ID: 86-4.8

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/03/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Davis C. Thekkanath

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Davis C. Thekkanath Sr. Supervising Engineer Oshkosh Truck Corporation P.O. Box 2566 Oshkosh, WI 54903-2566

Dear Mr. Thekkanath:

This is in reply to your letter of May 23, 1986, asking for a waiver from compliance with the headlamp mounting height requirements of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 with respect to prototype and future production trucks you have developed for military application.

No federal motor vehicle safety standard applies to a vehicle manufactured for, and sold directly to, the Armed Forces of the United States in conformity with contractual specifications (Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations Sec. 571.7(c)). This means that the headlamps on production models of your military truck may be mounted higher than 54 inches without creating a noncompliance with Standard No. 108. If the truck is also sold for commercial applications, however, it would be required to conform with the 54-inch limitation.

Although the exception quoted above applies to vehicles manufactured for sale, the agency has no objection to limited use on the public roads of nonconforming prototype vehicles that have been developed expressly for sale to the Armed Forces of the United States.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

May 23, 1986

Office of Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 7th Street, S.W. Washington, D.C.

SUBJECT: Waiver FMVSS1O8

We are manufacturers of heavy duty vehicles both commerical and military. We have recently developed a new vehicle - our model Z-1838. This will be used as a military cargo transport truck. These trucks have their head- lights located higher than the maximum allowable of 54 inches (FMVSS1O8). This is to protect the lamps from the brush and other objects during cross- country runs. Although we do not have a supply contract for the specific vehicles from the U.S. military at this time, we have built a few prototypes for tests, etc. We would, therefore, request you to exempt these vehicles, both the prototypes and any future production vehicles for the U.S. Government, under the Z-1838 configuration, from the headlight height requirements per FMVSS1O8.

Thank you.

Sincerely,

OSHKOSH TRUCK CORPORATION

Davis C. Thekkanath Sr. Supervising Engineer

DCT:lh

ID: 86-5.10

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 09/04/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; S.P. Wood for Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Mr. B.K. O'Neil

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Thank you for your letter of January 22, 1986, asking how our regulations affect a product you manufacture. Your letter and the literature you enclosed describe your product as a modified acrylic tinted shield which fits over the front end of a passenger car. According to the pictures you enclosed with your letter, your shield fits over the headlights of some vehicles, in others it apparently only covers the front turn signals. I regret the delay in our response. As discussed below, your product could be affected by two Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has the authority to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and certain items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA, however, does not approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, nor do we endorse any commercial products. Instead the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act establishes a "self-certification" process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet our safety standards. The agency periodically tests vehicles and equipment items for compliance with the standards, and also investigates other alleged safety-related defects.

The agency has issued Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials, which sets performance and marking requirements for glazing materials used in a vehicle. Auxillary wind deflectors are among the items of glazing materials covered by the standard. The agency has applied the standard to the type of wind deflector that is used at a location necessary for driving visibility. The purpose of the requirement is to ensure that wind deflectors do not obstruct or distort the vision of a driver. Thus, for example, the agency has said in a letter of October 2, 1985, to Mr. Rosario Costanzo that the standard would apply to a wind deflector designed to be mounted in the side window of a vehicle. The literature you enclosed shows that your product, which is a type of plastic shield, is not mounted in a location necessary for driving visibility and thus would not be covered by Standard No. 205.

Installation of your product in a new vehicle prior to its first sale would be affected by Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment, which sets, among other things, minimum candle power requirements for headlamps and turn signals. In addition, paragraph S4.1.3 of the standard prohibits the installation of motor vehicle equipment that impairs the effectiveness of lighting equipment required by the standard. Furthermore Society of Automotive Engineers Standard J580, Sealed Beam Headlamp Assembly, which is incorporated by reference in paragraph S4.1.1.36 and Tables I and II of Standard No. 108, prohibits styling features in front of headlamps when the lamps have been activated. Thus, S4.1.3, S4.1.1.36, and Tables I and II prohibit the use of fixed transparent headlamp covers as original equipment on motor vehicles. Part 567, Certification, of our regulations provides that a person that alters a new vehicle prior to its first sale must certify that the vehicle, as altered, still conforms with all applicable safety standards. Thus, an alterer could not install a version of your product which covers the headlamps of a vehicle. If a version of your product covers the turn signal or any other required lighting device, the alterer must certify that the vehicle lights will still comply with Standard No. 108 with your product in place. Persons violating the certification requirement are subject to a civil fine of up to $ 1,000 per violation.

