ID: nht90-2.87

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/15/90

FROM: NORMAN B. SCOTT, JR.,-- SNUG SEAT, INC.

TO: ERIKA T. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 8-15-90 TO N. B. SCOTT, JR., FROM P. J. RICE; (A36; STD. 213); ALSO ATTACHED--PHOTOGRAPH (OMITTED)

TEXT:

During a meeting held at NHTSA offices on June 13, 1990, 1 presented a new product being introduced to the market in the next 60 days which will transport "Low Birth Weight" (LBW) infants in a supine or prone position.

This "LBW" car bed is to be called the Mini-Swinger and will be represented as appropriate for infants no longer than twenty (20) inches and no more than eight to ten (8-10) pounds in weight. The Mini-Swinger was developed as a safer means of transporta tion for the "LBW" population of infants that do not have the skeletal/muscular structure required for safe transportation in the standard rear facing six (6) month old car seats. The Mini-Swinger is protected by patent number 4,113,306 issued to Mr. vo n Wimmersperg and owned by the West German firm, Romer-Britax.

As FMVSS 213 does not deal directly with infants of this size we would like an opinion on the following:

In order to certify to FMVSS 213 we are required to place the six (6) month old seventeen (17) pound dummy in the Mini-Swinger. The six (6) month old dummy's torso fits in the Mini-Swinger; however, the legs do not. A dynamic crash test showed the dumm y staying in the shell and the shell maintaining its integrity.

Given that FMVSS 213 does not address the comfort of the occupant of a car seat, we need to know if you accept our testing as adequate relative to the present standard.

On July 8, 1988, you wrote a six (6) page letter to Donald Friedman, Liability Research, Inc., relative to a similar issue. During review of this letter, it seems evident to me the testing we have done is an acceptable test for compliance to FMVSS 213.

Would you please review our request and let me know your thoughts at the earliest convenience?

ID: nht79-4.46

DATE: 08/21/79

FROM: LEO BACHYNSKY -- R.E. DIETZ COMPANY

TO: CHIEF COUNSEL NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 10/01/79, FROM FRANK BERND -- NHTSA TO LEO BACHYNSKY; OPINION BOOK; STANDARD 108, A17

TEXT: Dear Sir:

Our company is presently developing a new product and is in need of a clarification concerning the legality of the proposed product as it pertains to FMVSS 108.

Briefly, the device is a bi-directional Emergency Vehicle Warning Lamp consisting of two 7-1/2 inch diameter lenses. The lenses contain a 5/8 inch wide band of reflex reflector around their periphery. The two lenses are locked to a mounting flange by a special locking feature and two screws. When mounted, the device will have one lens facing to the front of the vehicle and the other to the rear. The device is to be supplied in a variety of colors, red, yellow, blue, and can be used in either a steady or flashing state.

We manufacture a similar device less the reflex reflector area and previous sales data indicates the majority of the market for this type of device is for tow trucks and utility company vehicles.

We are aware of the fact that Emergency Warning Lamps are not regulated by FMVSS 108 or any other Federal standard, but rather our questions concern the reflex reflector area in the device.

The areas that need clarification with respect to our application are the following:

1. Paragraph S.4.1.3 of FMVSS 108 - "No additional lamp, reflective device or other motor vehicle equipment shall be installed that impairs the effectiveness of the equipment required by this standard."

Does this Paragraph S.4.1.3. restrict the use of the reflex reflector in our proposed device as imparing effectiveness of required equipment?

2. Do Tables 1-4 of FMVSS 108 "Required Equipment for Motor Vehicles" and "Locations of Required Equipment" restrict the use of a red reflex reflector facing the front and yellow reflex reflector facing the rear of the vehicle?

An early reply will be appreciated.

Enclosed is our blueprint of the subject device and an advertising poster showing exact application of the intended device.

Sincerely,

Enclosure (2)

ID: nht93-7.28

DATE: October 19, 1993

FROM: Donald W. Vierimaa -- Vice President-Engineering, Truck Trailer Manufacturers Association

TO: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

COPYEE: Tank Conference Engineering Committee; TTMA Engineering Committee; Retroreflective and Reflector Devices Associates

TITLE: Conspicuity

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 11/22/93 from John Womack to Donald W. Vierimaa (A41; Std. 108)

TEXT:

Often a new tank trailer will be sold to a customer who will contract with another party to have a lining installed in the tank. High heat is used to apply this lining. After the lining is installed, the tank trailer is painted. After the tank is painted, conspicuity treatment is applied. The high heat used in the installation of the lining precludes the application of paint and retroreflective sheeting to the tank before the lining is installed.

