ID: aiam3581

Dear Mr. Gustafson: This responds to your letter of June 28, 1982, asking abou requirements applicable to child restraints sold in the United States as well as any necessary permits or licenses. You also asked about any U.S. testing organizations, procedures or standards for child restraints.; All child restraints sold in the U.S. must conform with the minimu performance requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 213, *Child Restraint Systems*. The standard also sets out the test procedures that are used to measure the performance of child restraints. There are no other performance requirements or test procedures applicable to child restraints. I am enclosing a copy of the standard.; You are not required to obtain a permit or license from this agenc prior to selling a child restraint in the U.S., nor are you required to obtain approval from any U.S. testing organization. As a manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment, you are required by Part 566, *Manufacturer Identification*, of our regulation to submit certain identifying information to the agency. I have enclosed a copy of Part 566.; In addition,m you would be required by the National Traffic and Moto Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. S1392 *et seq.*) to certify that your child restraint complies with all applicable Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. Under the Act, you would also be responsible for conducting a notification and remedy campaign for any safety-related defect in your product. I am enclosing a copy of the Act, which defines your responsibilities as a manufacturer.; If you have any further question, please let me know. Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam1801

Dear Mr. Cords: This is in reply to your letter of January 6, 1975, requesting a opinion on whether a person who installs a Mico Brake Lock device on a new vehicle before its sale to the first purchaser is required to affix an alterer label in accordance with 49 CFR SS 567.7 and 568.8. You state that you believe the device, which serves as a hydraulic parking brake, is readily attachable because it can be installed in a minimum amount of time and does not in any way alter the operation of the vehicle's original brake system.; The NHTSA will generally abide by a good faith determination on th part of a manufacturer that a device is readily attachable. Such a decision should be based primarily on the intricacy of the installation of the device. Simple tools, a relatively short installation time, and the ability to install the device without extensively modifying the vehicle would all be factors pointing to a decision that a component is readily attachable. You should note that section 567.7 of the Certification regulations also requires an alterer label when the installation of a component invalidates a vehicle's existing weight ratings, whether or not the component is readily attachable. On the basis of your letter, however, it appears to us that this would not occur as a result of installation of the Mico Brake Lock device.; If your device meets these criteria, no additional labeling will b required.; Yours truly, James C. Schultz, Acting Chief Counsel

ID: aiam3580

Dear Mr. Gustafson: This responds to your letter of June 28, 1982, asking abou requirements applicable to child restraints sold in the United States as well as any necessary permits or licenses. You also asked about any U.S. testing organizations, procedures or standards for child restraints.; All child restraints sold in the U.S. must conform with the minimu performance requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 213, *Child Restraint Systems*. The standard also sets out the test procedures that are used to measure the performance of child restraints. There are no other performance requirements or test procedures applicable to child restraints. I am enclosing a copy of the standard.; You are not required to obtain a permit or license from this agenc prior to selling a child restraint in the U.S., nor are you required to obtain approval from any U.S. testing organization. As a manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment, you are required by Part 566, *Manufacturer Identification*, of our regulation to submit certain identifying information to the agency. I have enclosed a copy of Part 566.; In addition,m you would be required by the National Traffic and Moto Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. S1392 *et seq.*) to certify that your child restraint complies with all applicable Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. Under the Act, you would also be responsible for conducting a notification and remedy campaign for any safety-related defect in your product. I am enclosing a copy of the Act, which defines your responsibilities as a manufacturer.; If you have any further question, please let me know. Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam0840

Dear Mr. Stevens: This is in reply to your letter of August 1, 1972, to the attention o Mr. Jerome Palisi of our White Plains, New York Office, concerning certification requirements for a vehicle which you describe and indicate will be used by a college to transport ball teams and school personnel, but will not be equipped with flashing lights or other special school bus equipment. You apparently wish to know whether you must consider this vehicle as a school bus for purposes of certification to Federal requirements.; 'School bus' is defined in the motor vehicle safety standards to mean bus 'designed primarily to carry children to and from school, but not including buses operated by common carriers in urban transportation of school children' (49 CFR 571.3). Based upon the description you provide, the NHTSA would not consider the vehicle you describe to be a school bus. For purposes of certification to Federal requirements (49 CFR Parts 567 and 568), there, 'gross vehicle weight rating' should not be computer under the minimum values specified for school buses. In addition, the requirement that vehicle type be inserted on the certification label should be met in inserting, 'BUS.'; This letter should not be construed to mean that the NHTSA takes position as to whether this vehicle need, under State law, conform to requirements for school buses. The State must determine the scope and application of its own laws.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel

ID: aiam4443

Dear Mr. Maeda: This is in reply to your letter of June 30, 1987 asking for an interpretation of paragraph S4.1.1.36(b)(3) of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. That paragraph specifies in pertinent part that a replaceable bulb headlamp shall be designed to conform to Section 6.1-Aiming Adjustment Test, of SAE Standard J580 AUG79 Sealed Beam Headlamp Assembly. Section 6.1.1 states that 'when the headlamp assembly is tested in the laboratory, a minimum aiming adjustment of +/-4 deg. shall be provided in both the vertical and horizontal planes.' You have asked whether the aiming adjustment is to be achieved by the headlamp assembly, or by both the headlamp assembly 'and by the headlamp when it is mounted on the vehicle.' SAE J580 applies to the design of headlamp assemblies, including the functional parts other than the headlamps, such as aiming and mounting mechanisms and hardware. The assembly may include one or more headlamps. Although the headlamp assembly is tested in the laboratory, its design must be identical to the headlamp assembly used on the vehicle. Thus, if the aiming adjustment requirement is met by the headlamp assembly in the laboratory, it should also be met when the assembly is installed on the vehicle. An individual headlamp installed on the vehicle need not meet the aiming adjustment test unless that headlamp is part of a headlamp assembly comprising only one headlamp. I hope that this answers your question. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel;

ID: aiam0841

Dear Mr. Stevens: This is in reply to your letter of August 1, 1972, to the attention o Mr. Jerome Palisi of our White Plains, New York Office, concerning certification requirements for a vehicle which you describe and indicate will be used by a college to transport ball teams and school personnel, but will not be equipped with flashing lights or other special school bus equipment. You apparently wish to know whether you must consider this vehicle as a school bus for purposes of certification to Federal requirements.; 'School bus' is defined in the motor vehicle safety standards to mean bus 'designed primarily to carry children to and from school, but not including buses operated by common carriers in urban transportation of school children' (49 CFR 571.3). Based upon the description you provide, the NHTSA would not consider the vehicle you describe to be a school bus. For purposes of certification to Federal requirements (49 CFR Parts 567 and 568), therefore, 'gross vehicle weight rating' should not be computed under the minimum values specified for school buses. In addition, the requirement that vehicle type be inserted on the certification label should be met by inserting, 'BUS.'; This letter should not be construed to mean that the NHTSA takes position as to whether this vehicle need, under State law, conform to requirements for school buses. The State must determine the scope and application of its own laws.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel

ID: aiam3974

Dear Mr McCain: Thank you for bringing to our attention the problems experienced b your constituents due to conflicting State laws on motor vehicle window tinting.; The National Highway Traffic Administration (NHTSA) has issued Federal motor vehicle safety standard governing window tinting in new vehicles and replacement equipment, and Federal law also limits the extent to which certain commercial businesses may apply additional tinting. However, Federal law does not preclude individuals from tinting their vehicle windows. That matter is left to the States, and we understand the difficulties that may arise when the tinting laws of adjacent States are inconsistent.; Our agency has been discussing the issue of window tinting with th American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, in an effort to better explain the interaction of Federal and State laws in this area. That may also be an appropriate forum in which to consider ways to resolve conflicts between differing State tinting laws. While NHTSA and each state government has a valid interest in preserving its legal authority, we all share a common interest in promoting highway safety and in minimizing inconvenience to traveling motorists. In our view, a well-coordinated and cooperative approach among the various parties can help to address apparent problems in this area.; We will keep you advised of our progress in those discussions. appreciate knowing of your concern in this matter, and I hope you will feel free to contact me if this agency can be of further assistance.; Sincerely, Diane K. Steed

ID: aiam2867

Dear Mr. Kurre: This responds to your recent letter asking whether Safety Standard No 208 applies to side-facing seats in multipurpose passenger vehicle vans. You also ask to be advised of the criteria to be used for the installation of seat belts in these vehicles.; Safety Standard No. 208, *Occupant Crash Protection*, does require sid facing seats in multipurpose passenger vehicles to comply with one of the options under paragraph S4.2.2, since the side-facing seats in question would be considered designated seating positions. If a manufacturer chooses to install seat belts under one of the options of that paragraph, the seat belt assemblies must comply with Safety Standard No 209, *Seat Belt Assemblies*, and Safety Standard No. 210, *Seat Belt Anchorages*.; Safety Standard No. 210 does exempt side-facing seats from its strengt requirements, but all other requirements of the standard would be applicable. However, we strongly recommend that belt anchorages for side-facing seats be of at least equivalent strength to anchorages for forward and rearward facing seats, since the strength specifications are only minimum performance requirements. Side-facing seats were excepted from the strength requirements specified in the standard because the forces acting on side-facing seats are different from those acting on forward or rearward facing seats and the requirements and procedures were specifically developed for these latter seats.; Please contact this office if you have any further questions. Sincerely, Joseph J. Levin, Jr., Chief Counsel

ID: 2631y

Mr. Samuel Kimmelman
Engineering Product Manager
Ideal Division
EPICOR Industries, Inc.
3200 Parker Drive
St. Augustine, FL 32084-0891

Dear Mr. Kimmelman:

This is in reply to your letter of August 2, l990, with respect to Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. l08.

