ID: nht88-1.46

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/19/88

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Stanley Electric Co.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. M. Arisaka Manager, Automotive Lighting Engineering Dept. Stanley Electric Co. Ltd. 2-9-13, Nakameguro, Meguro-ku Tokyo 153 JAPAN

Dear Mr. Arisaka:

This is in reply to your letter of September 23, 1987, with respect to daytime running lamps (DRLs).

With reference to the Canadian proposal on this subject, you have noted that it would allow optically combining the DRL with the parking lamp, using dual intensity bulbs within the same housing and covered by the same lens. (As you may be aware, the Cana dian government recently issued a final rule which adopted the proposal). You have further noted that the maximum candela output of the parking lamp together with the candela of the DRL will be greater than the maximum permitted for the parking lamp. You believe that under this circumstance the parking lamp does not have to conform to the maximum values specified, and have asked for our opinion of this matter.

Under the proposal by the United States, a DRL would have to be a lamp other than a parking lamp (proposed new paragraph S4.6.3(a)), because their brightness is inadequate for use as DRLs. However, the DRL could be incorporated into a multiple function l amp, one of whose functions is to serve as a parking lamp. A lamp with multiple functions must meet all requirements that apply when a specific function is being fulfilled. For example, a lamp that functions both as a parking lamp and a DRL and which is operated in daylight could act as either a DRL or a parking lamp, depending on the intensity of the light emitted, but it would have to meet the photometric requirements for the function being exercised. We cannot really be more specific in answering you r questions, because we are still at the proposal stage of the rulemaking process. The final decision could differ.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

September 23, 1987

Ms. Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 900 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590 U.S.A.

Re. Daytime Running Lamp in the United States

Dear Ms. Jones,

Proposal of Daytime Running Lamp was issued in Canada. In this proposal, Daytime Running Lamp can optically combined with Parking Lamp using same housing and lens with dual intensity bulbs.

We would like to ask you following question on this combined DRL.

-Question-

On this combined DRL with Parking Lamp, DRL and Parking Lamp should be lit simultaneously when switch of Parking Lamp is "ON" position.

In that condition, maximum value of Parking Lamp together with DRL will be greater than the required maximum value of Parking Lamp.

Since, present FMVSS No.108 does not prescribe on DRL, it may be interpreted that the measured maximum value of Parking Lamp can not conform with the required maximum value of FMVSS No.108.

We think that Canadian made passenger car which equips with the combined DRL will go to the United States, in that case the Parking Lamp does not have to conform the required maximum value of FMVSS No.108.

We would like to ask you to give us NHTSA's opinions on this matter.

We appreciate for your quick reply.

Sincerely yours,

Stanley Electric Co., Ltd.

M. Arisaka Manager, Automotive Lighting Engineering Sect.

ID: nht68-4.23

DATE: 01/01/68 EST

FROM: Joseph R. O'Gorman -- Acting Director, Office of Performance Analysis, Motor Vehicle Safety Performance Services

TO: A. Nathan Darby

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 3-14-91 from Paul Jackson Rice to George Smyth (A37; Std. 101); Also attached to letter dated 7-30-75 from Richard B. Dyson (signed by Z. Taylor Vinson) to Byron A. Crampton; Also attached to letter dated 8-27-68 from Eugene B. Laskin to Barry G. Seitz (Std. 203; Std. 204); Also attached to letter dated 3-1-68 from George C. Nield to Earl Allgaier

TEXT:

Thank you for your letter of December 17, 1967, to the National Highway Safety Bureau, concerning the installation of dual controls on passenger cars.

The present Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards do not prohibit the installation of dual controls provided none of the requirements specified by the standards are eliminated or adversely affected by such installation. In other words, if a dealer or manufacturer modifies a conforming vehicle, then he assumes the responsibility for the vehicle's certification. We enclose a complete set of standards now in effect for your information.

In the event that dual steering controls and other controls are provided on driver training vehicles, the applicability of the appropriate standards is confined to the primary controls, For example, under Standard No. 101, the person seated behind the secondary steering control need not be able to reach all controls.

