ID: hyundai.ztv

Mr. Roger Babcock
Manager, Corporate Affairs
Hyundai America Technical Center, Inc.
5075 Venture Drive
Ann Arbor, MI 48108

Dear Mr. Babcock:

This is in reply to your letter of March 19, 2003, asking for an interpretation as to whether Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 108 preempts a California statute relating to fog lamps.

You reported that "a California statute, Title 13, Section 691" states that "Foglamps shall be mounted so the inner edge of the lens retaining ring is no closer than 10 cm (4 in.) to the optical center of the front turn signal lamp."In your view, "FMVSS 108 allows fog lamps to be located less than 4 inches from front turn signal lamps in certain circumstances" by virtue of "SAE J588, which is incorporated into FMVSS 108."

Under 49 U.S.C. 30103(b), Preemption, a State may prescribe or continue in effect a standard "applicable to the same aspect of performance of a motor vehicle . . . only if the standard is identical to" a Federal motor vehicle safety standard that is in effect. Fog lamps are not required items of lighting equipment under FMVSS No. 108. Thus, the action by California in regulating the spacing between fog lamps and turn signal lamps is not "an aspect of performance" that is covered by FMVSS No. 108. Therefore, we do not find that FMVSS No. 108 preempts the California statute.

We do not view SAE J588 as relevant to this issue. SAE J588 NOV84, "Turn Signal Lamps For Use on Motor Vehicles Less Than 2032 MM in Overall Width," is incorporated by reference in FMVSS No. 108 as the Federal standard applicable to turn signal lamps on passenger cars and motorcycles, and on multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, trailers, and buses of less than 80 inches (2032 mm) in overall width (see S5.1.1 and Table III). J588 does contain references to fog lamps. Under J588, if the lighted edge of "the low beam headlamp or any additional lamp used to supplement or used in lieu of the lower beam, such as an auxiliary low beam or fog lamp" is closer than 100 mm (4 in.) to the geometric centroid of the front turn signal functional lighted area, the luminous intensity of the turn signal lamp is required to be higher than it would be if the spacing between the turn signal and other lamp were 100 mm or greater (See J588, 5.1.5.4 and 5.1.5.4.2). But the reference to fog lamps is illustrative only, and the thrust of J588 is to regulate performance of turn signal lamps.

If you have any questions, you may call Taylor Vinson of this Office (202-366-5263).

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:108
d.5/2/03

ID: Hyundai_flaps_and_dots

Robert Babcock, Manager
Hyundai America Technical Center, Inc.
5075 Venture Drive
Ann Arbor, MI 48108




Dear Mr. Babcock:

This responds to your letter concerning the lower anchorage marking requirements in S9.5 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 225, "Child Restraint Anchorage Systems" (49 CFR 571.225). As explained below, the concept you ask about would be permitted.

By way of background, FMVSS No. 225 requires vehicles to have child restraint anchorage systems consisting of two lower bars and a tether anchorage. The standard contains "marking and conspicuity" requirements for the lower bars to increase the likelihood that consumers will know that a child restraint anchorage system is present in their vehicle and that they will use it. These requirements are for manufacturers either to mark the vehicle seat back with a small circle where the bars are located (S9.5(a)), or to install a child restraint anchorage system such that the bars are visible (S9.5(b)).

You request confirmation "that the marking and conspicuity requirements of S9.5 are satisfied when child seat anchorages that are covered with a removable flap or cover are identified with words, symbols or pictograms within the spacing limitations provided by S9.5(a)(3)". Stated differently, you ask whether, having marked the seat back as specified by S9.5(a), you may cover the bars with an unmarked removable cap or cover.

Our answer is yes, the cover is permitted, even if the cover is unmarked. In the situation you describe, Hyundais marking the vehicle seat back with the small circles specified in S9.5(a) satisfies the marking and conspicuity requirements of FMVSS No. 225. Having met the requirements by the option of S9.5(a), you are not prohibited from placing a cover over the bars. In fact, the requirements of S9.5(a) presume that the lower bars are hidden from view. Covering them as you describe is therefore not a problem. We assume, of course, that the covers will not obscure the circles required by S9.5(a).

If you have further questions, please contact Ms. Deirdre Fujita of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:225
d.3/22/05

ID: Hyundai_S7v2

Mr. Robert Babcock
Hyundai American Technical Center, Inc.
5075 Venture Drive
Ann Arbor, MI 48108




Dear Mr. Babcock:

This responds to your request for an interpretation regarding the seat belt warning provisions of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 208, Occupant crash protection, that pertain to the audible warning requirement. You asked if a two-second delay is permissible before the audible signal is activated. As explained below, a system as you described would not comply with the audible warning provision of FMVSS No. 208.

