ID: 86-1.3

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 01/02/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Ms. Patricia Hill

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Ms Patricia Hill 2150 Hacker Road Howell, Michigan 48843

Thank you for your letter of September 19, 1985, asking about the effect of our regulations on a safety belt design you have seen. You explained that the design uses "a rigid member to support a webbing guide near the shoulder of a front seat occupant. This rigid member was rigidly attached to the roof of the vehicle." You asked several questions about this design, which are answered below.

You first asked whether the rigid member would be considered a seat belt anchorage, a piece of attachment hardware or a common component for the purposes of our standards. We cannot provide a definitive answer without having further details about and preferably a drawing of the structure. Based on the information you have provided, it appears that the rigid member would be an anchorage.

Standard No. 210, Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages, defines an "anchorage" as a device that transfers safety belt assembly load to the vehicle structure. Since the rigid member is attached to the roof at one end and to a safety belt webbing guide at the other, it appears to be intended to transfer loads to the vehicle structure. Thus, it would have to meet the strength and location requirements of the standard.

You also asked if one or both ends of the rigid member are required to meet the upper torso restraint location requirements of S4.3.2 of Standard No. 210. If, as discussed above, the rigid member is intended to transfer loads, then it would have to meet the location requirement of S4.3.2. That section states that the "anchorage for the upper end of the upper torso restraint shall be located within the acceptable range" shown in Figure 1 of the standard. The purpose of the requirement is to specify the angle at which the shoulder belt crosses the occupant's chest. Thus, the portion of the anchorage that controls the angle of the shoulder belt must be within the zone specified in Figure 1.

I hope this information is of assistance to you. If you have further questions, please let me know.

Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

2150 Hacket Road Howell, Michigan 48843 September 19, 1985

Mr. Jeffrey R. Miller Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, SW Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Mr. Miller:

This requests an interpretation of the requirements of FMVSS Nos. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies and 210, Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages.

Recently a proposed Type 2 continuous loop seat belt installation was inspected that used a rigid member to support a webbing guide near the shoulder of a front seat occupant. This rigid member was rigidly attached to the roof of the vehicle.

I am aware two previous requests for interpretation (Ford and Toyota) have been made that have some measures of similarity to the present issue. However, both the Ford and Toyota cases differed significantly from the subject seat belt assembly; webbing was used vice a rigid member to locate a webbing guide near the shoulder of a front seat occupant.

Following are my specific requests for interpretation.

1. Is the above described rigid member a seat belt anchorage, a piece of attachment hardware, or possibly a common component?

2. Are one or both ends of the rigid member required to meet the upper torso restraint location requirements of FMVSS No. 210, Section 4.3.2? Sincerely, Patricia Hill

ID: 86-1.30

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/11/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Dewayne A. Knoshaug, Esq. -- Knoshaug and Poppen Law Firm

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Dewayne A. Knoshaug, Esq. Knoshaug & Poppen Law Firm 118 Central Avenue East Clarion, Iowa 50525

This is in reply to your letter of November 1 1985, to this agency asking about the legality of an "auxiliary rear novelty lamp" which a client of yours anticipates manufacturing and marketing. You stated that the lamp "would light when applying the brakes and optional would be when using turn signals. The light would be amber, red or yellow". You have assured us that the lamp is not intended to be a substitute for or to alter the center high-mounted stop lamp.

It is difficult to provide you with a definitive answer absent a fuller description of this device, its light output, flash rate, and other features. As a general rule, aftermarket lighting equipment not intended as replacement for equipment required by Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 is not itself covered by Standard No. 108, but is subject only to the laws of a State where it will be used.

However, a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business may not render inoperative in whole or in part any device or element of design installed in accordance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard. We would view a conflicting signal from an auxiliary lighting device as one which could render "partially inoperative" a required lighting device. A manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business which installed such a device might be viewed as in violation of 15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A).

General as my reply is, I hope that it is of some guidance to you.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones

Chief Counsel

November 1, 1985

Office of Vehicle Safety Standards National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Department of Transportation Washington, D.C. 20590

Re : Auxiliary Rear Automobile Lamp

Greetings:

I represent a client who anticipates manufacturing and marketing auxiliary rear novelty lamps for automobiles. The primary reason for this letter is to make inquiry of whether same may violate any federal regulation.