We trust this information will be of assistance to you in your desire to comply with existing safety standards.

ID: 1982-2.23

DATE: 07/23/82

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Ron Gustafson

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your letter of June 28, 1982, asking about requirements applicable to child restraints sold in the United States as well as any necessary permits or licenses. You also asked about any U.S. testing organizations, procedures or standards for child restraints.

All child restraints sold in the U.S. must conform with the minimum performance requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 213, Child Restraint Systems. The standard also sets out the test procedures that are used to measure the performance of child restraints. There are no other performance requirements or test procedures applicable to child restraints. I am enclosing a copy of the standard.

You are not required to obtain a permit or license from this agency prior to selling a child restraint in the U.S., nor are you required to obtain approval from any U.S. testing organization. As a manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment, you are required by Part 566, Manufacturer Identification, of our regulation to submit certain identifying information to the agency. I have enclosed a copy of Part 566.

In addition, you would be required by the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. @ 1392 et seg.) to certify that your child restraint complies with all applicable Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. Under the Act, you would also be responsible for conducting a notification and remedy campaign for any safety-related defect in your product. I am enclosing a copy of the Act, which defines your responsibilities as a manufacturer.

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

ENCLS.

June 28, 1987

Furudals Bruks Kursinternat 790 70 FURUDAL Sweden

National Highway Safety Administration

To Whom it May Concern:

I am interested in receiving information concerning rules, regulations, requirements, procedures for testing, etc. concerning child safety seats in automobiles. There is interest in introducing a such a product in the USA. Therefore I would like to know of any minimum requirements (re: design, construction, materials, etc.) as well as any permits or licenses regarding those requirements. Also if there are any US testing organizations, procedures, or standards for this type of product please inform me. Thank you.

Ron Gustafson RON GUSTAFSON

ID: 86-1.20

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/03/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Patrick R. McCreary -- General Manager, Van Patton Vans

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Patrick R. McCreary General Manager Van Patton Vans 22865 Pine Creek Road P.O. Box 1305 Elkhart, IN 46515

This responds to your recent letter concerning the manufacturing operations you intend to perform on Ford Econoline vans. In a December 16 telephone conversation with Ms. Hom of my staff, you explained that the vans are incomplete vehicles which you will be receiving from a Ford dealership prior to the vehicles' first sale. A company other than your own will "stretch" the vehicle 48 to 60 inches, but your company will be completing the manufacture of the vehicle by adding seats (for 20 passengers), windows, carpeting, and so forth. You asked what your responsibilities would be under NHTSA's regulations and safety standards. Under our regulations, a motor vehicle designed for carrying more than 10 persons is a "bus" (Part 571.3). Since the vans, as completed, will meet that definition, the applicable safety standards for the vehicle you will be producing are those applying to buses. If you are performing manufacturing operations on an imcomplete vehicle, as that term is defined in Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 568.3, so that is becomes a completed vehicle, then Part 568, Vehicles manufactured in two or more stages, set forth the requirements you must meet. Under Part 568.6, Van Patton Vans, as the "final-stage manufacturer," would be required to complete the vehicle in such a manner that it conforms to all safety standards for buses in effect on a date no earlier than the manufacturing date of the incomplete vehicle, and no later than the date of completion of the final-stage manufacture. Also, your company must affix a label to the completed vehicle in accordance with the certification requirements set forth in Part 567,5, Requirements for manufacturers of vehicles manufactured in two or more stages. I have enclosed copies of 49 CFR Parts 567 and 568, for your convenience. I have also enclosed an information sheet that describes how you can obtain copies of NHTSA's regulations and motor vehicle safety standards. Please contact my office if you have further questions. Sincerely, Original Signed By Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel Enclosures

ID: 12054A.mls

Mr. Tom Byrne
Vice President
Goodridge (USA) Inc.
20309 Gramercy
Torrance, CA 90501

Dear Mr. Byrne:

This responds to your request for an interpretation of the whip test requirements in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 106, "Brake Hoses."