Installation of your product in a used vehicle would be affected by section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Vehicle Safety Act. That section prohibits commercial businesses from knowingly tampering with devices or elements of design installed in a vehicle in compliance with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. Thus, a commercial business could not install a version of your product which covers the headlamps of a vehicle. If the version of your product covers the turn signal or any other required lighting device, the business must assure that the vehicle lamps will still comply with Standard No. 108 with your product in place. Commercial businesses that violate section 108(a)(2)(A) are subject to a civil penalty of $ 1,000 per violation.

The prohibition of section 108(a)(2)(A) does not apply to individual vehicle owners who may install or remove any items of motor vehicle equipment regardless of its effect on compliance with Federal motor vehicle safety standards. However, the agency encourages vehicle owners not to remove or otherwise tamper with vehicle safety equipment. Also, any modifications made by a vehicle owner would have to comply with applicable state law.

In addition, you as a manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment are subject to the requirements in sections 151-159 of the Vehicle Safety Act concerning the recall and remedy of products with defects related to motor vehicle safety. I have enclosed an information sheet which outlines those requirements.

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

Sincerely,

ENC.

January 22, 1986

Department of Transportation

Attn: Erika Jones Chief Counsel

Dear Ms. Jones:

I have been in contact with Mr. Ed Glassie of your department, and he suggested we contact you for clarification on our product.

AUTOBRA I manufactures a modified acrylic (Plexiglas DR(R)) auto bra, as per the enclosed literature.

I would like to find out if we are approved by D.O.T., or in fact, our product would need approval under your guidelines.

Please peruse our literature and samples, and advise me of your comments.

AUTOBRA I, INC.

B.K. O'Neill Vice President/Marketing

ENC.

P.S. Although there are presently four or five other manufacturers of auto bras in America right now, we are unfamiliar with their position as to D.O.T. compliance. The only difference between us is the type of plastic used.

(Graphics omitted)

Autobra shield has been designed to provide the following innovative features not available with most front end protection: STYLING Autobra shield's aerodynamic styling actually enhances your automobile's appearance.

MOUNTING Mounting Autobra shield is fast and secure without modification to your automobile.

ACCESS Autobra shield provides easy access to your hood or bonnet without total removal of the shield.

PROTECTION Autobra shield's solid acrylic construction provides maximum protection to your automobile from stones, bugs and other flying debris.

SAFETY Abrasion, mildew and damage to body finish of the covered area are eliminated because Autobra shield mounts away from the surface of the automobile.

MAINTENANCE Autobra shield wipes clean with soap and water providing easy maintenance.

Autobra shield's acrylic construction is resistant to the WEATHER elements; RESISTANCE consequently removal of the shield in inclement weather is virtually eliminated.

Autobra shield is available in light tint acrylic for Porsche 911, 930; BMW 318/325, 320; Toyota Celica, Tercel, Pick-Up; Fiero; Corvette; Mustang GT, and other select automobiles.

2177 Andrea Lane Ft. Myers, FL 33908 Florida (813) 482-5603 Toll Free 1-800-445-2886

Dealer inquiries welcomed

ID: 86-5.11

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 09/04/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; S.P. Wood for Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Vincent Foster

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Vincent Foster 146 Argilla Road Ipswich, Massachusetts 01938

Dear Mr. Foster:

This responds to your May 23, 1986, letter to Administrator Steed requesting that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) grant permission to your dealer to modify your motor vehicle. Your letter has been referred to my office for reply.

You explained that you are mildly hemiplegic and that your physical condition makes it difficult to use a key on the right side of the steering column. You wish to arrange with your dealer to move the ignition to a new position on the steering column which would enable you to engage the key with your left hand. You asked if you could obtain permission from this agency to permit this modification by the dealer. I hope the following discussion explaining our regulations will be of assistance to you.