I am knowledgeable of the regulation which requires installation of a single center high mounted stop lamp on passenger cars manufactured on or after September 1, 1985, in addition to the stop lamps otherwise required. Although similar, the stop lamp proposed by my client would in no way be marketed to be a substitute or to alter the required single center high mounted stop lamp.

The lamp to be produced by my client could be similarly used on vehicles manufactured prior to September 1, 1985 and not equipped with the required lamp. In addition, the lamp could be used on vehicles otherwise equipped with the required lamp as an auxiliary lamp.

The lamp proposed by my client would light when applying the brakes and optional would be when using turning signals . The light would be amber, red or yellow.

I request your response advising whether or not there is any federal rule or regulation that would be violated by using such a light on a passenger motor vehicle.

Thank you for your response.

Sincerely,

Dewayne A. Knoshaug DAK:jkj

ID: 86-1.31

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/11/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Tony T.Y. Tu -- Fonnex Industrial Corp.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Tony T.Y. Tu Fonnex Industrial Corp. P.O. Box 68-857 Taipei, TAIWAN

This is in reply to your letter of October 18, 1985, to this agency asking questions regarding test procedures for Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No, 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment.

Your questions indicate that you are under the impression that test samples must be submitted to this agency for testing. This is not correct; no testing or approval by this agency is required before a manufacturer of replacement lighting equipment may offer its product for sale in the United States.

Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, such a manufacturer is required by law to produce replacement lighting equipment that is designed to comply to the requirements of Standard No. 108, and to certify that the equipment does, in fact, meet the standard. It is the manufacturer's decision as to how many samples must be tested, whether they are prototype or production items, and so on, in order to assure himself that the item does meet Standard No. 108, before certifying that it does comply. Certification may be in the form of a DOT symbol on the item itself, or a statement of compliance on a label or tag affixed to the item itself, or to the container in which it is shipped.

As a general rule, under section 108(a)(1)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et. seq.), all items of motor vehicle equipment manufactured on or after the date any applicable Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard takes effect must conform to such standard in order to be imported into the United States. The regulation governing the importation of motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment is Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 12.80 (19 CFR 12.80).

You should also note that under 49 CFR 566, you are required to submit certain identifying information and a description of your product to the Administrator, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. Further, under section 151 et seq. of the Act, you are responsible for recall and remedy, at your expense, for any safety related defects in your product or noncompliances with Standard No. 108.

Prior to offering motor vehicle equipment for importation into the United States, a foreign manufacturer is required to register an "Agent-for-Service" of process as set forth in 49 CFR 551.45 as well as furnishing the information required by 19 CPR 566 for covered items of equipment.

You are advised to carefully examine the Act and FMVSS as well as other regulations listed below to insure that you fully understand the extent of the responsibilities you incur upon the manufacture/importation of a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment for which there is an applicable FMVSS.

Enclosed for your information and guidance is a copy of the following:

1. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.)

2. 49 CFR 551, "Procedural Rules"

3. 49 CFR 556

4. 19 CFR 12.80, "Importation of Motor Vehicles and Items of Motor Vehicle Equipment"

5. Information for New Manufacturers of Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Equipment

We also recommend that you contact the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 1201 Connecticut Avenue, N.W., Suite 910, Washington, D.C. 20036. It is a private organization that provides information regarding the requirements of the various States.

I hope that this answers your questions.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones

Chief Counsel

Enclosures

October 18, 1985

U .S. Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh St., S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590, U.S.A.

Attn. Whom who concern

Dear Sir:

We are an Auto Lamps manufacturer in Taiwan, our products include Front Lamps, Side Lamps and Rear Lamps, etc.. We hope that our products could pass the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard & Regulation test and sold to the market of your country. So, please offer us your instructions what are the procedure we have to take, such as:

1. Who is in charge of the testing to whom we have to contact. (Administration , Name and Address)

2. How many samples in each items we have to send for testing.

3. The other special instruction which are important to us if we want our products to be passed the testing.

We wish that our inquiry will not bring you too much trouble. Your earlier reply will be highly appreciated. Best regards.