S7.3 of FMVSS No. 208 establishes a warning requirement to alert vehicle drivers that their seat belt is not fastened. S7.3 provides manufacturers with several options for complying with this requirement. Under each option, a continuous or intermittent audible signal must activate when the vehicle ignition is moved to the "on" or "start" position and drivers safety belt is not in use (S7.3(a)(1) and (2)). The audible signal must sound for a period of not less than four seconds and not more than eight seconds.

In your letter, you asked if a delay was permitted between the time a vehicles ignition is moved to the "on" or "start" position and when the audible signal is activated (assuming the drivers seat belt is not fastened). You stated that self-diagnostic programs may cause a short delay (up to 2 seconds) prior to the vehicle system being capable of functioning fully, and thus may delay the activation of the audible warning for that same period. You asked if this delay, which occurs after the ignition switch is moved to the "on" or "start" position, is permitted under S7.3 of FMVSS No. 208.

As explained above, S7.3 requires the audible signal to activate when the vehicle ignition is moved to the "on" or "start" position. Therefore, the short delay you described would not be permissible.

If you have any additional questions, please contact Mr. Chris Calamita of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Wood
Assistant Chief Counsel
for Vehicle Safety Standards and Harmonization

ref:208
d.8/12/05

ID: Importhookup.2

Mr. Tim Lau
President
Importhookup
21 Carlyle
Irvine, CA 92620

Dear Mr. Lau:

This responds to your October 26, 2004 letter, in which you seek clarification regarding the permissibility of importing replaceable light sources for All Terrain Vehicles (ATVs). We are pleased to have the opportunity to respond to your inquiry.

The National Highway Transportation Safety Administration (NHTSA) regulates "motor vehicles" and "motor vehicle equipment". "Motor vehicle" is defined by statute 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". 49 U.S.C. 30102(a)(6). NHTSA does not regulate vehicles manufactured primarily for off-road use (e.g., ATVs, snowmobiles, dirt bikes) nor the replacement equipment that is manufactured and sold specifically for those vehicles. Instead, the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) has jurisdiction over the safety of such items.

With that said, there may also be State agencies that regulate this equipment, such as through State registration requirements for ATVs. We recommend that you consult with the relevant State authorities with responsibility for motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment regarding any applicable requirements.

If you have further questions, please feel free to contact Eric Stas of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:108
d.1/7/05

ID: INS_SUV

Mr. Mark D. Wallace
Department of Justice
U.S. Immigration & Naturalization Service
Room 6214
425 I Street, NW
Washington, DC 20536

Dear Mr. Wallace:

This is in response to your request for a waiver to purchase motor vehicles that, because of their design for severe off-road use, do not comply with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS). The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not grant this type of waiver. However, as explained below, the vehicles you wish to purchase would not be subject to the FMVSS.

By way of background, under 49 U.S.C. 30101(1) this agency has jurisdiction over "motor vehicles." A motor vehicle is "any vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power manufactured primarily for use on the public streets, roads, and highways[.]" 49 U.S.C. 30102(a)(6). In limited circumstances, we have determined that vehicles designed and sold exclusively for off-road use were not "motor vehicles" and thus, not regulated under the FMVSS.[1] If the vehicles you wish to purchase were intended only for off-road use and therefore not "motor vehicles," they would not be subject to our standards. Furthermore, under 49 CFR 571.7(b), the FMVSS do not apply to vehicles "manufactured for, and sold directly to the Armed Services of the United States in conformity with contractual specification."

In your letter you state that current commercial, "off-the-shelf" sport utility vehicles are unable to meet the demands of operating in the severe terrain as required by the expanding mission of the Border Patrol. In response to this problem, you state that the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) developed a "Terrain-Based Off-Road Vehicle Program," through which the INS is working with different vehicle manufacturers to produce off-road vehicles that are designed to withstand the off-road driving conditions of deserts and mountain passes, based on existing commercial vehicles (e.g. the Chevrolet Silverado 2500HD). You anticipate that these vehicles would be operated by the Border Patrol on public roadways less than ten percent of their driving time.

Your request cites a previous letter from our agency in which we determined that through border enforcement, the Border Patrol functions similar to a component of the Armed Forces.[2] In that letter, the Hummer vehicles bought by the Border Patrol were used in a national security role by protecting "the countrys borders to ensure that persons and goods enter and exit only through official Customs and Immigration stations." The Hummer vehicles were capable of being equipped with military equipment and would carry firearms. As such, the Hummer vehicles were not subject to the FMVSS.

