ID: nht89-1.94

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 05/25/89

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

TO: HARRY REID -- UNITED STATES SENATE

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 03/08/89 FROM PATRICIA KLINGER WATHEN -- DOT TO HARRY REID -- SENATE; LETTER DATED 02/23/89 FROM HARRY REID -- SENATE TO DOT; LETTER DATED 02/03/89 FROM STEVEN P. ELLIOTT TO HARRY REID -- SENATE, RE AUTHORIZATION TO DISCONNECT AUTO MOBILE AIR BAGS; REPORT FROM DAVID J. ROMEO AND JOHN B. MORRIS, DRIVER AIR BAG POLICE FLEET DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM A 24 MONTH PROGRESS REPORT AT EXPERIMENTAL SAFETY VEHICLE CONFERENCE OXFORD, ENGLAND, JULY 1-5, 1985; RESEARCH NOTES ON, CRASH EXPERIENCE OF GOVERNMENT SPONSORED AIR BAG VEHICLES THROUGH 03/31/89, FROM VERNON ROBERTS

TEXT: Dear Senator Reid:

Thank you for your letter to the Department of Transportation, on behalf of the City of Sparks, Nevada. That city's police department has received six new patrol cars equipped with air bags. According to the City Attorney for Sparks, the city police ca rs are often required to push disabled vehicles out of travel lanes of highways and the police officers are afraid that the air bags will be activated during these pushing operations. You asked if the Department of Transportation would authorize the Spa rks police department to disconnect the air bags on its patrol cars. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our law and regulations to you.

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Safety Act) authorizes this agency to issue safety standards applicable to new vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. We have exercised this authority to issue Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection (49 CFR S 571.208). Standard No. 208 requires all 1990 model year cars to be equipped with automatic crash protection, and specified percentages of each manufacturer's 1987, 1988, and 1989 model year cars to be so equipped. Chrysler, the manufacturer of the patrol cars in question, has chosen to comply with the requirement for automatic crash protection by installing air bags in these police cars.

When a safety standard like Standard No. 208 is in effect and applicable to new passenger cars, the Safety Act prohibits any person from manufacturing, selling or offering for sale, importing, or introducing in interstate commerce any new car that does n ot comply with the safety standard. However, the Safety Act provides that these prohibitions do not apply after the first purchase of the car "in good faith for purposes other than resale." Hence, the Federal requirement that the cars comply with all ap plicable safety standards ceased to apply when the Sparks city police department purchased these cars, since the police department bought these cars in good faith to use them as police patrol cars, not to resell them.

After the first purchase of a car in good faith for purposes other than resale, the Safety Act prohibits any manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair business from "rendering inoperative" any device or element of design installed in the car in compli ance with an applicable safety standard. Obviously, disconnecting air bag systems would have that effect. Accordingly, Federal law prohibits any manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair shop from disconnecting the air bag systems on the Sparks poli ce department cars.

Please note that the Safety Act does not prohibit individual vehicle owners from rendering inoperative safety features on their own vehicles. Hence, the City of Sparks does not need any sort of "authorization" from this agency to disconnect the air bag systems on the city's police cars. The City of Sparks is permitted to disconnect the air bags on its own vehicles without violating any Federal law, just as any resident of Sparks can remove any safety equipment they like from their own vehicles without violating Federal law. Such removals may, however, violate the laws of the State of Nevada.

I recommend that the city carefully consider the effects of disconnecting the air bag systems in its police cars, even though Federal law does not prohibit the city from doing so. The air bags in those cars are an effective means of protecting vehicle o ccupants in frontal crashes. As to the possibility of inadvertent deployment of air bags in police cars, I note that the agency has entered into a contract under which police cars have been retrofitted with air bag systems, without a single reported ins tance of an air bag detonation while pushing a disabled vehicle. Enclosed is a report with some additional information on this contract. Particularly since the City of Sparks police officers face the possibility of becoming involved in high speed pursu it situations, we believe those police officers deserve the benefits of automatic crash protection in their police cars.

I hope this information is helpful. Please do not hesitate to contact us if you have any further questions or need additional information on this subject.

Sincerely,

Enclosure

ID: nht75-5.34

DATE: 12/18/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Stephen P. Wood; NHTSA

TO: Helm; Shapiro; Ayers & Aldrich; P.C.

COPYEE: STEPHEN P. WOOD FOR FRANK BERNDT -- NHTSA

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letters of November 11 and December 9, 1975, asking two questions relating to the odometer mileage disclosure requirements contained in section 408 of the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act (Pub. L. 92-513).

You explain in your letter that New York law requires, at the time a vehicle is sold, the execution of a certificate of sale (MV-50) containing the odometer mileage. This certificate must be signed by the vehicle purchaser unless a separate form is completed (MV-50.1) by which the purchaser waives his right to sign the certificate of sale. If the purchaser waives his right to sign the MV-50 form, it is filed with the State Department of Motor Vehicles and need not be shown to him.

