ID: nht94-6.23

DATE: April 19, 1994

FROM: S. Greiff -- PARS, Passive Ruckhaltesysteme GmbH

TO: Chief Counsel -- US Department of Transportation, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached To Letter Dated 6/8/94 From John Womack To S. Greiff (A42; Std. 208)

TEXT: Per Fax: 001/202-366-3820

Your "Laboratory Test Procedure For FMVSS 208/212/219/301"

Gentleman:

PARS is a company developing occupant restraint systems for the world wide automotive industry. One of our major topics is the development of airbag systems.

For development and validation of the restraint systems we own a Barrier Impact Test Facility which was built up in 1993 new.

Our runway is 80 m (260 feet's) long. The velocity tolerance up to 60 kph is +/- 0.1 kph.

In your Laboratory Test Procedure for FMVSS testing, a minimum runway length of 500 feet is requested.

We would like to ask you for an interpretation of your "500 feet requirement".

It would be much appreciated, if we could get an answer by fax.

Our fax no. is: 01149/6023/942-133

Thank you very much for your efforts in advance.

Sincerely yours

ID: nht95-4.75

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: November 13, 1995

FROM: B. Michael Korte, Esq. -- Law Firm of John B. Schwabe II

TO: NHTSA

TITLE: Airbag Safety

ATTACHMT: 1/29/96 letter from Samuel J. Dubbin to B. Michael Korte (A44; Std. 208)

TEXT: To Whom It May Concern:

I am a lawyer in St. Louis, Missouri who represents a client who injured in a rearend collision with another driver. The other driver's airbag deployed, but the other driver claims that she was travelling less than 15 miles per hour at impact.

I have, as best as I can, reviewed 49 CFR 571.208 and other sections of the Code of Federal Regulations regarding federal standards as to the deployment of airbags. After doing so, however, I am unable to determine whether or not any federal standard s exist as to the deployment of airbags. In other words, I am unable to determine whether or not federal regulations establish a minimum speed that vehicles must be travelling, below which an airbag will not deploy.

I would appreciate it if you would contact me and let me know whether or not any such regulations or guidelines exist. Thank you for your cooperation, courtesy and attention to this request.

ID: nht71-3.10

DATE: 05/27/71

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; R. L. Carter; NHTSA

TO: Ideal Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: In your letter of May 4, 1971, to Francis Armstrong you request permission to conduct testing of turn signal and hazard warning signal flashers pursuant to SAE Standard J823b, "Flasher Test Equipment," April 1963.

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 incorporates by reference SAE Standard J590b, "Automotive Turn Signal Flashers," October 1965, and SAE Recommended Practice J945, "Vehicular Hazard Warning Signal Flasher," February 1966, both of which specify test circuitry and equipment according to "SAE J823." It is my understanding that the major difference between J823 and J823b, which becomes the appropriate sub-referenced standard on January 1, 1972, is the specification in the latter that "The required voltage tests [for variable-load flashers] with maximum bulb load shall be conducted without readjusting each corresponding power supply voltage, previously set with minimum bulb load." It appears that J823 was written before variable load flashers were in general use and that this is the reason for omission of this specification from J823. Since J823b includes all the requirements of the presently referenced SAE standard, you may proceed to implement it immediately.

ID: nht71-4.40

DATE: 11/05/71

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; C. A. Baker for E. T. Driver; NHTSA

TO: Truck-Lite Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of October 14, 1971, to Mr. Lewis Owen of this Office concerning an interpretation regarding your Truck-Lite No. 127 License plate light.

The requested interpretation concerns the 8 degree incident light angle specified in SAE J587, "License Plate Lamps," as follows:

"When a single lamp is used to illuminate the plate, the lamp and license plate holder shall bear such relation to each other that at no point on the plate will the incident light make an angle of less than 8 deg to the plane of the plate."

Since the 8 degree incident light angle is also a requirement of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, all license plate lamp designs must conform to it. It is our position that the angle be measured from the optical center of the lens; therefore, the Electrical Testing Laboratories' position is valid. That is, the incident light angle of your lamp, without the paint shield and when mounted as it will be installed on the vehicle, is below the 8 degree minimum requirement.