Our agency regards the border enforcement function of the Border Patrol as being akin to a component of the Armed Forces of the United States. Because of the unique mission and method of operation by the Border Control, I have determined that the vehicles in question fall with in the military vehicle exemption and need not be certified as compliant with all applicable FMVSS. In this instance, the vehicles you wish to purchase would be built according to specifications provided by the Border Patrol. The vehicles would be sold directly to the Border Patrol. The vehicles would be used in a capacity similar to that of the exempted Hummer vehicles previously purchased by the Border Patrol and in a capacity similar to that of the Armed Forces. We take no position on whether these vehicles, if purchased by someone other than INS, would be considered motor vehicles with in the context of 49 U.S.C. 30101, et seq.

I hope this addresses your concern.If you have any further questions please contact Mr. Chris Calamita of my staff at (202) 366-0536.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:571
d.3/17/03

ID: itemco.jeg

Mr. Maury Solel
Marketing Manager
Itemco Industries, Inc.
57 Cedar Court
Closter, NJ 07624





Dear Mr. Solel:

This responds to your letter asking about the implications of "supplying to the automotive aftermarket a generic air bag." I apologize for the delay in responding. You ask whether the requirements of Standard No. 208 apply to such air bags. Based on a telephone conversation between you and Edward Glancy of my staff, we understand that you contemplate supplying replacement air bag modules for vehicles whose air bags have deployed in crashes. Your question is addressed below.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized under Title 49, Chapter 301 of the U.S. Code (Motor Vehicle Safety) to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) that apply to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. The FMVSSs apply in different ways. Some apply only to new motor vehicles ("vehicle standards"), others apply to new items of motor vehicle equipment ("equipment standards"), while others apply to both new vehicles and new equipment.

One of the standards established by NHTSA, Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection (49 CFR 571.208), requires air bags to be installed in cars and light trucks. This standard sets forth a number of performance requirements related to air bags. With one exception, Standard No. 208 is a vehicle standard. Manufacturers of new vehicles are required to certify that their vehicles comply with Standard No. 208. The exception is paragraph S9, which is also an equipment standard. This paragraph specifies requirements for pressure vessels and explosive devices for use in air bag systems. Therefore, manufacturers of pressure vessels and explosive devices must certify that they comply with the requirements of S9 of Standard No. 208. You could not sell a replacement air bag module with these components unless the new components were certified as meeting the requirements of S9.

At this time, there are no other Federal motor vehicle safety standards that apply to air bags as items of motor vehicle equipment.

However, a manufacturer of a replacement air bag module would be a motor vehicle equipment manufacturer and would be subject to the notification and remedy requirements for products with defects related to motor vehicle safety (49 U.S.C. 30118-30121). A "defect" includes "any defect in performance, construction, a component, or material of a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment." "Motor vehicle safety" is defined as "the performance of a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment in a way that protects the public against unreasonable risk of accidents occurring because of the design, construction, or performance of a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment performance." 49 U.S.C. 30102.

If the manufacturer or NHTSA determined that the product had a defect related to motor vehicle safety, the manufacturer would have to notify all product purchasers of the defect, and either:

1. Repair the product so that the defect is removed; or

2. Replace the product with an identical or reasonably equivalent product that does not have the defect.

The manufacturer would have to bear the full expense of the recall campaign, irrespective of the option chosen, for any owner who purchased the product less than 10 years before the determination that the defect existed.

There is also a statutory provision that limits how certain entities may modify motor vehicles. Manufacturers, distributors, dealers and motor vehicle repair businesses are prohibited from knowingly making inoperative any part of a device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard (49 U.S.C. 30122). This provision would generally prohibit one of these entities from removing a functional air bag that was installed in compliance with Standard No. 208.

Your letter raises the issue of whether, when a deployed air bag is replaced, Federal law requires use of a replacement air bag that will enable the vehicle to comply with Standard No. 208. The answer to this question is no. Our statute does not require a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair business to return a vehicle to compliance with a standard if a device or element of design has been "made inoperative" by another agent, such as a crash. Thus, Federal law does not require that deployed air bags be replaced or regulate the manner in which such air bags are replaced. However, as explained above, replacement bags must be free of safety-related defects. In addition, some States may have requirements applicable to such replacements.

Furthermore, we emphasize our concern that in order for a replacement air bag to provide protection to vehicle occupants, it is essential that the replacement be properly completed. The repair should be performed according to the procedures specified by the vehicle manufacturer. This may require replacement of system components in addition to the air bag inflator module such as crash sensors, wiring and other electronic components as specified by the manufacturer. Moreover, since air bags are designed for specific vehicles, taking into consideration such factors as the seats, steering column crush stroke force resistance, location of the air bag, location and nature of knee bolsters, and compartment acceleration responses in frontal crashes, we strongly believe that only air bags which are designed for the vehicle in question should be used. Finally, after the air bags are replaced, it is important that the air bag readiness indicator be in good working order to alert the occupants of any future malfunction of the air bag system.

