that the item was subject to and met a Federal safety standard. Thus, since Standard 120 does not apply to rims manufactured prior to August 1, 1977, such rims cannot now be marked with the DOT symbol.

You should also be aware of two other provisions of the Safety Act. The first provision is 108(a)(2)(A), which provides that no manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business may knowingly render inoperative, in whole or in part, any device or element of design installed on or in a new or used motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable FMVSS. This means that a person in these categories cannot remove the label information required by Standard 120 during the refurbishing process.

Second, under 151-157 of the Safety Act, manufacturers of motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment (e.g., wheel rims) are responsible for safety-related defects in their products. If a manufacturer or NHTSA determines that a safety- related defect exists, the manufacturer must notify purchasers of the product and remedy the problem free of charge. (This responsibility is borne by the vehicle manufacturer in cases in which a defective wheel rim is installed on a new vehicle by or with the express authorization of that vehicle manufacturer.) A refurbished rim that had been previously damaged (e.g., cracked, bent, or pitted) might not be capable of performing safely while in service.

For your further information, I am enclosing a pamphlet issued by this agency entitled Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards and Regulations and a fact sheet entitled Where to Obtain NHTSA's Safety Standards and Regulations. The pamphlet briefly summarizes each of our Federal motor vehicle safety standards and the fact sheet advises where to obtain the full text of those standards and our other regulations. You may also find helpful the attached fact sheet entitled Information for New Manufacturers of Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Equipment.

We also note that the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) has a regulation on the refurbishing of damaged rim components. You can contact OSHA at (202) 219- 7202, ATTN: Mr. Richard Sauger, for information about that regulation.

I hope this information is will be of assistance to you. Should you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Mr. Myers at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosures ref:120 d:3/31/93

ID: nht93-2.34

DATE: March 30, 1993

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Marty D. Pope -- President, Wheels "R" Rollin, Inc.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 2-18-93 from Marty D. Pope to Walter Myers (OCC 8326)

TEXT: This responds to your February 18, 1993 letter to Walter Myers of this office. You stated in your letter and in telephone conversations with Mr. Myers that your firm obtains used wheels from salvage yards, mostly passenger car wheels, refurbishes them by sandblasting and refinishing them, then sells them to manufacturers of utility trailers. You asked how to "bring the wheels manufactured before 1977 up to standards" (referring to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 120, TIRE SELECTION AND RIMS FOR MOTOR VEHICLES OTHER THAN PASSENGER CARS), and whether it is possible to "stamp the wheels previous to 1977 with a regulation code to approve their usability." "Wheels" refers to the wheel rim and the hub to which the rim is attached.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized by the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. S1381 ET SEQ.) (Safety Act) to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS's) for new motor vehicles (including trailers) and new items of motor vehicle equipment (including tires and wheels). The purpose of Standard 120 is to provide safe operational performance by ensuring that vehicles to which it applies are equipped with tires of adequate size and load rating and with rims of appropriate size and type designation. The standard applies to new trailers, and to rims manufactured on or after August 1, 1977. Violations of any of the standards are punishable by civil fines of up to $1,000 per violation, with a maximum fine of up to $800,000 for a related series of violations.

You ask about our requirements for the rims of the wheels you refurbish. The answer depends on whether the rim is intended to be installed on a new trailer or intended as a replacement rim for a used trailer.

If the rim is intended for a new trailer, the new trailer manufacturer must certify that the vehicle complies with Standard 120. Standard 120 establishes two requirements for the vehicle. First, S5.1.1 requires that the rims on a new trailer be listed by the manufacturer of the tires mounted on the trailer as suitable for use with those tires. Second, the rims on a new trailer must meet the rim marking requirements of S5.2 of Standard 120. Since the rims you refurbish were originally passenger car rims, they will not have the required markings, regardless of date of manufacture because Standard 120 does not apply to passenger car rims. Therefore, trailer manufacturers may not install passenger car rims on new trailers unless those rims are marked in accordance with Standard 120.