You ask about Table II of S6.3.2, which specifies the amount of "slack" that should be introduced when mounting brake hose assemblies on the whip test apparatus. The amount of the hose indicated as slack in Table II is the difference between the projected length of the hose assembly when mounted in the whip test machine, and the free length of the hose while maintained in a straight position. Slack must be present in the hose when mounted on the whip test machine to enable the proper "whipping" movement of a brake hose assembly. Without such slack, some assemblies would be incapable of withstanding any rotation of the moveable header of the whip test apparatus described in Standard No. 106 without rupturing.

Table II specifies the amount of slack for some sizes of assemblies, and not for others. The table specifies the amount of slack for assemblies having "free length between end fittings" of between 8 inches to 24 inches, inclusive. You ask whether brake hoses that are either shorter than 8 inches or longer than 24 inches have to comply with the whip resistance test in section S6.3. The answer is no.

The agency addressed this question in a December 9, 1988 interpretation to Volvo Cars, stating, with regard to assemblies with a hose free length of a size other than 8 to 24 inches:

With regard to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's (NHTSA's) Standard No. 106 compliance testing, . . .[d]ue to the absence of the slack specification, NHTSA does not require the testing of such assemblies to the whip resistance requirements of the standard. . . . With regard to your certification that the brake hose assemblies you manufacture comply with all applicable requirements of Standard No. 106, you are correct that hydraulic brake hose assemblies of the size you describe are not subject to the whip resistance requirements. However, the agency urges manufacturers to ensure that these assemblies perform in a safe manner while subject to environmental conditions of vehicle operations which may result in flexing of the brake hose or brake hose assembly.

You believe that safety would be best served if all brake hose assemblies had to comply with the whip resistance requirement. You are particularly concerned with the safety of assemblies that have free lengths in excess of 24 inches, because these longer assemblies "are subject to operating conditions more similar to those represented by the whip test." NHTSA would welcome any test data or information that you can provide showing a need to amend S6.3.2 to specify testing of assemblies in excess of 24 inches. Upon receipt of such additional information, NHTSA will consider initiating a rulemaking to amend Standard No. 106

If you have any further questions, please contact Mr. Marvin Shaw of this office at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Samuel J. Dubbin

Chief Counsel

Enclosure

ref:106

d:8/5/96

ID: nht94-2.35

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: April 12, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: J. Hulshof -- Nedap N.V. (The Netherlands)

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter/fax dated 12/14/93 from J. Hulshof to Patrick Boyd (OCC 9448)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter to Mr. Patrick Boyd requesting a written interpretation concerning whether your sunroof would meet the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 118, "Power-Operated Window, Partition, and Roof Panel systems." I apologize for the delay in responding.

By way of background, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act establishes a self-certification system under which manufacturers are responsible for ensuring that their products comply with all applicable FMVSSs. We do not approve, endorse, or g ives assurances of compliance of any product. In response to manufacturers' requests for interpretations of the FMVSS's, we try, to the extent possible, to provide information that will help them make their determinations of compliance. However, these r esponses are based on information provided by the manufacturer, and are subject to the findings of actual compliance testing by the agency. Should the agency, in the future, examine your product and detect an apparent noncompliance or defect, those resu lts will control.

You explain in your letter that your power-operated sunroof (which is a power operated "roof panel system" under Standard 118) can be closed only in four circumstances. In three of these, the ignition key must be activated. In the fourth, the sunroof c an be closed when there is "Continuous operation of Central close mechanism, not capable (sic) closing the roof panel from a distance of more than 6 meters from the vehicle."

Standard 118 requires sunroofs other than those that have an automatic reversing feature to close only in certain circumstances. One of those (S4(a)) is when the key controlling the vehicle's engine is in the activated (i.e. "on", "start" or "accessory" ) position. The three circumstances you described where the ignition key must be activated to operate the sunroof appear to satisfy S4(a).