Yours sincerely,

Tony T. Y. Tu FONNEX INDUSTRIAL CORP. T/nc

ID: 86-1.32

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/12/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Jack H. McDaniel, Jr. -- President, Trim Plus

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Jack H. McDaniel, Jr. President Trim Plus P.O. Box 490811 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33349

This is in reply to your letters of November 18, 1985, and January 9, 1986, to the former Chief Counsel of this agency, Jeffrey Miller, asking questions about the relationship of the center high-mounted stop lamp provisions of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 to the installation of deck-mounted luggage racks.

You have stated that you install accessories on new motor vehicles before their delivery by their dealers. You have asked whether deck-mounted racks that have cross bars violate the safety standards? It is not possible to give a definitive answer. When a passenger car leaves the factory, its center high-mounted stop lamp must meet certain specified minimum design photometrics at certain test points, and be installed so that it has a signal visible to the rear through a horizontal angle from 45 degrees to the left to 45 degrees to the right of the longitudinal axis of the vehicle. It must continue to meet these requirements at the time of delivery to the first purchaser, even if a deck rack has been installed. If the rack prevents the lamp from meeting its photometric output at any test point, the standard does allow a supplementary center high-mounted stop lamp to be added, provided that it meets all applicable photometrics. If no such lamp is added, and the rack affects the photometric compliance of the lamp, we would view the installer (if a manufacturer, distributor, dealer of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, or a motor vehicle repair business) as a possible violator of 15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A) which forbids those commercial entities from rendering partially inoperative equipment that is installed in accordance with a Federal safety standard.

You have also asked whether a deck-mounted rack loaded with luggage would cause a violation. The answer is no; compliance with Standard No. 108 is determined without luggage in place, even if the lamp would be blocked when the rack is in use.

I hope that this answers your questions.

Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones

Chief Counsel

January 9, 1986

Mr. Jeffrey R. Miller Chief Councel U. S. Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Mr. Miller:

Mine is a company specializing in the sales and installation of automotive trim accessories with a clientele essentially being the franchised dealers of new American made automobiles.

Recently there has been some confusion among myself customers, and colleagues regarding one of the new motor vehicle safety standards which, I understand, is number 108 involving the center high-mounted stop lamp. Since one of the specialties of my company is the installation of rear deck-mounted luggage racks on new cars, I was wondering if you would give me some information as to how the new safety standards might infect this. Here is what I am particularly concerned about.

1. Would installing a rear deck-mounted luggage rack that has a cross bar on a 1986 automobile for a dealer cause a violation of the center high-mounted stop lamp provision of the new safety standard?

2. It seems to me that on most cars a deck-mounted luggage rack can be positioned so that the center high- mounted stop lamp can still be clearly seen from the rear. Are there any provisions of the new safety standards that I should know about that would help insure prevention a violation?

3. Would a deck-mounted rack loaded with luggage cause a violation?

Mr. Miller, this does make the second of my requests to your department for this information that I have yet to receive. I know how busy you department must be, but please let me hear from you at your earliest convenience. I shall await your reply with great interest, as it will make considerable difference in my sales and operation.

Respectfully, Jack McDaniel, President

November 18, 1985

Mr. Jefferey R. Miller Chief Counsel U.S. Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Mr. Miller:

Ours is a company specializing in the installation of automotive trim accessories. Most of our services are to the franchised dealers of the major automobile makers, installing accessories on their pre-delivered cars.

Recently there has been some confusion among myself and colleagues regarding the new safety standards for 1986 vehicles concerning the center high-mounted stop lamps which, I have been told, is Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. Since some of my orders are for installing deck-mounted luggage racks with cross bars on 1986 vehicles, I wonder if you could give me some information about how the new safety standards might affect this. I will list the things I am particularly concerned about.

1. Will deck-mounted racks that have cross bars violate the new safety standards? It seems to me that many racks can be mounted and positioned so that the high-mounted stop lamp is still clearly visible from the rear. How can we determine if one would cause a violation?

2. Would a deck-mounted rack loaded with luggage cause a violation?

I shall await your answers with great interest, Mr. Miller. Many thanks for any information you can give me. May I please here from you as soon as possible?

