ID: aiam4081

Dear Mr. Stanley: This responds to your letter dated November 8, 1985, inquiring whethe Federal motor vehicle safety standards and regulation (sic) apply to electric vehicles. They do so apply.; This agency administers the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safet Act of 1966, as amended, 15 U.S.C. 1391, *et seq*. (the Act). Under the Act, NHTSA issues Federal motor vehicle safety standards and regulations for motor vehicles and their equipment. Under section 102(3) of the Act, a motor vehicle means 'any vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power manufactured primarily for use on the public streets, roads, and highways, except any vehicle operated exclusively on a rail or rails.' Therefore, since electric vehicles are 'drawn by mechanical power,' they must comply with Federal requirements.; Enclosed are an information sheet for new manufacturers, a form fo ordering copies of safety standards and regulations, and a copy of 49 Part 555. Under Part 555, manufacturers of motor vehicles may apply for a temporary exemption from these safety standards, for a period up to three years, if the exemption would facilitate the development or field evaluation of a low-emission motor vehicle and would not unreasonably degrade the safety of such vehicle. A copy of a report prepared by this agency, 'Applicability of Federal Motor Vehicle Standards to Electric and Hybrid Vehicles,' is also enclosed.; I hope this information is helpful to you. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam1507

Dear Mr. Sibley: This responds to your April 5, 1974, question whether S5.6.1 or S5.6. of Standard No. 121, *Air brake systems*, requires parking brakes on all axles other than front steerable axles.; S5.6.1 requires 'parking brakes on an axle other than a steerable fron axle' to have certain static retardation force values. 'An axle' refers to any axle other than steerable front axles and therefore S5.6.1 requires parking brakes on all axles other than steerable front axles. A tandem axle consists of two separate axles for purposes of this requirement.; S5.6.2 has no specific axle-by-axle requirements. Its performanc standard may be met by any means which hold the vehicle stationary and conform to S5.6.3 and S5.6.4. It should be emphasized that this requirement cannot be met simply by equipping the vehicle with parking brakes which hold to the limit of tractive ability but permit vehicle movement.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel

ID: aiam4313

Dear Mr. Tucker: Your letter to the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) was referre to me for reply. Your letter informs SAE that a second trailer manufacturer, Nix Enterprises, Inc., is using the WMI Code designation SAE assigned to your client, Omni Trailers, Inc. You asked SAE to take whatever action it could to prevent the continued misuse of your client's WMI Code.; Under Federal motor vehicle safety standard 115, 49 CFR 571.115 (Standard 115), a motor vehicle manufacturer must assign a 17-character Vehicle Identification Number (VIN) to each vehicle it manufactures. The first three VIN characters must, among other things, uniquely identify the vehicle manufacturer. Among the primary reasons for the VIN designation are to facilitate vehicle notice and recall campaigns where a vehicle proves to be defective, and to aid persons investigating motor vehicle thefts or accidents.; The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), an agenc of the United States Department of Transportation, is responsible for motor vehicle safety standards, and contracts with SAE to coordinate the assignment of manufacturer identifiers. Under 49 CFR S565.5(b), *Reporting Requirements*, a manufacturer or its agent must submit its unique identifier to SAE at least 60 days before using its identifier. Apparently, Nix Enterprises failed to follow proper procedures for obtaining the WMI Code designation. NHTSA considers this failure to be the kind of error that can have adverse safety consequences because it could impair both Omni's and Nix's ability to conduct recall campaigns. I shall refer this matter to the NHTSA Office of Enforcement for appropriate action.; Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam3260