With regard to the fourth circumstance, Standard 118 also permits sunroofs to close "Upon continuous activation of a remote actuation device, provided that the...device shall be incapable of closing the (sunroof) from a distance of more than 6 meters fro m the vehicle" (S4(d)). The circumstance you described appears to satisfy S4(d). Your sunroof will close only upon continuous operation of a "Central close mechanism," and the mechanism is incapable of closing the sunroof from a distance of more than 6 meters from the vehicle.

I hope this information has been helpful. If you have any further questions, please contact Mr. David Elias of my office at the above address or by phone at (202) 366-2992.

ID: 24101

Ben Wood, Jr.
CEO
Kasea Motorsports
6767 East Marginal Way South
Seattle, WA 98108





Dear Mr. Wood:

This is in response to your fax of February 12, 2002, in which you asked about the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's (NHTSA) regulations governing vehicle identification numbers (VINs). In your fax, you stated that your company imports and sells four-wheel off-road vehicles. You also stated that although you have installed VINs on your off-road vehicles according to NHTSA's VIN requirements in 49 CFR Part 565, a State regulatory agency has determined that your VINs are in error because they do not comply with the State's regulations regarding VINs.

You asked several questions concerning the role of NHTSA, the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC), and the States in regulating VINs. The issues raised by your questions are addressed below.

NHTSA is authorized by statute to regulate "motor vehicles." The term "motor vehicle" is defined as "a vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power and manufactured primarily for use on the public streets, roads, and highways . . ." 49 U.S.C. 30102(a)(6). Accordingly, only vehicles that are operated on the public streets, roads, and highways, as one of their primary uses, are considered to be motor vehicles, and vehicles which are solely used "off-road" are excluded. Assuming that your vehicles are solely used off-road, our regulations, including those concerning VINs, do not apply to them.

The CPSC does have jurisdiction over off-road vehicles. However, I regret that I cannot provide you with information about their regulations. For more information on the CPSC's regulations regarding off-road vehicles, you may contact Mark Ross of the CPSC at (301) 504-0580, extension 1188.

The States may regulate the VINs of off-road vehicles. You may wish to contact the individual States and/or a private attorney about State regulation of VINs.

If you have any questions regarding NHTSA's VIN requirements for motor vehicles, please feel free to contact Dion Casey of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:565
d.4/22/02

ID: nht87-3.2

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 09/25/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: William R. Pape, Jr.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. William R. Pape, Jr. 8152 Ladoga Drive Jacksonville, FL 32217

This is in reply to your letter of August 22, 1987, to Taylor Vinson of this office, enclosing a copy of your letter to George Walton of AAMVA. In that letter you have asked three questions with reference to the center highmounted stop lamp required by F ederal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment, to which you have that we reply.

Your first question is "May one word be introduced on the brake light?" Standard No. 108 prohibits combining the center highmounted stop lamp with any other lamp, or with any reflective device. It does not prohibit the addition of one or more words to th e lens. However, there are basic requirements that the lamp must meet, and the word or words must not prevent the lamp from meeting them. Specifically, the effective projected luminous area of the lens must not be less than 4 1/2 square inches, and the l amp must meet specified candela maxima at 13 discrete test points.

Your second area of interest is the color red. You have asked whether it is a Federal requirement for all brake lamps, whether other colors may be substituted, and whether the color red may be adjusted to a lighter hue. Standard No. 108 requires all stop lamps to be red in color. This color is defined in SAE Standard J578c Color Specification for Electric Signal Lighting Devices, February 1977, expressing chromaticity coordinates according to the CIE (1931) standard colorimetric system. Red is rather na rrowly defined, and falls within the y coordinates, 0.33 (yellow boundary) and 0.98 (purple boundary). Red is not acceptable if it is less saturated (paler), yellower, or bluer than the limit standards. Thus red could not be adjusted beyond the prescribe d limits. In our opinion, the "soft pink" or "hot pink" that you believe is desirable would be beyond those limits. No color other than red is permitted for stop lamps.