In addition, non-tank trailers may be sold without conspicuity treatment when the owner wishes to contract the application of special paint and logo schemes.

49 CFR 568.3 defines an incomplete vehicle as one "that requires further manufacturing operations, other than the addition of readily attachable components, such as mirrors or tire and rim assemblies, or minor finishing operations such as painting, to become a completed vehicle."

Is a trailer manufactured after December 1, 1993 and sold without the conspicuity treatment required in FMVSS 108 an incomplete vehicle? If you consider such a trailer to be a completed vehicle, does NHTSA require that the manufacturer furnish the owner with (1) retroreflective sheeting or reflex reflectors complying with FMVSS 108, (2) instructions as to where on the trailer the conspicuity treatment should be installed, and/or (3) instructions on preparing the surface for the application of the conspicuity treatment? Should conspicuity treatment installed by the owner be deemed to be not in compliance with S5.7 of FMVSS 108, is the owner solely responsible for the violation and for bringing the trailer into compliance?

If NHTSA determines that the installation of conspicuity treatment is a readily attachable component and therefore a complete vehicle, can the manufacturer certify that "This vehicle conforms to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards in effect on the date of manufacture shown above" if the trailer is not furnished with the conspicuity treatment required by FMVSS 108?

ID: nht95-1.97

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: March 10, 1995

FROM: Jeffrey Echt -- President, Saline Electronics, Inc.

TO: Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 4/24/95 LETTER FROM PHILIP RECHT TO JEFFREY ECHT (STD. 108)

TEXT: Dear Chief Counsel,

Thank you for your March 2, 1995 interpretation clarifying the position of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration with regard to deceleration warning systems. In the interpretation, you cited paragraph S5.5.10(d) of FMVSS No. 108 as the basi s for prohibiting the flashing of a vehicle's stop lamps. Paragraph S5.5.10(a) of FMVSS No. 108, however, states:

Turn signal lamps, hazard warning signal lamps, and school bus warning lamps shall be wired to flash.

Based on paragraph S5.5.10(a) of FMVSS No. 108 and the fact that hazard warning indicators are commonly used to warn high-speed trailing traffic that a leading vehicle or leading vehicles are moving slowly or stopped, we seek your opinion on the followin g questions:

1. Would a device which automatically activated a vehicle's hazard warning system at the onset of high, braking-induced deceleration and deactivated the hazard warning system upon release of the brake pedal (following automatic activation) be permissibl e under FMVSS 108? This assumes that the device will not prevent activation or cause deactivation of the hazard warning system if the mandatory vehicular hazard warning signal operating unit has been activated by the driver.

2. If such a device is permissible in principle, would the rear lighting configuration of the vehicle on which it was installed affect its permissibility? Specifically, on which of the following vehicles would installation of the device be permissible?

a) a vehicle with red, combined stop/turn signal lamps

b) a vehicle with red stop lamps and separate, red turn signal lamps

c) a vehicle with red stop lamps and separate, amber turn signal lamps

Once again, we appreciate your consideration of our request and thank you for your prompt action. As before, Saline Electronics, Inc. has no objection to this letter and your response to it becoming a part of the public record.

Sincerely,

ID: 08-00244--139 generic name cord material--3 Jun 08 rsy

ID: 1867y

Mr. Garry O. McCabe
37 E. Cotton Hill Rd.
New Hartford, CT 06057

Dear Mr. McCabe:

Earlier this year you wrote to the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) asking for information concerning your plans to field test a "rapid fueling system" on an existing truck fleet. The FHWA has asked us to review your letter with regard to the regulations we administer. I expect that the FHWA will contact you directly with information concerning their regulations.

By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS's) applying to the manufacture of new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA is not authorized to certify or approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment for compliance with our FMVSS's. Instead, under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (copy enclosed), each manufacturer of a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards. (A general information sheet describing manufacturer's responsibilities under the Vehicle Safety Act is enclosed.)