If the rim is intended as a replacement rim on a used trailer, different requirements apply. The rim marking requirements of S5.2 of Standard 120 apply only to NEW rims manufactured on or after August 1, 1977. Refurbished wheels sold for used trailers are considered used wheels instead of new wheels for purposes of Standard 120, and are thus not subject to the rim marking

requirements of the standard. As pointed out above, however, a new or refurbished rim installed on a new trailer must meet the rim selection and marking requirements of Standard 120 (S5.1.1 and S5.2).

Relatedly, you ask about marking a used rim with the information required by Standard 120 for new rims. Any rim, new or used, that is installed on a new vehicle must be marked with the "regulation code" (i.e., the "DOT" symbol constituting the manufacturer's certification of compliance with Standard 120) and the other information required by the standard. However, a rim manufactured prior to August 1, 1977, that is sold as a replacement rim must not be marked with the DOT symbol. NHTSA has long held that manufacturers may not show the DOT certification on items of motor vehicle equipment to which no Federal motor vehicle safety standard applies. The reason for that decision is that such a certification would be false and misleading to NHTSA and to consumers who might assume that the item was subject to and met a Federal safety standard. Thus, since Standard 120 does not apply to rims manufactured prior to August 1, 1977, such rims cannot now be marked with the DOT symbol.

You should also be aware of two other provisions of the Safety Act. The first provision is S108(a)(2)(A), which provides that no manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business may knowingly render inoperative, in whole or in part, any device or element of design installed on or in a new or used motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable FMVSS. This means that a person in these categories cannot remove the label information required by Standard 120 during the refurbishing process.

Second, under S151-157 of the Safety Act, manufacturers of motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment (e.g., wheel rims) are responsible for safety-related defects in their products. If a manufacturer or NHTSA determines that a safety-related defect exists, the manufacturer must notify purchasers of the product and remedy the problem free of charge. (This responsibility is borne by the vehicle manufacturer in cases in which a defective wheel rim is installed on a new vehicle by or with the express authorization of that vehicle manufacturer.) A refurbished rim that had been previously damaged (e.g., cracked, bent, or pitted) might not be capable of performing safely while in service.

For your further information, I am enclosing a pamphlet issued by this agency entitled FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDS AND REGULATIONS and a fact sheet entitled WHERE TO OBTAIN NHTSA'S SAFETY STANDARDS AND REGULATIONS. The pamphlet briefly summarizes each of our Federal motor vehicle safety standards and the fact sheet advises where to obtain the full text of those standards and our other regulations. You may also find helpful the attached fact sheet entitled INFORMATION FOR NEW MANUFACTURERS OF MOTOR VEHICLES AND MOTOR VEHICLE EQUIPMENT.

We also note that the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) has a regulation on the refurbishing of damaged rim components. You can contact OSHA at (PHONE NUMBER) for information about that regulation.

I hope this information is will be of assistance to you. Should you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Mr. Myers at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

ID: 2282y

Larry S. Snowhite, Esq.
Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris,
Glovsky and Popeo, P.C.
1825 Eye Street, NW
Washington, DC 20006

Dear Mr. Showhite:

This replies to your letters asking for a determination "that the sale into the aftermarket as well as aftermarket installation of the Advanced Brake Light Device ('ABLD')...would not violate" any of this agency's statutes or regulations.

As you have described it, the ABLD "consists of a sensor attached to the accelerator pedal that senses the rate at which the foot releases the accelerator pedal. This signal is sent to a processor unit, which determines whether the brake lights should be turned on, and the duration of the illumination until the brake is applied. The ABLD is set so that the brake light will go off unless the brake is applied within one second of the ABLD's activation...." You believe that this avoids providing a misleading signal. You further indicate the manufacturer's willingness to alter the time interval if NHTSA's favorable opinion is required for it.

You have not defined the term "aftermarket", but we shall assume that you mean sales to vehicle owners of equipment for installation on their vehicles (as contrasted with sales to dealers for installation on new vehicles before their delivery). There is no Federal motor vehicle safety standard that applies to the system described in your letter. This means that there are no Federal restrictions upon the importation, manufacture, or sale of the ABLD. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (specifically, l5 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)), as you surmise, modifications to vehicles by a person other than the vehicle owner are permissible as long as they do not "render inoperative, in whole or in part, any device...installed on...a motor vehicle...in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard...."