Your final area of interest is whether one should consider marketing a lamp with the features you have indicated, and whether there are"hidden directives which would restrict or prohibit such marketing." Under the assumption that your lamp would not com ply with the color requirements of Standard No. 108, we must advise you that a noncomplying lamp could not be sold as original equipment for passenger cars, or as a replacement for center high mounted stop lamps on passenger cars manufactured on or after Sep tember 1, 1985. Federal law would not prohibit its sale for use on vehicles other than these, but the lamp would be subject to the laws of any State in which it would be sold or used.

I hope that this answers your questions.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

8152 Lodoga Drive Jacksonville, FL 32217

August 22, 1987

Mr. Taylor Vincent NHTSA 400 Seventh Street, SW Washington, DC 20590

Dear Mr. Vincent:

Enclosed is a copy of correspondence to Mr. George E. Walton, director, Safety Equipment Services, and a copy of his response, suggesting direct communication with you.

Any assistance you can give with questions 1, 2, and 3 will be greatly appreciated.

Most Gratefully Yours,

William R. Pape, Jr.

WRP:BJ

Encs.

August 14, 1987

Mr. William R. Pape, Jr. 8152 Ladoga Drive Jacksonville, FL 32217

Dear Mr. Pape:

Thank you for your letter of August 6, 1987 in which you have requested information regarding stop lamps on motor vehicles.

The standard for required lighting on motor vehicles is the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 108. This standard references a number of SAE (Society of Automotive Engineers) standards which to comply with the standard.

For equipment covered by a federal standard, the states are preempted from having any other standard and must, in fact, adopt the very same standard as the federal standard.

For equipment not covered by a federal standard, the states are at liberty individually to adopt any standard they decide to recognize.

The center high mounted stop lamp is a federally regulated lamp.

The FMVSS 108 references SAE J575 for tests and specifically SAE J578d for testing the color. The specific color is shown on the chromaticity diagrams in the standard.

Since your concern is about equipment which is federally regulated, I suggest that the federal agency that administrates the standard for this equipment be contacted directly as follows:

Mr. Taylor Vincent - NHTSA 400 Seventh Street SW Washington, DC 20590 (202) 366-2992

We hope the above information helps you.

Sincerely yours,

George E. Walton, Director Safety Equipment Services

8152 Ladoga Drive Jacksonville, FL 32217

August 6, 1987

Mr. George Walton AAMVA, Suite 910 1201 Connecticut Avenue, NW Washington, D.C. 20036

Dear Mr. Walton:

As a graduate of the Duke School of Engineering and a certified instructor of Lazanov Learning Method (also known as Superlearning), I am writing to you in the interests of public safety.

The third brake light is now mandatory for American motorized vehicles dating from 1986. I have purchased a brake light to be installed on my 1982 Granada station wagon and have considered a modification which I believe to be a decided improvement. Upon asking local automotive dealers about specific regulations, I was directed to The Book of States in the public library, which lists all safety agencies of the individual United States. To determine the precise regulations, nationally, I sent letters to t he individual state agencies, and the replies indicate that there is not a general regulation covering all states, and many agencies have recommended that I correspond directly to you.

The color red is presently used for all brake lights and for traffic signal lights to indicate "stop". I, personally, find the color red, when suddenly flashed on by a car in front of me in moving traffic, to be annoying and irritating. Psychological res earch has indicated that red induces a response of anger. Red is the color of a matador's cape which enrages a bull to charge into a matador's sword. Red is associated with "fire engine red" with a loud siren with a Pavlov's bell effect of emergency, a f light of fight response and a surge of adrenaline and jangled nerves. In other words, this red light, at eye level, in traffic, contributes to unnecessary and unwanted stress, which Americans are notorious for bringing on themselves in profusion.

