ID: 86-3.16

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 05/07/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Benjamin R. Jackson

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Benjamin R. Jackson Executive Director Automobile Importers Compliance Association 1607 New Hampshire Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20009

Dear Mr. Jackson:

This responds to your letter following up our correspondence regarding the designation of the target zones under 49 CFR Part 541, Federal Motor Vehicle Theft Prevention Standard. In this letter, you quoted the statement in my February 4, 1986, letter to you that NHTSA knows of a number of means of inscribing numbers on curved surfaces that would permit direct importers to mark those surfaces within the $15 cost limit. You asked me to provide information to you on the means of inscription to which I referred, including the name of the process and the address and telephone number of supplier firms.

The means of inscribing curved surfaces to which I referred in my previous letter to you include technologies such as chemical etching, sandblasting, "shot-peening", and hard-point vibration. Each of these technologies would enable a person to inscribe markings on curved surfaces, and none requires the purchase of very expensive equipment.

This agency does not provide commercial referrals of supplier firms for a number of reasons. Section 606(c) of the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act (15 D.S.C. 2026(c)) requires each manufacturer to certify that its vehicles comply with the theft prevention standard. For this reason, NHTSA does not approve, endorse, or certify that any particular means of marking complies with the theft prevention standard. A listing of supplier firms might be viewed as an approval or endorsement of those firms and their means of marking, and be contrary to the statutory requirement.

Further, as a policy matter, this agency does not provide commercial referrals even absent statutory requirements. By listing a group of supplier firms, the agency would give those firms an unintended "government sanction" for their products. Conversely, any such listing would unintentionally denigrate all firms not included in the listing. Any commercial referrals by this agency would give rise to these potential problems no matter what disclaimers NHTSA attached to the referral.

The theft prevention standard is a performance standard that specifies criteria with which the markings used by your group must comply. You are free to choose the means of compliance. In making that choice, you will have to use your business judgment to decide whether you should inscribe the markings yourself or pay someone else to inscribe the markings. If you choose to pay someone else to inscribe the markings, the choice of whom you should select would again be your decision.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

February 26, 1986

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

Dear Ms. Jones:

Thank you for your letter, dated February 4, 1986, concerning the Federal Motor Vehicle Theft Prevention Standards and the designation of the target zone for parts marking. Your letter was very helpful.

In the last paragraph of your letter, you stated that the NHTSA "knows of a number of means of inscribing numbers on curved surfaces that would permit direct importers to mark those surfaces within the $15 cost limit." It would be extremely helpful to us if you would provide the information to us on the means or inscription referenced, including name of process and address and telephone number of supplier firm.

We will be glad to receive this information from the appropriate persons within NHTSA by telephone, thus avoiding the need for a written response to this letter. Please note that your assistance will be extremely useful to us in our attempts to comply with the vehicle theft prevention standard.

Thank you for your attention and consideration.

Sincerely,

Benjamin R. Jackson BRJ/gr

ID: 86-3.17

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 05/07/86

FROM: BENJAMIN R. JACKSON -- EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR AUTOMOBILE IMPORTERS COMPLIANCE ASSOCIATION

TO: BRIAN MCLAUGHLIN -- SENIOR PROGRAM ANALYST OFFICE OF MARKET INCENTIVES NHTSA - DOT

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 07/23/86 EST, TO BENJAMIN R JACKSON, FROM ERIKA Z. JONES REDBOOK A29 (3), PART 541

TEXT: Dear Mr. McLaughlin:

Thank you for your participation at the AICA Annual Meeting. As you are aware, anti-theft parts marking is critical to our industry and we look forward to continuing the dialogue that has begun between AICA and the NHTSA.

I wish to apologize for the sessions running long, thus putting you on later than we both anticipated. However, your presentation was very helpful and informative. The extensive audience questions provided an excellent opportunity for useful exchange of information. One important revelation was your statement about the requirement for marking of non high-theft models with interchangeable parts with a high-theft models. You indicated that this requirement would only be triggered where the two models in question are in domestic production. This is an important interpretation and we would like to have a written statement on this interpretation from NHTSA.

Again, thank you for giving of your time so that we might better understand the practical nature of the parts marking regulations. We look forward to hearing from you.

