ID: nht95-3.22

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: June 21, 1995

FROM: Tim L. Phillips -- International Tire Marketers

TO: Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: D.O.T. Tire Sizing Codes

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 8/4/95 LETTER FROM JOHN WOMACK TO TIM PHILLIPS (A43; REDBOOK 2; PART 574)

TEXT: Chief Counsel,

Can you assist me in updating my information on new tire sizing codes used within the D.O.T. identification placed on tires? Please either fax me this information or mail it to my office at the address listed below.

Thank you for your assistance.

D.O.T. Sizing Codes Needed Passenger Light Truck Heavy Truck Small Industrial Construction

International Tire Marketers 358 W. Heber Street Glendora, California 91741 USA

Attachment

NHTSA DOCUMENT EXPLAINING THE IDENTIFICATION NUMBER FOR NEW TIRES. (OMITTED)

ID: nht95-3.23

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: June 22, 1995

FROM: Douglas Miyashiro -- ATTB System Engineering, Northrop Grumman

TO: Dorothy Nakama -- NHTSA

TITLE: Clarification of Title 49, Part 581

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 7/13/95 LETTER FROM JOHN WOMACK TO DOUGLAS MIYASHIRO (A43; REDBOOK 2; PART 581)

TEXT: Dear Ms. Nakama,

Thank you for your recent help in providing clarification on a previous issue regarding the FMVSS title 49 part 571. Currently, our system engineering department is defining design requirement for the Northrop Grumman Advance Technology Transit Bus (ATT B) program working in conjunction with the Federal Transit Authority. We have been researching bumper safety standard concerning any applicable federal regulation for transit buses. Title 49, part 581 is the only reference on the subject of bumper stan dard and it states the following:

Title 49, Part 581.3 states, "This standards applies to passenger motor vehicles other than multipurpose passenger vehicle."

We are requesting clarification regarding the word "passenger motor vehicles." We feel that this pertains only to a passenger car but request clarification if a bus is inclusive in the definition of a "passenger motor vehicle." We have reviewed all the d efinitions listed in the FMVSS (title 49 part 571) for all different variation to the specific types of vehicle.

We would appreciate a written response clarifying the word "passenger motor vehicle" in order to determine what our design requirements are.

ID: nht95-3.24

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: June 23, 1995

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Richard Mark Gergel, Esq. -- Gergel, Burnette, Nickles, Grant & Leclair, P. A.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 6/5/95 LETTER FROM RICHARD MARK GERGEL TO STEPHEN P. WOOD

TEXT: Dear Mr. Gergel:

We have received your letter of June 5, 1995, concerning "the applicability of the Motor Vehicle Safety Act to transactions between a local car dealer and purchasers within the same state." The litigation in which you are involved concerns the sale of a motor vehicle to a school to transport students. This vehicle, which had the capacity to carry more than 10 persons, "did not meet the safety standards for a 'school bus' under the Act." The defendant dealer asserts that a transaction between a dealer a nd purchaser within the same state is beyond the scope of the Act "since such a transaction allegedly is not within interstate commerce."

Taylor Vinson of this office talked with you on June 14 for a clarification of the facts. We understand that the vehicle in this case was a cargo van originally manufactured by Ford Motor Company and which, before its first purchase in good faith other than for resale, by a private school, was altered by persons not yet known to carry more than 10 persons. The vehicle does not appear to carry the certification of its alterer. The plaintiff in your case is the estate of a child killed while being tran sported in the vehicle. Under South Carolina law, failure to comply with a Federal safety statute is negligence per se. As noted above, the defendant dealer asserts that there is no violation of the Act because the sale of the vehicle did not occur in interstate commerce, and, hence, that it was not negligent per se.

This is our interpretation of the relevant portions of 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301 - Motor Vehicle Safety (formerly known as the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act). Section 30112(a) provides as follows:

Except as provided in this section, sections 30113 and 30114 of this title, and subchapter III of this chapter, . . . a person may not manufacture for sale, sell, offer for sale, introduce or deliver for introduction in interstate commerce, or import int o the United States, any motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment manufactured on or after the date an applicable motor vehicle safety standard prescribed under this chapter takes effect unless the vehicle or equipment complies with the standard and is covered by a certification issued under section 30115 of this title.