Dear Mr. Lawrence: This responds to your letters dated March 11, 1980, and March 21 1980,asking several questions about Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 115, *Vehicle identification number*.; Your first question relates to the number sequentially assigned to th vehicle by the manufacturer as required by S4.5.3.3 of the standard. You wish to know whether after assigning a number to a vehicle prior to its manufacture, the number may be cancelled if the vehicle is not actually manufactured. The answer is yes. This is permissible under the standard so long as the number is not reassigned to another vehicle, thereby destroying the sequence.; You also wish to know if White may assign a vehicle identificatio number to glider kits which it manufactures. Section 571.7(e) and (f) of Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations set forth the criteria for determining whether the vehicle created from a glider kit is to be considered a new vehicle or the original vehicle. If the vehicle is considered new, it must comply with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard, including the requirement the a new vehicle identification number be assigned (Standard No. 115). If, however, the vehicle is not considered new, the vehicle identification number originally issued for the vehicle must be the one that is assigned. (See section 109(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, as amended.); Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam0710

Dear Mr. Palumbo: We have received your letter of March 15, 1972, which was forwarded t us by the Federal Trade Commission, concerning problems experienced by Mr. Ronald Dandeneau regarding a repossessed vehicle he purchased which was equipped with tires marked 'NA.' Mr Dandeneau claims he was told by a tire dealer that such tires are considered unserviceable, cannot be repaired, and are unsafe.; The sale of these tires by the tire manufacturer (we understand tha the practice is not limited to Uniroyal) is not prohibited by the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, and the Federal standard applicable to passenger car tires. The Federal standard applies only to tires before their first sale to a consumer, and does not apply to used tires such as these.; We understand that tires marked 'NA' are tires that have been adjuste previously, but for reasons that are not considered to affect the safety of the tire. Examples of such reasons are a lack of roundness and uniformity. While these conditions may produce riding qualities which some people find unsatisfactory, we presently have no evidence that such tires cannot be repaired or that they are unsafe.; Yours truly,Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel

ID: aiam5252

"Dear Dr. Cehelnik: We are replying to your letter of September 28 1993, requesting information on Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 (you will find the complete text of this standard at 49 CFR 571.108). Your company has developed 'a light system to indicate the deceleration of the vehicle.' You have been informed that this agency is 'investigating the safety of such a device,' and 'that lights that indicate braking must be `steady- burning.'' The agency is not investigating deceleration warning systems, thus I am unable to provide you with 'information on the status of the safety investigation' as you requested. Paragraph S5.5.10 of Standard No. 108 applies to all lamps provided as original motor vehicle equipment, and lists the lamps that may flash, such as turn signal lamps, but this list does not include stop lamps. A final catchall subparagraph (d) requires that ' a ll other lamps shall be wired to be steady-burning,' and this includes stop lamps. You also asked 'is it and will it become legal to turn on a warning or stop light that indicates the particular dynamic state of the vehicle?' and ' m ust such a system necessarily be considered as a brake light?' We have encountered some deceleration warning systems that activate the stop lamps by means other than application of the service brake pedal. This is prohibited by paragraph S5.5.4 which states that ' t he stop lamps on each vehicle shall be activated upon application of the service brakes.' We have interpreted this as meaning that the stop lamps may be activated only by application of the service brakes, and that they may not be activated by reduced pressure on the accelerator pedal. A stop lamp can only be operated to indicate that the brake pedal has been applied for the purpose of slowing or stopping a vehicle. You may find of interest a letter of interpretation which I enclose (letter to Larry Snowhite, January 25, 1990) which expresses more fully our views on this subject. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel Enclosure";