Sincerely,

ID: 86-3.18

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 05/08/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: M. Iwase

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. M. Iwase Manager, Technical Administration Department Koito Manufacturing Co., Ltd. Shizuoka Works 500, Kitawaki Shimizu-shi, Shizuoka-ken Japan

Dear Mr. Iwase:

This is in reply to your letter of March 28, 1986, asking about the permissibility under Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 of two different designs of supplementary parking lamp systems.

In your first design, the vehicle headlamps on each side are bracketed by two parking lamps, the one closest to the vehicle edge termed "obligatory" and the inner one "supplementary." Both are designed to comply with Standard No. 108. Paragraph S4.1.3 of Standard No. 108 permits the installation of supplementary lighting equipment as long as it does not impair the effectiveness of the lighting equipment that Standard No. 108 requires. From the information you have provided us, it would not appear that the supplementary parking lamps designed to meet Standard No. 108 would impair the effectiveness of the headlamps, turn signal lamps, or "obligatory" parking lamps.

In your second design, the "obligatory" parking lamps remain outboard of the vehicle's headlamps but a single supplementary parking lamp is installed on the centerline of the vehicle. This lamp will also be designed to comply with the parking lamp requirements of Standard No. 108. From your drawing, it appears that this lamp extends from the centerline almost to each headlamp. This supplementary lamp is also subject to the same restrictions of S4.1.3. Although the design is unusual, the low photometric output associated with parking lamps should insure that this lamp does not impair the effectiveness of Standard No. 108's required lighting equipment.

I hope that this answers your questions.

Sincerely, Original Signed By

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Air-Mail (1/2)

Ms. Erika Z. Jones Date: Mar. 28, 1986 Chief Counsel Ref No.86.03.28.01 National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Re: Supplementary Parking Lamp

Dear Sir:

Many thanks for your kind consideration which you have extended to us.

We would hereby ask for your kind advice to the subject matter.

In S4.1.1 and Attached Table III of FMVSS No. 108, passenger cars of less than 80 inches overall width are required to be equipped with at least one(1) parking lamp on each side of the vertical centerline.

According to this prescription, a supplementary parking lamp is being equipped on passenger cars in addition to an obligatory parking lamp which is specified in the FMVSS No. 108.

We would hereby ask you to provide us with your kind advice as to whether such a supplementary parking lamp as shown in Case-A or Case-B could be accepted or not under the FMVSS No. 108.

"INSERT FORMULA"

Supplementary Parking Lamp Headlamp obligatory Parking Lamp specified in FMVSS No. 108

Note: 1. A supplementary parking lamp will be installed on each side of the vertical centerline and located adjacent and inner to headlamps.

2. This supplementary parking lamp will be designed to comply with the requirements of performance specified in FMVSS No. 108.

Atten.: Ms. Erika Z. Jones Date : Mar. 28, 1986

Case-B:

Supplementary Parking Lamp Headlamp obligatory parking Lamp specified in FMVSS No. 108

Note: 1. A supplementary parking lamp will be installed on the centerline of vehicle.

2. This supplementary parking lamp will be designed to comply with the requirements of performance specified in FMVSS No. 108.

Upon your kind review to this matter, your kind and prompt reply would be greatly appreciated.

Yours very truly,

M. Iwase, Manager Technical Administration Dept. KOITO MANUFACTURING CO., LTD. Shizuoka Works

ID: 86-3.2

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 05/01/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: A.D. Fish

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. A. D. Fish Road Transport Division Ministry of Transportation Aurora House 62 The Terrace Wellington, New Zealand

Dear Mr. Fish:

We regret the delay in responding to your letter (14/1/9) dated September 18, 1985, to Mr. Francis Armstrong requesting information in relation to our compliance test report number 213-CAL-83-011-33-011. Your letter was referred to my office.

In your letter you asked for an interpretation of Standard No. 213, Child Restraint Systems, regarding the reason for the test laboratory marking two parts of the test procedure as not applicable to your child restraint. The answers to your specific questions are as follows:

1. Page 12--Resistance to Microorganisms. Polyester and nylon, which comprise 100% of all vehicle seat belt and child seat harness webbing, are inherently resistant to microorganisms. Therefore, in an exercise of its prosecutorial discretion, the agency has thus far chosen not to conduct this test on nylon and polyester belts. If a child restraint harness or vehicle seat belt were found to be made of cotton or some other fibrous material, the resistance to microorganisms test would be conducted on those materials. In addition, the agency reserves the authority to test nylon and polyester belts as well, although it has no plans to do so.

