ID: nht79-1.9

DATE: 10/11/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Stephen P. Wood for F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Orient Glass, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

NOA-30

Mr. J. Ohmura Orient Glass, Inc. 445 South Figueroa Street Los Angeles, California 90071

Dear Mr. Ohmura:

This responds to your recent letter asking whether a bus bar extension on rear-window passenger car glazing would comply with Safety Standard No. 205. I assume from your letter that the bus bar is a defrosting template that is embedded in the glazing material.

Safety Standard No. 205, through the ANS Z26 standard that is incorporated by reference, requires glazing materials requisite for driving visibility in passenger cars to have a luminous transmittance of at least 70 percent (Test No. 2 in ANS Z26). This requirement would be applicable to rear-window glazing for passenger cars, since these windows are necessary for driving visibility. Rear-window glazing that contains a bus bar extension and electrical template wires would still have to comply with the 70-percent luminous transmittance requirement, when tested in accordance with Test No. 2. The .67-inch bus bar extension would not preclude compliance with this requirement, although it obviously has no luminous transmittance, if the remaining parts of the glazing meet the 70-percent requirement. However, if the electrical wires of the template are so numerous or located so near each other that a tested section of the glazing would not have a luminous transmittance of at least 70 percent, the rear window would not be in compliance with Safety Standard No. 205.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

August 22, 1979.

U. S. Department of Transportation NHTSA Office of Standards Enforcement Washington, D. C. 20590 (Att: Mt. Frank Berndt)

Dear Mr. Berndt,

We have been referred to you by Mr. Heath, of The California Highway Patrol for approval of bus bar extension on rear window auto glass.

As shown in the enclosed attachments this particular bus bar extends 0.67 inch from the edge of the AS-2 approved Tempered Auto Glass. We need written confirmation that this bus bar design complies with your standard, FMVSS 205.

Please let us know if there are any other requirements for approval.

Thank you for your prompt attention to this request.

Thank you.

ORIENT GLASS, INC.

J. Ohmura

JO/mw

August 15, 1979

File No.: 62.A661.A4381

Mr. J. Omura Orient Glass, Inc. 445 S. Figueroa Street Suite 2430 Los Angeles, CA 90071

Dear Mr. Omura:

This is to confirm your telephone conversation of August 2 with Mr. Max Mizoguchi of this office regarding the location of the electrical bus bar in glazing materials.

Original equipment safety glazing meeting the requirements established by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration is acceptable for sale in California. If you feel that your design may not comply with FMVSS 205, you may wish to contact their legal department to seek clarification. Questions should be directed to:

U. S. Department of Transportation NHTSA Office of Standards Enforcement Attention Mr. Frank Berndt Washington, D.C. 20590

Please supply us with a copy of all correspondence on this subject.

We trust this information will be helpful to you.

Very truly yours,

W. W. HEATH, Chief Engineer Acting Commander Commercial and Technical Services Section

ID: 23723.ztv

Shigeyoshi Aihara, Project Manager
Regulation and Compliance
Ichikoh Industries, Ltd.
80 Itado Isehara-City
Kanagawa-Pref.
259-1192 Japan





Dear Mr. Aihara:

This is in reply to your letter of October 24, 2001, to Taylor Vinson of this Office, presented at the conclusion of a meeting in our offices that day with representatives of this agency. You supplemented the letter with an e-mail of October 29, 2001, to Richard Van Iderstine of the Office of Safety Performance Standards.

You have asked a question with reference to the definition of "replaceable bulb headlamp" that appears in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. In pertinent part, S4 of Standard No. 108 defines a replaceable bulb headlamp as a "headlamp comprising a bonded lens and reflector assembly."

Ichikoh has designed a headlamp with a lens and reflector assembly "fixed with synthetic rubber hot melt, clips, screws, and clamps." Although the "lens is separate from" the reflector, your letter stated that it cannot be removed from the reflector assembly "unless clamps (10 portions) are broken." You state that "when a lens is damaged, it will be exchanged by the whole lamp assembly," and assure us that the lens cannot be removed without destroying the housing. However, you confirmed that the headlamp can be reassembled using the screws provided, and that the housing is not destroyed, only damaged to the extent that all the features that hold the lens are not present. You have asked whether this configuration is sufficient to comprise "a bonded lens and reflector assembly."