ID: aiam4932

"Dear Ms. Nowak-Vanderhoef: This responds to your request for a interpretation of Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies (49 CFR 571.209). Specifically, you asked if General Motors Corporation (GM) could include the term 'dynamically-tested' in the label required by S4.6(b) of Standard No. 209. The answer is that GM may do so. Prior to September 1, 1992, S4.6(b) of Standard No. 209 requires a dynamically tested manual belt to be labeled with the following statement: 'This dynamically-tested seat belt assembly is for use only in (insert specific seating position(s), e.g., front right) in (insert specific vehicle make(s) and model(s)). However, a November 4, 1991 final rule, published at 56 FR 56323, amended S4.6(b) by deleting the term 'dynamically-tested' from the required label, effective September 1, 1992. GM would like to continue to include the term 'dynamically-tested' on its labels. NHTSA has often addressed the issue of whether additional information may be provided along with information that is required to be labeled on the product in the context of our safety standards that apply to tires. NHTSA has consistently stated that additional information may be included on tires, provided that the additional information 'does not obscure or confuse the meaning of the required information, or otherwise defeat its purpose.' See, e.g., our May 31, 1988 letter to Mr. Garry Gallagher of Metzeler Motorcycle Tire. This is the same test we would apply in any of our safety standards for additional information that is provided along with required labeling information. Applying this test to the situation at hand, the purpose of the labeling requirements in Standard No. 209 is to minimize the likelihood of improper installations of dynamically-tested manual belts, by specifying the particular vehicles and seating positions in which the belts are designed to be installed. GM's proposed labels would provide the information about the particular vehicles and seating positions in which the belts are designed to be installed on the label of these belts. The only difference between GM's proposed labels and the exact language specified in S4.6(b) of Standard No. 209 would be that GM's proposed labels would describe the belts as 'dynamically-tested seat belt assemblies,' instead of 'seat belt assemblies.' We do not see how this additional description of the belts, which is accurate and consistent with the agency's use of the term 'dynamically-tested,' would obscure or confuse the meaning of the required information or otherwise defeat its purpose. Therefore, GM's proposed labeling would be permitted under the provisions of S4.6(b) of Standard No. 209 that take effect September 1, 1992. Enclosed with your letter was a petition for reconsideration that you asked be considered if the agency determined that the current language of S4.6(b) of Standard No. 209 prohibited the additional information to be provided on the GM labels. Since NHTSA has concluded that Standard No. 209 permits the additional information, we are disregarding that petition for reconsideration and will take no action on it. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel";

ID: aiam4799

"Dear Mr. Rogers: We have received the (unsigned) petition of SportsCa 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";

ID: aiam3655

Dear Mr. Rudd: This responds to your recent letter on behalf of your constituent, Mrs Jan Wilson, asking whether Federal law restricts motorists from having darkly tinted films installed on the windows of their automobiles.; The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has authority t govern the manufacture of new motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. We have promulgated 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. Seventy percent transmittance is required in all areas requisite for driving visibility, which includes the windshield and all windows in passenger cars. This specification for light transmittance precludes darkly-tinted windows in new automobiles.; The agency has stated in past interpretations that solar films are no glazing materials themselves, and would not have to comply with Standard No. 205. However, use of such films on motor vehicles in certain cases would be prohibited if the vehicle glazing no longer complied with the light transmittance requirements of the standard (most of these films do reduce light transmittance below 70%). If a vehicle manufacturer or dealer places the film on glazing in a vehicle prior to sale of the vehicle, that manufacturer or dealer has to certify that the glazing continues to be in compliance with the requirements of Standard No. 205 (i.e., has to certify that the glazing still has a transmittance of at least 70%).; Regarding vehicles that have already been purchased, sectio 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381) provides that no manufacturer, distributor, dealer or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle in compliance with an applicable motor vehicle safety standard. Thus, none of those persons may knowingly install a solar film on a vehicle for its owner if the vehicle glazing would no longer meet the light transmittance requirements of Standard No. 205. Whether this would be the case would have to be determined by the person making the installation. Violation of this provision could subject the manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business to civil penalties up to $1,000 for each violation.; Please note, however, that under Federal law the vehicle owner ma alter his or her vehicle as is desired. This agency does not govern use of vehicles by owners, this is left to the States. Thus, under Federal law, an owner could install solar film on his or her vehicle whether or not such installation affected compliance with Standard No. 205.; In summary, Federal law does not preclude Mrs. Wilson from havin darkly tinted film on her passenger car, provided she installed the film herself. However, if a manufacturer, dealer, distributor or motor vehicle repair business (including an auto tint shop) installed the film for Mrs. Wilson, they are in violation of Federal law if the glazing no longer meets the 70% light transmittance requirements of Standard No. 205. The State of California is, of course, free to prohibit vehicle owners from operating vehicles with darkly tinted glazing in its jurisdiction.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam5370