2. Page 26--S5.4.3.3. Seating Systems. The requirements of S5.4.3.3 apply to child restraints that are "designed for use by a child in a seated position." Infant restraints are designed to place the child in a rear-facing, semi-recumbent position instead of a seated position and therefore S5.4.3.3 is not applicable to them. Since infant restraints are rear-facing, the major forces acting on the child's body from vehicle deceleration are exerted by the foam liner/plastic shell instead of the belt system. In addition, all infant restraints on the market are equipped with a three-point harness system (shoulder belt/crotch strap) to position the child and hold him or her in the restraint during rebound.

Sincerely,

Original Signed By

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

modifies its own vehicles. Since a vehicle owner is free under the Safety Act to alter its own vehicles, any such action by Wayne County or its school systems does not violate the Safety not or render them subject to any penalty under the Act. On the other hand, Wayne County's conversion of the vans would, of course, still have to comply with any applicable state laws.

If you have further questions, please contact my office.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Enclosure

14/1/9 ROAD TRANSPORT DIVISION

18 September 1985

AIRMAIL

Contract Technical Manager Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance U.S. Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590 U.S.A.

Dear Sir

We are experiencing some difficulty in interpreting FMVSS 213 in relation to your report number 213-CAL-83-011 and would be glad of any assistance you may be able to give us in this regard. The two points of difficulty are as follows: 1. Page 12. Resistance to micro-organisms.

The report lists this as N/A. However, my copy of FMVSS 213, S5.4.1(b) indicates that S4.3(e) to (h) of FMVSS 209 apply. (Presumably meaning S4.2).

2. Page 26. S5.4.3.3. Seating Systems.

FMVSS 213 seems to require upper torso and lower torso restraints, but the report lists this section as N/A and the restraint system does not seem to comply.

Your advice on the above points would be greatly appreciated.

Yours faithfully

A.D. Fish for Director, Road Transport Division

18I5/Trl

ID: 86-3.20

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 05/08/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Thomas T. Griffing

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Thomas T. Griffing Manager, Technical Services Yokohama Tire Corporation 1530 Church Road Montebello, CA 90640

Dear Mr. Griffing:

This responds to your letter to Mr. Glen Ludwig, of our Enforcement division, seeking an interpretation of Standard No. 119, New Pneumatic Tires for Motor Vehicles Other Than passenger Cars (49 CFR S571.119). Specifically, you stated that your company would like to label the following information on medium truck tires, in addition to the information specifically required to appear on the tires by Standard No. 119:

1. the load index specified by the International Standards Organization (ISO): and

2. the speed rating specified by the European Tire and Rim Technical Organisation (ETRTO).

You asked two questions concerning these markings. First, you asked whether Standard No. 119 allows tire manufacturers to place two different load plates on tires, one for Standard No. 119 and one with the ISO load index, even if the maximum load given in pounds is not exactly the kilogram value for the maximum load of the listed ISO load index. The answer to this question depends on whether the ISO load index information is presented in a manner that would obscure or confuse the meaning of the information required to appear on the sidewall of the tire by Standard No. 119, or otherwise defeat the purpose of the required information.

Paragraph S6.5 of Standard No. 119 requires that certain information be labeled on the sidewalls of each tire subject to this standard. The agency has frequently stated in past interpretations that the purpose of these labeling requirements is to provide the consumer, in a clear and straightforward manner, with technical information necessary for the safe use of the tires. See, for example, the enclosed April 30, 1980 letter to Mr. Arnold van Ruitenbeek. Standard No. 119 permits tire manufacturers to label additional information on the sidewall of the tires, provided that the additional information does not obscure or confuse the meaning of the required information, or otherwise defeat its purpose.

It is not clear from your letter whether you are proposing to add just the ISO load index to the required information on the sidewall of the tires, or that load index and a separate maximum load rating expressed in kilograms. If you are proposing the former course of action, Standard No. 119 does not prohibit tire manufacturers from adding the ISO load index to the information required by Standard No. 119 to appear on the sidewall of the tires, provided that the load index is shown in such a was that it is not confusing to consumers. This agency sent two letters to Michelin Tire Corporation on this subject, dated July 14, 1980 and August 28, 1980. I have enclosed copies of these letters for your information.