We have provided only four interpretations of this phrase. On July 13, 1987, we informed Dr. Ernst of Hella that a design in which the lens was joined to the reflector by three screws did not constitute "a bonded lens and reflector assembly." On December 24, 1990, we informed Herr Spingler of Bosch that if a lens could not be manually separated from the housing, we would consider the bond sufficient for purposes of defining "replaceable bulb headlamp. On March 8, 1995, we again wrote Herr Spingler, on this subject, informing him that "the intent of the definition was that the lens and reflector assembly be an indivisible unit upon manufacture of the headlamp." This meant that, "if a lens is broken, the entire lens reflector assembly must be replaced." Finally, on September 11, 1998, we responded to Mr. Muraoka of Koito with respect to a headlamp "whose lens is bonded not with one adhesive agent, but with using some screws or clamps." We informed Koito that its design would not be a replaceable bulb headlamp because the connection was divisible and impermanent.

In the Ichikoh design under discussion, the lens is fixed to the housing by ten clamps, two clips, and screws. If a lens is broken, you initially informed us that the entire headlamp assembly would have to be replaced, since the lens could not be removed without breaking the clamps. However, it appears from subsequent discussions that the design of this headlamp is such that the lens can be replaced using the screws, even though the clamps are broken. This, in essence, is the interpretation we provided Dr. Ernst in 1987 when we said that a lens held by three screws was not a bonded assembly. Also, the synthethic rubber hot melt serves not as a bonding agent but as a gasket, in a manner similar to an O-ring in the Ernst lamp. Thus, the Ichikoh design does not comprise a "bonded lens and reflector assembly" for the purpose of defining a "replaceable bulb headlamp."

Your letter depicts four alternative designs, and you have described two more in your e-mail. Each of these alternatives utilizes the same clip and clamp arrangement as the original design, and a variation of the screw design intended to make the screw less accessible. Although the intent is to make it less likely that the lens will be replaced separately, in no case is it impossible to do so. Therefore, none of Ichikoh's alternatives comprise a "bonded lens and reflector assembly."

As we informed Herr Spingler in 1990, "the intent of the definition is that, once the lens is joined to the reflector assembly, it shall not be separable," and that "any method of adhesion that accomplishes this would be a sufficient bond." In view of our interpretations over the years, it is likely that only an adhesive agent will provide a bond that satisfies the definition.

Sincerely,

John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosures
Ref:108
d.12/11/01

ID: 17300.drn

Mr. Bobby Kim
Vice President
American Automotive Research Center, Inc.
1450 S. Havana Street, Suite 312
Aurora, CO 80012

Dear Mr. Kim:

This responds to your letter to U. S. Representative Eleanor Holmes Norton regarding your product, the KimVue 2000, an inside rearview mirror system. Because the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) regulates motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment, Representative Norton forwarded your letter to this agency. Your literature describes the KimVue 2000 as "a dual-safety rearview mirror" that is "designed to eliminate the blind spot on the right side of a vehicle, often needed when changing lanes." I note that your device consists of two mirrors. One mirror is long and flat. The second is a convex mirror about one third the size of the long and flat mirror. The KimVue 2000 can be adjusted for either left-hand or right-hand driving.

By way of background information, Congress has authorized NHTSA to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) for new vehicles and new items of equipment. NHTSA, however, does not approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Instead, the law establishes a "self-certification" process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards. The following represents our opinion based on the information provided in your letter.

As you are aware, NHTSA has issued FMVSS No. 111, Rearview Mirrors (49 CFR 571.111). FMVSS No. 111 establishes performance and location requirements for the rearview mirrors in each new motor vehicle. Vehicle manufacturers must certify that each of their new vehicles complies with the applicable requirements in FMVSS No. 111. Vehicle manufacturers may install mirror systems that combine flat and convex mirrors on their new vehicles, provided that the flat mirror portion by itself meets FMVSS No. 111 requirements applicable to the vehicle on which the mirror system is installed. Vehicle manufacturers must also meet other requirements in FMVSS No. 111, such as mounting requirements for the mirrors.

Please note that since FMVSS No. 111 applies to the completed new vehicle, it does not apply to mirrors sold and installed as aftermarket equipment. However, there are other Federal requirements that indirectly affect an aftermarket mirror system. Under NHTSA's enabling statute, the agency considers the mirror to be an item of motor vehicle equipment. Manufacturers

of motor vehicle equipment are subject to our statute's requirements concerning the recall and remedy of products with safety related defects. I have enclosed an information sheet that briefly describes those responsibilities. 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 remedying the problem free of charge.

