ID: aiam5273

Dear Mr. DeLaney: This responds to your request for an interpretatio of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 123, Motorcycle controls and displays. You asked whether a motorcycle side stand complies with Standard No. 123 if the stand passes SAE J1587 Motorcycle Side Stand Retraction Test Procedure. Standard No. 123 specifies at S5.2.4 Stands that: 'A stand shall fold rearward and upward if it contacts the ground when the motorcycle is moving forward.' Neither S5.2.4 nor any other provision of Standard No. 123 incorporates by reference, SAE J1587. Thus, if a motorcycle side stand passes the SAE J1587 test procedure, it does not automatically follow that the side stand complies with Standard No. 123. I hope that this information is useful. If you have any further questions, please contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel;

ID: aiam2270

Dear PFC Phillips: This is in reply to your letter of April 8, 1976, asking about Stat laws applicable to fog lamps, driving lamps, and quartz-iodine halogen driving lamps.; The American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 1828 Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. may be able to provide you answers with respect to State laws, as each State, rather than the Federal government, sets its own requirements for registration and use of motor vehicles within its borders.; The only aspect that you mentioned which we cover in our Federa vehicle lighting standard is the minimum and maximum height of headlamps above the road surface. These measurements are 24 inches and 54 inches respectively, measured from the center of the headlamp on the vehicle at curb weight. If a State has a law on maximum and minimum headlamp height it is required to be identical to this one. States may permit or prohibit fog lamps, driving lamps, and quartz-iodine halogen driving lamps as they choose since there are no Federal requirements for them.; Yours truly, Stephen P. Wood, Assistant Chief Counsel

ID: aiam1480

Dear Mr. Murphy: This is in reply to your letter of March 5, 1974, inquiring whethe manufacturers of 4-door sedans to be sold to the City of Philadelphia as police vehicles may, consistently with Federal requirements, remove the window and door handles from the rear doors. You state that the vehicle manufacturers claim that Federal requirements prohibit them from modifying the vehicle in this fashion.; Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 206 (49 CFR 571.206) require each passenger car rear door to have a locking mechanism that is operable from within the vehicle and that, when engaged, renders the outside and inside door handles inoperative. This requirement applies to the locking mechanism. We do not interpret it to require an inside door handle. There are no Federal standards which require the installation of passenger car window handles.; The fact that in this case the vehicles are intended for government us is immaterial. To clarify the phone conversation which preceded your letter, Section 103(d) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1392(d)) allows a State or its political Subdivision to require that motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment procured for its own use meet a higher standard of performance than the Federal safety standard, but all vehicles must meet the Federal safety standards.; We are pleased to be of assistance. Sincerely, Lawrence R. Schneider, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam3764

Dear Mr. Bertman: This responds to your recent letter to this office, seeking informatio on retreaded passenger car tires. You asked for the name of the retreader of a tire with the code letters 'BJE' marked on the sidewall. That retreader is Trio Tire Service, Inc. of Clementon, New Jersey. You also asked if there were any regulations applicable to the retread of radial tires. All retreaded passenger car tires (whether bias or radial) must be certified by the retreader as complying with the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 117 (49 CFR S 571.117). I have enclosed a copy of the standard for your information.; Should you have any further questions or need further information i this area, please contact Mr. Stephen Kratzke of my staff at this address and at (202) 426- 2992.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam4414

Dear Mr. Iwase: This is in reply to your letter of September 15, 1987, with furthe reference to features of a 60 degree slant replaceable bulb headlamp presently being developed by Koito. You have explained that the aiming pads for the new system will be installed on the aiming adapter, rather than the headlamp lens, and have asked for confirmation that this is 'not illegal' under Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.; As you noted in your letter, paragraph S4.1.1.36(a)(2) specificall requires the exterior face of each replaceable bulb headlamp lens to have three aiming pads. The agency has no specifications for the design of aiming adapters, and a headlamp without aiming pads would be one that is not designed to conform to the standard.; The agency is examining concepts for aiming methods for other tha mechanical aim, but no amendments to Standard No. 108 are contemplated that would permit or require aiming pads to be on aiming adapters.; Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam3128