There is currently no FMVSS that is directly applicable to parts of the fuel system retrofitted to a used motor vehicle. FMVSS No. 301, Fuel System Integrity (copy enclosed), applies only to completed new motor vehicles. (The standard applies to trucks with a gross vehicle weight rating of 10,000 pounds or less.) If the rapid fueling system were installed as original equipment on new vehicles, the vehicle manufacturer would have to certify that the entire fuel system, with your product installed, satisfies the requirements of FMVSS No. 301. Also, if the item is added to a new motor vehicle prior to its first sale, the person who adds the system would be an alterer of a previously certified motor vehicle and would be required to certify that, as altered, the vehicle continues to comply with all of the safety standards affected by the alteration.

If the rapid fueling system is installed on a used vehicle by a business such as a garage or repair shop, the installer would not be required to attach a certification label. However, the installer would have to make sure that he or she did not knowingly render inoperative the compliance of the vehicle with any safety standard, including Standard No. 301. This is required by /108(a)(2)(A) of the Vehicle Safety Act.

The prohibition of /108(a)(2)(A) does not apply to individual vehicle owners who alter their own vehicles. Thus, under Federal law, they 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 if the modification would degrade the safety of the vehicle.

Although Standard No. 301 would not directly apply to rapid fueling systems installed on used vehicles, you should be aware that manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment, which would include your product, are subject to the requirements in sections 151-159 of the Vehicle Safety Act concerning the recall and remedy of products with defects relating to motor vehicle safety. If you or NHTSA determines that a safety-related defect exists, you must notify purchasers of your product and remedy the problem free of charge. (Note that this responsibility is borne by the vehicle manufacturer in cases in which the system is installed on a new vehicle by or with the express authorization of that vehicle manufacturer.) Any manufacturer which fails to provide notification of or remedy for a defect may be subject to a civil penalty of up to $1,000 per violation.

We suggest that you contact the Environmental Protection Agency to see whether the EPA has any type of emissions requirements that might affect the manufacture and installation of the rapid fueling system. The general telephone number for the EPA is (202) 382-2090.

I hope this information is helpful. Please contact my office if you have further questions.

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosures

/ref:301 d:6/l9/89

ID: nht89-2.10

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/19/89

FROM: STEPHEN P. WOOD -- NHTSA ACTING CHIEF COUNSEL

TO: GARRY O. MCCABE --

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 01/25/89 FROM GARY O. MCCABE TO MIKE TRENTACOSTE; LETTER DATED 06/06/89 FROM MICHAEL F. TRENTACOSTE TO STEPHEN P. WOOD -- NHTSA, REQUEST FOR INTERPRETATION OF FHWA AND NHTSA REGULATIONS

TEXT: Dear Mr. McCabe:

Earlier this year you wrote to the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) asking for information concerning your plans to field test a "rapid fueling system" on an existing truck fleet. The FHWA has asked us to review your letter with regard to the regul ations we administer. I expect that FHWA will contact you directly with information concerning their regulations.

By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS's) applying to the manufacture of new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA is not authorized to certify or approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment for compliance with our FMVSS's. Instead, under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (copy enclosed), each manufacturer of a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle e quipment is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards. (A general information sheet describing manufacturer's responsibilities under the Vehicle Safety Act is enclosed.)

There is currently no FMVSS that is directly applicable to parts of the fuel system retrofitted to a used motor vehicle. FMVSS No. 301, Fuel System Integrity (copy enclosed), applies only to completed new motor vehicles. (The standard applies to trucks with a gross vehicle weight rating of 10,000 pounds or less.) If the rapid fueling system were installed as original equipment on new vehicles, the vehicle manufacturer would have to certify that the entire fuel system, with your product installed, sati sfies the requirements of FMVSS No. 301. Also, if the item is added to a new motor vehicle prior to its first sale, the person who adds the system would be an alterer of a previously certified motor continues to comply with all of the safety standards a ffected by the alteration.

If the rapid fueling system is installed on a used vehicle by a business such as a garage or repair shop, the installer would not be required to

2 attach a certification label. However, the installer would have to make sure that he or she did not knowingly render inoperative the compliance of the vehicle with any safety standard, including Standard No. 301. This is required by S 108(a) (2) (A) of the Vehicle Safety Act.