The sale or offer for sale of a nonconforming motor vehicle which is not certified as conforming to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards is a violation of 49 U.S.C. 30112(a), regardless of whether the purchaser and seller reside in the s ame state. The phrase "introduce or deliver for introduction in interstate commerce" is self-contained and separated by commas from the rest of the prohibited acts. It in no way modifies the words "sell" and "offer for sale," which are violations separ ate and distinct from those of introducing or delivering for introduction in interstate commerce a noncomplying or uncertified motor vehicle. Thus, the case that you refer to, National Association of Motor Bus Owners v. Brinegar, 483 F.2d 1294 (D.C. Cir . 1973), is irrelevant to the issue of whether the dealer violated section 30112(a) by selling the vehicle in question.

As noted above, the statute provides certain exemptions and defenses that may be applicable to the question of whether there has been a violation of section 30112(a). The general and special exemptions of sections 30113 and 30114, and the import exempti ons of subchapter III are not relevant here. However, if the dealer can establish that any of the following defenses set out in section 30112(b) apply, there would be no violation.

* If the vehicle had previously been in use before it was sold to the school (section 30112(b)(1))

* If the dealer had no reason to know at the time it offered for sale and sold the vehicle to the private school, despite exercising reasonable care, that the van did not comply with Federal school bus safety standards. (section 30112(b)(2)(A))

* If the dealer held a certificate by the manufacturer stating that the vehicle complied with applicable Federal school bus safety standards, and did not know about the noncompliance before sale to the school. (section 30112(b)(2)(B))

Further, it appears that the alterer of this vehicle may have violated 49 CFR 568.8, a regulation issued under the authority of 49 U.S.C. 30115. Under this regulation, one who alters a certified vehicle before its first purchase in good faith for other than resale must affix its certification that the vehicle as altered complies with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards.

If you have any further questions, please contact Taylor Vinson at (202) 366-5263.

ID: nht95-3.25

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: June 23, 1995

FROM: Yoshiaki Matsui -- Manager, Automotive Equipment, Legal & Homologation Section, Stanley Electric Co. Ltd.

TO: Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: Re.: Neon High Mounted Stop Lamps

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 7/18/95 LETTER FROM JOHN WOMACK TO YOSHIAKI MATSUI. (REDBOOK 2; STD. 108)

TEXT: Dear Sir,

We are planning to develop high mounted stop lamps with neon tubes as their light sources.

During the last SAE meeting in Scottsdale, we heard Mr. van Iderstine mentioned that some new regulatory requirements should be provided for neon as light sources. However, we believe it is possible, even at this time, to conduct tests to such stop lamp s in accordance with FMVSS No. 108 and to determine the compliance of the tested high mounted stop lamps to FMVSS No. 108.

Therefore, we would like to ask you to give us your advice to the following questions concerning the acceptability of neon tubes as light sources.

Q1) Are neon tubes accepted as light sources by the current FMVSS No. 108?

Q2) If the answer to the above Q1) is NO, what kind of requirements should be provided to accept the neon?

Q3) If the ballast is integral and indivisible part of a neon high mounted stop lamp, like integral beam headlamps with HID, should such stop lamps be accepted under the current FMVSS No. 108 with no reservation provided the lamp is complied to all requi rements specified in the FMVSS No. 108?

Q4) If the ballast is separable from lamp assembly, should such high mounted stop lamps with neon tube be accepted under the current FMVSS No. 108 or under the amended FMVSS No. 108 allowing such stop lamps in near future?

Your answers will be highly appreciated.

ID: nht95-3.26

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: June 26, 1995

FROM: Jerel M. Sachs -- General Manager, Automotive Glass, Import Products Glass

TO: Clarke Harper

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 8/4/95 LETTER FROM JOHN WOMACK TO JEREL M. SACHS (A43; REDBOOK 2; STD. 205); ALSO ATTACHED TO 8/4/86 LETTER FROM ERIKA Z. JONES TO HENRY A. GORRY; ALSO ATTACHED TO 6/10/87 LETTER FROM ERIKA Z. JONES TO DAVID C. MAROON; ALSO ATTACHED TO 6/14/90 LETTER FROM PAUL JACKSON RICE TO NORMAND LAURENDEAU

TEXT: Dear Clark:

Thank you for returning my telephone call today. Pursuant to our telephone conversation I would like to state that Import Products Company is a prime glazing manufacturer and distributor. Our new address as of August 1st, 1995 will be; 55 Stockland Blv d., Bridgewater, MA 02324.