I would like to begin by clarifying that there is no procedure by which persons petition for and are granted permission from NHTSA to arrange to have a motor vehicle dealer modify their used motor vehicle. Dealers are permitted to modify used vehicles without obtaining permission from NHTSA to do so, but are subject to certain regulatory limits on the type of modifications they may make. In certain limited situations, we have exercised our discretion in enforcing our regulations to provide some allowances to a dealer who cannot conform to our regulations when making modifications to accommodate the special needs of persons with handicaps. Since your situation is among those given special consideration by NHTSA, this letter should provide you with the relief you seek.

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 are required by the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act to certify that their products conform to our safety standards before they can be offered for sale. Manufacturers and dealers modifying certified vehicles are affected by S108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act. It prohibits commercial businesses from knowingly rendering inoperative any elements of design installed on a vehicle in compliance with a Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard.

In general Section 108(a)(2)(A) would require dealers who modify motor vehicles to ensure that they do not remove, disconnect or degrade the performance of safety equipment installed in compliance with an applicable safety standard. Violations of S108(a)(2)(A) are punishable by civil fines up to $1,000 per violation.

In situations such as yours where a vehicle must be modified to accommodate the needs of a particular handicap, we have been willing to consider any violation of S108(a)(2)(A) a purely technical one justified by public need. I can assure you that NHTSA would not institute enforcement proceedings against a motor vehicle dealer that modifies the steering column on your vehicle to accommodate your condition. We caution, however, that only necessary modifications should be made to the steering column to accommodate your condition and we urge your dealer to modify your vehicle in such a manner that would not degrade from the safety currently provided by your vehicle.

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

January 27, 1986

Ms. Diane Steed Administrator Motor Vehicle Safety Standards Washington, D. C. 20590

RE: Mr. Vincent Foster 1985 Volvo 146 Argilla Road Vin # YVIFX884GG1013278 Ipswich, Mass. 01938

Dear Ms. Steed:

With reference to USA regulation #114 covering the ignition locking system.

Please consider this a request to waive the above regulation and for permission to modify the ignition locking system.

The reason for this is that it would be in the public interest since Mr.

Foster's right hand is totally disabled. He has great difficulty starting the car.

We are planning to install an additional keyed ignition switch in the let side of the steering column.

If you have any questions regarding the above, please contact Mr. Fred Pomeroy or Ms. Karen Gardella at Congressman's Mavarolis Office.

Sincerely,

Mr. Fred Pomeroy Sales Department

FP/jw

Diane Steed Department of Transportation Office of Motor Vehicle Safety Standards Room 5220 7th St., S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Ms. Steed:

I am writing you to request permission to have the ignition of my and newly-purchased Volvo Sedan (1986 model year) changed from its present position additional/ on the right side of the steering column. I bought the car on January 13, 1986, from Sales, Incorporated, of 230 John Street, Reading , Mass. 01867. A mechanic employed by 128 Sales, Incorporated, will make this alteration if and when permission is granted.

I make this request because my right side is mildly hemiplegic as a result of cerebral palsy, due to a birth injury, a circumstance which makes possible turning the key in the ignition of any automobile with my right hand. Since January I have been driving the Volvo, but in order to start it, I must lean far enough over to reach the ignition with my left hand, which is affected by the cerebral palsy. Thus, I can drive with the ignition on the right, but its relocation to the left side of the steering column would be of great assistance.

As a resident of and a voter in the Massachusetts 6th Congressional District, I turned for help---as soon as I was informed that permission would be required---to the office of my Congressman, Mr. Nicholas Mavarolis, one of his aides, Ms. Karen Gardella, has given me all possible help with this matter. She had believed, until today, that the proper procedure for petitioning. Today, both Ms. Gardella and, through her, I learned that, according to Betsy Harrison, Chief Counsel of the Department of Transportation, petitions by the individuals in question. Hence this letter.