Mr. Matsui: This is in response to your letter of May 11, 1979, requesting th National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's (NHTSA) views on whether the inclusion of optional equipment on certain Mazda models would be sufficient to create a number of different series within that model.; Section 4.5.2 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 115 (Vehicl Identification number) states that the second section of the vehicle identification number for passenger cars shall be decipherable into the vehicle's line, series, body type, engine type, and restraint system type. 'Line' is defined as 'a name which a manufacturer applies to a family of vehicles which have a degree on commonality in construction, such as body, chassis or cab type.' 'Series' is defined as 'a name which a manufacturer applies to a subdivision of 'line', denoting price, size, or weight identification, and which is utilized by the manufacturer for marketing purposes.'; Based in the facts presented, it is apparent that models equipped wit different optional equipment could each be designed a 'series' if Mazda desired. Nonetheless, the definition of a 'series' makes clear that the responsibility for applying and utilizing the 'series' designation rests initially with the manufacturer. If the difference between the potential series are superficial and a manufacturer chooses not to designate separate series for marketing reasons because of the superficiality, the agency will not require such a designation.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam5262

Dear Mr. Schmitz: This responds to your letter of October 7, 1993, t Acting Administrator Smolkin which 'addresses the TTMA, September 8, 1993, Recommended Practice on Trailer Conspicuity Systems.' You inform us that you 'will begin applying the conspicuity tape to the trailer's bottom as shown' in the TTMA sketches, and 'will assume our interpretation is correct . . . unless we receive a response from your office within ten days.' If you wish an interpretation of the TTMA drawings, you should consult that organization. This agency provides interpretations of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment. With respect to paragraph S5.7, which establishes conspicuity system requirements for large trailers, effective December 1, 1993, the agency published an amendment on October 6, the day before your letter, which modified the mounting height requirements adopted in December 1992. The original requirement of 'as close as practicable to 1.25 m above the road surface' has been changed to a range that is 'as close as practicable to not less than 375 mm and not more than 1525 mm above the road surface. . . .' I enclose a copy of the amendment for your information. See paragraph S5.7.1.4.2(a) for the change. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel Enclosure;

ID: aiam3388

Dear Mr. Patten: This replies to your letter of December 23, 1980 to the General counse asking if the 'Cool Gear' motorcycle helmet 'has been certified by the Department and whether or not it has met the Z-90.1 1973 standards'.; The Department does not certify motor vehicles or equipment and has n knowledge of whether the Cool Gear meets the Z-90.1 11973 standards.; Any 'Cool Gear' motorcycle helmet that fits head form size C i required, however, to comply with 49 CFR 571.218 (Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 218), which incorporates the essence of the Z-90.1 1971 standards, and to bear the manufacturer's own certification of compliance (see paragraph S5.6.1(5), and 15 U.S.C. 1403). The agency has not tested any 'Cool Gear' for compliance with Standard No. 218.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel

ID: Legality of Odometer Mileage Blocking Devices--Ro

January 12, 2021

BY E-MAIL

Mr. Kevin S. Ro Director/Group Manager

Sustainability & Regulatory Affairs Toyota Motor North America, Inc.

Re:   Illegality of Electronic Devices that Prevent Odometers from Accurately Accumulating Miles

Dear Mr. Ro:

On January 4, 2021, you sent a letter on behalf of Toyota Motor North America, Inc. (Toyota) requesting the views of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) on the legality of devices which connect to the instrument panel in a vehicle to prevent or partially prevent odometers in motor vehicles from accumulating mileage. Your letter indicates that such devices are available for purchase on the Internet and that Toyota believes they may be used to slow or stop the accumulation of mileage shown on the odometer of leased vehicles. Your letter also raises Toyota’s concern that some of these devices may render the odometer, speedometer, and steering wheel control buttons inoperable once installed, and they may prevent a vehicle from receiving the proper maintenance and inspections based its true mileage.