You ask whether the execution and filing of both the MV-50 and MV-50.1 forms (meaning the MV-50 is not seen by the purchaser) would constitute compliance with the Federal odometer requirements. Section 408 of the Cost Savings Act requires that the "transferor of a motor vehicle give the transferee a written statement disclosing the cumulative mileage registered on the odometer. If the transferor knows that the mileage indicated on the odometer is different from the number of miles the vehicle has actually traveled, he must state this fact in writing on the mileage disclosure form. Section 408 directed the Secretary of Transportation to prescribe rules relating to this disclosure process. 49 CFR Part 580, Odometer Disclosure Requirements, was promulgated in compliance with this mandate and requires the following information to appear on the disclosure document in addition to that specifically mentioned in section 408: date of transfer; transferor's name, address, and signature; make, body type, year, model, vehicle identification number, and last plate number of the vehicle; and a statement certifying that the seller is complying with the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act of 1972 and is aware that violation of the Act's provisions may subject him to civil liability. Neither the MV-50 nor the MV-50.1 forms contain this required information. In addition, under the New York scheme you describe, no written mileage information is provided to a purchaser when an MV-50.1 form is completed during a sales transaction. Thus, based on the information you have provided, compliance with the New York law alone would not satisfy the Federal odometer disclosure requirements.

You also ask whether a purchaser can waive his rights to receive an odometer disclosure statement. The duty to provide a mileage disclosure statement to the transferee of a motor vehicle at the time of transfer rests with the transferor. Relief from this Federally imposed duty cannot be provided by the individual to whom the duty is owed.

SINCERELY, HELM, SHAPIRO, AYERS & ALDRICH, P.C.

December 9, 1975

Frank Berndt, Esq. Acting Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Department of Transportation

I am enclosing a copy of my letter to you of November 11, 1975, in the event that you did not receive it. I would very much appreciate a reply to that letter at your earliest possible convenience.

Your assistance is appreciated.

Howard Shapiro

ENC.

HELM, SHAPIRO, AYERS & ALDRICH, P.C.

November 11, 1975

Frank Berndt, Esq. Acting Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Department of Transportation

At the suggestion of Karen Kreshover, with whom I had the pleasure of speaking today, I am writing for an interpretation of the odometer mileage disclosure statute and regulations (15 U.S.C., @ 1988; 49 CFR Part 580) as it applies to a case now in our office.

The relevant facts of our case are as follows: When the purchaser bought the automobile, the odometer reflected a mileage of about 19,000 miles and the dealer's salesman assured him that such mileage was accurate. The disclosure form required by 49 CFR 580.4 was not furnished to the purchaser. In actuality, the true mileage of the car was about 117,000 miles, a fact which was concealed from the purchaser who believed he was buying a low mileage automobile.

Under New York law, a certificate of sale, the so-called MV-50 form, must be filed with the State's Department of Motor Vehicles upon the sale of an automobile (a copy of that form is enclosed). That form contains a place for indication of the "Present Odometer Reading" and for the signature of the purchaser. However, under New York regulations, the right to sign the MV-50 form may be waived by the purchaser's execution of an MV-50.1 form, a copy of which is also enclosed. In the event of such waiver, the purchaser will not be aware of the true odometer mileage unless it is disclosed to him by the transferor. In our case, the MV-50, which the purchaser never saw, indicated the apparently true mileage of about 117,000 miles.

On the basis of the foregoing facts, I would like to submit the following questions: 1. In my opinion, the execution and filing of the MV-50 and 50.1 forms did not constitute compliance with the Federal law and regulations requiring written disclosure of odometer mileage, and the accuracy thereof, to the purchaser. Is my opinion correct? and

2. It is also my opinion that the aforesaid Federal odometer disclosure requirements cannot be waived by the purchaser -- the transferor must comply with the requirements -- and that the execution and filing of the MV-50 and MV-50.1 forms did not, therefore, constitute a waiver by the purchaser. Is this opinion correct?

Your assistance and courtesy in this matter is appreciated.

Howard Shapiro

ENC.

ID: 7684

Mr. Jerry Beck
One Leatherwood Court
Burtonsville, MD 20866

Dear Mr. Beck:

This responds to your letter requesting information about how this agency's regulations would apply to the product you are developing. While you initially requested that the agency keep your inquiry confidential, you removed this request for confidentiality in a September 18, 1992 letter to Marvin Shaw of my staff. You described your product as a reflective decal that would be placed on the backside of a motor vehicle's rear view mirror and on its rear bumper. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our requirements to you. I am also enclosing a copy of a fact sheet entitled "Information for New Manufacturers of Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Equipment."

By way of background information, NHTSA is authorized to issue Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. Section 102(4) of the Safety Act defines, in relevant part, the term "motor vehicle equipment" as:

any system, part, or component of a motor vehicle as originally manufactured or any similar part or component manufactured or sold for replacement or improvement of such system, part, or component or as any accessory, or addition to the motor vehicle ...

In determining whether an item of equipment is considered an accessory, NHTSA applies two criteria. The first criterion is whether a substantial portion of the expected use of the item is related to the operation or maintenance of motor vehicles. We determine the expected use by considering product advertising, product labeling, and the type of store that retails the product, as well as available information about the actual use of the product. The second criterion is whether the product is intended to be used principally by ordinary users of motor vehicles. If the product satisfies both criteria, then the product is considered to be an "accessory" and thus is subject to the provisions of the Safety Act.