It is your understanding that, when a vehicle is delivered to its purchaser with dealer-installed trailer hitch and associated wiring, it must conform to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. You interpret the standards as requiring three specific aspects of performance, and you ask whether we agree with those interpretations. These aspects are:

"l. The turn signal flasher must be certified as meeting the FMVSS-108 requirements of a variable load turn signal flasher, over a minimum load equal to that of the vehicle turn signal load and a maximum load equal to that of the vehicle plus the trailer."

This is essentially correct. However, it is not the flasher that is certified but the vehicle in which the flasher is installed; Standard No. l08 does not require certification of original equipment lighting items, only replacement equipment items. Standard No. l08's requirements for turn signal flashers are those of SAE Standard J590b, Automotive Turn Signal Flasher, October l965, which are incorporated by reference. Under the Standard's Scope, the flashers "are intended to operate at the design load for the turn signal system as stated by the manufacturer." If a vehicle is designed for towing purposes, and its manufacturer offers an optional trailer hitch and associated wiring, then that manufacturer must equip the vehicle with a flasher capable of meeting a minimum load equal to that of the vehicle turn signal load, and a maximum load equal to that of the vehicle plus the trailer. That will be a variable load turn signal flasher. The manufacturer of the vehicle is the person responsible for ensuring that the flasher meets the vehicle's design load requirements, and that the vehicle is certified as conforming to Standard No. l08.

"2. The hazard warning signal flasher must be certified as meeting the requirements of FMVSS-l08 over a load range of 2 lamps to the combined hazard warning loads of the vehicle plus the trailer."

This is also essentially correct, and our comments are similar. Standard No. 108's requirements for hazard warning signal flashers are those of SAE Recommended Practice J945 Vehicular Hazard Warning Signal Flasher, February l966, which are incorporated by reference. The Practice's Scope specifies that the flashers "are required to operate from two signal lamps to the maximum design load . . . as stated by the manufacturer." Thus, in order for the vehicle manufacturer to certify compliance with Standard No. l08, it must equip the vehic1e with a flasher that operates over a load range of two lamps to the total hazard warning system load of the vehicle plus the trailer.

"3. The requirement to provide turn signal outage is voided due to the trailer towing capability of the vehicle."

This is correct. Under section S5.5.6 of Standard No. l08, any vehicle equipped to tow trailers and which uses a variable-load turn signal flasher is exempted from the failure indication requirements of the SAE standards on turn signals.

I hope that this answers your questions.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

ref:l08 d:8/3l/90

ID: 2702y

Mr. William D. Rogers
President
SportsCar America, Inc.
400 South Elliott Road
Chapel Hill, N.C. 27514

Dear Mr. Rogers:

We have received the (unsigned) petition of SportsCar America, Inc., for a temporary exemption from Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208, on grounds of substantial economic hardship, and are returning all copies to you for the reasons stated below.

SportsCar America wishes to undertake the importation and sale of passenger cars produced in Brazil. Pursuant to an "Exclusive Distribution Agreement" ("the Agreement") with Alfa Metais Veiculos Ltda. of Brazil, which you enclosed, it has imported a prototype vehicle for study, with reference to its status of conformance with the U.S. vehicle safety and emission standards.

The proper petitioner for this exemption is Alfa Metais Veiculos Ltda., identified in the Agreement that you attached as the "Manufacturer." Under Section l of the Agreement, SportsCar America is to return the prototype to the Manufacturer with "those modifications necessary in order to meet the emission and safety standards necessary for the importation" of the cars, and the Manufacturer will then use it as a model for the production of vehicles for sale in the United States. Under 49 CFR Part 567, the Manufacturer must also attach its certification of compliance to the completed vehicle before its shipment to the United States. Part 555 restricts petitions for temporary exemptions to Manufacturers of motor vehicles.

Although you identify SportsCar America as the "distribution agent", we have no record that the Manufacturer has filed the designation of agent pursuant to 49 CFR 551.45 that is required of Manufacturers offering their products for importation and sale in the United States. Presumably Alfa Metais would wish to appoint SportsCar America as its agent. Once it has done so, SportsCar America may submit the petition on behalf of the Manufacturer. The production and financial data (in dollars, please) must be those of the Manufacturer. However, we regard as relevant to conformance arguments the efforts that SportsCar America intends to make during the time a possible exemption is in effect, as outlined in your petition.

Noting your requests for confidential treatment of information, we are returning all copies of your petition, with our comments. Generally, the agency does not like to accord confidential treatment to all financial data submitted. At a minimum, it would like to include in its notice asking comments from the public a dollar amount of the cumulative net profit or loss experienced by the Manufacturer in the three years preceding the filing of the petition. Similarly, it would like to publish a dollar figure in discussing the effects of a denial of the petition on the petitioner. The purpose of this is our policy that if the public is to make an informed comment on the issue of whether compliance would cause a Manufacturer substantial economic hardship, the public should have access to much the same data as is available to the agency in its determination.

If you would like clarification of any of these matters, Taylor Vinson of this Office (202-366-5263) will be happy to provide them.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

Enclosures ref:555 d:l0/9/90