We intend to engage in the manufacture and/or contract manufacture of automotive safety glass in the United States and overseas. We are in the process of negotiations for the tooling and machinery of Lin's Glass Company who currently hold DOT # 396 and manufacture under the brand name of Sunmat. Part of the negotiation is acquiring the Sunmat brand name and corresponding DOT # 396.

I will contact you as soon as I know more about the release of the DOT # 396/ Sunmat name. In the meantime, please confirm acceptance of this letter but hold off assigning us a DOT number. Thank you for your help.

Enclosure (follow up letter)

July 13, 1995

Paul Atelsek Chief Council's Office 400 7 Street SW Washington, DC 20590

Dear Paul:

Per our telephone conversation yesterday 1 am faxing you a copy of the letter I sent to Clark Harper on June 26, 1995. As discussed, I see great merit for both NHTSA and our company in holding a D.O.T. number since we will be doing contract manufacturin g with a supplier who is also supplying other customers. This will help us monitor quality control and track our product in the marketplace.

Import Products Company has been in business for over 28 years and has been involved in the importing, contract manufacturing and distribution of automotive parts for use in the United States and export. We are experienced in doing voluntary recalls for quality control problems of automotive products that are unrelated to safety. I am sure that you must agree that NHTSA would have a much better chance working with IPG to implement a recall as compared to a company overseas in Taiwan, Malaysia or China through an Agent for Service of Process, which in many cases is a family relative or friend of somebody who works in the factory. Overall, I see this as a win-win combination for all of us and I hope you agree.

I look forward to hearing from you soon. Thank you.

Sincerely,

Jerel M. Sachs General Manager Automotive Glass, IMPORT PRODUCTS GLASS

cc: Clark Harper

ID: nht95-3.27

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: June 27, 1995

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: J. Gregory Studemeyer, Esq.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 1/5/95 LETTER FROM J. GREGORY STUDEMEYER TO NHTSA (OCC 10647)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Studemeyer:

This responds to your letter of January 5, 1995, to this agency and your telephone conversation with Walter Myers of my staff on June 12, 1995, regarding the school bus standards we administer. You asked whether "your agency or any other federal agency notifies educational institutions of these [school bus] requirements."

The answer is no. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not maintain data on all schools or school districts throughout the nation, and does not routinely communicate with individual schools or school districts. The agency does , however, attend and disseminate information at school bus meetings and conferences nationwide and publishes all changes in school bus requirements in the Federal Register. In addition, NHTSA works closely and frequently with state directors of pupil t ransportation with regard to school transportation matters. In South Carolina, that official is the Director, Office of Transportation, Department of Education, 1429 Senate Street, Room 512, Columbia, SC 29201. Their telephone number is (803) 734-8244, and their fax number is (803) 734-8624.

Also for your information please find enclosed a fact sheet prepared by this office summarizing Federal school bus safety requirements. If you have any further questions or need additional information, please feel free to contact Walter Myers of my staf f at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

Enclosure

FEDERAL SCHOOL BUS SAFETY REQUIREMENTS

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) defines a bus as a motor vehicle designed to carry more than 10 persons, and a school bus as a bus that is sold or introduced into interstate commerce "for purposes that include carrying students to and from school or related events." Excluded are buses operated as common carriers in urban transportation. See 49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 571.3.

In interpreting those provisions, NHTSA has looked to the nature of the particular institutions purchasing the buses. If the central purpose of the institution is the education of preprimary, primary, or secondary school students, including Head Start p articipants, whom NHTSA considers preprimary students, the buses must comply with all Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) applicable to school buses. The FMVSSs are found in 49 CFR 571.101 through 571.304.

If, on the other hand, the institution is primarily custodial in nature, such as a nursery or day care center, or is concerned primarily with the education of post-secondary students such as college students, adult education or post-high school vocationa l students, the buses need not comply. Similarly, if transporting children to and from Sunday school or religious services, or if transporting athletic teams that have no connection to a school, the vehicles need not comply. However, if the vehicles ar e purchased to transport vocational students or athletic teams connected with preprimary, primary, or secondary schools or to transport students to or from such schools operated by a church, such as parochial schools, the vehicles would be required to co mply.

It is a violation of Federal law for any person knowingly to sell or lease as a school bus any new vehicle that does not comply with all FMVSSs applicable to school buses. The onus is on the seller or lessor to ascertain the intended use of the vehicle, and the seller/lessor is subject to substantial penalties for knowingly selling or leasing a noncomplying vehicle for use as a school bus, including civil fines and injunctive sanctions. These requirements do not apply to used vehicles.