In addition, manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and motor vehicle repair businesses are subject to a provision in the law, which states: "No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly make inoperative ... 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 ...." If the installation of your mirror system resulted in a vehicle no longer complying with FMVSS No. 111, then the manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business that replaced the complying mirror with a noncomplying system would have made inoperative a device (the mirror system) installed in the vehicle in compliance with FMVSS No. 111. The law permits NHTSA to impose a civil penalty of up to $1,100 for each violation of the make inoperative provision.

This provision in the law does not establish any limitation on an individual vehicle owner's ability to modify his or her own vehicle. Under Federal law, individual owners can install any mirror system they desire on their own vehicles, regardless of whether that mirror makes inoperative the vehicle's compliance with the requirements of FMVSS No. 111. However, NHTSA urges vehicle owners not to degrade the safety of any system or device on their vehicles, including the safety of their rearview mirrors. In addition, individual States are responsible for regulating the use of motor vehicles, and a State may have its own requirements with regard to the type of mirrors vehicles must have to be registered in that State.

I note that your product literature states: "The KimVue 2000 passed the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) test No. 111 in March 1997." As earlier stated, Standard No. 111 applies to motor vehicles, not to the mirror system itself. Therefore, it is misleading to state that the KimVue 2000 (by itself) "passed" Standard No. 111. Please do not continue to advertise that the KimVue 2000 "passed" Standard No. 111. A more accurate statement may be that in March 1997, when the KimVue 2000 was placed in a specific motor vehicle (with information specifying the vehicle manufacturer, vehicle type, vehicle model, and model year), the vehicle in which the KimVue 2000 was placed continued to pass Standard No. 111. (This is not to say we agree with the validity of such a statement. Determining whether a vehicle meets Standard No. 111 (in the case of a new vehicle) or continues to meet Standard No. 111 (in the case of a modified vehicle) is the responsibility of the vehicle manufacturer or modifier. NHTSA can assess the validity of the determinations, but does so only in the context of an enforcement proceeding.)

I hope this information is helpful. As earlier noted, I have enclosed an information sheet providing general information about NHTSA's regulations for manufacturers of new motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
Enclosure
cc: The Honorable Eleanor Holmes Norton
Attn: Mr. Bing Yee
U. S. House of Representatives
1424 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515-5101
ref:111
d. 6/22/98

ID: nht81-3.48

DATE: 12/08/81

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Automotive Research and Certification Inc.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of October 19, 1981, requesting permission to import five different German specification 1982 BMW automobiles under the provisions of 19 CFR 12.80(b)(1)(vii).

You wish to import the cars to develop an emission control system which can be added to non-certified imported automobiles to enable them to pass Federal emission tests. The system will be "quite similar" to the system presently used on two U.S. certified BMW models. A secondary purpose is to develop bumper modifications meeting U.S. requirements. At the completion of the one-year test program you intend to bring the vehicles into conformity with the U.S. requirements.

In effect, the purpose of your testing is to encourage the eventual importation of motor vehicles that were not originally manufactured to meet Federal safety, bumper, and emission requirements. As this purpose is inconsistent with the emission of this agency, your request is denied. Given your intent to conform the vehicles in a year's time, we suggest that you import them under bond pursuant to 19 CFR 12.80(b)(1)(iii) and complete the necessary safety modifications before conducting your test program.

SINCERELY,

AUTOMOTIVE RESEARCH AND CERTIFICATION, INC.

October 19, 1981

Frank Berndt Office of Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Mr. Berndt:

It is hereby requested that permission be granted for the importation of five motor vehicles, as provided for by 19 CFR Part 12.80 (b)(1)(vii). These five vehicles will be used solely for the purpose of research, development, and testing. The five motor vehicles for which permission is requested are listed below:

1. BMW 323i (1982), Bayerische Motoren Werke, AG, Munich, West Germany.

2. BMW 528i (1982), Bayerische Motoren Werke, AG, Munich, West Germany.

3. BMW 635i (1982), Bayerische Motoren Werke, AG, Munich, West Germany.

4. BMW 745i (1982), Bayerische Motoren Werke, AG, Munich, West Germany.

5. BMW M1 (1982), BMW Motorsport, GmbH, Munich, West Germany.

The information required by 19 CFR Part 12.80 (c)(3) is enclosed. If any additional information is required, please contact me.

Robert P. McEvoy President

ENC.