The essential question then is whether the installation of the ABLD renders partially or wholly inoperative the vehicle's stop lamps. As you know, in our interpretations on lighting equipment, we have noted a close relationship between the statute's rendering inoperative prohibition for the aftermarket with the standard's impaired effectiveness prohibition for supplementary original equipment. Primarily, maintaining that relationship is done in order to avoid regulatory inconsistency with interpretations under which installation of an item of aftermarket equipment might be deemed acceptable under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, while its installation as original equipment would violate Standard No. l08.

There are two types of supplementary original, or aftermarket, lighting equipment: those that operate independently of the lighting equipment that Standard No. l08 requires, and those that operate in connection with that equipment. A separate red rear fog lamp would be an example of the former. The ABLD is an example of the latter, because it has a direct effect upon the operation of the stop lamp.

An aftermarket device that has an effect upon the operation of required lighting equipment cannot be deemed permissible unless that effect is consistent with the operation and purpose of the required equipment. As you stated, the SAE defines a stop lamp as one whose function indicates "the intention of the operator of a vehicle to stop or diminish speed by braking". You have argued that "The ABLD is consistent because it "clearly and unambiguously indicates" an operator's intent to apply the brake. Your client, however, does not make that claim for the ABLD; it concedes that "there will be circumstances in which the brake will not be engaged after the ABLD is activated."

The heart of our concern is that while the standard requires the stop lamp to operate in only one particular circumstance, the ABLD causes the stop lamp to operate at an earlier time when the lamp is supposed to be unlighted. Further, the ABLD's activation of the stop lamp indicates only that the operator has released the accelerator. It does not necessarily follow that the brake pedal will later be applied. Under this fact situation, the stop lamps fulfill a purpose other than for which they are installed. This can only create the potential for confusion and dilution of the effectiveness of the stop signal. For the reasons stated above, we have concluded that installation of the ABLD in the aftermarket would render the stop lamps partially inoperative. Because this conclusion does not depend upon whether the ABLD would be acceptable using the different parameters of performance to which it is apparently capable of being adjusted, there appears to be no reason to discuss this matter with you before completion of this interpretation, which would further delay our response.

We would like to discuss several other points. You have stated that "Illuminations of the brake lights for one second or less occur frequently during normal driving without the ABLD", and have sought to allay our concerns with the manufacturer's willingness to reduce the stop lamp activation time from one second to something less if that is required for a favorable interpretation. You have also provided information that the ABLD comes into operation only when the foot is released from the pedal at a rate consistent with an intent to apply the brake, as in an emergency situation.

While we appreciate these arguments, we do not find them persuasive. The short periods of illumination to which you refer are occasioned by application of the brake pedal, no matter how brief that application is. The offer to reduce the activation time of the ABLD if it is not followed by a brake application would reduce but not eliminate stop lamp activation for purposes other than to indicate a stop or diminished speed. As for foot-movement time, there appears to be no indication in the University of Michigan study that you submitted that the ABLD was activated in traffic emergencies. The foot-movement time measurements seem consistent with removal of the foot from the accelerator under ordinary traffic situations, and thus there should have been no instances of ABLD activation.

Your most recent letter contained a copy of a report of an independent field study of the ABLD in Israel, which "found that rear-end accidents were reduced by 75 percent." However, the report states that the ABLD-equipped vehicles ("except a few") were also equipped with center high-mounted stop lamps. Since any reductions in rear-end accidents that were experienced by the test fleets cannot be attributed solely to the ABLD, the data must be viewed as inconclusive.

The acceptability for use of the ABLD must also be determined under the laws of the individual States. We are unable to advise you on these laws, and suggest that you get in touch with the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators (AAMVA) for further advice. Its address is 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA 22203.

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel

ref: VSA d:l/25/90

ID: 77-3.22

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/11/77

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Joseph J. Levin Jr.; NHTSA

TO: Timpte Inc.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your May 6, 1977, letter asking whether your tire information label complies with the requirements of Standard No. 120, Tire Selection and Rims for Motor Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars, and Part 567, Certification. Further, you request that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) expedite treatment of Docket No. 73-31; Notice 1, which, if implemented would simplify the certification and information labels.