My car is an "86 Volvo, Model 744GEO Sedan. Its Vehicle Identification Number is YV1FX8846G1013278. The salesman with whom I dealt with is Fred Pomeroy. I have a Massachusetts Driver's License.

My legal address is 146 Argilla Road, Ipswich, Mass. 01938, and as I stated earlier, I am a registered voter in the Massachusetts Sixth Congressional District. However, for the next few months I will be in Jackson, Florida., where my telephone number, should you for any reason wish to contact me, (606) 356-5916. Your early attention to this question would be greatly appreciated. Thank You very much.

Sincerely,

Vincent Foster

ID: 86-5.12

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 09/04/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Stephen P. Wood for Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Binichi Doi

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Binichi Doi NSK Representative Office P.O. Box 1507 Ann Arbor, MI 18106

Dear Mr. Doi:

Thank you for your letters concerning the automatic safety belt warning requirements of Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection. You explained in your letters and in conversations with Stephen Oesch of my staff that NSK-Warner is developing a motorized automatic belt system that would be equipped with an emergency release buckle. You also plan to provide voluntarily a manual lap belt with the system. I regret the delay in our response and hope the following discussion answers your questions.

You first asked whether you can use an automatic belt warning system for your motorized belt system which would activate an audible signal under the following conditions: (1) the vehicle ignition is moved to the "on" or "start" position (2) the motorized automatic belt is not fastened and (3) the motorized belt has not reached its locked protective position. As explained below, such a system is permissible, but is not required by the standard.

S4.5.3 of the standard sets forth the requirements for automatic belt systems. S4.5.3.3(b) requires a motorized automatic belt system to have a warning system that sounds an audible signal for between 4 and 8 seconds if the automatic belt latchplate is not fastened or the emergency release is activated and the ignition is in the "on" or "start" position. However, S4.5.3.3(b) does not require the audible signal to be activated until a motorized belt has reached its locked protective mode. Your system would activate the audible signal while the motorized belt is moving to its locked position and it would sound again once it has reached its locked position. Thus, NSK is voluntarily providing a warning that is not required by the standard. As stated in the preamble to the November 6, 1985 notice (50 FR 16063) adopting the new warning system requirements for automatic safety belts, a manufacturer is free to provide additional features as long as the features required by the standard still continue to comply with all the applicable performance requirements. Thus, as long as the warning system provides the warning required by S4.5.3.3(b), NSK may voluntarily provide additional warnings as well.

You also said that NSK is planning to provide an automatic belt warning system for both the driver's and right front passenger's seating position. S4.5.3.3(b) requires an automatic belt warning system only at the left front designated seating position. Thus, the agency would consider the passenger side warning system as a voluntary system, which you may install as long as the driver'a warning system will continue to meet all applicable requirements.

You also asked several questions about when and how long the audible and light warning are to be activated. Specifically you asked whether the warnings must be reactivated when the tongue of an emergency release buckle (referred to as an ERB in your letter) is inserted into the latch mechanism and then removed again within a few seconds. You also asked if the warnings can be de-activated by insertion of the tongue of the emergency release buckle before expiration of the 4-8 seconds specification for the audible warning and the 60 second specification for activation of the warning light. As explained below, if the emergency release buckle has been fastened and then unfastened after a few seconds, the warning does not have to be re-activated until after the ignition switch has been turned "off" and then turned again to the "on" or "start" position. Also if the warning begins to activate and then the emergency release buckle is fastened, the warning may immediately be cancelled and thus does not have to be activated for the full time period specified in the standard.

S4.5.3.3(b) provides that the audible warning and the warning light are to be activated only under certain conditions. Thus, the standard provides that the warnings are to be activated when condition A (the ignition switch is in the "on" or "start" position) exists simultaneously with one of the other conditions, such as condition B (the emergency release buckle not being fastened). Thus, if the emergency release buckle is unfastened and, at the same time, the ignition is in the "on" or "start" position, the warnings must activate. However, if the ignition is not in the "on" or "start" position and the emergency buckle is released, then the warnings do not have to be activated. The agency has previously said, such as in a June 17, 1981 letter to Chrysler, that the warning is not to activate if the safety belt is buckled. Thus, the warning may be cancelled once the emergency release buckle is fastened.