Respectfully,

Jack H. McDaniel, Jr. President

ID: 86-1.33

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/12/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Ray August -- Auto Trends

TEXT:

Mr. Ray August Auto Trends 9818 Grinnell Avenue Detroit, Michigan 48213

This is in reply to your letter of December 12, 1985, to Mr. Vinson of this office asking "what is the law pertaining to the new brake light at or by the rear window of the vehicle, and what effect, if any, would it have on After Market trunk racks."

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 requires each passenger car manufactured on or after September 1, 1985, to be equipped with a supplementary stop lamp mounted on the centerline of the vehicle not lower than three inches below the rear window (six inches if it is a convertible). The standard specifies that the lamp shall have a signal visible to the rear through a horizontal angle from 45 degrees to the left to 45 degrees to the right of the longitudinal centerline of the vehicle, and that it shall meet minimum candela values at certain specified test points. Under Federal law, the lamp must meet these requirements at the time the new car is sold. Thus, if the vehicle manufacturer or new car dealer equips a passenger car with a trunk rack, care must be taken to insure that the requirements are still met (obviously this depends both upon the location of the lamp and the configuration of the rack). If the rack prohibits the lamp from meeting its photometric output at any test point, the standard does allow a supplementary center-mounted stop lamp to be added, provided that it complies with all requirements of the standard.

After the sale of the vehicle, the owner may modify his car without reference to Federal law but a dealer, distributor, or motor vehicle repair business cannot make modifications that "render inoperative in whole or in part" any equipment relating to a Federal motor vehicle safety standard. We would view dealer installation of a trunk rack on a used car with an original equipment center stop lamp as subject to this prohibition if the rack affects compliance with photometric and visibility requirements.

The question is frequently asked us whether a deck-mounted rack loaded with luggage would cause a violation. The answer is no: compliance is determined without the load in place, even if the lamp would be blocked when the rack is in use.

I hope that this answers your questions.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones

Chief Counsel

Dec. 12, 1985

Taylor Vinson Legal Consul NHTSA Room 5219 U.S. Dept. of Transportation 400 7th St. S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Subject: New Brake Light - Rear Window

Dear Mr. Vinson:

In my discussion with Mr. Kagy of the U.S. Dept. of Transportation, he recommended I write to you for a legal opinion in this matter.

Auto Trends is a manufacturer of luggage racks, both roof racks and trunk racks. What is the law pertaining to the new brake light at or by the rear window of the vehicle, and what effect, if any, would it have on After Market trunk racks?

Thank you for your assistance in this matter.

Sincerely yours,

Ray August, Plant Manager RA:ks cc:ra

ID: 86-1.34

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/12/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Mr. H. M. Metcalf

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. H. M. Metcalf 2860 Peachtree Road, N.W. Apt. 709 Atlanta, Georgia 30305-4155

Thank you for your letter asking about how our regulations would affect the modification of a vehicle to accomodate a handicapped person. I regret the delay in our response.

You explained that you have had a partial amputation of your left leg and want to have the seat in your car modified to make it easier for you to enter and operate your car. You said that no one will modify your car because of our regulations. You asked if you could obtain a waiver so that you could have a new car modified before its delivery to you. I hope the following discussion, explaining our regulations, will be of assistance to you.

Our agency is authorized to issue Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. Manufacturers must certify that their products conform to our safety standards before they can be offered for sale. If a vehicle is altered prior to its first sale, then the person making the alteration must certify that the vehicle as altered continues to comply with the Federal safety standards.

In the case of a used vehicle, vehicle modifications are affected by section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. That section prohibits commercial businesses from knowingly rendering inoperative any elements of design installed on a vehicle in compliance with a Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard.

While the requirements and prohibitions discussed above apply to the general case, this agency has distinguished the situation where a vehicle must be modified to accommodate the special needs of a handicapped person. In this limited situation, we have been willing to consider any violations a purely technical one justified by public need, and have exercised our discretion not to take any enforcement action. In a case such as yours, I can assure you that the NHTSA would not institute enforcement proceedings against a motor vehicle dealer that modifies a seat to accommodate your condition. Modification of a safety system for legitimate medical reasons is not the type of action that the Vehicle Safety Act sought to prevent.