Concerning Docket 73-31, the NHTSA published on June 20, 1977, a notice (42 FR 31161) implementing Notice 1 which proposed the use of the designation "all axles" rather than listing each axle individually on the certification label. The implementation of this regulation should resolve many of your problems.

Regarding the sample information label you submitted with your letter, the NHTSA does not give advance approvals of compliance with Federal safety regulations or standards. We will, however, give an informal opinion of whether your label appears to comply with the requirements. The label you submitted does not appear to comply with the requirements of Part 567 or Standard No. 120. I have enclosed copies of both of these regulations for your information.

Your certification label should use the designation "all axles" not "each axle." The tire and rim information should follow that designation stated in the form presented in the examples in Standard No. 120 and Part 567.

SINCERELY,

TIMPTE, INC.

MAY 6, 1977

NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION

ATTENTION: JOAN CLAYBROOK, ADMINISTRATOR

WE ARE A MANUFACTURER OF SEMI-TRAILERS, BASICALLY REFRIGERATED VAN TYPE TRAILERS AS WELL AS GRAIN HAULING TRAILERS OF SEVERAL TYPES. THESE ARE HIGHWAY OPERATED UNITS AND ARE NON-EXEMPT FROM ANY FEDERAL STANDARDS INCLUDING 121. THE 60 M.P.H. RATING IS STANDARD ON ALL OF THEM AND IN THIS CONTEXT, WE WOULD LIKE TO PRESENT OUR PROBLEM AND ASK FOR YOUR ASSISTANCE IN EXPEDITING ACTION AS WELL AS ADVISING OF YOUR CONCURRENCE OR NOT WITH OUR INTERPRETATION OF PART 567, AS WELL AS STANDARD 120. AS YOU KNOW, IT IS NECESSARY THAT WE AS MANUFACTURERS, CHANGE OUR CERTIFICATION PLATES AND TIME IS NOW OF THE ESSENCE OF OBTAINING DELIVERY SO THAT IN ORDER TO BE IN COMPLIANCE, IT BECOMES NECESSARY FOR US TO ACT RATHER QUICKLY.

PERTINENT TO THIS IS THE FACT THAT DOCKET #73-31; NOTICE #1 CLOSED COMMENT ON JANUARY 7, 1974 AND NO RESPONSE FROM NHTSA HAS BEEN FORTHCOMING, IN SPITE OF WHAT WAS APPARENTLY FAVORABLE POSITIVE COMMENT ON THE PROPOSED RULE-MAKING. THE AMENDMENTS PROPOSED TO PART 567.4 AND 567.5 WOULD GREATLY SIMPLIFY THE LABEL ITSELF AND YET NOT DETRACT FROM THE INFORMATION THEREON. SINCE NEARLY ALL OF THE HIGHWAY TYPE SEMI-TRAILERS MANUFACTURED HAVE IDENTICAL AXLES AND TIRES AND HENCE, GAWR RATINGS, IT SEEMS ONLY APPROPRIATE THAT A SINGLE GAWR RATING BE ALLOWED INDICATING THAT THAT IS FOR EACH AXLE OR ALL AXLES ON THE TRAILER. COMPARE THIS TO THE NECESSITY OF HAVING TO LIST FRONT, INTERMEDIATE, AND REAR AXLE GAWRS INDIVIDUALLY WHEN, IN FACT, NEARLY 100% OF THE TIME THEY ARE THE SAME. ON THOSE OCCASIONS WHEN THERE MIGHT BE A DIFFERENCE, THEN GAWR FOR THE DIFFERENT RATED AXLES WOULD BE REQUIRED. FURTHER, THIS NEED NOT MODIFY THE CONTEXT OF STANDARD 120 SINCE IN S5.3 (A) THE REFERENCE IS TO CERTIFICATION LABEL AS REQUIRED BY PART 567.4 OR 567.5.