Thus, it is desirable to consider what may be done for more calming effects. The Lazanov system for Learning and remembering uses words and phrases which have been tested and proven to have specific physical and key word, or sometimes called a "trigger" word for an immediate calming response is the word "peace." This causes an instantaneous effect of calming both mind and body. Also, by softening the hue of bright red to a "hot pink" or even a soft pink, the same conditioned color response to signal "stop" is retained, but with much less stress and unnecessary tension. It is t he conviction of this writer that these simple alterations will reduce accidents, prevent loss of life and limb, and aid drivers to reach their destinations without having their mental, emotional, and physical energies drained. Research shows that we do everything better when in a relaxed and comfortable state, including responding to emergencies. We think more clearly and with enhanced intuition. Fewer accidents will keep insurance rates down and thereby be beneficial to the overall economy.

The intent of the regulations in regard to brake lights is obviously for public safety, and it is clear that the suggestions cited here are intended to increase public safety. In regard to brake lights, I would like to ask you what one may do and what on e may not do.

1. May one word be introduced on the brake light? This is in no way subliminal persuasion or hypnosis. this should not be confusing when one considers that our vehicles are now adorned with make and dealer names, six letter and/or digit license tags, al l kinds of advertising frequently with seven digit telephone numbers, and bumper stickers and decals. The human brain is capable of millions of on and off switches per second, so one word on a brake light will not complicate matters.

2. Is the color red a requirement by law, nationally, for all brake lights? May other colors be substituted? And may the color red be adjusted to a lighter hue?

3. Should one consider marketing a brake light with the above mentioned enhanced safety features; are there any hidden directives which would restrict or prohibit such marketing?

Thank you very much for your time and consideration.

Most gratefully yours,

William R. Pape, Jr.

WRP:bj

ID: 04-002108drn-3

Mr. Tom Hoholik
135 Chippewa Avenue
Manistique, MI49854

Dear Mr. Hoholik:

This responds to your request for an interpretation concerning National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) requirements which your product, the "Line Guide," must meet. Your product is designed to help drivers of motor homes, fifth wheel trucks, buses, and those who tow trailers stay in their highway lanes, without "constantly checking their mirrors."

Your website, www.gadgetinc.com, provides information about the Line Guide. A photograph of a Line Guide shows a horizontal black rod attached to a bar with two rubber suction cups. Three vertical prongs (which you call stems), at equal distances from each other, project from the horizontal rod. The Line Guide mounts directly on the dashboard using Velcro or windshield with suction cups, with power supplied through the vehicles cigarette lighter. Your website states:

The driver then uses the three stems of the Line Guide to help maintain position. Simply put when the center stem is on the centerline of the road the vehicle is in its lane. If the left is on the centerline the vehicle has drifted to the right & if the right stem is on the centerline the vehicle has drifted left. With just a glance at Line Guide you know right where you are.

The Line Guide is sold both with and without light emitting diodes (LEDs). If the unit is mounted facing the road, the lights will shine on the windshield. If the unit is mounted facing the driver, the LEDs can be viewed directly.

By way of background information, NHTSA is authorized to issue the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSSs) for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Instead, manufacturers are required to certify that their vehicles and equipment meet applicable standards.

NHTSA has not issued any FMVSSs that are directly applicable to your product. We note that if your product was installed in a vehicle by a manufacturer or other business, they would have responsibilities relating to ensuring that the vehicle met, or continued to meet, all FMVSSs with the product installed. However, given that your product is mounted to the vehicle by Velcro or suction cups and is powered by the cigarette lighter, we assume that it would be installed by vehicle owners. In this situation, our safety standards would not affect the sale or installation of your product.

Beyond compliance with relevant Federal safety standards, manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment have additional responsibilities, including a requirement to notify purchasers about safety-related defects and to provide a remedy free of charge, even if their equipment is not covered by a safety standard. 49 U.S.C. 30118-30120.

In addition, you should be aware that other governmental entities may have authority over your product. For example, the Departments Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) has jurisdiction over commercial vehicles and interstate motor carriers operating in the United States. You may wish to contact FMCSA for further information about any FMCSA regulations that may apply to your system. In addition, States have the authority to regulate the use and licensing of vehicles operating within their jurisdictions. Therefore, you may wish to check with the Department of Motor Vehicles in any State in which the equipment will be sold or used regarding any such requirements.