Applying these criteria to your reflective decals, it appears that your product would be an accessory and thus an item of motor vehicle equipment under the Safety Act. Based on our understanding of your letter, it appears that a substantial portion of your device's expected use will be during the operation of a motor vehicle. In addition, it appears that your product would typically be used by ordinary users of motor vehicles.

While your device would be considered an item of motor vehicle equipment, this agency has not issued any standards setting forth performance requirements for such a device. Nevertheless, any person that installed this device on a new vehicle before the vehicle's first sale to the public would be required to certify that the vehicle complies with all applicable safety standards, including Standard No. 111, Rearview Mirrors, with this device installed.

After the first sale of the vehicle to the public, certain persons who modify vehicles are subject to the prohibition in section 108(a)(2) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)). That section provides that: "No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or in part, any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard..."

To avoid a "rendering inoperative" violation for vehicles that comply with any of our safety standards, commercial after market installers of your device should examine any installation instructions that you may have for your device and compare those instructions with the requirements of our safety standards, to determine if installing the device in accordance with those instructions would result in the vehicle no longer complying with any of those safety standards. If the installation of your device would not result in a "rendering inoperative" of the vehicle's compliance with the safety standards, the device can be installed by manufacturers, distributors, dealers and repair shops without violating any Federal requirements.

The prohibitions of Section 108(a)(2)(A) do not apply to the actions of a vehicle owner in modifying his or her vehicle. Thus, a vehicle owner would not violate the Safety Act by installing your device even if doing so would adversely affect some safety feature in his or her vehicle.

You should be aware that, as a manufacturer of an aftermarket item of motor vehicle equipment, you are subject to the requirements in sections 151-159 of the Safety Act concerning the recall and remedy of products with defects related to motor vehicle safety. In the event that you or NHTSA determines that your product contains a safety related defect, you would be responsible for notifying purchasers of the defective equipment and for remedying the problem free of charge.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions about NHTSA's safety standards, please feel free to contact Marvin Shaw of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel Enclosure

Ref: VSA d:10/21/92

ID: nht92-3.11

DATE: October 21, 1992

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Jerry Beck

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 8/25/92 from Jerry Beck to Mr. Rice (OCC-7684)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter requesting information about how this agency's regulations would apply to the product you are developing. While you initially requested that the agency keep your inquiry confidential, you removed this request for confidentiality in a September 18, 1992 letter to Marvin Shaw of my staff. You described your product as a reflective decal that would be placed on the backside of a motor vehicle's rear view mirror and on its rear bumper. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our requirements to you. I am also enclosing a copy of a fact sheet entitled "Information for New Manufacturers of Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Equipment."

By way of background information, NHTSA is authorized to issue Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. Section 102(4) of the Safety Act defines, in relevant part, the term "motor vehicle equipment" as:

any system, part, or component of a motor vehicle as originally manufactured or any similar part or component manufactured or sold for replacement or improvement of such system, part, or component or as any accessory, or addition to the motor vehicle ...

In determining whether an item of equipment is considered an accessory, NHTSA applies two criteria. The first criterion is whether a substantial portion of the expected use of the item is related to the operation or maintenance of motor vehicles. We determine the expected use by considering product advertising, product labeling, and the type of store that retails the product, as well as available information about the actual use of the product. The second criterion is whether the product is intended to be used principally by ordinary users of motor vehicles. If the product satisfies both criteria, then the product is considered to be an "accessory" and thus is subject to the provisions of the Safety Act.

Applying these criteria to your reflective decals, it appears that your product would be an accessory and thus an item of motor vehicle equipment under the Safety Act. Based on our understanding of your letter, it appears that a substantial portion of your device's expected use will be during the operation of a motor vehicle. In addition, it appears that your product would typically be used by ordinary users of motor vehicles.

While your device would be considered an item of motor vehicle equipment, this agency has not issued any standards setting forth performance

requirements for such a device. Nevertheless, any person that installed this device on a new vehicle before the vehicle's first sale to the public would be required to certify that the vehicle complies with all applicable safety standards, including Standard No. 111, Rearview Mirrors, with this device installed.

After the first sale of the vehicle to the public, certain persons who modify vehicles are subject to the prohibition in section 108(a)(2) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397 (a)(2)). That section provides that: "No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or in part, any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard..."

To avoid a "rendering inoperative" violation for vehicles that comply with any of our safety standards, commercial after market installers of your device should examine any installation instructions that you may have for your device and compare those instructions with the requirements of our safety standards, to determine if installing the device in accordance with those instructions would result in the vehicle no longer complying with any of those safety standards. If the installation of your device would not result in a "rendering inoperative" of the vehicle's compliance with the safety standards, the device can be installed by manufacturers, distributors, dealers and repair shops without violating any Federal requirements.

The prohibitions of Section 108(a)(2)(A) do not apply to the actions of a vehicle owner in modifying his or her vehicle. Thus, a vehicle owner would not violate the Safety Act by installing your device even if doing so would adversely affect some safety feature in his or her vehicle.