Again, I regret the delay in our response. If you have any further questions, please let me know.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

March 10, 1986

NHTSA Room 5219 400 Seventh Street, S.W.

Washington, DC 20590

Stephen L. Oesch Deputy Assistant Chief Counsel For Rulemaking

Subject: Questions Regarding FMVSS 208, 4.5.3.3(b).

Dear Mr. Oesch:

It was nice meeting with you the other day although I walked into your office without prior notice.

Below is a few questions NSK-Warner would like to ask your office, in addition to the previous request for interpretation of rules stated in my letter of February 4, 1986.

1. When conditions A and B exist simultaneously the audible and light warnings are activated. Under the existance of such conditions (say for two seconds), when a tongue of ERB is inserted into and removed from a buckle within a short time.

a) Are warnings (or one of two types of warning) required to be re-activated?

b) Are warnings required for the initially set time, that is, 4-8 seconds for audio-warning and not less than 60 seconds for light-warning after a tongue is inserted into and removed from a buckle during the initial warning activation time periods?

In other words, are the warning(s) needs to be re-activated for a certain length of time after a tongue is inserted into a buckle (this action would eliminate both types of warning) and removed immediately afterward as long as this sequence of events occurs within 4-8 seconds and not less than 60 seconds of initial activation of warnings?

Yet in other words, can the warnings be de-activated before expiration of 4-8 seconds and not less than 60 seconds by insertion of a tongue, for example, and not required to be reactivated at all until ignition switch is turned off once and turned on again?

2. NSK-Warner is considering the implementation of 'Condition B Warning' on the passenger side, also.

In such case, depending on the timing of anchor point reaching protected-mode at anchor-point, audible warning could last for a total of 16 seconds, 8 seconds on drivers side and 8 seconds on passenger side. Does this cause any rule-related problem?

I only hope that above questions sufficiently are clearly stated so that we can receive your kind consideration and response.

Very truly yours,

Binichi Doi NSK Representative

BD/mt

P.S. We would appreciate it if you could combine above with our previous set of questions for your consideration.

ID: 86-5.13

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 09/05/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; S.P. Wood for Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Mr. William Shapiro

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Sep 5 1986

Mr. William Shapiro Manager, Regulatory Affairs Volvo Cars of North America Rockleigh, New Jersey 07647

Dear Mr. Shapiro:

This responds to your letter concerning a newly designed Volvo child safety seat. You stated that this child safety seat can be certified as complying with Standard No. 213, Child Restraint Systems (49 CFR S571.213), when secured only by a vehicle lap belt, in the rearward-facing mode for infants and in the forward-facing mode for toddlers. In addition, you indicate that this child safety seat can be used in certain vehicle specific installations in Volvo vehicles, and that the vehicle specific installations "provide a higher level of protection." You asked this agency's opinion as to whether this new child safety seat is designed in due care to meet the minimum requirements of Standard No. 213 and whether it can be used in both the universal application (that is, secured by only a lap belt) and Volvo vehicle-specific modes.

With respect to your first question, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safet Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.) provides no authority under which this agency can assure a manufacturer that its product has been designed in due care to comply with all applicable requirements or to otherwise "approve" it. The Act establishes a process of self-certification under which a manufacturer is not required to submit a product to the agency for approval before sale, but simply to provide a certification to dealers and distributors that it does meet all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. If that product does not in fact comply, the manufacturer must notify and remedy the noncompliance according to the Act, and it is in presumptive violation of it (and therefore subject to civil penalties) unless it can establish that it did not have reason to know in the exercise of due care that the product was noncompliant. The statute thus provides an affirmative defense to the manufacturer, but it is a defense that does not arise until there is a violation of the Act, and the burden is upon the proponent to establish it.

Under the Act a product must comply at the time of sale to its first purchaser for purposes other than resale. This means that a manufacturer's responsibility to insure compliance does not end at the design stage, but extends through manufacture, distribution, and sale of the product. In this context whether a manufacturer has exercised due care in the design stage can be an irrelevant question if the noncompliance was caused by an error in the manufacturing process which should have been detected and corrected, for example. For these reasons we cannot provide the opinion that you seek.

With respect to your second question, Volvo can recommend its child seat for use with a lap belt in vehicles other than those manufactured by Volvo and for vehicle-specific uses in Volvo cars. The preamble to the 1979 final rule establishing Standard No. 213 included the following statement: "As long as child restraints can pass the performance requirements of the standard secured only by a lap belt, a manufacturer is free to specify other 'vehicle specific' installation conditions." 44 FR 72131, at 72136; December 13, 1979. Therefore, Volvo can provide the vehicle-specific installation conditions for its child safety seat in Volvo automobiles. Please note that section S5.6 of Standard No. 213 requires manufacturers recommending vehicle-specific installations to provide step-by-step instructions for securing the child restraint in those particular vehicles, as well as providing such instructions for securing the child restraint when it is used in vehicles for which no vehicle-specific installation is recommended.

Please feel free to contact me if you have any further questions or need more information on this subject.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

April 9, 1986

Ms. Erika Jones Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh St., S.W. Washington, D. C. 20590

Re: Request for Interpretation FMVSS #213 - Volvo Child Safety Seat

Dear Ms. Jones:

This will confirm the discussion of March 26, 1986 between Volvo ad NHTSA personnel regarding the Volvo child safety seat. Based on that meeting, we request the following be clarified. Volvo is deeply committed to the safety of all ages of the occupants of vehicles. For the past 10 years, we have marketed in Europe a vehicle-specific rearward facing Volvo child safety seat. We believe the rearward facing mode is a safer way to travel for children than forward facing. Its experience in Sweden has been excellent. However, due to the particular wording in FMVSS #213, we were unable to market it in the U.S.

During the past 1-2 years we have designed ad developed a new Volvo child seat. In the Thursday, December 13, 1979 F. R. V44N241, P. 72136 (Docket #74-9, Notice 6) NHTSA commented on vehicle-specific child seats.

"However, since vehicle specific child restraints can provide adequate levels of protection when installed correctly, NHTSA is not prohibiting the manufacture of such devices. The new standard requires them to meet the performance requirements of the standard when secured by a vehicle lap belt. As long as child restraints can pass the performance requirements of the standard secured only by a lap belt, a manufacturer is free to specify other 'vehicle specific' installation conditions."

Our development for the U. S. was based on this portion of the Federal Register. This seat is designed to be used by both infants (0-1 year) and toddlers (1-about 4 gears). The new Volvo child seat has universal application in automobiles. In addition, it has vehicle-specific modes for Volvo vehicles which provide yet a higher level of protection.

The Volvo child seat is desired to meet the performance requirements or FMVSS #213 when secured by a vehicle lap belt in the rearward racing mode for infants and the forward facing mode for toddlers. This is the universal installation. Because FMVSS #213 is a minimum performance standard, by fulfilling the requirements of FMVSS #213 in these modes we have fulfilled NHTSA intent as stated in the above mentioned Federal Register and believe this seat is designed in due care to meet the requirements of FMVSS #213.

The Volvo child seat in the vehicle-specific mode provides a higher level of protection than the universal application. This is accomplished by the use of an additional vehicle specific attachment strap and hardware. For both the infant and toddler Volvo vehicle-specific mode, the child rides rearward-facing in the vehicle.

We interpret that the new Volvo child seat, as described above, is designed in due care to meet the minimum requirements of FMVSS #213, and can be used in both the universal application and Volvo vehicle-specific modes. Your confirmation of that interpretation would be appreciated as soon as possible.

If there are further questions about the Volvo child safety seat, please contact me at your convenience.