ACCORDING TO OUR INTERPRETATION OF 120 AND WITH THE AMENDMENT AS PROPOSED IN DOCKET #73-31; NOTICE #1, OUR CERTIFICATION PLATE WOULD COMPLY AS SHOWN IN THE ATTACHED DRAWING 044-027A. S5.3.1 AND S5.3.2 CLEARLY ALLOW TIRE AND RIM DESIGNATIONS NOT NECESSARILY THOSE ON THE VEHICLE, BUT SUBSTANTIVE OF THE GAWR SHOWN. S5.1.2 IS COMPLIED WITH IN THAT 10:00X20F, RIMS 7.5 AT 75 P.S.I. COLD DUAL, IS THE MINIMUM TIRE THAT WILL GIVE THE GAWR OF 19,000 LBS. WHICH AGAIN IS THE MOST COMMON ONE IN USE TODAY DUE TO OTHER LIMITING FACTORS OF THE SUSPENSION, AXLE, WHEEL AND BRAKE SYSTEMS. OF COURSE, THE NEXT TO THE LAST SENTENCE WOULD BE COMPLIED WITH AND DOES ALLOW FOR TIRES FITTED TO THE AXLE NOT APPEARING ON THE CERTIFICATION LABEL. IN ALL CASES, THESE TIRES WOULD BE IN EXCESSIVE RATINGS OF THOSE WE WOULD HAVE PRINTED ON THE LABEL. FROM A PRACTICAL STANDPOINT, MANY OF OUR TRAILERS BEING SOLD THROUGH DISTRIBUTORS AND/OR DEALERS ARE EQUIPPED WITH TIRES OF A CERTAIN SIZE LEAVING OUR PLANT; HOWEVER AT VARIOUS LOCATIONS THROUGHOUT THE COUNTRY, WHEN HE DISTRIBUTOR OR DEALER IS SELLING THESE TRAILERS FROM STOCK, THEY MAY BE EQUIPPED WITH A DIFFERENT SIZE TIRE, YET ADEQUATE TO SUSTAIN THE GAWR.

THERE ARE TWO MORE POINTS IN REGARD TO THAT CERTIFICATION TAG AND ONE OF THEM IS POSSIBLE ELIMINATION OF THE ABBREVIATION OF THE WORD MINIMUM PRECEEDING TIRES. WHILE IT IS FACTUAL, IT IS NOT INDICATED IN THE STANDARD. THAT CAN EASILY BE ELIMINATED IF IT WAS NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH YOUR INTERPRETATION OF THE STANDARD. THE OTHER ITEM THAT WE FEEL MIGHT BE DESIRABLE TO DO IS HAVE IN PLACE OF THE BLANK IN WHICH WE MUST STAMP NUMBERS OPPOSITE GAWR EACH AXLE, TO HAVE THAT PRINTED IN AT THE TIME OF THE MANUFACTURE OF THE LABEL IN THE SAME MANNER THAT WE WOULD THE TIRES AS SHOWN PRINTED IN. THE NUMBER WOULD BE 19,000 LBS. AS MENTIONED, THIS IS THE NEAR UNIVERSAL STANDARD RATING ON AXLES IN REGARDS TO VARIOUS OTHER LIMITING STANDARDS. THIS OF COURSE, LEAVES A MINIMUM OF ITEMS TO BE STAMPED IN ON THE PLATE AND STILL GIVES THE TOTAL INFORMATION REQUIRED. BUT FOR ANY POSSIBLE EXCEPTIONS THAT MIGHT OCCUR, WE WOULD PROPOSE USING A PLATE SIMILAR TO 044-027, THEREIN WE WOULD BE STAMPING ALL OF THE INFORMATION AND WE WOULD SUSPECT THAT THIS WOULD ONLY BE USED POSSIBLY 5% OF THE TIME.

I WOULD LIKE TO EMPHASIZE ONCE AGAIN THE URGENCY FROM A STANDPOINT OF TIME AND REQUIREMENTS FOR ORDERING, MANUFACTURING AND DELIVERY OF THE CERTIFICATION PLATES TO US. EXPEDITED FAVORABLE ACTION ON DOCKET #73-31; NOTICE #1 WILL GREATLY CLARIFY THINGS FOR OUR ENTIRE INDUSTRY AND WHILE IN THE INTERPRETATION AREA, WE ARE SPEAKING OF OUR OWN PLATE, THIS TOO, WOULD BE CLARIFIED BY AN OPINION FROM YOUR OFFICE. THANK YOU.