REQUEST FOR PERMISSION TO IMPORT NON-CERTIFIED MOTOR VEHICLES

There are, at present, several companies located throughout the United States engaged in the business of modifying non-certified imported automobiles to comply with EPA and NHTSA regulations. These companies do an acceptable job in that they enable the vehicles to pass the Federal emissions test and to conform to all applicable safety standards. However, the emissions related modifications generally decrease the vehicle's performance as well as decreasing the fuel economy. In addition, little consideration is given to the durability of the added emissions control systems.

The primary purpose of this research and development program is to develop an emissions control system, based on the Bosch Lambda closed-loop control system, which can be added to non-certified imported automobiles to enable them to pass the Federal Certification Test (40 CFR part 86). This system, when added to the vehicle, should result in little or no decrease in the vehicle's performance or fuel economy. Since there are no ill effects, there is no reason for the vehicle owner to tamper with the system or render it inoperative, as often happens with systems based on air injection or exhaust gas recirculation. It is felt that this system will be far superior to those currently being added to non-certified automobiles and will better meet the objectives of the Clean Air Act.

The proposed emission control system will be quite similar to the Bosch Lambda closed-loop control system presently being used on the U.S. certified BWM 320i and 528i models. It consists of the following major components.

1. An exhaust gas oxygen sensor to sense changes in the engine air-fuel ratio.

2. A valve to control the pressure (and therefore the volume) of the fuel injected.

3. An electronic control unit to operate the fuel valve based on input from the oxygen sensor.

4. A three-way catalytic converter.

5. An evaporative emission control system.

The research and development program will consist of the following steps:

1. Initial road and laboratory testing of the vehicles, as received, to obtain baseline measurements of emissions, fuel economy, and driveability.

2. Modification of vehicles to use unleaded fuel only.

3. Installation of evaporative emission control systems.

4. Modification of engine components as necessary to accept Bosch Lambda system components.

5. Modification and recalibration of Bosch Lambda and fuel injection components to deliver the desired fuel flow.

6. Selection and installation of three-way catalytic converters.

7. Road and laboratory testing of the vehicles to measure emissions, fuel economy, and driveability.

8. Additional road and laboratory testing to determine system durability.

It is estimated that this research and development program will have a duration of approximately one year.

It is necessary to import and test the five different vehicles previously listed due to the number of different engines available. All of the engines are in-line six cylinder designs, but they have widely differing displacements and power outputs. There are three different fuel injection systems (Bosch K-Jetronic, Bosch L-Jetronic, and Kugelfischer-Bosch mechanical), significantly different cylinder head and combustion chamber designs, and one model (the 745i) is turbocharged and available only with an automatic transmission. All of these factors have a significant effect on emission levels, and an emission control system developed for one model will not necessarily be optimum for another. Therefore, it is felt that all five of these models must be tested individually.

A secondary purpose of the research and development program is to develop a modification to the European style bumpers of the previously listed vehicles to enable them to conform to the requirements of 49 CFR Part 581. Firms engaged in the business of modifying imported vehicles to conform to the requirements of 49 CFR Part 581 generally exchange the European style bumper for U.S. style bumpers with the appropriate shock absorbing units. The disadvantages of this exchange are that a substantial amount of weight is added to the vehicle (thereby decreasing fuel economy) and the esthetic appearance of the vehicle is diminished.

It is felt that the European style bumpers can be modified to conform to the requirements of 49 CFR Part 581 by the addition of a support structure behind the bumper to give it added stiffness and by the addition of shock absorbing units. Although this would add some weight, it would not be nearly as much as that due to the U.S. style bumpers. In addition, the esthetic appearance of the vehicle would remain unchanged.

This bumper development program is particularly important in view of the possibility of a relaxation of the Bumper Standard (46 FR 34100, June 30, 1981). Any relaxation would make the use and modification of the European style bumpers even more feasible.

It is estimated that this research and development program will have a duration of approximately one year.

All five of the test vehicles will be owned by Automotive Research and Certification, Inc., and will be under the direct control of the Corporation. The test vehicles will be kept at, and development work carried out at facilities owned or leased by Automotive Research and Certification, Inc. The EPA and the NHTSA will be advised of the location of these facilities. Laboratory emissions testing will be carried out in an EPA approved testing laboratory. All test results will be recorded in keeping with proper engineering practice, and will be made available to the EPA and the NHTSA at any time and with any frequency desired by the EPA and the NHTSA. The vehicle identification numbers will be recorded and will be submitted to the EPA and the NHTSA upon receipt of the test vehicles.