You should be aware that, as a manufacturer of an aftermarket item of motor vehicle equipment, you are subject to the requirements in sections 151-159 of the Safety Act concerning the recall and remedy of products with defects related to motor vehicle safety. In the event that you or NHTSA determines that your product contains a safety related defect, you would be responsible for notifying purchasers of the defective equipment and for remedying the problem free of charge.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions about NHTSA's safety standards, please feel free to contact Marvin Shaw of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht76-1.4

DATE: 07/09/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Honorable Bob Sikes

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your May 10, 1976, communication enclosing a letter from Mr. John C. Richardson concerning the importation of passenger cars with "metric instrumentation." Your communication was forwarded to this agency by the National Bureau of Standards for reply.

Mr. Richardson has encountered difficulty in importing a 1976 model 911 Porsche with metric instrumentation. He has received a letter from Volkswagen of America, Inc., suggesting that "such instrumentation would be illegal and not certified with the appropriate U.S. Government agencies." While the precise meaning of "metric instrumentation" is not clear from either letter, I assume that Mr. Richardson is referring to the marking of the speedometer (in kilometers per hour) and the calibration of the odometer (in kilometers traveled).

The Federal motor vehicle safety standards administered by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration do not presently require any particular form of marking for speedometers or odometers. While we are considering the establishment of a requirement that English units be used, such a rule would permit metric units as an optional addition. Furthermore, such a rule would only be applied prospectively.

SINCERELY,

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Bureau of Standards

May 26, 1976

Honorable Bob Sikes House of Representatives

This is in reply to your letter of May 1 requesting information on behalf of Mr. John C. Richardson, concerning the legality of metric instrumentation on imported cars.

Since the responsibility for instrumentation panels on automobiles lies with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, we are forwarding your letter and attachments to Mr. Robert Aubuchon, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Office of Standards Enforcement, 400 7th Street, SW., Washington, D.C. 20590, 202-426-1693.

Jeffrey V. Odom Chief, Metric Information Office

cc: ROBERT AUBUCHON Congress of the United States House of Representatives

May 10, 1976

Mr. Jeff Odom, Chief Metric Information Office National Bureau of Standards

The attached communication is sent for your consideration. Please investigate the statements contained therein and forward me the necessary information for reply, returning the enclosed correspondence with your answer.

Bob Sikes M.C.

May 1, 1976

Dear Congressman Sikes,

Congress has initiated the change from the English measuring system to the metric system. Already some of the American cars are appearing with dual instrumentation. However, when I tried to order a car from Porsche, a subsidiary of Volkswagon, I was told that metric instruments were illegal. See attached letter from Volkswagon of America.

Could you please find out why this is illegal on imported cars on not on American made cars? As an engineer I am firmly committed to the change to the metric system and looking forward to your clearing this matter.

Thank-you for your help.

John C. Richardson

VOLKSWAGEN OF AMERICA, INC.

April 22, 1976

John Richardson

Please be advised that we have checked the feasibility of delivering to you a 1976, 911 Porsche with metric instrumentation.

We have checked with our National Headquarters in Englewood Cliffs, which in turn checked with Germany. Unfortunately, we have to inform you that such instrumentation would be illegal and not certified with the appropriate U. S. Government agencies.

Dual instrumentation, unfortunately, also is not available.

We very much regret our inability to be of assistance.

G. E. Magnus Customer Assistance Supervisor

ID: nht73-5.15

DATE: 05/18/73

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; James E. Wilson; NHTSA

TO: Hon. M. J. Rinaldo - H.O.R.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of April 30, 1973, concerning the requirement of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 121, Air brake systems, that air-braked vehicles be capable of stopping in a specified distance without locking their wheels.

Standard No. 121 was originally proposed in notices of proposed rulemaking published June 25 and 26, 1970. A public meeting was held on October 20, 1970, at which representatives from all interested members of industry and government reviewed the proposal. The standard was issued as a final rule on February 27, 1971, with an effective date of September 1, 1974. Following issuance of the rule, a number of petitions for administrative reconsideration were received, and after lengthy consideration of these petitions the agency responded by amending the standard in a notice published February 24, 1972. This amendment also prompted petitions for reconsideration, which were answered by further amendments on June 24, 1972. The standard has not been further amended since that time.

The antilock requirement to which you refer was a feature of the initial proposal and has remained, with minor adjustments, in all succeeding versions of the standard. it is the third of three performance criteria that a truck or bus must meet in a stop under actual road conditions. The first requirement is that the vehicle must be capable of stopping in specified distances from 60 mph and 20 mph on high and low friction surfaces. The second requirement is that the

2 stops must be made without leaving a straight 12-foot wide lane. The third is that the vehicle must stop without lockup of any wheel at speeds over 10 mph, except for lockup of a wheel controlled by an antilock system.

The aim of each of these requirements is reasonably clear. The stopping distances specified represent a significant improvement in the stopping capability of most air-braked vehicles. The stay-in-the-lane requirement is an important measure of brake balance. The antilock requirement is intended to upgrade the maneuverability of air-braked vehicles in nonlinear braking situations, where locked wheels would result in a partial or complete loss of directional control.