"Dear Mr. Schaub: This responds to your letter asking us about Federa Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 105 with regard to replacing brake rotors and/or drums. I apologize for the delay in our response. You stated that local automobile dealership service departments do not follow manufacturers' recommendations in this area, causing your customers to believe that your shop is fraudulently selling and installing parts on vehicles when they are not needed. You requested an interpretation of Standard No. 105 in this regard, and asked whether there is any basis for fraud in replacing rotors and drums when they are outside manufacturer safety tolerances. You stated that if you can present an established standard to your customers, you can prevent them from believing they have been taken advantage of. By way of background information, the National Traffic and Motor Safety Act (Safety Act) authorizes the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards for new motor vehicles and new motor vehicle equipment. Standard No. 105, Hydraulic Brake Systems, specifies requirements for hydraulic brake systems and associated parking brake systems. The standard applies to new motor vehicles. While you asked for an interpretation of Standard No. 105, that standard is of little relevance to your situation. This is because the Federal motor vehicle safety standards do not apply to a motor vehicle after its first sale to a consumer. The Safety Act does include some provisions which are relevant to used vehicles. In particular, the Safety Act prohibits manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and motor vehicle repair businesses from knowingly rendering inoperative any safety device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with a safety standard. However, this provision would ordinarily not be relevant to a decision whether to replace, or mill or turn, worn brake drums and rotors. With respect to your desire to show your customers an established standard in this area, I can call your attention to NHTSA's vehicle in use inspection standards. These standards set forth criteria for, among other things, inspecting service brake systems. You should be aware that these standards were developed for use by the States in establishing their inspection requirements. Thus, the standards only apply to the extent that they are adopted by individual States. I have enclosed a copy of the standards for your information and particularly call your attention to section 570.5(f). That section, which applies to vehicles with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less, reads as follows: (f) Disc and drum condition. If the drum is embossed with a maximum safe diameter dimension or the rotor is embossed with a minimum safety thickness dimension, the drum or disc shall be within the appropriate specifications. . . . This section reflects the importance NHTSA places on following manufacturer recommendations in this area. The states may regulate the repair of motor vehicles. We suggest that you investigate the laws of Louisiana to see whether they affect your situation. We cannot advise you about Federal or state requirements concerning fraud. You may wish to contact the Federal Trade Commission, your state government, and/or a private attorney about this matter. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel Enclosure";