ID: aiam3489

Dear Mr. Widder: The Wisconsin Department of Transportation has informed the Nationa Highway Traffic Safety Administration that at the time of the sale of a 1978 Ford vehicle identification number (VIN) 8E91T133702, Darrell Widder Motors ('the company') issued an odometer disclosure statement to the buyer which included language disclaiming the company's responsibility for the accuracy of the odometer statement.; Section 408(c) of the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Ac requires each automobile dealer who purchases a vehicle to obtain a complete odometer disclosure statement from the prior owner. 15 U.S.C. 1988(c). When the vehicle is resold, the dealer certifies the mileage by relying on the disclosure statement received from the prior owner. The Act, therefore, imposes an affirmative duty upon a dealer to obtain a complete odometer disclosure statement from the prior owner.; The Odometer Disclosure Requirements require the owner of a vehicle t disclose to subsequent purchasers the odometer mileage and to certify the accuracy of the odometer reading. 49 CFR 580.1. The regulations establish a specific scheme for the certification of the accuracy of the odometer reading. 49 CFR 580.4(c)(1) - (3). Where a transferor has knowledge that the odometer reading is inaccurate, the regulations require the transferor to certify that the mileage is not accurate and should not be relied upon. However, where the dealer has no reason to believe that the odometer reading is inaccurate, the dealer must certify the accuracy of the odometer reading to the subsequent purchaser. By including an absolute disclaimer on the odometer disclosure statement, the seller fails to certify the accuracy of the odometer reading as required by the Act.; Section 412 of the Act provides that any person who violates an provision of this title shall be subject to civil penalties not to exceed $1,000 for each such violation. 15 U.S.C. 1990(b). Thus, a dealer that includes a disclaimer on an odometer disclosure statement may be subject to civil penalties for failing to properly certify the accuracy of the odometer reading.; The company, therefore, should be advised that the Act requires al transferors of motor vehicles to execute and maintain proper odometer disclosure statements. This agency is charged with enforcement of these requirements and may subject the company to civil penalties for future violations.; If you have any questions concerning this matter, please call Shirle Ransom of this office (202-426- 2993).; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam5320

"Dear Mr. Marutani: This responds to your letter of January 31, 1994 requesting an interpretation of whether a 15-passenger Ford Econoline Wagon would be considered a school bus. 'The client requesting the vehicle is a mental health and substance abuse facility handling adolescents on a full-time on-site basis. There is a school located on the premises, since the children reside at the location. The vehicle's purpose would primarily be used for miscellaneous transportation of juvenile patients and facility personnel, both on and off campus, as opposed to providing commuting services to and from home.' I am pleased to have this opportunity to clarify our requirements for school buses. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has the authority under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Act) to issue motor vehicle safety standards that apply to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles, including new school buses. NHTSA defines 'school bus' as a motor vehicle designed for carrying 11 or more persons, including a driver, which 'is likely to be significantly used for the purpose of transporting primary, preprimary, or secondary school students to or from such schools or events related to such schools.' It is a violation of Federal law for any person to sell or lease any new vehicle that does not comply with all school bus safety standards if they are aware that the purchaser intends to use the vehicle as a school bus. Whether you are required to sell or lease a certified school bus to your client depends on the anticipated use of the vehicle. The mental health and substance abuse facility operated by your client is not a school, however, it does operate a school on the premises. If your client were to purchase or lease a new bus to be used solely for transporting students to athletic events at other schools, it would be a violation of Federal law for you to sell or lease them a new vehicle that is not a school bus. This is because the vehicle would clearly be significantly used as a school bus. On the other hand, it is not a violation of Federal law for you to sell or lease them a new vehicle that is not a school bus if your client will use the vehicle for general purposes, even though such vehicles may be used occasionally to transport students to school-related events. Your letter states that the vehicle would be used for 'miscellaneous transportation.' If a significant portion of that use would not be transportation of students to school-related events, you are not required to sell or lease a school bus. I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact us at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel";

ID: 3144o

Mr. Andrew P. Kallman
Tu-Grooves
Kallman Building
205 West Saginaw Street
Lansing, Michigan 48933

Dear Mr. Kallman:

This responds to your letter asking for further clarification of a March 1, 1985 letter to you from the Chief Counsel of this agency. Your company is marketing a process in which parallel grooves are ground into the lower portion of the windshield of vehicles. In our March 1, 1985 letter to you, we set forth a general description of the requirements that would apply if the process were used on new vehicles or new windshields sold as an item of replacement equipment, and those requirements that would apply if the process were used on vehicles that had already been sold to the first purchaser or windshields that were already installed in vehicles. Your letter explains that your company now uses this process only on vehicles that have already been sold to a first purchaser and windshields already installed in vehicles. You asked for clarification of several issues in your letter.