It should be noted that the standard does not require an "antilock system". It requires that a vehicle be capable of stopping without lockup, but it does not require a specific system to accomplish this result. As a practical matter, most manufacturers appear to have chosen antilock systems as the means of meeting the standard, although consideration has been given to other systems such as proportional braking systems in some vehicle applications.

A good deal of attention was focused on the antilock requirements during the rule making process. The agency's conclusion was that, if controlled braking was to remain as a goal of the standard, there was no satisfactory means to achieve this goal except by preventing the wheels from locking. Having chosen to require antilock braking, the agency cannot amend the requirement except through a full rulemaking procedure. If presented with a petition for rulemaking that appeared to have merit, the agency would propose the amendment by issuing a notice in the Federal Register. It would then allow time for public comment before deciding whether to adopt the proposed amendment. At this time we have no petitions under consideration on the subject of antilock braking.

In the rulemaking process followed to develop Standard No. 121, as well as in any rule making to amend it, the other Federal agencies are invited to participate on the same basis as other interested persons. We do not

3 routinely follow special procedures with other Federal agencies, except for the Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety, whose regulations interact closely with ours. As a matter of record, no Federal agency other than BMCS submitted comments during the rule making on Standard No. 121.

The(Illegible Word) has limited research funds and has, partly for that reason, conducted very few tests of specific product designs. The agency is directed under the terms of its legislative authority to issue performance standards, rather than design standards, and such testing as it has done relates to the feasibility of achieving a certain level of performance rather than to the characteristics of a particular product. The agency's staff has reviewed the results of testing done by manufacturers that bears on Standard No. 121, but has not conducted tests itself.

The cost of a typical antilock system is difficult to determine accurately. For competitive reasons, cost data is closely held by the manufacturers, particularly in the period before the systems are actually in production. We have estimated that some systems will be selling in the range of 100 dollars per axle, but there are a great many variables to be considered and we do not know if that figure will prove to be representative of actual prices.

ENCS.

April 30, 1973

James E. Wilson Acting Administrator National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

I would greatly appreciate your cooperation in furnishing me with background information concerning Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 121 which, as I understand it, requires the installation of a computerized anti-wheel lock device on trucks and tractor-trailers. Specifically, I would appreciate the following information:

1. A brief statement of the requirements of the standard.

2. The dates on which the standard was adopted and becomes effective.

3. What, if any, alternative devices were studied to accomplish the same objectives prior to the adoption of the standard?

4. What administrative procedures were followed in the consideration and adoption of the standard?

5. What procedures would be required in the event of an amendment or addition to the standard prior to its effective date?

6. Are any such amendments or additions to the standard presently under active consideration?

7. What is the estimated cost per unit of equipping trucks and tractor-trailers with the computerized

2 anti-wheel lock device?

8. To what extent were the needs and experience of other Federal agencies which utilize or operate trucks and tractor-trailers considered in the course of adopting the standard?

9. In adopting standards of this kind, are such Federal agencies regularly consulted?

10. In cases where proposed standards may involve a requirement for the installation of a specific safety device, are such devices and alternative designs ordinarily tested by NHTSA?

11. Under what conditions would NHTSA consider it necessary or useful to conduct tests on newly developed safety devices?

Thank you very much for providing me with this information.

Matthew J. Rinaldo Member of Congress

ID: 6949

Mr. Carl J. Clement
Clement Associates
12785 Dianne Drive
Los Altos Hills, CA 94022

Dear Mr. Clement:

This responds to your letter of January 28, 1992 requesting information on any Federal regulations that may affect a new product you are developing. The product is an electronically-operated automotive sun visor that would automatically detect the direction of sunlight or glare and reposition itself to shield the driver. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our regulations to you.

By way of background information, 103 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Safety Act, 15 U.S.C. 1392) authorizes the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to issue safety standards for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA does not, however, approve or certify any vehicles or items of equipment. Instead, the 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 items of equipment for compliance with the standards. In addition, the Safety Act requires manufacturers to recall and remedy any motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment that contains a safety-related defect.

NHTSA has issued two safety standards that apply to sun visors: Standard No. 201, Occupant protection in interior impact, and Standard No. 302, Flammability of interior materials. These standards are called vehicle standards, because they apply to new vehicles, not to individual pieces of equipment. The Safety Act specifies that vehicles must conform with all applicable safety standards up until the first purchase for purposes other than resale.

Therefore, if your sun visor were installed as original equipment by a manufacturer of a new motor vehicle, the visor would have to comply with the requirements of these two standards. Standard No. 201 requires that the visor be "constructed of or covered with energy-absorbing material" and that the visor's mounting must "present no material edge radius of less than 0.125 inch that is statically contactable by a spherical 6.5-inch diameter head form." The purpose of that requirement is to reduce the injuries that occur when unrestrained occupants strike the visor or its mounting with their heads. Standard No. 302 requires sun visors to meet the flammability resistance requirements of the standard. The standard specifies that the material used on the visor must not burn at a rate of more than four inches per minute.

If a new vehicle is altered by the installation of your product prior to the vehicle's first sale to a consumer, the person making the installation is considered an "alterer" and is required by 49 CFR Part 567, Certification, to certify that the vehicle complies with all applicable safety standards affected by the alteration. In addition to Standards No. 201 and 302, the installation of your product might affect the compliance of a vehicle with a number of other safety standards, including Standard No. 111, Rearview mirrors, and Standard No. 208, Occupant crash protection.