Under Federal law, the purchaser or user of a vehicle is not under the same legal constraints as the seller. Since Federal law applies only to the manufacture and sale of new vehicles, a school may purchase and use any vehicle it chooses, whether new or used and without regard to whether it complies with Federal school bus standards, to transport its students. In addition, Federal law does not require the school to retrofit an existing vehicle to bring it into compliance with Federal standards. A sta te, however, may prescribe requirements relating to the use of school buses, including requirements for retrofitting or for operation and maintenance. The only Federal constraint on a state is that the state may not prescribe a standard for new vehicles covering the same aspect of performance as a Federal standard unless the state standard is identical to the Federal standard.

Finally, although not required by Federal law, NHTSA strongly recommends that only vehicles meeting Federal school bus safety standards be used to transport school children. See Highway Traffic Safety Program Guideline No. 17, Pupil Transportation Safet y, 23 CFR 1204. Further, NHTSA cautions that the use of vehicles that do not comply with Federal school bus safety standards to transport school children could result in increased liability in the event of an accident. That is a matter of state law, ho wever, so school districts should consult their attorneys and/or insurance carriers before transporting students in non-complying vehicles.

ID: nht95-3.28

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: June 27, 1995

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Thomas L. Wright, -- Acting Manager, MVS Customer Services, State of New Jersey, Department of Law and Public Safety, Division of Motor Vehicles

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 7/13/92 LETTER FROM PAUL JACKSON RICE TO JEFFREY PUENTES; ALSO ATTACHED TO 4/28/95 LETTER FROM THOMAS L. WRIGHT TO DOROTHY NAKAMA (OCC 10890)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Wright:

This responds to your request for information about responsibilities of motorcycle manufacturers. As you discussed with Dorothy Nakama, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not "regulate" how an enterprise becomes a "recognize d manufacturer."

Enclosed is NHTSA's information sheet for new manufacturers of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment, which discusses the main requirements of 49 U.S.C. section 30101 et seq. (formerly the Vehicle Safety Act). A copy of the Act is enclosed. Under section 30112(a) of the Act, a motorcycle manufacturer may not manufacture a motorcycle for sale unless the vehicle complies with all applicable Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) and is covered by a certification issued under 49 U.S.C. secti on 30115. One safety standard is Standard No. 115 Vehicle Identification Number - Basic Requirements. (See 49 CFR 571.115.) In our regulations, at 49 CFR part 567 Certification, NHTSA has promulgated the requirement that a manufacturer certify complianc e of its motorcycle with all applicable safety standards. Under part 566, NHTSA requires manufacturers to submit certain identifying information and a description of the items they produce.

Also enclosed is a copy of a July 13, 1992 interpretation letter to Mr. Jeffrey Puentes, discussing serial numbers on motorcycle frames versus motorcycle VINs.

As you may be aware, "certificates of origin" are matters relating to vehicle titling, which the State regulates, rather than NHTSA.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please contact Ms. Nakama at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht95-3.29

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: June 27, 1995

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel; NHTSA

TO: Robert Charles Maltzahn, Esq.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 5/12/95 LETTER FROM ROBERT C. MAITZAHN TO JOHN WOMACK (OCC 10908)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Maltzahn:

This responds to your request for an interpretation whether Standard No. 115, Vehicle identification number - basic requirements or any other Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) applies to your client's high pressure "waterjet cutting and clean ing equipment" manufactured as a mobile trailer. As explained below, the answer is no.

Your letter describe your client's product as "manufactured for use in the construction industry for hydrodemolition and cleaning and for industrial use." The letter states the equipment is mobile to facilitate towing from site to site, but is "not used primarily on the roadways and highways of the United States."

In a telephone conversation with Dorothy Nakama of my staff, you explained that the length of time the equipment is at a job site depends on the task. The equipment could be at a ship cleaning site for over a year, or at a hydrodemolition site for five days. You stated that the equipment very rarely stays at a job site for less than a week.

The FMVSS's apply only to "motor vehicles," within the meaning of 49 U.S.C. @ 30102(a)(6). That section defines "motor vehicle" as:

a vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power and manufactured primarily for use on public streets, roads, and highways, but does not include a vehicle operated only on a rail line.