If, on the other hand, you are proposing the latter course of action, NHTSA has said that the load and inflation pressure information can be expressed in both English units and metric units, provided that the metric units are equivalent to the English units. See the enclosed April 5, 1979 letter to Mr. Michael Petler. However, Standard No. 119 does not permit a tire manufacturer to list two different maximum load values on its tires. See the enclosed August 18, 1983 letter to Mr. Arnold van Ruitenbeek. Accordingly, if your company's tires were to List one value as the maximum load rating in pounds and a different value as the maximum load rating in kilograms, NHTSA would consider such labeling to be a violation of the requirement in S6.5(d) that tires be labeled with "the maximum load rating". Two different maximum load ratings on the same tire could confuse consumers, and give rise to questions about which of the two loads is really "the maximum load" the tire can carry. Such confusion would frustrate the purpose of the labeling requirement in Standard No. 119. Accordingly, such labeling would violate the requirement of S6.5(d) of the Standard.

Your second question was whether this Department put out any special instructions for tire manufacturers regarding the placement on the tire of the ETRTO and ISO information. As explained above, Standard No. 119 prohibits the addition of information to tire sidewalls only if such information confuses or obscures the meaning of the required information, or otherwise defeats the purpose of the required information. There are no further "special instructions" concerning this requirement. In past agency interpretations, the agency has made clear that the ETRTO speed ratings and the ISO load indices may be included in a tire's size designation without violating this prohibition. See the enclosed June 25, 1981 letter to Mr. Keigo Ohgiya for the ETRTO speed ratings and the August 28, 1980 letter to Mr. John B. White for the ISO load indices.

This agency position leaves wide latitude for the tire manufacturers to incorporate such additional information onto the tire sidewalls. One of the reasons for allowing this wide latitude is this agency's hope that the tire manufacturers can collectively agree, through the standardization organizations, to a resolution of the potential problems associated with providing additional information. If the tire companies jointly agree on a method of presenting this information that is not confusing to consumers, no "special instructions" or other actions by this agency would be needed.

Should you have any further questions or need more information on this subject, please contact Steve Kratzke of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 426-2992.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Enclosures

February 5, 1986

U.S. Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Washington D.C. 20590 ATTENTION: Mr. Glen Ludwig

Dear Mr. Ludwig:

Yokohama has been requested by our European Subsidiary Company to install the required load index and speed symbols specified by ETRTO and ISO standards on our medium truck all steel tires for shipment and distribution there. Considering this request, Yokohama recognizes that in addition to the load and inflation markings mandated by FMVSS 119 regulation, a separate plate 'ill have to be installed for the aforementioned ETRTO/ISO markings since carrying capacities and some other information are dissimilar based upon two separate standards. This situation has prompted us to contact you in attempt to clarify the situation and insure we are in compliance with the U.S. Federal regulations.

Accordingly, would you please respond to our questions below concerning these markings:

1. If Yokohama places 2 different load plates on the tire, one for DOT 119 and a separate load index for ETRTO/ISO, is this compatible with the FMVSS 119 regulations even though the load in pounds is not exactly the kilogram value of the load index?

2. Is there any specific instructions put forth by the Department of Transportation to the placement on the tire of the additional ETRTO/ISO information?

In addition to your specific answers to these questions would you please comment upon any other information which you feel pertinent to these tire markings as it applies to Federal FMVSS 119 compliance.

Thank you for you assistance and cooperation.

Thomas T. Griffing Manager Technical Services

TTG:lea

ID: 86-3.21

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 05/12/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Rich Demski