After the first sale to a consumer, a vehicle is no longer required by Federal law to conform to all safety standards. However, 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act provides as follows:

No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or part, any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard...

In order to avoid violating this provision, a manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or repair business which installed your sun visor would have to ensure that such installation enables the vehicle to continue to comply with all applicable safety standards. Violations of 108(a)(2)(A) are punishable by civil fines of up to $1,000 per violation. I note that 108(a)(2)(A) does not affect modifications made by vehicle owners to their own vehicles.

Finally, under the Safety Act, your sun visor would be considered an item of motor vehicle equipment. If your sun visor will be sold as an item of equipment to be installed by the vehicle owner, there is currently no Federal motor vehicle safety standard that applies. However, even if there is no safety standard applicable to the item of motor vehicle equipment, the manufacturer is subject to the requirements in 151-159 of the Safety Act concerning the recall and remedy of products with safety defects. In the event that NHTSA or a manufacturer determines that a manufacturer's product contains a safety-related defect, the manufacturer is responsible for notifying purchasers of the defective equipment and remedying the problem free of charge.

Additionally, a company making your product would be considered a manufacturer. A manufacturer is required by 49 CFR Part 566, Manufacturer Identification, to submit information identifying itself and its products to NHTSA not later than 30 days after it begins manufacture. I have enclosed an information sheet for new manufacturers which summarizes NHTSA's regulations and explains where to obtain copies of Federal motor vehicle safety standards.

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,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

Enclosure

ref:201#302 d:3/30/92

ID: 21736

Mr. Ronnie H. McDaniel
RHM Enterprises
Star Route 850
Lytle Creek, CA 92358






Dear Mr. McDaniel:

This responds to your letter asking for information about the application of Federal safety standards to a "sun visor extender."

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized by the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards that set performance requirements for 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 Federal motor vehicle safety standards. Instead, under Chapter 301 of Title 49 of the United States Code, "Motor Vehicle Safety" (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.

There is currently no Federal motor vehicle safety standard that is directly applicable to a sun visor extender sold directly to a consumer. The Federal safety standard that regulates sun visors (Standard No. 201, Occupant Protection in Interior Impact) applies only to new motor vehicles (i.e., vehicles that have not yet been sold for purposes other than resale) and not to items of aftermarket equipment such as a sun visor extender.

However, there are other Federal requirements that indirectly affect the manufacture and sale of your device. Under Chapter 301, your device is considered to be an item of motor vehicle equipment. As a manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment, you are subject to the requirements in sections 30118-30120 of Chapter 301 concerning the recall and remedy of products with defects relating to motor vehicle safety. I have enclosed an information sheet that briefly describes those responsibilities. In the event that you or NHTSA determines that your sun visor extenders contain a safety-related defect, you would be responsible for notifying purchasers of the defective equipment and remedying the problem free of charge.

As stated above, the sun visor in a new vehicle is regulated by Safety Standard No. 201, which requires that the visor be "constructed of or covered with energy-absorbing material" and that the visor's mounting must "present no material edge radius of less than 0.125 inch that is statically contactable by a spherical 6.5-inch diameter head form." The purpose of the standard is to reduce the injuries that occur when occupants strike the visor or its mounting with their heads. If your sun visor extender were installed by the manufacturer of a new motor vehicle, the visor, as modified by that installation, would have to comply with the visor requirements of the standard. I am enclosing a copy of Standard No. 201 for your review.

Another Federal standard to which the vehicle manufacturer must certify its vehicle as conforming is Standard No. 302, Flammability of Interior Materials (copy enclosed). This standard establishes flammability resistance requirements for certain vehicle components, including sun visors, on new vehicles. If a new vehicle manufacturer installs your product on the new vehicle, that manufacturer would have to certify the vehicle's compliance with Standard No. 302, and thus would be required to ensure that the sun visor conforms to the flammability resistance requirements of the standard and that the extender does not interfere with or prevent that capability to comply.

A commercial business that installs the sun visor extender on new or used vehicles would be subject to provisions of the Safety Act that affect whether the business may install your product on a vehicle. Section 30122 of Chapter 301 states: "A manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business may not knowingly make inoperative ... any part of a device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard..." This section requires manufacturers, distributors, dealers or motor vehicle repair businesses (i.e., any person holding him or herself out to the public as in the business of repairing motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment for compensation) installing your sun visor extender on new or used vehicles to ensure that the addition of the device would not negatively affect the compliance of any component or design on a vehicle with applicable Federal safety standards. For example, the commercial entity must ensure that the addition of the device does not reduce the effectiveness of those features and aspects of performance of the sun visor that enabled the vehicle to comply with Standard No. 201 or Standard No. 302.

However, the prohibitions found in Section 30122 do not apply to the actions of a vehicle owner in adding to or otherwise modifying his or her vehicle. Thus, a vehicle owner would not violate Chapter 301 by installing the sun visor extender, even if doing so would negatively affect the safety performance of the sun visor. However, we encourage owners not to degrade the safety of their vehicles.