I suggest you show this letter to your dealer. If you have any further questions, please let me know.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Mr. Jeffery Miller, Chief Council National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 2nd. St. S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Sir,

Two years ago, I had a "below the knee" amputation of my left leg. At that time I attempted to have my car seat modified to make it easier to enter and operate my car. No one would modify the car because of your agency's regulations.

Mr. Thomas Enright provided your name as the contact to obtain a waiver so that a car can be modified. My plans are to buy a new car and I would have it modified before delivery so that the manufacturer's warranty would not be voided.

I believe there are provisions in the regulations that allow a standard car to be modified for a handicapped person . Your assistance in obtaining the necessary information will be appreciated.

Yours truly,

H. M. Metcalf 2860 Peachtree Rd. N.W. Apt. # 709 Atlanta, Georgia 30305-4155

ID: 86-1.37

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/12/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Mr. R. O. Sornson

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. R. O. Sornson Director, Regulatory Research and Analysis Chrysler-Corporation P.O. Box 1919 Detroit, MI 48288

Dear Mr. Sornson:

This responds to your letter to Administrator Steed, asking this agency to "delay" its final selection of the Chrysler LeBaron GTS and Dodge Lancer car lines as "high theft lines" for the purposes of 49 CFR part 541, Federal Motor Vehicle Theft Prevention Standard. Section 603(a)(3) of the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act (15 U.S.C. 2023(a)(3)) requires that all selections of lines initially introduced into commerce before the effective date of Part 541 (April 24, 1986) as high theft lines must be made final within one year after enactment of Title VI of the Cost Savings Act. Neither that statutory requirement nor the implementing regulations adopted by this agency contain any provision that would allow this agency to "delay" its final selection. Accordingly, your request is denied.

In accordance with 15 U.S.C. 2023(a)(3) and 49 CFR Part 542, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) informed Chrysler of its final selection of the LeBaron and Lancer lines as high theft lines by letter dated October 25, 1985. That letter was a final agency action on this question, again in accordance with 15 U.S.C. 2023(a)(3). There is no provision in the law allowing us to "delay" final selections, so there is no basis for entertaining your request.

You stated in your letter that the best test of whether a car line should be treated as a high theft line is its actual theft rate. We agree with that statement. However, it does not address the issue of how to treat car lines, such as your LeBaron GTS and Lancer, for which sufficient theft data are not available.

This agency has been told repeatedly by law enforcement groups that the theft rate for a car in its initial year of introduction is almost always lower than its theft rate in subsequent model years. This is because the vehicle population is relatively small, and experiences a lesser exposure to accidents and other damage than do lines which have been available for more than one model year. Accordingly, lines are less desirable targets for chop shops in their first year of introduction than they become in subsequent model years. Because of this phenomenon, NHTSA did not believe it appropriate to make selections of high theft lines based solely or primarily on preliminary theft data.

Under section 603(a)(3) of the Cost Savings Act, the agency was required to select not later than October 25, 1985, (one year after the date of enactment of Title VI of the Cost Savings Act) the high theft lines from among air lines introduced between January 1, 1983, and the effective date of the theft prevention standard. To meet this statutory deadline, NHTSA published a proposal to establish a new Part 542, Procedures for Selecting Lines to be Covered by the Theft Prevention Standard. at 50 FR 25603. June 20, 1985. Section 542.1 set forth six proposed criteria to be used in selecting likely high theft lines from lines such as the LeBaron GTS and the Lancer, which were introduced after January 1, 1983, and before the effective date of the theft prevention standard. These criteria were:

1. Retail price of the vehicle line.

2. Vehicle image or marketing strategy.

3. Vehicle lines with which the new line is intended to compete, and the theft rates of such lines.

4. Vehicle line(s), if any, which the new line is intended to replace, and the theft rate(s) of such line(s).

5. Presence or absence of any new theft prevention devices or systems. 6. Preliminary theft rate for the line, if it can be determined on the basis of currently available data.