JACK GROMER VICE PRESIDENT - TECHNICAL OPERATIONS

CC: TTMA

ID: aiam5458

Dear Mr. West: This responds to your letter of November 1, 1994 requesting information on any rules or standards applicable to a 'windshield cleaning device.' As your letter describes, '(t)he product is a clear strip which is adhered to the windshield of an automobile. The action of the wiper blades passing over the device causes the wiper blades to function more effectively.' I am enclosing a copy of a May 29, 1992 letter to Mr. John J. Jacoby concerning a similar device. I believe this letter contains the information you need. If you have any other questions, please contact Mary Versailles of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Philip R. Recht Chief Counsel Enclosures;

ID: 1985-03.7

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/05/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Jeffrey R. Miller; NHTSA

TO: Houston N. Tuel, Jr., Esq -- Coder and Tuel

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Houston N. Tuel, Jr., Esq. Coder & Tuel Suite 172 8801 Folsom Boulevard Sacramento, California 95826

This responds to your letter of February 4, 1985, inquiring about the applicability of 49 CFR Part 566, Manufacturer Identification, and 49 CFR Part 573, Defect and Noncompliance Reports, to your client, Stockton Dodge. I regret the delay in our response.

You asked whether Stockton Dodge, as a vehicle alterer, would be considered a manufacturer under the statutory definition of "manufacturer" in the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, as amended, 15 U.S.C. 1391, et seq. (the Act). Based on the information given, the answer is yes.

You state that Stockton Dodge purchases previously certified Dodge vans from Chrysler Corporation and converts them into school buses which are intended to be sold directly to school districts. The modifications made by your client include adding seats, strengthening the roof structure, and adding required warning lights and emergency equipment. You state that Stockton Dodge will certify the altered vehicles according to the requirements of 49 CFR Part 567.7, as complying with all Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to school buses.

Stockton Dodge sent a letter to the Administrator, dated March 7, 1985, stating that, beginning February 15, 1985, its school bus division would become a final-stage manufacturer. Stockton Dodge stated that they would purchase Dodge B350 vans from Chrysler Corporation with school bus options and would add equipment to alter these vehicles to Type 2 school buses, weighing under 10,000 GVWR. Under our regulations, your client is not considered a final-stage manufacturer because the definition of final-stage manufacturer in 49 CFR Part 568 applies to a person who finishes an incomplete vehicle.

This agency considers Stockton Dodge an alterer of previously certified motor vehicles, as indicated in your letter, who must comply with the certification requirements of 49 CFR 567.7. Your client's alterations change the vehicle type from a multipurpose van to a school bus and affect components necessary for compliance with safety standards. For these reasons, Stockton Dodge is a manufacturer within the meaning of the Act, as stated above. Stockton Dodge's letter dated March 7, 1985, contains the information required to be submitted under 49 CFR Part 566, Manufacturer Identification. The agency will consider this letter as the manufacturer identification for Stockton Dodge as an alterer.

This agency has also determined that an alterer is considered a manufacturer for the purposes of notification and recall for defects or noncompliance under the Act and is subject to the requirements of 49 CFR Part 573, Defect and Noncompliance Reports.

Please note that, under paragraph S4.1 of Standard No. 115, Vehicle Identification Number--Basic Requirements (VIN), Stockton Dodge, as the alterer, should use the VIN assigned by Chrysler Corporation, the original manufacturer of the vehicles.

If you have any further questions, please let me know.

Sincerely, Jeffrey R. Miller Chief Counsel

February 4, 1985 Mr. Frank Berndt Chief Counsel's Office National Highway Traffic and Safety Administration 400 7th Street, Room 5219 S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Re: Manufacturer Reporting Requirements

Dear Mr. Berndt:

On behalf of our client, Stockton Dodge, our firm requests your opinion whether Stockton Dodge must comply with the manufacturer identification requirements of Part 566 of 49 CFR and the defect and noncompliance reporting requirements of Part 573 of 49 CFR.