In NHTSA’s view, the marketing for sale, sale, or use of such a device that prevents an odometer display from reading the correct mileage is a violation of Federal law. It is unlawful for a person to “advertise for sale, sell, use, install, or have installed, a device that makes an odometer of a motor vehicle register a mileage different from the mileage the vehicle was driven, as registered by the odometer within the designed tolerance of the manufacturer of the odometer.” 49 U.S.C.

§ 32703(1). A person also may not “disconnect, reset, alter, or have disconnected, reset, or altered, an odometer of a motor vehicle intending to change the mileage registered by the odometer.” Id. § 32703(2). In addition, it is illegal for a person, “with intent to defraud, [to] operate a motor vehicle on a street, road, or highway if the person knows that the odometer of the vehicle is disconnected or not operating.” Id. § 32703(3).1

The marketing for sale, sale, or use of an electronic device that slows or stops a motor vehicle’s odometer from registering mileage driven violates 49 U.S.C. § 32703. NHTSA is aware of no legitimate use for such a device. The devices about which you inquired have two uses: (1) enabling users to completely block a motor vehicle’s odometer from accumulating any mileage

1 It is also against Federal law to “conspire to violate” 49 U.S.C. § 32703. 49 U.S.C. § 32703(4).
 

while the vehicle is being driven; and (2) enabling users to partially block a motor vehicle’s odometer from accumulating mileage while the vehicle is being driven (for example, under this mode, a vehicle driven 100 miles would add less than 100 miles to the vehicle’s odometer).2 Consequently, because these devices make an odometer register a different mileage than what the motor vehicle was actually driven, the marketing, sale, or use of these devices violates 49 U.S.C. § 32703(1). Moreover, as there is no apparent purpose for such a device other than to change the mileage registered by a vehicle’s odometer, use of the device and operation of a vehicle by a person knowing that the device is in use is in violation of 49 U.S.C. §§ 32703(2) and (3).

NHTSA may impose civil penalties of up to $11,125 for each violation of 49 U.S.C. § 32703— up to a maximum of $1,112,518 for a related series of violations. 49 U.S.C. § 32709(a)(1); 49 C.F.R. § 578.6(f)(1).3 Knowing and willful violations of      49 U.S.C. § 32703 are also subject to criminal penalties, including fines under Title 18 of the United States Code, imprisonment for not more than 3 years, or both. 49 U.S.C. § 32709(b). A person that violates 49 U.S.C. § 32703 may also be subject to other appropriate action, including a civil action by a State in which the violation occurs. 49 U.S.C. §§ 32709(c)-(d).

As your letter indicates, the installation or use of a device that prevents a vehicle’s odometer from accurately recording mileage may pose serious safety consequences, in addition to economic and commercial harm. NHTSA remains steadfast in enforcing Federal odometer laws. If you need further assistance, please contact Dan Rabinovitz at 202-366-8534 or via email at Daniel.Rabinovitz@dot.gov.

Sincerely,

JONATHAN CHARLES MORRISON

Digitally signed by JONATHAN CHARLES MORRISON

Date: 2021.01.12 15:29:46

-05'00'

Jonathan C. Morrison

Chief Counsel

2 These devices may also be set to accurately accumulate mileage (i.e., to not block mileage). In this mode, the device serves no purpose.

3 “A person that violates 49 U.S.C. Chapter 327 or a regulation prescribed or order issued thereunder, with intent to defraud, is liable for three times the actual damages or $10,932, whichever is greater.” 49 C.F.R. § 578.6(f)(2).

Dated: 1/12/21

Ref: 49 U.S.C. § 32703 Odometers

ID: aiam0371

Dear Mr. Sagan: This is in reply to your request made to the Regional Administrator o the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, concerning the applicability of the Tire Identification and Record Keeping regulation (49 CFR Part 574) to Cushman golf carts.; Golf carts are not considered to be motor vehicles within the meanin of the regulation or the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act and therefore the regulation is not applicable to tires sold with these vehicles.; Sincerely, Lawrence R. Schneider, Acting Chief Counsel