Whether the agency considers your trailer to be a motor vehicle depends on its use. It is the agency's position that this statutory definition does not encompass mobile construction equipment, such as cranes and scrapers, which use the highway only to m ove between job sites and which typically spend extended periods of time at a single job site. In such cases, the on-highway use of the vehicle is merely incidental and is not the primary purpose for which the vehicle was manufactured. In contrast are instances where vehicles, such as dump trucks, frequently use the highway going to and from job sites, and stay at a job site for only a limited time. Such vehicles are considered motor vehicles for purposes of the Safety Act, since the on-highway use i s more than "incidental."

Based on your description, it appears that your client's equipment is not a motor vehicle. This is because the equipment appears to stay on job sites for extended periods of time (ranging from a week to over a year). Therefore, your client's equipment need not meet Standard No. 115, or any other FMVSS. I note that, if the agency were to receive additional information indicating that your trailer used the roads more than on an incidental basis, then the agency would reassess this interpretation.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any questions, please contact Dorothy Nakama at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht95-3.3

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: June 7, 1995

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: K. Howard Sharp, Esq. -- Arnason Law Office

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 5/12/95 LETTER FROM K. HOWARD SHARP TO JOHN WOMACK

TEXT: Dear Mr. Sharp:

We have received your letter of May 12, 1995, requesting an interpretation of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 on behalf of your client, NYTAF Industries. You are concerned that installation of a NYTAF lighting system on the rear of trailers might be considered to impair the effectiveness of the required rear lighting equipment within the meaning of paragraph S5.1.3.

The NYTAF Auxiliary Rear Lighting System

NYTAF has developed "an auxiliary signaling system for heavy duty vehicles" which "displays a verbal message appropriate to the particular potential hazard." According to Exhibit A of your letter, a draft information brochure, the specific words displaye d are: "Wide Turn", "Braking", "Wide Load", "Caution", "Help", "Backing", and "Long Load". In addition, right and left facing arrowheads indicate the direction of turning. Drivers cannot alter these messages or program the system to accept personal mes sages. The brochure depicts the message unit "on the rear of the trailer frame directly below the trailer body in the center putting the display panel on approximately the same horizontal plane as the tail lights and brake lights." Words are provided by light-emitting diodes (L.E.D.). According to your letter, the L.E.D. display "is somewhat more intense than existing brake lights, turn and tail lamps."

Exhibit B "Operation Summary" explains how the system operates with respect to each message, e.g., "Braking" is "activated and illuminated in conjunction with brake lights."

Applicable Requirement of Standard No. 108

Paragraph S5.1.3 of Standard No. 108 states that "No additional lamp, reflective device or other motor vehicle equipment shall be installed [before first purchase of a vehicle in good faith for other than resale] that impairs the effectiveness of lightin g equipment required by [Standard No. 108]."

Prior Interpretations of S5.1.3 Relating to Message Boards

In the past, the agency has advised that the determination of impairment is initially made by the manufacturer of the motor vehicle on which the supplementary equipment is installed, when it certifies that the vehicle complies with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. Unless that determination is clearly erroneous, NHTSA will not question it. Thus, NHTSA's interpretations are generally cautionary in tone rather than prohibitive.

I enclose copies of two interpretations relating to message boards intended for the rear parcel shelves of passenger cars. The first is a letter of August 17, 1989, to Alan S. Eldahr ("Eldahr"). The relevant language of Eldahr is that a rear window mes sage board "sending messages unrelated to vehicle stops, could confuse and distract a driver following, and in that sense impair the effectiveness of the center lamp." The second is a letter dated August 13, 1993, to Kenneth E. Ross ("Ross"). The Ross l etter discusses the relation of message boards to the aftermarket, as well as the notification and remedy obligations which would fall upon NYTAF as a manufacturer of automotive accessory equipment.

Relationship of Eldahr to NYTAF

Eldahr indicates that there is less possibility of impairment existing if the message visible to a following driver is related to the lamp function that occurs simultaneously, as happens, for example in the NYTAF system, when stop lamp activation is acco mpanied by the word "Braking." We suggest that vehicle manufacturers installing the NYTAF system follow this guideline in their determinations of whether impairment exists.

NYTAF might also wish to reconsider the intensity of the L.E.D. display which you say is "more" than that of the existing rear lighting equipment, especially as it may affect reaction to the stop signal. The intensity should not be so great as to divert driver attention to the message rather than to the stop signal.