ID: aiam1104

Dear Mr. Ullenberg: This is in reply to your letter of March 6, 1973, in which you as several questions regarding the certification of trucks with concrete mixers. You state that you supply a chassis to the Rex Chainbelt factory in Milwaukee, where a concrete mixer is installed. The combined unit is then shipped to a Rex dealer in Puerto Rico who sells the complete unit to a user. You provide weight ratings for the vehicle as follows: a gross vehicle weight rating, based on axle capacity, of 68,000 pounds, a rating, based on the tire capacity, of 56,740 pounds, and a gross weight of 66,800 pounds. Based on these figures you ask (1) Whether the truck can be completed in this fashion and shipped by you to Puerto Rico, (2) Whether the dealer in Puerto Rico can promise to install larger tires at a later date, (3) Whether Rex Chainbelt can certify the chassis at 68,000 pounds gross weight rating, if the dealer in Puerto Rico notifies Rex that he will change the tires at a later date, (4) Whether the chassis manufacturer can certify the truck chassis for a greater capacity than the lightest component if the local dealer or customer will notify him that they will bring the chassis to the higher certified level, and (5) What penalties can be imposed if a dealer or user does not make changes he has promised to make.; It appears to us from your letter that essentially the same issu underlies all your questions, that is, whether a final- stage manufacturer in completing a vehicle may place on it tires that are not sufficient to carry the vehicle at its gross vehicle weight rating, and elicit a promise from either a dealer or user that the latter will change the tires.; A truck that is equipped at the time of its manufacture with tire inadequate in terms of load rating to carry the truck at its gross vehicle weight rating would be considered by NHTSA to contain a safety related defect. The manufacturer of such a vehicle is subject to the provisions of section 113 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1402), which requires that notification of the defect be sent to first purchasers and dealers. A truck which was labeled with a gross vehicle weight rating below the minimum specified in 49 CFR 567(g)(3) would be in violation of the Certification regulations, and the person affixing such a label would be subject to civil penalties and other sanctions pursuant to section 108, 109, and 110 of the Safety Act (15 U.S. C. 1397, 1398, 1399). The Certification regulations (49 CFR Parts 567, 568) require weight ratings, in cases of vehicles manufactured in two or more stages, to be based on the vehicle as completed by the final-stage manufacturer. That manufacturer is not permitted to delegate his responsibility to a dealer or user.; The NHTSA has made an exception in the case of vehicles shipped withou tires, or vehicles shipped with temporary tires that are not intended to be used on the vehicle apart from the limited purpose of shipment. Your letter contains no implication that your case in within this exception.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel

ID: aiam4039

Dear Mr. Fink: This is in reply to your letter of November 22, 1985, to the forme Chief Counsel of this agency, Frank Berndt. Your company, Isis Imports, is an importer of Morgan passenger cars, and has heretofore imported them pursuant to 19 C.F.R. 12.80(b)(1)(iii). Upon advice of your attorney you have concluded that you may instead import them pursuant to 12.80(b)(1)(ix), and wish to inform the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration of that fact.; More specifically, under 12.80(b)(1)(iii) an importer declares that hi vehicles was not manufactured in conformity with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards, but that it has been, or will be, brought into conformity, he also is required to furnish a bond for the production of a conformity statement. Under 12.80(b)(1)(ix), the importer simply declares that the vehicle is an 'incomplete vehicle' as defined by 49 CFR Part 568, no bond is required as it is assumed that the vehicle will be completed to conform to the Federal safety standards and bear the certification of its final- stage manufacturer. Because the Morgans are received from Morgan Motor Company without 'major components of the fuel system: no fuel tank, fuel lines, carburetor, etc.,' you believe that they are 'incomplete vehicles,' which are defined by S568.3 as 'an assemblage consisting as a minimum of frame and chassis structure, power train, steering system, suspension system, and braking system, to the extent that those systems are to be part of the completed vehicle, that requires further manufacturing operations...to become a completed vehicle.'; We disagree with your conclusion. The rulemaking history of Part 56 clearly shows that the intent of the regulation is to cover vehicles whose manufacture has customarily been shared. As the agency commented in 1970, 'A large number of heavy vehicles of all types, of recreational vehicles, and of special purpose vehicles are manufactured in two or more stages, of which the first is an incomplete vehicle such as a stripped chassis, chassis cowl, or chassis cab to which one or more subsequent manufacturers add components to produce a completed vehicle.' (35 FR 4639) The Morgan, on the other hand, is a passenger car ordinarily manufactured in a single stage, and in this instance is nonetheless virtually complete when it arrives in the United States. It is therefore a 'motor vehicle' within the meaning of 19 CFR 12.80(b)(1)(iii), and the agency will not accept any HS-7 forms evidencing attempts to enter the vehicles pursuant to 12.80(b)(1)(ix).; I enclose copies of a couple of rulemaking proposals on Part 568 s that you might have a better understanding of its thrust. Were we to accept your interpretation, S568.4(a) would require Morgan Motor Company to furnish a document with each vehicle advising Isis how compliance with each applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard might be affected by its final manufactured operations. Given the decision of Peter Morgan over the years not to conform his vehicles for the American market, we question whether he would furnish a document attesting that his product complies with all Federal motor vehicle safety standards, except 301, *Fuel System Integrity*.; Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel