ID: 07-000630drn

ID: aiam0377

Dear Mr. Grossman:#This is in reply to your letter of June 2 requesting an interpretation of Paragraph S4.2 of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 101.#You may mark your windshield wiper control, and lighting - windshield washing control in the manner indicated in your letter. We do not consider the washing control a wiping control requiring identification as such merely because the wiper is momentarily activated when the washer system is in operation.#Sincerely, Lawrence R. Schneider, Acting Chief Counsel;

ID: aiam5175

Dear Mr. Keizer: This responds to your letter of April 13, 1993 requesting information on the legal responsibilities of businesses that repack or replace air bags in automobiles. I am enclosing copies of five letters which address various issues related to replacement or repair of air bags. The January 19, 1990, letter to Ms. Linda L. Conrad addresses the issue of possible legal obligations to repair a deployed air bag following a collision. The May 13, 1991, and June 11, 1991, letters to Mr. Stephen Mamakas address issues specifically related to the repair of deployed air bags. The March 26, 1993, letters to Mr. Steven C. Friedman and Mr. Jay Lee address issues related to retrofit or replacement air bags. I have also enclosed an information sheet that identifies relevant Federal statutes and NHTSA standards and regulations affecting motor vehicle and motor vehicle equipment manufacturers, and explains how to obtain copies of these materials. I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Mary Versailles of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel Enclosures;

ID: aiam1136

Dear Mr. Chairman: In response to the March 15 resolution of the National Motor Vehicl Safety Advisory Council urging removal of the legal barriers to the introduction of passive restraint systems, I can report that the Department has taken a major step in the direction the Council urges. The proposed test dummy regulation, published April 2, is intended to permit manufacturers to produce vehicles with passive restraint systems under either of the passive options available before passive restraints become mandatory. Upon adoption of the proposed regulation and of the corresponding amendment to Standard 208, the first barrier addressed in the Council's resolution will be removed.; The Council's second concern is with the seat belt installation laws o the States. It would be unfortunate if these laws interfere with the evaluation of fully passive restraint systems. The department will take such steps as seem advisable to remove any legal obstruction to the manufacture and use of vehicles with fully passive systems. We expect to announce our position on this point shortly.; Sincerely,(sic)

ID: aiam4334

Dear Senator Proxmire: This is in reply to your recent inquiry on behalf of your constituent Todd Suer of Janesville.; Mr. Suer, in his letter to you of April 15, 1987, refers to cars 'tha have extra clear head lights besides the ones that are built in ' and asks if there is a law against them.; We are not familiar with the lighting equipment that Mr. Suer mentions It is not part of the front lighting equipment required by the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. It appear to be aftermarket, accessory equipment, and as such, its use is subject to regulations under State law. We suggest that Mr. Suer direct his complaint to State or local authorities.; Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam1566

Dear Mr. Schoen: This is in response to your letter of June 19, 1974, inquiring as t what information must be included in a bill of sale upon the transfer of a motorcycle.; The Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act requires that written disclosure of a vehicle's recorded mileage be provided by the seller to the purchaser at the time ownership of a vehicle is transferred. If the correct mileage is unknown, the Act requires a statement to that effect to be furnished in written form to the buyer. The disclosure statement need not, however, be included as part of the bill of sale and may be executed to the buyer as a separate document. If Northline Honda failed to comply with this disclosure requirement, a civil remedy in the amount of $1,500 or treble damages, whichever is greater, may be available to you under section 409 of the Act, if the violation was committed with the intent to defraud.; Section 403 of the Act makes it unlawful for any person to disconnect reset, or alter the odometer of a vehicle with the intent to change the number of miles indicated thereon. If Northline Honda violated this section with the intent to defraud, section 409 of the Act would provide you with the same civil remedy as noted above.; One way to determine if such an alteration has occurred is to compar the current mileage with that indicated on the disclosure statement provided to Northline Honda by the motorcycle's prior owner. If Northline has no such document you might attempt to find out who the prior owner was and contact him about the mileage. A mechanic might also check out the motorcycle to see if there is any evidence indicating that the odometer has been tampered with or that the cycle has travelled more miles than the odometer registers.; On the basis of the information you have supplied, I suggest that yo contact an attorney about the possibility of bringing an action against Northline Honda. I am enclosing relevant portions of the Act and the odometer disclosure requirements for your use.; If you are in need of any further information, please do not hesitat to let us know.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Acting Chief Counsel