Please feel free to contact Otto Matheke of this office at (202) 366-2992 if you have further questions.

Sincerely,

Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel

Enclosures
ref:201
d.9/25/00

ID: 1983-1.27

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/21/83

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: China United Trading Corp. Ltd. -- Yang Ru-Tang, General Manager

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your letter asking about the requirements for importing tires into this country from China. I have enclosed a copy of a 1981 letter I sent to Mr. Deng Shin-Wen, the chief engineer of the Shanghai No. 1 Rubber Plant. That letter generally explains the requirements which must be met in order to import tires into this country. While that letter answers many of your questions, I will repeat the requirements to ensure that you understand them, and respond to those questions not covered in the previous letter.

To receive a DOT code mark, a tire manufacturer must complete the enclosed application form and return it to the address shown on the form. A separate application must be filed for each manufacturing plant, and a separate code mark will be assigned to each plant.

Before a code mark is assigned, the tire manufacturer must designate an agent for the service of process, according to the requirements of 49 CFR @ 551.45 (copy enclosed). That section specifies that the designation of agent must meet the following six criteria:

1. A certification that the designation is valid in form and binding on the manufacturer under the laws, corporate by-laws, or other requirements governing the making of the designation at the time and place where it is made;

2. The full legal name, principal place of business and mailing address of the manufacturer;

3. Marks, trade names, or other designations of origin of any of the manufacturer's products which do not bear his name;

4. A statement that the designation shall remain in effect until withdrawn or replaced by the manufacturer;

5. A declaration of acceptance duly signed by the agent appointed, which may be an individual, a firm, or a U.S. corporation; and

6. The full legal name and address of the designated agent.

In addition, the designation must be signed by one with authority to appoint the agent; the signer's name and title should be clearly indicated beneath his signature. When this agency has received a completed application for a code mark and a valid designation of an agent, a code mark will be assigned to the manufacturer promptly, usually within two weeks. You should note that the code mark is sent to the manufacturer at the mailing or main office address shown on the application, and not to the designated agent. The DOT code mark assigned to the manufacturer remains valid until such time as the manufacturer notifies this agency that it is no longer using that code mark.

No testing of the tires is done by this agency before assigning the DOT code mark. The United States does not use a certification process similar to the European Economic Community, in which the manufacturer is required to deliver tires to be certified to the governmental entity for approval. Instead, in the United States the individual manufacturer must certify that the tires comply with all requirements of Standard No. 109 (49 CFR @ 571.109) if they are passenger car tires or Standard No. 119 (49 CFR @ 571.119) if the tires are for use on motor vehicles other than passenger cars. I have enclosed copies of both these standards for your information. Further, this agency does not require that the certification be based on a specified number of tests or any tests at all; we only require that the certification be made with the exercise of due care on the part of the manufacturer. It is up to the individual manufacturer in the first instance to determine what data, test results, or other information it needs to enable it to certify that its tires comply with the applicable standards. Certainly, we recommend that a manufacturer selling tires in the United States test those tires according to the procedures specified in the applicable standard. Once a manufacturer determines that its tires meet the requirements of the applicable standards, it certifies that compliance by molding the letters "DOT" on one sidewall of each certified tire.

For purposes of enforcement this agency conducts spot checks of tires after they have been certified, by purchasing and testing tires according to the procedures specified in the applicable standard. If the tires pass the tests, no further steps are taken.

If the tires fail the tests and are determined not to comply with the applicable standards or if it is determined that the tires contain a safety-related defect, the manufacturer of the tires is required to remedy the problem. Section 154(a)(2)(B) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, as amended (15 U.S.C. 1414(a)(2)(B)) specifies that, in the case of tires which fail to comply with a standard or contain a safety related defect, the manufacturer may elect to either:

(1) repair the tires so that the defect or noncompliance is removed; or

(2) replace the tires with an identical or reasonably equivalent tire which does not have the defect or noncompliance.

Whichever of these options is chosen, the tire manufacturer must bear the expense and cannot charge the tire owner for the remedy.

With respect to the markings required on the sidewall of the tires, those markings and their required size and location are set forth in section S4.3 of Standard No. 109 for passenger car tires and S6.5 of Standard No. 119 for tires for use on motor vehicles other than passenger cars. 49 CFR Part Part 574 (copy enclosed) also sets forth marking requirements for all types of tires.

If you have any further questions on this subject or need further information, please feel free to contact me.

ENCLS.

Jan. 19, 1983

OCC

Raymond Peck, Administrator, Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic & Safety Administration,

Gentleman,

We are China United Trading Corp. Ltd., Shanghai Division, newly established and located at One Penn Plaza Suite 1915, 250 W 34th St., New York, N.Y. 10119, and are agent of some import & export corporations in Shanghai, China. Now China National Chemicals Import & Export Corp., Shanghai Branch, located at 27 Zhongshan Road (E.1), Shanghai, China, who are the exporter of tires manufactured in Shanghai, intends to export and sell their truck and car tires in the United States.

We understand that an application must be made and approved with a Code Number before any foreign tires can be imported and sold in the U.S. market. In this connection, we need to get the following information with your assistance.