Chrysler's comments on the proposal stated, "We generally concur with the proposed procedures. In our opinion the information which the NHTSA is requesting from manufacturers in order to establish anticipated theft rates for their various car lines appears reasonable." General Motors commented that the agency should adopt some weighting of these criteria, so that the process of selecting a line as a high theft line would be more objectively defined. General Motors specifically commented, "Probably the only criterion which could be used with any degree of certainty in selecting vehicles ... is theft data." In the final rule establishing Part 542, NHTSA responded to this comment as follows:

As noted in the NPRM, these judgments of likely high theft lines are partially subjective judgments. NHTSA concurs with GM's statement that neither price nor vehicle image alone can be strictly correlated to vehicle theft rates. However, NHTSA believes that the six criteria set forth in Appendix C considered together do form an objective basis for predicting if a new line is likely to be a high theft line. 50 FR 34831, at 34834, August 28, 1985.

NHTSA continues to believe that the six criteria form an objective basis for predicting if a new line is likely to be a high theft line. When these criteria were applied to the LeBaron GTS and Lancer lines, we concluded that criterion 1 did not point to the cars being either high or low theft, criteria 2 and 3 indicated the lines would be high theft, criteria 4 and 5 were not applicable, and criterion 6 indicated the cars would be low theft. On balance, then, the criteria indicate the lines will be high theft lines.

Accordingly, even if there were some authority to allow us to delay the October 25 final selections, we would still conclude that the LeBaron GTS and Lancer lines are likely high theft lines.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

November 13, 1985

Ms. Diane K. Steed, Administrator National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, DC 20590

RE: Request for Reconsideration, Final Determination of Car Lines Subject to Part 541

Dear Ms. Steed:

Chrysler Corporation hereby requests the NHTSA to delay its final ruling concerning the theft ratings of the Chrysler LeBaron GTS and the Dodge Lancer relative to Part 541 - Motor Vehicle Theft Prevention Standard. Existing theft data for the first six months of the 1985 calendar year clearly indicate these two car lines should not be on the high theft rate list. Additional theft data will be available soon and we believe the final decision on the theft ratings should be deferred until that data is available.

In keeping with the purpose of the law, the best test or whether a car line should be marked is its theft rate. In determining the theft rate of a car line, we believe it is much more realistic and reasonable to use the actual theft data results for that car line rather than to use subjective criteria such as image and suggested competitive car lines. Actual theft data for the full calendar year 1985 should be available from the NCIC by the middle of January. We propose that this actual theft data be used to determine the theft status of these two car lines.

In order to protect the slim lead time remaining for 1987 models, we shall continue preparations to mark the Chrysler LeBaron GTS and the Dodge Lancer. When the NCIC theft data becomes available in January, we request that the theft rate for these two car lines be recalculated to determine whether they remain below the median theft rate and therefore will not be required to have their parts marked.

Sincerely,

R. O. Sornson RSA/jal

ID: 86-1.38

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/13/86

FROM: JOSEPH A. GIAMPAPA

TO: ERIKA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 09/05/86 EST, TO JOSEPH A GIAMPAPA FROM ERIKA Z. JONES; REDBOOK A29; VSA 108

TEXT: Dear Ms. Jones:

My telephone inquiry to the Office of the General Counsel (Joanne Petrie, Esq.) was referred to Steven Ash, Esq., of your staff. The inquiry concerned whether or not a product one of my clients intends to manufacture might be subject to federal regulation. The subject device is an Auto Body Gauge for use by auto body specialists when performing repairs, and is not equipment actually used inside a vehicle. A copy of the patent covering this item is enclosed herewith for explanatory purposes.

I hereby request a formal opinion as to whether or not said device is subject to NHTSA regulations. I would also appreciate your passing on information about any other regulations you might know of which such a device might be subject to.

Meanwhile, let me thank you, in advance, for your time and careful attention to this matter. If I can be of further assistance in this inquiry, please do not hesitate to contact me.

ENCLOSURE OMITTED

ID: 86-1.39

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/17/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Ralph Trimarchi -- President, Trimco International Sales

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

ATTACHMT: 3/1/86 (EST) letter from Erika Z. Jones to Dipl.-Ing F. Vapenicek (Nova Hut Klementa Gottwalda)

TEXT:

Mr. Ralph Trimarchi President Trimco International Sales P.O. Box 322 Flushing, NY 11358

This responds to your letter seeking information about the Federal requirements applicable to automotive wheels that are to be imported into the United States. There are two Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards that apply to wheel rims, one for rims for passenger cars and the other for rims for other types of motor vehicles. It is not clear whether your reference to "automotive wheels" is limited to passenger car wheels, so I have included a discussion of the requirements for both types of wheels. None of our standards set requirements for the parts of the wheel assembly other than the rim.