I also note that, during the past several years, this agency and the industry have focused a great deal of attention on ensuring that air bags are designed to create less risk of serious air bag-induced injuries for persons who are close to the air bag at time of deployment. Among other things, manufacturers have reduced the power of many of their air bags and have used innovative fold patterns to reduce the aggressivity of air bags. The fold patterns may be unique to a specific vehicle model. We would suggest that you carefully consider this issue in designing your product.

Enclosed for your information is an information sheet titled "Information for New Manufacturers of Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Equipment."

Finally, you may wish to consult a private attorney concerning the state law implications of supplying replacement air bag modules, including possible tort liability implications.

I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Edward Glancy of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosure
ref:208
d.4/11/01

ID: jack

Paul Jackson Rice, Esquire
Arent Fox
1050 Connecticut Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20036-5339

Dear Mr. Rice:

This responds to your letter of August 30, 1995, concerning a June 6, 1995 letter from this office to C. Rufus Pennington, III. You asked us to confirm that the agency did not take a position as to whether there are "designated seating positions" in the rear of the 1979 911 SC Porsche.

You are correct. As the letter clearly states, "NHTSA cannot make a determination as to whether a vehicle complied with applicable safety standards outside a compliance proceeding."

I hope this information has been helpful.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

ref:208 d:8/30/95

ID: jackson

ID: jan26'95

Mr. Fredd Scheys
President
S.E.C. Carat, Inc.
1379 Old Railroad Bed Road
Madison, AL 35758-9002

Dear Mr. Scheys:

This responds to your FAX of January 25, 1995, to John Womack of this Office asking whether the interpretation letter sent to you on November 16, 1992, and confirmation letter sent you on March 8, 1993, remain valid.

This confirms that these letters remain valid. We note that the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.) was recodified in July 1994. The correct citation today is 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301 - Motor Vehicle Safety.

The first full paragraph of the second page of the November 16, 1992, letter refers to "Title 15, United States Code, section 1397(b)(2)." Under the recodification, the citation has become "Title 49 United States Code, section 30122(b)". Further, the quoted phrase in that paragraph that reads "knowingly rendering inoperative in whole or in part any device of element of design installed in accordance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard" has been restated to read "knowingly make inoperative any part of a device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable motor vehicle safety standard." But the meaning remains the same and there is no substantive change in the prohibition.

Sincerely,

Philip R. Recht Chief Counsel ref:VSA d:1/27/95

ID: JAPIA.ajd

Keiko Utsunomiya
Assistant Director
Japan Auto Parts Industries Association
C/o JETRO Chicago
401 N. Michigan Ave. Suite 660
Chicago, IL 60611

Re:  Request for Interpretation

Dear Ms. Utsunomiya:

This is in reply to your e-mail letter of November 18, 2003, to Mr. Jonathan White of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administrations (NHTSA) Office of Defects Investigations requesting a clarification of several requirements of NHTSAs regulation on reporting of information and communications about potential defects, 49 CFR Part 579.

In your e-mail to Mr. White, you asked whether a supplier has an obligation to report under the following scenario:

Supplier C manufacturers part X for automaker A and B. OEM A received a claim of a fatal accident in relation to a possible defect on X, and recalled vehicles with X. But, OEM A does NOT sell cars in the U.S., so they did not report to NHTSA on the claim and the subsequent recall. OEM B sells cars with X, but has not receive[d] claims on X.

You also stated that your understanding of the above hypothetical is that supplier C does have an obligation to report to NHTSA and requested that we provide you with the legal authority to require that report.

Your question is unclear as to what you understand supplier C needs to report to NHTSA. Based upon the facts in the hypothetical you present, it appears that you pose two questions. First, does a supplier of motor vehicle equipment have an obligation to report a recall campaign that is conducted by a vehicle manufacturer who does not sell motor vehicles in the United States? Pursuant to Subpart B of 49 CFR Part 579, supplier C would not have an obligation to report the recall of the vehicles with part X to NHTSA because OEM A, not supplier C, determined that a safety-related defect existed in part X. See 49 CFR 579.11. In addition, since a foreign government did not require supplier C to conduct a safety-related recall, supplier C is not obligated to report the recall. See 49 CFR 579.12.

Second, does a supplier of motor vehicle equipment have to report a claim of a fatal accident received by a vehicle manufacturer who does not sell motor vehicles in the United States? Pursuant to Subpart C of 49 CFR Part 579, supplier C does not have an obligation to report the fatality claim, since the claim was made against and received by OEM A. See 49 CFR 579.27(b).

If you have any questions, you may phone Andrew DiMarsico of my staff at (202) 366-5263.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:579
d.12/8/03