I have enclosed a fact sheet entitled "Information for New Manufacturers of Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Equipment."I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

Enclosure
ref:101#VSA102(4)
d.4/30/04

ID: nht75-5.39

DATE: 03/10/75

FROM: JAMES C. SCHULTZ FOR RICHARD B. DYSON -- NHTSA

TO: National Automobile Dealers Assoc..

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of December 27, 1975, concerning the use of Form AADA-65 for purposes of disclosing odometer mileage when a vehicle is sold.

The NHTSA disagrees with your apparent contention that the portion of the preamble you cited, authorizing use of disclosure forms other than the one prescribed in Part 580, covers the use of Form AADA-65. That language limits the use of odometer forms which do not simulate the form contained in the regulation to situations where a State requires execution of an odometer statement which "contains equivalent information" to the Federal one. It is our understanding that the AADA form was adopted by the Arizona Automobile Dealers Association upon recommendation of the National Automobile Dealers Association. We are unaware of any Arizona State law that mandates use of the AADA form as a basis for compliance.

While the NHTSA appreciates the efforts of the NADA to develop a useful and effective odometer disclosure document, we cannot approve a format that is not substantially the same as the Federal form without following standard rulemaking procedures of notice and comment. We welcome your suggestions as to how you feel the odometer form can be improved, and suggest that you submit them in the form of petitions for rulemaking under the procedures specified in 49 CFR 553.31.

As pointed out in your letter, the NHTSA has determined that the AADA-65 form does not fulfill the requirements of Part 580. We appreciate your cooperation in notifying your membership of this decision. A changeover to use of the Federal odometer form by April 1, 1975, is considered reasonable by the agency. We thank you for your comments and look forward to receiving your ideas on the matters mentioned in your letter.

Yours truly,

ATTACH.

National Automobile Dealers Association

December 27, 1974

Richard B. Dyson, Esq. -- Acting Chief Counsel, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Department of Transportation

Re: N40-30 (kk)

Dear Sir:

Recent discussions have been held between Attorney Karen Kreshover of your office and Mr. Dave Hunt of my staff and myself concerning the odometer mileage statement form currently being utilized by the franchised new car dealer members of the Arizona Automobile Dealers Association (Form AADA-65). Questions have recently been raised as to whether Form AADA-65 satisfies the requirements of the Federal odometer law (Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act, Title IV, P.L. 92-513, 86 Stat. 947).

It is my understanding that John J. Relihan, Esq., of Solomon, Relihan & Blake, Law Offices, Suite A, 1819 West Osborn Road, Phoenix, Arizona 85015, has contacted your office (Mr. Relihan's letter dated September 9, 1974) requesting your Agency's views as to whether AADA-65 complies with the Federal odometer requirements. In addition, Mr. Relihan also inquired as to whether NHTSA had 'approved' Arizona Form AADA-65.

In your letter dated September 27, 1974 (September 30, 1974?) you state that you, ". . . (A)re unaware of any past correspondence between this office and either the Arizona Automobile Dealers Association or Norwick Printers of Oklahoma concerning the validity of a disclosure statement." You also state that, ". . . The Form AADA-65 enclosed in your letter fails to comply with our regulation in several respects." You then specifically discuss those areas of the form which in your opinion do not satisfy the requirements of the Federal odometer law and regulations of NHTSA promulgated pursuant thereto. Your suggestions for correcting those items which are deficient are also set forth.

A bit of historical background may be most helpful in explaining the 'birth' of AADA-65, and will explain NADA's involvement and interest in this matter. As I am sure you are aware, NADA was one of the prime backers of enactment of Title IV of the MVICSA. During your Agency's consideration of appropriate regulations to implement the mandate of the Congress, NADA supported the earliest effective date possible with respect to the odometer requirements. As events unfolded, this proved to be March 1, 1973. NADA also provided your Agency with its suggestions as to content and format for the suggested Federal odometer mileage statement form which your Agency developed.