The two potentially applicable standards are No. 110, Tire selection and rims - passenger cars, and No. 120, Tire selection and rims for motor vehicles other than passenger cars. I have enclosed copies of both standards, along with Standards No. 109 and No. 119, which are applicable to tires and are referenced in the rim standards. For those passenger car rims you wish to import, section S4.4 of Standard No. 110 specifies two requirements. First, the rim must be constructed to the dimensions of one of the rims that is listed under the definition of a test rim in Standard No. 109. This means that the rim must comply with the dimensional specifications shown for that rim size in the current publications of specified standardization organizations, such as the Tire & Rim Association or the European Tyre and Rim Technical Organisation. Second, in the event of a rapid loss of inflation pressure with the vehicle travelling in a straight line at 60 miles per hour, the rim must retain the deflated tire until the vehicle can be stopped with a controlled braking application.

For those rims you import for use on vehicles other than passenger cars, Standard No. 120 also specifies two requirements. The first requirement, set forth in section S5.1.1, is that the rims on a vehicle must correspond with the size tire on the vehicle, i.e., be listed as suitable by the tire manufacturer, pursuant to either Standard No. 109 or No. 119. This would be done in the publications of the standardization organizations, as explained above. This requirement is the responsibility of any vehicle manufacturer that uses your rims as original equipment, since only it would know what size tires will be installed on the vehicle. The second requirement, set forth in section S5.2, is that the rim be marked by the rim manufacturer with five specified items of information. These are:

1. A specified designation indicating the source of the rim's published nominal dimensions:

2. The rim's size designation and, in the case of multipiece rims, the rim type designation;

3. The symbol DOT, which constitutes a certification by the rim manufacturer that the rim complies with the applicable requirements of the safety standards:

4. A designation identifying the rim manufacturer by name, trademark or symbol; and

5. The month and year in which the rim was manufactured.

You stated that you wanted to learn if the rims were subject to any tests by the Department of Transportation. The United States does not use a certification process similar to the European countries, in which the manufacturer delivers the rims to be certified to a governmental entity, and that entity tests the rims to determine if they can be certified as complying with the applicable standards. Instead, in the United States, the individual rim manufacturer must certify that its rims comply with comply with all applicable standards. The certification need not be based on actual tests: the only requirement is that the manufacturer exercise due care in making the certification. Obviously, with respect to the requirements for rims, a manufacturer as defined below is not expected to test if the rims have the necessary markings and if the rim size is listed in one of the standardization organization publications.

You should also be aware of the fact that section 102(5) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1391(5)) treats both the actual manufacturer and the importer of a wheel as its manufacturer. If either the manufacturer or this agency determines that the imported rims do not comply with the requirements of the above-described safety standards or determine that the rims contain a defect related to motor vehicle safety, the manufacturer would be required to remedy the defect or noncompliance. Section 154 (a)(2)(B) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1414(a)(2)(B)) specifies that, if the rims fail to comply within applicable safety standard or contain a safety related defect, the manufacturer must notify purchasers of the safety-related defect or noncompliance and must either:

1. repair the rim so that the defect or noncompliance is removed, or

2. replace the rim with an identical or reasonably equivalent rim that does not have a defect or noncompliance.

Whichever of these options is chosen, the rim manufacturer must bear the full expense and cannot charge the rim owner for the remedy if the rim was first purchased less than 8 years before the notification campaign.

In the event that neither the importer nor the actual manufacturer satisfied an obligation imposed on a "manufacturer" by the Act or our regulations, the agency would consider taking enforcement action against both parties. Any such obligation, however, may be completely satisfied by either party.

Additionally, I am enclosing copies of two procedural rules which apply to all parties subject to the regulations of this agency. The first is 49 CFR Part 566, Manufacturer Identification. This requires either the actual manufacturer of the rims or your company as the importer to submit your name, address, and a brief description of the items of equipment you manufacture to the agency within 30 days of the date these wheels arrive in the United States.