Stockton Dodge purchases Dodge vans from Chrysler that are safety certified and specially designed to be converted into small buses. Stockton Dodge then modifies the vans by adding seats, placing additional structural supports in the roof, and by adding all required warning lights and emergency equipment as required by both the federal and California state standards. The result is a small school bus.

Upon modification, Stockton Dodge will affix certification labels to the vehicles as altered, pursuant to Section 567.7 or Section 568.7 of 49 CFR.

Stockton Dodge then intends to sell the school buses directly to school districts.

It appears to us that a determination as to whether Stockton Dodge is subject to the manufacturer's identification reporting requirements depends on whether Stockton Dodge qualifies as a "manufacturer" under 15 U.S.C. 1391(5). In other words, is one who alters a vehicle already certified by its "final stage manufacturer" also considered a "manufacturer", or is he merely an "alterer" subject to the requirements of Section 567.7 and 568.7 of 49 CFR?

Please send your response to the above address. If there are any questions, please do not hesitate to call me at the above telephone number. Your help in clarifying this matter will be greatly appreciated.

Very truly yours, Houston N. Tuel, Jr. HNT:kh March 7, 1985

Administrator National Highway Traffic Safety Adm. 400 Seventh St. S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Please be advised that beginning February 15, 1985, the school Bus Division of Stockton Dodge Inc., a Delaware Corporation, will become a final stage manufacturer.

We will be purchasing Dodge B350 Vans from Chrysler Motor Corp. with all appropriate School Bus options, and then adding equipment to alter same to a mini School Bus, type 2, under 10,000 G V W.

Corporate Name: Stockton Dodge Inc. Residence Address: 540 N. Hunter St. Stockton, Ca. 95201

ID: nht74-2.15

DATE: 03/20/74

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; R. B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Kelsey-Hayes Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your February 1, 1974, request for interpretation of the language "maximum temperature of 500 +/- 50 degrees F" appearing in S6.1.8.1 of Standard No. 121, Air brake systems, 49 CFR 571.121.

The language is intended to specify a temperature range within which to conduct the burnishing procedure in the event brake applications cause the hottest brake on a vehicle to reach 500 degrees F. The word "maximum" is inappropriate and will be deleted in an upcoming notice responding to petitions that raised the same point.

Yours truly,

ATTACH.

KELSEY-HAYES COMPANY

February 1, 1974

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, U. S. Department of Transportation,

Attention: Lawrence Schneider -- Chief Counsel

RE: Request for Interpretation FMVSS-121; Air Brake Systems Docket 73-13; Notice 3 @ 6.1.8.1 Brake Burnish Procedure

Gentlemen:

We would appreciate an interpretation of the following sentence which appears in the above cited section of Standard 121:

"If during any of the brake applications specified in Table IV, the hottest brake reaches 500 degrees F, make the remainder of the 500 applications from that speed except that a higher or lower speed shall be used as necessary to maintain a maximum temperature of 500 degrees F +/- 50 degrees F."

We believe the meaning of this sentence to be that the temperature of a brake may not exceed 550 degrees F at any time during a brake application and that the speed limitations specified in Table IV may be waived to maintain the temperature below 550 degrees F only if the temperature of the hottest brake reaches 500 degrees during any stop.

We are puzzled by the words ". . . maintain a maximum of 500 degrees F +/- 50 degrees F", as the tolerance appears to be inappropriate if our interpretation is correct. Conversely, if the intent is to limit the temperature range to 500 degrees F +/- 50 degrees F once a temperature of 500 degrees F is reached, the word "maximum" is inappropriate.

A prompt reply would be very much appreciated.