1. Your company has obtained test reports from two laboratories on the process of grinding these parallel grooves into the lower portions of windshields. One of these reports specifically states that windshields with these grooves fully comply with all requirements of Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials (49 CFR /571.205). You asked whether the steps your company has taken are "sufficient to show compliance with Standard No. 205."

Response: The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.) does not permit this agency to assure any person or entity that its products or processes comply with all applicable requirements or to "approve" some product or process. Instead, section 114 of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1403) requires the manufacturer itself to certify that its products comply with all applicable safety standards.

Standard No. 205 requires that the windshields installed in new vehicles and new windshields sold as replacement equipment to meet certain performance requirements, and requires the windshield to be certified as complying with those requirements. You have stated that your company's process of grinding grooves into windshields will not be used on new vehicles or new windshields. Standard No. 205 does not require that windshields be certified as continuing to comply after being treated by aftermarket processes, such as your company's grooving process. Accordingly, if your grooving process is used only in aftermarket applications, your company is not required to certify that those windshields continue to comply with Standard No. 205 after grooves have been ground into the windshield. However, continued compliance with Standard 205 is important, for a different reason, discussed below.

Even though Standard No. 205 does not directly apply to your process, and your company does not have to certify continued compliance with Standard No. 205, section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)) does impose an obligation on manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and repair businesses, including your licensees, with respect to aftermarket processes. That section provides: "No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or in part, any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle ... in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard ..."

In this case, a number of elements of design have been installed in the windshield of motor vehicles in compliance with Standard No. 205, including impact and penetration resistance, optical deviation limitations and limitations on visual distortion. If grinding grooves into the windshield by means of your company's process would cause the windshield to no longer comply with these or some other requirements of Standard No. 205, grinding the grooves into the windshield would be a violation of the "render inoperative" provision of the Safety Act.

The Safety Act imposes a responsibility on manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and repair businesses to ensure, in the first instance, that none of the aftermarket operations they perform will result in a violation of the "render inoperative" provision. NHTSA reexamines the initial determinations made by any of these parties only in the context of an enforcement proceeding. If your company has concluded that the test reports enclosed with your letter show no "rendering inoperative" when grooves are ground into windshields, NHTSA will not express any view on that conclusion unless and until the agency begins some enforcement proceeding to examine this grooving process.

In keeping with this statutory scheme, neither our March 1, 1985 letter nor this letter expressed any agency opinion as to whether dealers using your company's process to grind grooves into windshields of vehicles would or would not render inoperative the windshield's compliance with Standard No. 205. Instead, both these letters are intended only to alert your company to the elements of design that might be rendered inoperative by grinding grooves in windshields by your process.

2. Would it be possible for your company to indicate on the windshields in which you grind these grooves that your company has "shown compliance with Standard No. 205," for example, by affixing a clear sticker to that effect?

Response: As explained above, only new windshields or windshields installed in new vehicles must be certified as complying with Standard No. 205. There is no requirement that windshields subjected to aftermarket processes be certified as still complying with the standard. If your company voluntarily chooses to provide some indication of continuing compliance, it is free to do so. NHTSA has long said that the only restriction on voluntary markings is that those markings must not obscure or confuse the meaning of any required markings on the product. Assuming that your voluntary markings will not obscure or confuse the meaning of the required markings on the windshield, the voluntary marking would not violate any Federal requirements. You should be aware, however, that some State laws restrict stickers and other items placed on automobile windshields.

3. Is your company required to show continuing compliance with Standard No. 212, Windshield Mounting (49 CFR /571.212) for vehicles whose windshields have grooves ground in accordance with your company's process?