ID: aiam4764

Dear Mr. Waltz: This is in reply to your letter of April 12, l990 stating that Wagner Division 'would like to petition N.H.T.S.A. for a 'Determination of Inconsequentiality' for non-compliance.' Specifically, Wagner wishes to manufacture round sealed beam headlamps (not 'bulbs' as you call it) for Lectric Limited, a small parts business geared towards the antique automobile hobby. The headlamps are intended for use on 'antique automobiles'. We understand that term to mean any automobile manufactured in l940 and subsequent model years that was originally equipped with round sealed beam headlamps. Although the headlamps would be designed to conform to current specifications, those of SAE Standard J579c, the word 'top' would be used on the 7-inch diameter headlamp instead of the designation '2CI' (you mean '2D1'), the numeral '1' for '1C1' on the single beam 5 3/4-inch diameter headlamp, and the numeral '2' for '2C1' on the dual beam 5 3/4-inch diameter headlamp. The lamps would not bear 'DOT' identification. Lectric Limited is willing to 'ink stamp' DOT, 2Dl, 1C1, and 2C1 'on either the face and or the rear' of each headlamp so that they would not be mistaken for those conforming to SAE J579a, and to print instructions for purchasers explaining the difference. Lectric Limited is also willing to insure that the headlamps are marketed only through antique auto specialty retailers. First, let me explain that your request cannot be considered as one for a determination of inconsequentiality. These determinations are made after-the-fact in order to determine whether a manufacturer must fulfill statutory obligations which include replacement, repurchase, or repair of the already-manufactured noncompliant product. What you seek is permission to produce motor vehicle equipment that fails to comply with labeling requirements. Unfortunately, the agency has no exemption provisions which can address this issue. We have authority to exempt manufacturers of motor vehicles from compliance for a temporary period, but we have no authority to exempt manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment, on either a temporary or permanent basis. Further, we cannot waive the marking requirements of sections S7.2 and S7.3 of Standard No. 108, even for the limited purpose and subject to the restrictions you discuss. After due consideration of the matter, we believe that you have no choice other than to conform to the marking requirements of Standard No. 108. Although neither the marking nor the performance of J579c headlamps replicates that of J579a headlamps, I hope that auto enthusiasts will be willing to accept the marking that goes with the improved performance. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel;

ID: aiam4271

Dear Mr. Burman: This is in reply to your letter of January 9, 1987, asking for a interpretation of 49 CFR 571.108 Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 *Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment*. Your client wishes to import, market, distribute and sell a 'clear, plastic headlamp cover...for all makes of cars manufactured in or imported to the United States.' The stated safety purpose of the headlamp cover is 'to protect the glass headlamps on automobiles from breaking.'; three methods of distribution are contemplated: direct sale by you client, sale through auto parts distribution centers, and sale as optional but uninstalled equipment at the time of the vehicle's original sale (the cover in its wrapping would be in the vehicle trunk). You state that the headlamp cover is not intended to be installed by your client, or its distributors and dealers, but will be accompanied by instructions so that the vehicle owner may install it. Warnings will be provided 'about minimum Federal photometric requirements'. You wish to know whether the headlamp cover is subject to Standard No. 108 or any other Federal regulation and, if so, the effect and impact of such regulation.; A plastic headlamp cover is 'motor vehicle equipment', defined i pertinent part by Section 102(4) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 USC 1391(4)) as 'any...accessory, or addition to the motor vehicle....' Its importer is a 'manufacturer', defined in pertinent part by Section 102(5) of the Act as 'any person importing...motor vehicle equipment for resale'. As a manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment your client has the responsibility imposed by Section 151 *et seq* of the Act to notify and remedy in the event that either it or this agency determines that a safety related defect exists in the product, or that it fails to comply with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. You have already noted that headlamp covers are not 'a regulated safety device' under Standard No. 108. A 'defect' under Section 102(11) includes ' any defect in performance, construction, components, or materials'. Under the best of circumstances a plastic cover when new will reduce light output of a headlamp beneath its designer's intent, whether or not the output falls below the floor established by Standard No. 108 as a *minimum* for headlamp performance. In service, a plastic headlamp cover may contain condensation under certain climatic conditions, or grow increasingly opaque through exposure to ultraviolet rays or other atmospheric components, either of which would further affect the design performance of the headlamp. A conclusion could be reached that such a cover contained a safety related defect and that its importer should notify all purchasers and remedy according to the Act.; Safety problems associated with headlamp covers led to thei prohibition when the headlamp is in use, initially under SAE J580 for sealed beam headlamps and later by its incorporation into Standard No. 108, for both sealed beam and replaceable bulb headlamps. The specific prohibition of J580 is why passenger cars are not manufactured with original equipment headlamp covers. Under Section 108(a)(1)(A) of the Act, if a dealer sells a noncomplying motor vehicle, he is in violation of the Act, and may be subject to civil penalties for it. These penalties, under Section 109, range up to $1000 for a single violation, with a cumulative total of $800,000 for a related series of violations. If a dealer at time of sale provides the means through which a new car meeting all Federal safety standards may be rendered noncompliant immediately after its delivery, we would regard that as tantamount to his having sold a noncomplying motor vehicle in violation of the Act.; Although there is no Federal prohibition against a vehicle owne installing and using headlamp covers, there may nonetheless be local laws covering the sale and use of this equipment. We offer no views of your client's potential exposure under common law, in such situations as use of a deteriorated cover, or when used with a substandard replacement headlamp, except to note that photometric 'warnings' may serve no defensive purpose. Photometric values at the individual test points are judged under laboratory conditions. Service facilities do not contain equipment by which on-vehicle compliance of the headlamp can be judged, and the eye is a subjective and unreliable source to discriminate between complying and noncomplying levels of light output.; I hope that this answers your questions. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam1589

Dear Dr. Miller: This is in reply to your letter of July 25, 1974, asking whether a ne model Bunny Dear (sic) child seat ('Sweetheart Seat II') must meet the requirements of Standard No. 213 when the seat is used as an infant carrier. We received from Mr. Samuel Linden of Bunny Bear the tentative instruction sheet which will be furnished with this device. According to these instructions, the device is to be installed laterally across the vehicle seat when used as an infant carrier ('for children weighing 15 lbs. or less and unable to sit up alone') and in the traditional forward-facing mode when used as a child seating system ('by children capable of sitting upright by themselves, and weighing between 15 lbs. and 40 lbs., and whose height is between 24 inches and 40 inches'). The vehicle lap belt is installed differently in each mode, and an adjustment must also be made to the frame when converting from one mode to another.; We would not consider the device, when used as an infant carrier to b a child seating system under Standard No. 213. It would consequently not be required to meet the standard's requirements when installed in that mode. Although S4.11.1 of Standard No. 213 does require that a child seating system in which the attitude of the child is adjustable meet the standard's requirements at each designed adjustment position, we believe the differences in installation for this Bunny Bear device are sufficiently extensive that the modification to an infant carrier is bona fide, and not merely a different adjustment position.; We are concerned, however, about the possibility that users may attemp to recline the device (by loosening and adjusting the wing nuts in the base) when the device is attached to the vehicle in the forward-facing position. Although this adjustment position is not mentioned in the instruction sheet, it seems from the sheet that such an adjustment is possible. The instruction on page 1 of the sheet reading, '[a]lways loosen the lap belt attached to the child seat when changing from one position to another,' adds some further ambiguity on this point. Consequently, we believe that the seat must meet the requirements of Standard No. 213 when reclined in the forward-facing position unless the instruction sheet is changed to clearly indicate that the device should not be reclined when attached in that position.; In addition, because the device has a dual use, we believe the propose certification statement appearing on the first page of the instruction sheet is misleading. It implies that the device meets applicable Federal standards in all configurations, although no standards exist for infant carriers. Accordingly, the statement should reflect the fact that no Federal standards exist for infant carriers.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Acting Chief Counsel

ID: aiam1073

Dear Mr. Mikva: This is in response to your letter of March 19, 1973, in which yo asked that the NHTSA reconsider its decision to disallow the addition of devices such as flags to the warning devices regulated by motor vehicle safety standard No. 125. Your argument was that 'the motion of the flag makes it far more visible as objective test previously submitted to the Department of Transportation have suggested.'; We do not disagree with your assertion that the visibility of th device could be increased by the addition of flags. It is obviously true, and could be said of a variety of devices that could be added to the triangle to increase its size, brightness, or movement. The basic decision involved in the issuance of this standard, however, is that uniformity, and the recognition advantages that are associated with visibility. Although the addition of flags or other devices could increase the visibility of the warning devices, they would decrease their uniformity and recognizability.; For these reasons, your request that the NHTSA reconsider it requirement that warning device consist only of the specified triangle and its supports is denied. I assure you that no 'considerations not of the record' have entered into this decision.; Sincerely, James E. Wilson, Acting Administrator