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

May 12, 1986 Mr. Rich Demski Federal Motors Inc. P.O. Box 5000 Ocala, Florida 32678 Dear Mr. Demski: This responds to you request for an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 101, Controls and Displays. You asked about the identification requirements applicable to a coolant temperature telltale. According to your letter and an accompanying drawing, you are currently identifying the telltale with the identifying symbol for the coolant temperature telltale specified by Table 2 of FMVSS No. 101, and the words "ENG WATER TEMP". Noting that some of your vehicles have engines which are air-cooled rather than water-cooled, you asked if FMVSS No. 101 permits you to delete the word "WATER" while otherwise continuing to identify the telltale as described above. As discussed below, the answer to your question is yes. By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, the manufacturer has the responsibility to certify that its vehicles or equipment comply with applicable standards. The following represents our opinion based on the facts provided in your letter. Section S5.2.3 of FMVSS No. 101 states in relevant part: Except for informational read-out displays, any display located within the passenger compartment and listed in column 1 of Table 2 that has a symbol designated in column 4, shall be identified by that symbol. Such display may, in addition be identified by the word or abbreviation shown in column3.... Informational read-out displays may be identified by the symbol designated in column 4 of Table 2 or by the word or abbreviation shown in column 3. Additional words or symbols may be used at the manufacturer's discretion for the purpose of clarity... The coolant temperature telltale is a display listed in Table 2 of FMVSS No. 101, and the symbol pictured in your letter is the identifying symbol for that telltale specified in column 4 of the table. Therefore, under section S5.2.3 of the standard, your use of that symbol to identify the coolant temperature telltale is sufficient identification regardless of what, if any, identifying words you provide for the purpose of clarity. Sincerely, Original Signed By Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

ID: 86-3.22

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 05/12/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: The Honorable Leon E. Panetta

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

May 12, 986 The Honorable Leon E. Panetta Member, United States House of Representatives 380 Alvarado Street Monterey, California 93940 Dear Mr. Panetta: Thank you for your letter on behalf of your constituent, Mr. John Cormick of San Luis Obispo, California, regarding Federal regulations for wheelchairs on school buses. Your letter has been referred to my office for reply, since the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) administers Federal laws applying to school buses. Your constituent requested information about two sets of Federal regulation relating to school bus drivers. He first asked about any regulations issued by the Department of Justice for fingerprint checks of school bus drivers. I understand that those questions have been referred to the Justice Department for reply. His second set of concerns, which you asked us to review, pertain to regulations issued by California that permit temporary placement of wheelchairs in the aisle of school buses during operation of the vehicles. Mr. Cormick believes this is unsafe since a wheelchair might impede access from the school bus in the event of an accident and asks what effect Federal law might have on State adoption of such a regulation. As explained below, Federal law does not prohibit States from issuing a regulation for the temporary placing of wheelchairs in school bus aisles. While NHTSA has issued a number of recommendations to the States for operational requirements for school buses, States establish regulations for school bus use, such as the one described by your constituent. Mr. Cormick is thus correct in contacting State officials to express his concerns and suggestions. Since your constituent asks how Federal school bus regulations affect regulations issued by the States, I would like to begin with some background information on our school bus regulations. This agency administers two sets of regulations for school buses. The first set, issued under the authority of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, applies to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles and includes NHTSA's motor vehicle safety standards for new school buses. Those school bus safety standards set performance standards for various aspects of school bus safety, such as windows and windshields, fuel systems, emergency exits and seating systems. Under the Vehicle Safety Act, manufacturers of new buses must certify that their buses comply with our school bus safety standards if the vehicles are intended for carrying school children, and sellers of new school buses must ensure that complying school buses are only sold. The requirements of the Vehicle Safety Act and our school bus safety standards are Federal requirements which apply directly to school bus manufacturers and sellers and are thus not dependent on State adoption. On the other hand, the second set of regulations we have for school buses is contingent on State implementation. This set, issued under the Highway Safety Act of 1966, applies to Federal funding of State highway safety programs. Each State submits a highway safety program which is reviewed and approved by NHTSA each year. Highway Safety Program Standard No. 17, Pupil Transportation Safety (copy enclosed), contains guidelines for various aspects of pupil transportation programs including school vehicle identification, maintenance, and driver qualifications. One of its recommendations is that school bus drivers meet all special physical, mental and moral requirements established by the State agency having responsibility for pupil transportation. Since States set the procedures for selecting school bus drivers, State officials would be able to provide Mr. Cormick with more information about California's policies governing school bus driver selection and examination. Because we regulate the manufacture and sale of new school buses and not their use, we would have no authority to prohibit school bus users from placing wheelchairs in aisles of school buses. Further, no recommendations for accommodating wheelchairs in school buses have been made in Program Standard No. 17. However, we are concerned about practices that might affect the safety provided by school buses (such as impeding access to school bus exits) and we encourage States to ensure that school children are transported in the safest possible manner. Mr. Cormick's school district might want to consider using school buses that have seating positions specially modified to accommodate students in wheelchairs. Those vehicles have wheelchair positions to which wheelchairs can be firmly secured, which provides safer accommodations to all occupants of the school bus. Please contact me if you or your constituent have any further questions. Sincerely, Original Signed By Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel Enclosure cc: Washington Office

ID: 86-3.23

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 05/12/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Ms. Mary Fulton

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

May 12, 1986 Ms. Mary Fulton Willas USA 8933 Quartz Avenue Northridge, California 91324 Dear Ms. Fulton: This is in reply to your letter of March 24, 1986, enclosing a brochure on your new product "TaleLights," and asking our "opinion of the product's legal standing." The brochure describes TaleLights as a "multi-message signboard" which is mounted "in the same rear window area where the new mandatory 'extra' brakelights are placed." TaleLights features automatically-activated messages such as "STOP," and manually activated ones such as "OOPS! SORRY." The Federal requirements for motor vehicle lighting (Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108) presently cover aftermarket lighting equipment only to the extent that it is intended to replace lighting equipment that is originally installed on a vehicle in compliance with Standard No. 108. We assume from your brochure that your product is intended for installation in vehicles not originally equipped with center high-mounted stop lamps, and under this assumption, your aftermarket product would not be covered by our requirements. It is, however, subject to the laws of each State in which it is to be sold and operated, and we suggest that you contact the motor vehicle administrators of States where you intend to market TaleLights. Your lamp is not an acceptable substitute for a center high-mounted stop lamp and it would be a violation of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act for a dealer, distributor, manufacturer, or motor vehicle repair business to remove a center high-mounted stop lamp and to replace it with TaleLights. Sincerely, Original Signed By Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

ID: 86-3.24

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 05/16/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Takeshi Tanuma

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Takeshi Tanuma Nissan Research & Development, Inc. P.O. Box 8650 Ann Arbor, MI 48104

Dear Mr. Tanuma:

Thank you for your letter of February 5, 1986 (ref. W-141-H), concerning the application of Standard No. 201, Occupant Crash Protection in Interior Impact, to an inside door "pull-handle." You explained that the pull-handle is made of unpadded plastic and does not have a hard inside frame. The drawing provided in your letter shows that the pull-handle is 7.44 inches (186 mm) long, 1.12 inches (28 mm) wide, and projects 1.09 inches (27 mm) from the side of the door. I hope that the following discussion answers your questions.

You first asked if the armrest requirements of S3.5 of the standard would apply to the pull-handle if it is located within the pelvic impact area of either the front or rear passenger door. In determining whether the requirements of S3.5 apply to a structure, the agency has looked at the design and location of the structure to determine whether it is an armrest (See, for example, the agency's interpretation letter of September 21, 1983, to Mr. Suzuki of your company.). In this case, the pull-handle projects far enough from the side of the door so that it could be used to rest the arm. Further, if the pull-handle were located in the pelvic impact area, it is likely to be used to rest the arm. Thus, we would consider such a pull-handle located in the pelvic impact area to be an armrest which must meet the requirements of S3.5 of the standard.

You also asked if the pull-handle would have to meet the requirements of S3.5 of the standard if it were located outside of the pelvic impact area at the upper portion of the door. In a conversation with Mr. Oesch of my staff, Mr. Hayaski explained that the pull-handle would probably be located near the rearmost edge of the door. In this case, it appears that the pull-handle would be positioned above and to the rear of where occupants would normally be expected to rest their arms. Thus, we would not consider a pull-handle located in the upper portion of the door and near the door's rear edge to be an armrest.

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

Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

February 5, 1986 Ref : W-141-H

Ms. Erika Jones Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 7th St., S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Ms. Jones:

Re: REQUEST FOR INTERPRETATION - FMVSS 201, "OCCUPANT PROTECTION IN INTERIOR IMPACT"

On behalf of Nissan Motor Co., Ltd. of Tokyo, Japan, Nissan Research & Development, Inc. herewith requests interpretation regarding the applicability of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 201, "Occupant Protection in Interior Impact," to an inside door "pull-handle" as shown below.

(Please insert graphics)

Material Description :

- Plastic, unpadded - Without any hard (for example, metal) inside frame

Question 1.

If such a small handle is located within the "Pelvic Impact Area" of the door of either the front or rear passenger areas, is Section 3.5 of FMVSS 201 (the armrest requirement) applicable to this kind of feature?