The prohibitation of S 108 (a) (2) (A) does not apply to individual vehicle owners who alter their own vehicles. Thus, under Federal law, they 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 if the modification would degrade the safety of the vehicle.

Although Standard No. 301 would not directly apply to rapid fueling systems installed on used vehicles, you should be aware that manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment, which would include your product, are subject to the requirements in sections 151-1 59 of the Vehicle Safety Act concerning the recall and remedy of products with defects relating to motor vehicle safety. If you or NHTSA determines product and remedy the problem free of charge. (Note that this responsibility is borne by the vehicle ma nufacturer in cases in which the system is installed on a new vehicle by or with the express authorization of that vehicle manufacturer.) Any manufacturer which fails to provide notification of or remedy for a defect may be subject to a civil penalty of up to $ 1,000 per violation.

We suggest that you contact the Environmental Protection Agency to see whether the EPA has any type of emissions requirements that might affect the manufacture and installation of the rapid fueling system. The general telephone number for the EPA is (20 2) 382-2090.

I hope this information is helpful. Please contact my office if you have further questions.

Sincerely,

ENCLOSURES

ID: milazzo1.ztv

Mr. Bryan Milazzo
100 Page Road
Bow, NH 03304

Dear Mr. Milazzo:

This is in reply to your e-mails of January 20 and 27, 2000, to Taylor Vinson of this Office. Your second e-mail withdraws the request for confidentiality that you made in your first communication. Your letter seeks clarification of the status of Ameritech of Ridgefield, CT.

Your first question is based upon an article you read in the December 1997 issue of Road and Track magazine which purportedly listed Ameritech as a manufacturer of certain McLaren F1 vehicles. You ask whether Ameritech is "a manufacturer of this vehicle," as defined under NHTSA regulations.

Under our basic vehicle safety statute, 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301 - Motor Vehicle Safety, "manufacturer" is defined as "a person (A) manufacturing or assembling motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment; or (B) importing motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment for resale." 49 U.S.C. 30102(a)(5). At the time of the December 1997 article, Ameritech had imported several McLaren F-1 vehicles for resale. (We have been advised that these vehicles had been completely assembled in Europe, but not certified for sale in the United States.) Therefore, McLaren was the "manufacturer" of these vehicles within the meaning of section 30102(a)(5)(A) and Ameritech was the "manufacturer" of these vehicles within the meaning of section 30102(a)(5)(B).

You ask whether Ameritech is "a manufacturer of any other automobiles or vehicles listed with NHTSA." We have no information that Ameritech has assembled any other vehicles, but we believe that it has imported other vehicles for resale.

Your next question is whether Ameritech maintains "any facilities for testing their vehicles for NHTSA and DOT FMVSS standards." We have never asked Ameritech, and it has never informed us, whether it maintains "any facilities for testing [its] vehicles for NHTSA and DOT FMVSS standards."

Your fourth question is whether we can supply "any applications of other information specifying that Ameritech meets the definition of manufacturer as referred to under any section of CFR 49."

Enclosed is a copy of a statement that Ameritech filed with us in 1996 pursuant to 49 CFR Part 566, Manufacturer Identification.

You next ask whether "Ameritech McLaren F1 vehicles carry an Ameritech vehicle identification number (VIN) or a McLaren VIN." Enclosed is a VIN "Decipher Information" statement that Ameritech filed, indicating that those vehicles it imported import for resale would carry Ameritech VINs. We do not know whether any of the vehicles also carried McLaren VINs.

You express an opinion that "any company or individual would qualify as a manufacturer for the sake of importing a motor vehicle," and ask "what is preventing me from calling myself a manufacturer and importing any number of cars not meeting FMVSS. Please explain how Ameritech qualifies under NHTSA/DOT and I would not."

You may import "any number of cars not meeting FMVSS" provided you are a registered importer (see 49 CFR Part 592) and we have deemed the cars capable of being modified to comply with the FMVSS (49 CFR Part 593). As a registered importer importing vehicles for resale, you would be a statutory manufacturer of these vehicles, as discussed above. Your principal obligation would be to certify to us that you had modified the vehicles to comply with the FMVSS, and to attach a certification label to the vehicles.