1. Is your office the right organization for the application to be submitted?

2. Should the application be made by the manufacturers or by their agent as mentioned above? What is the procedure in detail?

3. What is the procedure for quality examination of tires before you issue the Code No. and allow importation? Do you have your own laboratories for test or appoint any ones for test? Where shall the exporters or their local agents submit samples of tires for such a test?

4. Should each size, specification of the tires be tested in this way? How many tires are necessary as samples to complete such a test?

5. Is it necessary for the tires to be tested before they are allowed to be sold or to be tested by random selection at anytime from the market after selling?

6. If the tire does not pass the sellective examination, can re-examination be made or not? Is there any restriction for the re-examination?

7. What kind of responsibility would be borne by the manufacturer if the product does not pass the quality examination requirements? Is there any penalty in this respect?

8. Would the quality records by selective examination or test report be informed to the manufacturer?

9. What kind of reponsibility should be borne by the application agent and/or the manufacturer if any quality problems arise when a vehicle is in performance?

10. After DOT approval, where and what size should the DOT Code Number be put on the tires? Besides the DOT Code Number, what else are also necessary to be shown on the tires?

11. Once the DOT approval has been obtained, how long will it remain valid?

Please send us some papers concerning the above questions, if you have any.

Your early reply and assistance will be highly appreciated.

general manager yang Ru-tang

China United Trading Corp. Ltd., Shanghai Division

ID: 0813

Mr. Mayo D. Tubbs
Visionary Lighting Systems
1409 Sweetgum Circle
Keller, TX 76248

Dear Mr. Tubbs:

We have received your letter of March 23, 1995, asking for a waiver of 49 U.S.C. 30112(a) which will enable the introduction of a new lighting system that you have developed for large trailers. You envision that this system will eventually be installed on emergency vehicles and school buses. We understand that you wish to market this system as original equipment.

You have asked that we "provide adequate safeguards to prevent unauthorized dissemination of this information." As Taylor Vinson of this Office explained to you before you wrote, all the agency's letters of interpretation must be made available to the general public, and these letters must include enough information to make the interpretation comprehensible. Mr. Vinson telephoned you on March 30, 1995, and informed you that we proposed, in this instance, to limit the description of the system to the number, location, and quantity of lamps, to withhold the incoming letter with the exception of Attachment A, and to exclude your name and address from the copy made publicly available. You concurred with this treatment of your letter, except that you preferred not to have your name and address withheld in the event a reader might be interested in getting in touch with you.

You believe that the current lighting and conspicuity requirements for large trailers are inadequate for safety when compared with your system. This system consists of 18 "strip lights on the side and rear" of large trailers which are "Aviation Green" in color. The side and rear lighting schemes are depicted on Attachment A to your letter. As we interpret Attachment A, two of the strip lights are mounted in the upper right and left rear corners, while eight lights are on each side of the trailer (four right- angle lights in each upper and lower corner, and four lights deployed at one-third body-length intervals at the top and bottom).

Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment is the Federal regulation that governs original lighting equipment on trailers. These requirements must be met upon the manufacture and sale of trailers. With respect to the rear of a van trailer, your Attachment A depicts only strip lights in the upper right and left corners. This is not permissible under Standard No. 108. The Federal regulation requires the conspicuity treatment specified by S5.7 to be applied in this area, as well as clearance lamps. With respect to the side of a van trailer, Standard No. 108 requires horizontal conspicuity treatment to be applied near the lower edge of the trailer as close to the front and rear as practicable, though it need not be continuous as long as it covers at least half the trailer length. Because of the gaps between the strip lights on the trailer side as depicted in Attachment A, it is possible that conspicuity treatment could be applied between the strips that would total half or more of the trailer length.

However, supplementary lighting equipment such as your system is not permissible under Standard No. 108 (paragraph S5.1.3) if it impairs the effectiveness of the lighting equipment required by the standard. Standard No. 108 restricts the color of exterior lights to red, amber, and white, the former two of which are associated with caution. Green is not used as an exterior lighting color because it is the recognized signal to proceed rather than to warn. We believe that use of the color green has the potential to create a measure of confusion rather than caution, thereby affecting the effectiveness of the mandatory side lighting equipment, i.e., amber front side markers, red rear side markers, and red and white conspicuity striping or red reflectors.

A vehicle manufacturer may petition for a temporary exemption from a Federal motor vehicle safety standard under the conditions specified in 49 CFR part 555, a copy of which is enclosed. Therefore, a trailer manufacturer interested in using your system could apply for a 2-year exemption on the basis that the exemption would make easier the development or field evaluation of a new motor vehicle safety feature providing a safety level at least equal to the safety level of the standard. The effect of an exemption is to allow the manufacture and sale of a nonconforming vehicle without violating 49 U.S.C. 30112(a). I am sorry to inform you that the exemption is not available to equipment manufacturers.

If you have data that sustains your belief that your system enhances safety, our Office of Research and Development would be interested in corresponding with you. The Associate Administrator of that Office is George Parker.

If there are other questions you have, Taylor Vinson will be happy to answer them for you.

Sincerely,

Philip R. Recht Chief Counsel ref:108 d:4/13/95