ID: 86-3.25

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 05/16/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Earl J. Ogletree; John Gaski -- Harley Products Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Earl J. Ogletree Mr. John Gaski Harley Products Inc. 904 S Prospect Avenue Park Ridge, IL 60068 Dear Mr. Ogletree and Mr. Gaski: Thank you for your letter of March 28, 1986, asking how our regulations would affect a product you intend to manufacture both as an aftermarket item of motor vehicle equipment and as an item of original equipment on some vehicles imported into this country. You described the product as a sun visor that clips onto a vehicle's regular visor. You further explained that the sun visor has an extension arm that allows the visor to be moved to filter out the sun coming in through the window to the left of the driver, or moved below the original equipment visor or between the two original equipment visors. I hope the following discussion explains how our regulations affect your proposed visor.

Some background information on how Federal motor vehicle safety laws and regulations affect your product may be helpful. Our agency is authorized, under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, 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 Vehicle Safety Act establishes a "self-certification" process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards. The agency periodically tests vehicles and equipment items for compliance with the standards, and also investigates alleged safety-related defects. As explained below, installation of your proposed sun visor in new and used vehicles would be affected by our regulations. In addition, any manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment is subject to the requirements of the Vehicle Safety Act concerning the recall and remedy of products with noncompliances or defects related to motor vehicle safety.

We have issued Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials, which specifies performance and location requirements for glazing used in vehicles. These requirements include specifications for minimum levels of light transmittance (708 in areas requisite for driving visibility, which includes all windows in passenger cars).

No manufacturer or dealer is permitted to install solar films and other sun screen devices, such as the sun visors described in your letter, in new vehicles without certifying that the vehicle continues to be in compliance with the light transmittance and other requirements of the standard.

After a vehicle is first sold to a consumer, modifications to a vehicle are affected by section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Vehicle Safety Act. That section prohibits commercial businesses from tampering with safety equipment installed on a vehicle in compliance with our standards. Thus, no dealer, manufacturer, repair business or distributor can install a sun screen device for the owner of the vehicle, if the device would cause the window not to meet the requirements of Standard No 205. Violation of section 108(a)(2)(A) can result in Federal civil penalties of up to $1,000 for each violation.

Section 108(a)(2)(A) does not affect vehicle owners, who may themselves alter their vehicles as they please, so long as they adhere to all State requirements. Under Federal law, the owner may install sun screening devices regardless of whether the installation adversely affects the light transmittance. However, the agency encourages vehicle owners not to install devices which could impair their vision and thus adversely affect safety. Individual States govern the operational use of vehicles by their owners and therefore it is within the authority of the States to preclude owners from using sun screens in their vehicles.

If you need further information, please let me know.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

LEGAL COUNSEL NHTSB U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION ROOM 5219 400 7TH STREET S.W. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20590

DEAR SIR/MS:

I AM REQUESTING A RULING OR INFORMATION ON THE U.S. GOVERNMENTS POSITION ON THE LEGALITY OF MANUFACTURING AND SELLING A NEW TYPE OF SUN VISOR* FOR USE ON AUTOMOBILES IN THE AFTER SALE MARKET IN THE U.S. ALSO WE ARE PLANNING TO INCORPORATE THE NEW SUN VISOR AS ORIGINAL EQUIPMENT ON AUTOMOBILES MANUFACTURED IN KOREA WHICH WILL BE SOLD IN THE U.S. SOLD.

* THE NEW SUN VISOR CLIPS ONTO THE AUTOMOBILES' REGULAR VISOR. WHAT MAKES THE NEW SUN VISOR DIFFERENT IS THAT THE TINTED SUN VISOR CAN BE MOVED TO FILTER OUT THE SUN VIA AN EXTENSION ARM THAT HOLDS THE TINTED SUN VISOR WITHOUT MOVING THE REGULAR OR ORIGINAL EQUIPMENT VISOR. WITH THE NEW SUN VISOR ONE CAN FILTER OUT THE SUN AT THE LEFT SIDE DOOR WINDOW, BELOW THE ORIGINAL EQUIPMENT VISOR AND BETWEEN THE TWO ORIGINAL EQUIPMENT VISORS.

PLEASE ADVISE US AS TO WHETHER OR NOT THIS IS A FEDERAL ISSUE OR PROBLEM.

SINCERELY, EARL J. OGLETREE AND JOHN GASKI