Sincerely, VOLVO CARS OF NORTH AMERICA Product Planning and Development

William Shapiro, P.E. Manager, Regulatory Affairs WS:mc

ID: 86-5.14

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 09/05/86 EST

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL NHTSA

TO: JOSEPH A. GIAMPAPA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 02/13/86, TO ERIKA Z JONES, FROM JOSEPH A GIAMPAPA, REGULATIONS, OCC-0202

TEXT: Dear Mr. Giampapa:

This responds to your letter dated February 13, 1986, regarding an auto body gauge which a client intends to manufacture. The accompanying material describes this device as "a gauge for aligning opposite points within opposite surfaces of a normally symmetric body." It could be used to align a vehicle body following damage in an accident or collision. You ask what Federal requirements are applicable to an auto body gauge. I regret the delay in responding to your letter.

This agency administers the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, as amended (15 U.S.C. 1391 et seq.). Under section 103 of the Act, NHTSA has issued Federal motor vehicle safety standards which are applicable to new motor vehicles and their equipment. The auto body gauge described in your letter would apparently be used by commercial automobile repair businesses when repairing and realigning damaged car bodies. In previous interpretations, NHTSA has said that items, such as wheel balancing machines, are "repair shop" equipment and not "motor vehicle" equipment. The reason is that, although their only use is with a motor vehicle, they are not intended to be used principally by ordinary users of motor vehicle equipment. Thus, we would not consider your client's product an item of motor vehicle equipment.

I hope this information is helpful to you.

Sincerely

ID: 86-5.15

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 09/10/86 EST

FROM: JEFFREY S. JENSEN

TO: NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 12/24/86 TO JEFFREY S JENSEN FROM ERIKA Z. JONES

TEXT: I was referred to your people by the National Transportation Safety Board out of Olympia, Wash.

I have come up with a way to inscribe lettering on the inside of car & truck tail light so that when the brakes are applied that the lettering is seen.

I had thought about going into this on a production basis and wanted to find out if there is any stipulations, conditions or laws, or regulations that have to be complied with. I realize there could be no $99[Illegible Word] words used, but I am not aware of any other limitations that may be imposed.

If you could please get back to me and let me know all the details as soon as possible, so that we could get going on the project right away.

ID: 86-5.16

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 09/12/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: David M. Wise -- Gary Precision Products

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. David M. Wise Gary Precision Products 530 Old Post Road #3 Greenwich, CT 06830

This is in reply to your letter of August 7, 1986( asking if Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, or any other Federal regulation applies to a plastic ice scraper with a reflector on it that you may manufacture.

Although the title of Standard No. 108 is "Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment," the reflective devices covered by the standard are those that are mounted on the rear and side of a motor vehicle, which are necessary for signaling and the safe operation of vehicles during darkness and other times of reduced visibility. It does not apply to ice scrapers. Nor does the other Federal motor vehicle safety standard dealing with reflectivity, Standard No. 125 "Warning Devices," or any other regulation of this Department.

I hope this answers your question.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

August 7, 1986

Ms. Erika Z. Jones Chief Council National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Room 5219 400 7th St. S.W. Washington, DC 20590

Dear Ms. Jones:

Gary Precision Products manufactures a line of injection molded plastic ice scrapers and snow brushes . We are considering the manufacture of an ice scraper with a reflector on it. The reflector will be on the blade portion of the ice scraper.

We would like to know if there are any laws, rules or regulations governing the manufacture or sale of such a product. I specifically refer to U.S. Dept of Transportation Motor Vehicle Safety Standard # 108.

In my conversation with Mr. Taylor Vincent, the law only refers to motor vehicles themselves, not to portable automotive devices used on them.

We would like something in writing stating that there are no regulations or laws we need to comply with in manufacturing this product.

We thank you for your assistance in this matter.

Very truly yours,

GARY PRECISION PRODUCTS

David Wise

ID: 86-5.17

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 09/12/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Davis Thekkanath

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

SEP 12 86

Mr. Davis Thekkanath Oshkosh Truck Corporation P.O. Box 2566 2307 Oregon St. Oshkosh, WI 54903-2564

Dear Mr. Thekkanath:

This responds to your letter dated May 9, 1984, regarding the placement of the vehicle identification number (VIN) on heavy duty vehicles. You asked whether a heavy duty truck must have a VIN that meets the location requirement of S4.6 of the standard or whether the VIN for such a vehicle can be located on the vehicle certification plate. As discussed below, the VIN for a truck with a gross vehicle weight ratings (GVWR) of 10,000 pounds or more can be located on the vehicle certification plate.