After evaluating the odometer mileage form developed by your Agency, NADA reached the conclusion that perhaps more information than that required by your Agency's form, along with a somewhat different format, might prove to be more effective in reaching our common goal of devising an odometer mileage statement which would -- a) require at least the minimum substantive information to fulfill the intent of the Federal law; b) clearly and easily be understood by the average seller and buyer of motor vehicles; and c) be as concise as possible while maintaining and satisfying the objectives of (a) and (b) above. The use of such an alternative form was authorized by your Agency in your notice of rule making published in the Federal Register of January 31, 1973 at page 2978.

". . . To avoid the need for duplicate State and Federal disclosures in States having odometer disclosure laws or regulations, the section (Part 380.4) permits the State form to be used in satisfaction of the Federal requirement, so long as it contains equivalent information and refers to the existence of a Federal remedy."

(Federal Register, Vol. 38, No. 20, pg.2978)

Pursuant thereto, NADA developed its own version of an odometer mileage form which differed format-wise in some respects from the form developed by your Agency. NADA's form also required several additional items of information which were not required on the form developed by NHTSA. NADA then utilized its various publications to acquaint dealers at ATAM Managers of the various state franchised automobile dealer associations of the new requirements which were to go into effect March 1, 1973. NADA provided sample copies of both NHTSA's recommended form and the form which NADA had developed. Arizona's Form AADA-65 is an exact duplicate of the odometer mileage form developed by NADA.

In your notice of January 31, 1973, you state that an alternative State form may be utilized, ". . . . (S)o iong as it contains equivalent information and refers to the existence of a Federal remedy." (Emphasis added.) NADA believes that AADA-65 falls within these broad parameters, at least to the extent of satisfying the legal requirements of the Federal odometer law. However, NADA also firmly believes in the old adage 'experience is the best teacher.' After viewing the various ways in which several of the Arizona odometer forms have been filled out, NADA has come to agree with Attorney Kroshover that its form (of which AADA-65 is an example) simply has not met the test of actual field experience, and that at least some transferrors have become confused as to the proper method of filling out the form. In short, it has not been successful with respect to objective (b) as outlined above.

I want to make it very clear that NADA strongly supports maximum compliance with the requirements of the Federal odometer law, and therefore wishes to have its member franchised new car and truck dealers comply not only with the 'letter' but also the 'spirit' of the law. While believing that use of the NADA developed form in the past has satisfied the legal requirements of the Federal odometer law, I would like at this time to formally notify your Agency that NADA is in the process of notifying its membership of the preferability of discontinuing the use of the NADA developed form. NADA is recommending that the Federal odometer form as published in the Federal Register of January 31, 1973, be utilized in its stead. With the necessary and reasonable delays which are naturally being encountered in the changeover, i.e. new forms must be printed, distributed, etc., NADA at this time anticipates completion of the changeover in approximately 60 days, or about March 1, 1975.

NADA sincerely hopes that this action on its part will further the common goal of both your Agency and the franchised new car and truck dealers who comprise the membership of NADA of effectuating full compliance with the requirements of the Federal odometer law. NADA would like to note, however, that its original objections to the Federal form's limited content and format as developed by your Agency still exist. It is our intention, therefore, to request in the near future further formal rule making proceedings in this area. The practical field experience gained during the past year and one half (which exposed the weaknesses of the NADA developed form) should also be put to use, in NADA's view, to determine whether similar problems have been encountered in the use of the Federal form. Such an ongoing program review should serve a very useful function in insuring that the form utilized, to the maximum extent, is as clear and understandable as possible to the average consumer who must fill out an odometer form when selling his or her automobile.

It is NADA's hope that the action which it has taken with respect to the matters discussed above meet with the approval of your Agency. I think it can safely be said that our action in this matter fully confirms our stated support, from the inception of the Federal odometer law, for a fair and effective odometer mileage disclosure law to protect consumers from the occasional unethical and deceptive practices in this area encountered in the past. Your formal response in this matter would be greatly appreciated.

Awaiting your response, I remain

Sincerely yours,

Kevin P. Tighe -- Legislative Counsel