Very truly yours,

John F. McCuen -- Attorney

cc: W. T. Birge; D. Renner

ID: 1983-2.41

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/08/83

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Merchant's Inc. -- Buck Burwell, Vice President

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Buck Burwell: Vice President Merchant's, Inc. 9073 Euclid Ave. Manassas VA 22110

Dear Mr. Burwell:

This responds to your recent letter to Mr. Kratzke of my staff, asking questions about a group of trucks tires you wish to sell. Specifically, your company received a large shipment of truck tires from Tong Shinn Chemical Company in Korea. Some of those tires did not have the D.O.T. symbol and other information labelled on the sidewall, as required for all new truck tires by Safety Standard No. 119, New pneumatic tires for motor vehicles other than passenger cars (49 CFR S571.119). Your company tried to return the tires to the Korean manufacturer, because tires which do not meet the requirements of Standard No. 119 may not be legally sold in this country. However, the Korean manufacturer has gone out of business, leaving your company with $15,000 worth of tires which may not be sold legally in this country unless appropriate information is labelled on the sidewalls.

You indicated in your letter that you would be willing to label the appropriate information onto the sidewalls of the tires. Tong Shinn has indicated that those tires are of the same quality as the tires it shipped to you with the DOT markings. Further, you indicated that your company would be willing to store the names and addresses of the purchasers of these tires, in the event a safety-related recall is necessary. After considering these facts and representations, I believe you may label the tires with the necessary information and sell them, provided that you get some more information from the Korean manufacturer.

This agency has previously allowed the marking of truck tires by a party other than the manufacturer in only one instance. That case, which also involved imported truck tires, included four factors which led the agency to make an exception to the policy that only a tire manufacturer can label the necessary information on the sidewall of the tires. Those factors were:

(l) The manufacturer certified that the unmarked tires met the requirements of Standard No. 119, except for the labelling requirement;

(2) The manufacturer provided the appropriate information to be labelled on the tires;

(3) The manufacturer agreed to be responsible for the tires in the event of a safety-related recall; and

(4) The manufacturer agreed that the marking method to be used by the importer would not weaken the tires and destroy their compliance with Standard No. 119.

In this case, Tong Shinn has already provided the first item listed above. It will be necessary for you to contact Tong Shinn to learn what information should be labelled on the tires for purposes of section S6.5 of Standard No. 119 (copy enclosed) and also the appropriate codes and information for the tire identification number, which must be labelled on the sidewalls of the tires per 49 CFR 574, Tire Identification and Recordkeeping (copy enclosed). Please furnish Mr. Kratzke with a copy of the information you receive from Tong Shinn on this subject.

As to the third item above, you indicate that your company would be willing to be responsible for the tires in the event of a safety-related recall. To do so, it will be necessary for your company to record the names and addresses of the purchasers of these tires, and store that information for a three year period. For further information on the responsibilities you will have to undertake, see section 574.7 for tire registration requirements for tire manufacturers.

It will also be necessary for you to contact Tong Shinn and explain how you propose to make the information on the side-walls of these tires, and get them to agree that this method of marking the tires will not affect their compliance with Standard No. 119. Again, please furnish a copy of that agreement to Mr. Kratzke of this office.

After you have received this additional information, this agency has no objection to your company marking the tires and selling them. Please understand that this is permitted only because of the unique circumstances of this particular situation, and that if the Korean manufacturer had not gone out of business, you would not be allowed to mark these tires. However, in these circumstances, some flexibility in the requirements is necessary to help you avert a financial loss, while maintaining the necessary safety assurances for purchasers of these tires. If you have any further questions or need additional information, please contact Mr. Steve Kratzke of my staff at (202) 426-2992.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel Enclosures

June 29, 1983

Dear Mr. Kretzke:

We have received in our latest shipment, 142 Truck Tires without D.O.T. markings, from Tong Shinn Chemical Company, in Korea.

These tires were mixed in with other tires of the same size that were properly D.O.T. marked. Since discovering the problem we have learned that the manufacturing company has gone out of bus-iness. As a result, we are left with approximately $15,000.00 worth of truck tires that we are at this point, unable to sell. Under normal circumstances we would return the tires to the supplier at their expense.

We know these tires meet D.O.T. standards and have attached notarized correspondence to that effect. We are asking that D.O.T. authorize us to sell these tires after stamping them with any marking that you may require. We can also record the purchasers, should any problems arise with the tires.

This would be a considerable loss to our company if we were unable to resolve the problem.

Thanking you very much for your help in this matter.

Sincerely yours,

Buck Burwell Vice President

BB/cg

Enclosure Omitted.