We recognize that Ameritech did not follow this procedure. Although it certified compliance of the McLaren vehicles after modifying them, it was not a registered importer, and the vehicles had not been found to be capable of being modified to comply with the FMVSSs. We did not know in advance that Ameritech was acting in this way. When we did become aware of Ameritech's actions, we informed Ameritech that it was unacceptable, and Ameritech ceased such importations.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
Enclosure
ref:571
d.2/22/00

ID: 1983-1.16

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/08/83

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Talbott Engineers Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your letter of January 11, 1983, asking for an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 104, Windshield Wiping and Washing Systems. The specific question you asked was:

Does S4.1.2 require that multi-purpose passenger cars, trucks, and buses meet the effective wiped area requirements, or does S4.1.2 only apply to passenger cars?

The requirements of section S4.1.2 only apply to passenger cars. Standard No. 104's section S2, Application, provides that the standard applies to passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, and buses. The requirements of certain sections of the standard, however, only apply to some of those vehicle types. Section S4.1.2, Wiped Area, provides:

When tested wet in accordance with SAE Recommended Practice J903a, May 1966, each passenger car windshield wiping system shall wipe the percentage of Areas A, B, and C of the windshield. . . . [Emphasis added]

The above language limits the applicability of that specific requirement to passenger cars, and the section does not have any other requirements applicable to other vehicle types.

We would note that your letter used the term "multi-purpose passenger car" rather than multipurpose passenger vehicle, the term used in the standard. We assume that your use of the former term was a typographical error, and we note it only to avoid any possible misunderstanding.

We have enclosed a copy of the most recent revision of Standard No. 104, as you requested.

ENC.

TALBOTT ENGINEERS INC.

January 11, 1983

Legal Counsel NHTSA U.S. Dept. of Transportation FMVSS 104

Dear Sirs:

I would like the legal interpretation of FMVSS 104, S4.1.2, Wiped Area.

Specifically, my question is

"Does S4.1.2 require that multi-purpose passenger cars, trucks, and buses meet the effective wiped area requirements, or does S4.1.2 only apply to passenger cars."

In addition, could you please send the latest revision of FMVSS 104.

I am working in behalf of a concerned client with a large commercial fleet. Expediting your response will be appreciated.

Terry D. Day, P.E.

ID: nht87-2.94

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 09/17/87

FROM: WILLIAM E. LAWLER -- INDIANA MILLS AND MANUFACTURING INC

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

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 10/14/88 TO WILLIAM E. LAWLER FROM ERIKA Z JONES, REDBOOK A32, STANDARD 208, STANDARD 209

TEXT: Dear Chief Counsel:

We are writing to you to request an official interpretation of portions of FMVSS 208 and 209 with regard to a Type 2 Seat Belt Assembly designed by a customer and ordered by him for installation at a static (non-suspension) driver's seat in a vehicle wit h a GVWR exceeding 10,000 pounds.

The proposed seat belt assembly incorporates an automatic locking retractor to be mounted at the left of the driver's seat and a free-sliding latchplate engineered to remain in view and easy reach when not in use. The webbing is continuous from the retr actor to the anchored end of the upper torso restraint which would be installed above, slightly behind and to the side of the seat occupant. The strengths of all components and the strength of the assembly itself comply with FMVSS 209.

The latter half of 49CFR 571.209 S5.2(i) deals with automatic-locking retractors and their tendency to cinch the seat belt assembly webbing against the occupant while riding on rough roads. In addition, 49 CFR 571.208 S4.2.2, S4.1.2.3, and S7.1, though dealing with lighter vehicles, seem to imply the intent of minimal upper torso restriction. These sections of FMVSS 208 and 209 have been discussed with our customer.

In our opinion, two modifications to the customer's design will convert the continuous webbing feature into separate lap belt and upper torso restraints which will allow his proposed design to comply with the sections of FMVSS 208 and 209 referenced abov e: 1. sew the latchplate to the webbing at a specified location in order to create a standard lap belt 2. place a manual adjusting device in the upper torso restraint.

Our customer has agreed to postpone the order on his original design and use the option we are suggesting until we have received an official opinion from The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.

If you have further questions, please contact me.

Sincerely,

ATTACHMENT

[DRAWING OMITTED] ALR, 3PT. SYSTEM