There are several areas of Exhibit B "Operation Summary" which require more specific comment. "Caution" is activated in conjunction with the hazard warning system. Standard No. 108 requires these systems to simultaneously flash all turn signal lamps, a nd not sequentially as Exhibit B states. Exhibit B should be corrected to reflect this if it is to be distributed publicly, as we do not understand that the NYTAF system is intended to create sequential flashing of turn signals when operated in the haza rd signal mode. The sole explanation of "Help" is that it is to be activated manually. In our view, a flashing "Help" while the trailer is in motion would be more likely to impair rear lighting equipment than if it is operable only when the trailer is at rest. In addition, Exhibit B does not indicate whether the "Help" message is overridden by other messages when related lighting systems are activated.

We are unsure of the purpose of "Clearance Marker" which is operated "in conjunction with parking lights." Standard No. 108 does not require truck tractors to be equipped with parking lamps. We believe that you meant taillamps. We do not view this lamp as having an impairing effect upon the taillamps. The name of the lamp is somewhat misleading, as it would be mounted at the center of a vehicle whereas a "clearance lamp" is intended to indicate a vehicle's overall width.

Additionally, on certain trailer designs the three identification lamps are mounted around the vertical centerline in the same location in which you have stated the NYTAF system will be mounted. With respect to the close proximity of the two lighting sy stems, we believe that the brightness of the NYTAF device compared with that of the identification lamps could impair their ability to signal the presence of a large vehicle in the roadway ahead, the intended function of these lamps.

Finally, we note that the color red would indicate a backing function. Although trailers are not required to have backup lamps, Standard No. 108 specifies that the color white shall be used for backup lamps, and we believe that the public has come to as sociate an activated white lamp on the rear of a vehicle as indicating that the vehicle is in reverse gear. Your client may wish to reevaluate this function in light of possible liability concerns.

We hope that these guidelines will be helpful to NYTAF. If you have any further questions, Taylor Vinson will again be happy to answer them (202-366-5263).

ID: nht95-3.30

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: June 29, 1995

FROM: Isaias Rios -- Product Engineering Dpt., Rines De Acero K-H, S.A. De C.V.

TO: Marvin Shaw -- NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 08/11/95 LETTER FROM JOHN WOMACK TO ISAIAS RIOS (A43; PART 566; STD. 110; STD. 120)

TEXT: DEAR MR. SHAW:

CURRENTLY RINES DE ACERO K-H. S.A. DE C.V. IS THE PRINCIPAL SUPPLIER OF PASSENGER CAR STEEL WHEELS FOR THE MAJOROTY OF THE AUTOMAKERS THAT ARE ASSEMBLING VEHICLES IN MEXICO (FORD MOTOR Co., GENERAL MOTORS, VOLKSWAGEN, NISSAN AND CHRYSLER).

TO EXPORT PASSENGER CAR STEEL WHEELS FROM MEXICO TO U.S.A., [Illegible Words] IS REQUIRING A CERTIFICATE WHICH DEMONSTRATES TOTAL COMPLIANCE WITH THE APPLICABLE REQUIREMENTS OF THE FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD No. 110 No. 120 OR OTHER FMVSS S TANDARDS OF INTERNATIONAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY ACT. OF 1966.

THE PURPOSE OF THIS LETTER IS TO REQUEST THE [Illegible Words] INFORMATION AND PROCEDURE NECESSARY FOR US TO [Illegible Words] CERTIFICATION, AND ENABLE US TO SHIP WHEELS TO NISSAN FOR [Illegible Words] TO THE U.S.

IF A FORM IS NECESSARY, PLEASE FORWARD A COPY OF [Illegible Words] FORM OR A LIST OF THE DATA REQUIRED. PLEASE ALSO [Illegible Words] OTHER AGENCIES OR GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS [Illegible Words] INCLUDING CONTACT PERSON AND THE NAME AND [Illegible Word s] THE APPLICABLE STANDARD FOR WHEELS (BOTH STEEL AND ALUMINUM).

IF WE NEED TO HAVE WHEELS TESTED BY APPROVED LABS IN THE U.S. COULD YOU ALSO PROVIDE US WITH A LIST OF SUCH LABS, NAME, ADDRESS, AND CONTACT PERSON. OUR FAX NUMBER IS 011-525-572-74-70, AND THE PRODUCT ENGINEERING TELEPHONE NUMBER IS 011-625-562-73-0 0.

I WOULD REALLY APPRECIATE YOUR HELP ON THIS MATTER. PLEASE CALL ME IF YOU REQUIRE ADDITIONAL INFORMATION OR EXPLANATION.