Response: The vehicle manufacturer is responsible for certifying that each of its new vehicles complies with the requirements of Standard No. 212. There is no obligation for any person that performs aftermarket operations on the vehicle or its windshield to certify continuing compliance with Standard No. 212.

As explained above, the only requirement applicable to aftermarket operations on a vehicle is that manufacturers, distributors, dealers and repair businesses are prohibited from "rendering inoperative" a vehicle's compliance with any safety standard, including Standard No. 212. Standard No. 212 requires a vehicle to retain a specified percentage of the windshield periphery. To avoid violating the "render inoperative" prohibition, I suggest that you carefully examine the process by which grooves are ground into windshields and determine whether the installation of those grooves in accordance with your company's process would result in the vehicle no longer complying with Standard No. 212. Your company is obliged to determine that this grooving process will not result in a rendering inoperative violation with respect to Standard No. 212. As explained above, NHTSA will not express any views about your company's determination except in the context of an enforcement proceeding.

I hope this information is helpful. Please let me know if you have any further questions on this subject.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

/ref:VSA#205#212 d:l0/28/88

ID: nht88-3.77

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 10/28/88 EST

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TO: ANDREW P. KALLMAN -- TU-GROOVES

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 1-14-85 TO OFFICE OF CHIEF COUNSEL -- NHTSA, FROM ANDREW P. KALLMAN -- DIRECTOR, KALLMAN MARKETING; LETTER DATED 2-8-88 TO ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA, ATTN: SUSAN SCHRUTH, FROM ANDREW P. KALLMAN -- TU-GROOVES, OCC1569; TECHNICAL RESEA RCH CENTRE OF FINLAND INSTRUMENT LAB, RESEARCH REPORT NO. KOJ914, DATED 5-4-79, TEST NO. A310-78; TECHNICAL RESEARCH CENTRE OF FINLAND CHEMICAL LAB. RESEARCH REPORT NO. A901/75, DATED 2-4-75, STRENGTH OF THE GLASS, FROM K. HEINONEN; PATZIG TESTING LABORA TORIES CO. INC., REPORT ON 1/4 INCH CLEAR, LAMINATED, SAFETY GLASS, AS 1 WITH SAFETY GROOVES FOR USE ANYWHERE IN MOTOR VEHICLES, DATED 10-30-85, LAB NO. 219766

TEXT: This responds to your letter asking for further clarification of a March 1, 1985 letter to you from the Chief Counsel of this agency. Your company is marketing a process in which parallel grooves are ground into the lower portion of the windshield of ve hicles. In our March 1, 1985 letter to you, we set forth a general description of the requirements that would apply if the process were used on new vehicles or new windshields sold as an item of replacement equipment, and those requirements that would a pply if the process were used on vehicles that had already been sold to the first purchaser or windshields that were already installed in vehicles. Your letter explains that your company now uses this process only on vehicles that have already been sold to a first purchaser and windshields already installed in vehicles. You asked for clarification of several issues in your letter.

1. Your company has obtained test reports from two laboratories on the process of grinding these parallel grooves into the lower portions of windshields. One of these reports specifically states that windshields with these grooves fully comply with all requirements of Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials (49 CFR $ 571.205). You asked whether the steps your company has taken are "sufficient to show compliance with Standard No. 205."

Response: The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.) does not permit this agency to assure any person or entity that its products or processes comply with all applicable requirements or to "approve" some product or process . Instead, section 114 of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1403) requires the manufacturer itself to certify that its products comply with all applicable safety standards.

Standard No. 205 requires that the windshields installed in new vehicles and new windshields sold as replacement equipment to meet certain performance requirements, and requires the windshield to be certified as complying with those requirements. You ha ve stated that your company's process of grinding grooves into windshields will not be used on new

vehicles or new windshields. Standard No. 205 does not require that windshields be certified as continuing to comply after being treated by aftermarket processes, such as your company's grooving process. Accordingly, if your grooving process is used on ly in aftermarket applications, your company is not required to certify that those windshields continue to comply with Standard No. 205 after grooves have been ground into the windshield. However, continued compliance with Standard 205 is important, for a different reason, discussed below.