The other regulation is 49 CFR Part 551, Procedural Rules. This regulation requires the actual manufacturer of these rims to designate a permanent resident of the United States as the manufacturer's agent for service of process in this country. Your company may be designated as the agent, if the manufacturer so chooses. Part 551 specifies that the designation of agent must contain the following six items of information:

1. A certification that the designation is valid in form and binding on the manufacturer under the laws, corporate by-laws, or other requirements governing the making of the designation at the time and place where it is made:

2. The full legal name, principal place of business, and mailing address of the manufacturer;

3. Marks, trade names, or other designations of origin of any of the manufacturer's wheels and rims that do not bear its name:

4. A statement that the designation shall remain in effect until withdrawn or replaced by the manufacturer:

5. A declaration of acceptance duly signed by the agent appointed by the manufacturer, and that agent may be an individual, firm, or U.S. corporation: and

6. The full legal name and address of the designated agent.

This designation must be received by this agency before these wheels and rims are imported into the United States.

If you need further information, or a clarification of any of the information set forth herein, please contact Steve Kratzke of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 426-2992.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones

Chief Counsel

Enclosures

11/6/85 Office of Cheif Council National Highway Traffic Safety Adm. 400 7th. St. S.W. Washington, 20590

Dear sir,

I own an import/export company in New York and I am planning on importing automotive wheels from Italy. With regards to this, I would like to know if these wheels are subject to any applicable laws or tests by the Dept. of Transportation. If so, please direct me as to the steps involved if not, send a letter stating such.

Thanking you in advance, I remain,

Sincerly yours,

Mr. Ralph Trimarchi

President

RT/c

ID: 86-1.4

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 01/03/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Mr. R. C. Attwood

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. R. C. Attwood ASE (UK) Ltd. Norfolk Street Carlisle, Cumbria ENGLAND CA2 5HX

Dear Mr. Attwood:

Thank you for your letter of October 8, 1985, concerning the safety belt: anchorage requirements of Standard No. 210, Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages. You asked a question about the anchorage requirements that would apply to a two point automatic safety belt, which has a separate manual lap belt. You asked if it is permissible for the two anchorages of the automatic belt and the two anchorages of the manual lap belt to be located outside of the zones specified in Standard No. 210, if three additional anchorages are located within Standard No. 210's zones. As explained below, the design you described would be permissible, assuming that you are voluntarily providing the manual lap belt.

Section S4.1.1 of the standard requires anchorages for a Type 2 safety belt to be provided at each front outboard seating position. Sections S4.3.1 and S4.3.2 set out the location requirements for Type 2 belts. However, S4.3 provides that the anchorages for automatic restraints which meet the frontal crash protection requirements of Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, do not have to meet the location requirements of the standard.

In interpreting the location requirement, the agency has said that all of the anchorages for an automatic belt may be located outside of the zones specified in Standard No. 210, as long as there are the three anchorages for a Type 2 safety belt located within the zone. Since your design for the automatic belt would provide three anchorages within the required zone, it would be permissible as long as the anchorages meet the strength requirements of the standard.

If you are voluntarily providing the manual lap belt, then its anchorages would not have to comply with Standard No. 210 as long as the use of the lap belt would not degrade the ability of the automatic lap belt to comply with Standard No. 208. However, if you are providing the lap belt to comply with the requirements of S4.1.2.1(c) of Standard No. 208, then the lap belt would have to have anchorages complying with Standard No. 210.

I hope this information is of assistance. If you need further information please let me know.

Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Our Ref: RCA/EC 8th October, 1985

The Chief Counsel U.S. Dept. of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington D.C. 20590 U.S.A.

Dear Sir,

FMVSS 208 a Seat Belt Anchorages

We seek your assistance in resolving a query about the location and number of anchorages in a passenger vehicle fitted with a two point automatic seat belt (passive restraint), and an active lap belt.

We wish to know if it is permissible for both anchorages of the two point automatic belt and both anchorages of the active lap belt to be situated outside the zones stipulated in FMVSS 210 on condition that three additional anchorages are provided in the zones specified in FMVSS 210.

Your early response to our questions will be very much appreciated.

Yours faithfully, R. C. Attwood Quality Assurance Director