Standard No. 115. Vehicle Identification Number - Basic Requirements, requires passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, buses, trailers, incomplete vehicles, and motorcycles to have a VIN. S4.5 of the standard requires the VIN to appear indelibly on a part of the vehicle which is not designed to be removed except for repair or upon a separate plate which is permanently affixed to the vehicle. S4.6 of the standard specifies the location of the VIN inside the passenger compartment for passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, and trucks of 10,000 pounds or less GVWR. However, the VIN location requirement of S4.6 does not apply to vehicles with a GVWR over 10,000 pounds.

As you correctly noted, Part 567, Certification, requires the VIN to be located on the certification label of motor vehicles. Since S567.4(b) requires the certification label to be permanently affixed to the vehicle, the agency considers providing the VIN in this location as complying with the requirement of S4.5 of Standard No. 115.

I hope this information is helpful to you.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

May 9, 1986

Office of Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 7th St. S.W. Washington. D.C. 20590

Subject: Placement of Vehicle Identification Number

Gentlemen:

We are manufacturers of heavy duty vehicles of GVWR of over 10,000 lbs. In our effort to find the exact federal requirement of the placement of the vehicle identification number, we scanned through FMVSS 115 for an answer. It specifically addresses in paragraph 4.6. vehicles of GVWR 10,000 lbs or less. Does this requirement apply for us also?

We currently have the certification label of which "VIN" is a part, placed inside the cab per 49 CFR 567 paragraph 4. Does this satisfy the "VIN" placement requirement? Does the regulation require that "VIN" be placed on any other part of the vehicle in addition to that on the certification label placed inside the cab?

We would appreciate your responding in writing to us as soon as possible.

Sincerely, OSHKOSH TRUCK CORPORATION

Davis Thekkanath Sr. Supervising Engineer

DT:ks

ID: 86-5.18

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 09/12/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Mr. John C. Hilliard

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. John C. Hilliard Chairman & Technical Director Combustion and Fuel Research, Inc. 857-9 South Wagner Road Ann Arbor, MI 48103

Dear Mr. Hilliard:

Thank you for your letter of July 1, 1986 asking how our regulations would affect the placement of the steering wheel on delivery vehicles You asked whether there are any State or Federal regulations which would prevent the installation of a right hand drive steering wheel. As discussed below, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has not issued any safety standards that would prohibit the installation of a right hand drive steering wheel. As to State laws, I suggest you check with the Department of Transportation in the States where your client wants to use the vehicles.

Some background information about our agency and its standards may be of assistance to you. NHTSA has the authority to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and certain items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA, however, does not approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, nor do we endorse any commercial products. Instead, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act establishes a "self-certification" process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet our safety standards. The agency periodically tests vehicles and equipment items for compliance with the standards, and also investigates alleged safety-related defects.

We do not have any standards that prohibit the use of a right hand drive steering system. We have, however, issued two safety standards (Standard Nos. 203 and 204) that set performance requirements which apply to any steering system, whether left or right hand drive, installed in new passenger cars and light trucks, buses, and multipurpose passenger vehicles. A copy of each of these standards is enclosed.

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

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Enclosure

July 1, 1986.

Mr. Stephen Wood Assistant Chief Council for Rulemaking NHTSA 400 7th Street SW Room 5219 Washington DC 20590

Dear Mr. Wood:

On the advice of Mr. Charles Fisher, of the Michigan Department of Transportation , I am writing for information on the following matter.

We have a specific inquiry with regard to placement of the steering wheel on delivery vehicles. As you know, many postal service vehicles and street utility vehicles are equipped, with steering wheels on the right--hand side.

One of our clients is exploring the possible manufacture of delivery vehicles where the driver has to leave the cab at regular intervals. Could you please tell us whether there are any state and/or federal regulations which would prevent the installation of a right hand drive steering wheel for a privately owned, delivery company?

We thank you for your assistance.

Sincerely yours,

John C. Hilliard Chairman & Technical Director

JCH:ph