Even though Standard No. 205 does not directly apply to your process, and your company does not have to certify continued compliance with Standard No. 205, section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)) does impose an obligation on manu facturers, distributors, dealers, and repair businesses including your licensees, with respect to aftermarket processes. That section provides: "No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inopperative i n whole or in part any divice or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle . . . in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard . . ."

In this case, a number of elements of design have been installed in the windshield of motor vehicles in compliance with Standard No. 205, including impact and penetration resistance, optical deviation limitations and limitations on visual distortion. If grinding grooves into the windshield by means of your company's process would cause the windshield to no longer comply with these or some other requirements of Standard No. 205, grinding the grooves into the windshield would be a violation of the "rende r inoperative" provision of the Safety Act.

The Safety Act imposes a responsibility on manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and repair businesses to ensure, in the first instance, that none of the aftermarket operations they perform will result in a violation of the "render inoperative" provision . NHTSA reexamines the initial determinations made by any of these parties only in the context of an enforcement proceeding. If your company has concluded that the test reports enclosed with your letter show no "rendering inoperative" when grooves are ground into windshields, NHTSA will not express any view on that conclusion unless and until the agency begins some enforcement proceeding to examine this grooving process.

In keeping with this statutory scheme, neither our March 1, 1985 letter nor this letter expressed any agency opinion as to whether dealers using your company's process to grind grooves into windshields of vehicles would or would not render inoperative th e windshield's compliance with Standard No. 205. Instead, both these letters are intended only to alert your company to the elements of design that might be rendered inoperative by grinding grooves in windshields by your process.

2. Would it be possible for your company to indicate on the windshields in which you grind these grooves that your company has "shown compliance with Standard No. 205," for example, by affixing a clear sticker to that effect?

Response: As explained above, only new windshields or windshields installed in new vehicles must be certified as complying with Standard No. 205. There is no requirement that windshields subjected to

aftermarket processes be certified as still complying with the standard. If your company voluntarily chooses to provide some indication of continuing compliance, it is free to do so. NHTSA has long said that the only restriction on voluntary markings i s that those markings must not obscure or confuse the meaning of any required markings on the product. Assuming that your voluntary markings will not obscure or confuse the meaning of the required markings on the windshield, the voluntary marking would not violate any Federal requirements. You should be aware, however, that some State laws restrict stickers and other items placed on automobile windshields.

3. Is your company required to show continuing compliance with Standard No. 212, Windshield Mounting (49 CFR $ 571.212) for vehicles whose windshields have grooves ground in accordance with your company's process?

Response: The vehicle manufacturer is responsible for certifying that each of its new vehicles complies with the requirements of Standard No. 212. There is no obligation for any person that performs aftermarket operations on the vehicle or its windshiel d to certify continuing compliance with Standard No. 212.

As explained above, the only requirement applicable to aftermarket operations on a vehicle is that manufacturers, distributors, dealers and repair businesses are prohibited from "rendering inoperative" a vehicle's compliance with any safety standard, inc luding Standard No.212. Standard No. 212 requires a vehicle to retain a specified percentage of the windshield periphery. To avoid violating the "render inoperative" prohibition, I suggest that you carefully examine the process by which grooves are gro und into windshields and determine whether the installation of those grooves in accordance with your company's process would result in the vehicle no longer complying with Standard No. 212. Your company is obliged to determine that this grooving process will not result in a rendering inoperative violation with respect to Standard No. 212. As explained above, NHTSA will not express any views about your company's determination except in the context of an enforcement proceeding.

I hope this information is helpful. Please let me know if you have any further questions on this subject.