It is intended that upon completion of the testing program, the test vehicles will be used to obtain Federal certification for the five models in accordance with 40 CFR Part 86. In addition, the test vehicles will be brought into conformity with all applicable safety standards (49 CFR Parts 571, 580, and 581). When all Federal requirements have been met, and approval has been given by the EPA and the NHTSA, the vehicles will be sold.

ID: nht91-2.46

DATE: March 25, 1991

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Charles A. Schue, Jr.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 2-27-91 from Charles A. Schue, Jr. to DOT/NHTSA Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance (OCC 5782)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of February 27, 1991, to the Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, with respect to your prospective importation of a 1979 Mercedes-Benz 300D. You have requested a "waiver of purchase date requirement" as outlined in the DOT "Guide for Complying with Regulations on Imported Motor Vehicles", and, if this cannot be granted, information of "other provisions under which I may request approval to import this vehicle into the U.S.A."

We are happy to provide you with an interpretation of the importation regulations (49 CFR Part 591). One of its provisions will apply to your situation. A vehicle is admitted after its importer has executed a Form HS-7 at the port of entry. As one of its provisions will apply to you, there is no need to obtain written approval in advance from us.

First, there is no restriction upon importation if the vehicle, in fact, complies with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. You report that the Mercedes has had two previous American owners in Turkey. If the car was originally bought by an American, even though in Turkey, there is the possibility that the vehicle was originally manufactured to conform to the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. Conformance with the standards at time of manufacture may be verified by the manufacturer's label certifying compliance, usually placed in the driver's door post area. If your Mercedes has such a label, then it may be imported without the necessity of demonstrating conformance.

An importer who is a nonresident of the United States may import a nonconforming vehicle temporarily without the necessity of conforming it to the standards. The fact that you have been employed in Turkey since June 1986 raises the possibility that you may not intend a permanent importation of the Mercedes. If you intend to seek employment again outside the United States, and if the Mercedes will be in the United States for less than a year, you would appear eligible to import the car under the nonresident provisions.

However, if you intend permanent importation and if your Mercedes lacks the certification label, the car is subject to the importation provisions affecting nonconforming vehicles. You have asked about your eligibility to import a vehicle under the provisions set forth in the Guide. The "purchase date" provision to which you refer is 49 CFR 591.5(g)(3). This requirement was mandated by 15 U.S.C. 1397(g)(3). Subsection (g) contains conditions, all of which must be fulfilled in order to import nonconforming vehicles under the more liberal provisions that were in effect before January 31, 1990. One of these conditions, as set forth in section 1397(g)(3), is that the importer "had acquired (or had entered

into a binding contract to acquire) (the motor) vehicle before the date of enactment of this subsection (October 31, 1988)." In establishing this requirement, Congress provided no authority to exempt anyone from its terms. Thus, unless you had a binding contract as of October 31, 1988, to acquire the Mercedes that you purchased on May 15, 1989, you are not eligible to import the vehicle under section 591.5(g).

The requirements under which you may be eligible to permanently import your Mercedes are set forth in section 591.5(f). Unfortunately, these are not explained in the DOT Guide that you have. For your information, I enclose a current copy of 49 CFR Part 591. In brief, two events must occur before you may import your noncomplying vehicle into the United States pursuant to this section. First, this agency must have made a determination that the vehicle is capable of being converted to comply with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. Second, after such a determination, the vehicle may be imported only by a "registered importer" (essentially an entity that the agency has recognized as capable of converting the vehicle to comply with the standards), or by the vehicle owner who has a contractual relationship with a registered importer to perform conversion work.

You will be pleased to know that the agency has already determined that noncomplying 1979 Mercedes-Benz 300D passenger cars are eligible for importation. I enclose a copy of our Final Determination on this and other cars that was published in the Federal Register on November 13, 1990. The agency's Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance can furnish you a list of registered importers, and I suggest that you contact them shortly before you intend to import the car, so that the list will be current.

Attachments

Copy of Federal Register, Vol. 55, No. 219, 11-30-90; Final Determinations That Certain Nonconforming Vehicles Are Eligible For Importation. (Text omitted)

Copy of 49 CFR Part 591, Importation of Vehicles & Equipment Subject To Federal Safety, Bumper & Theft Protection Standards (Text omitted)

ID: nht93-3.6

DATE: April 19, 1993

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, U.S. Department of Transportation, NHTSA

TO: Donald L. Anglin -- Consulting Editor, MacMillan/McGraw-Hill Publishing, Automotive and Technical Writing

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter date 12-30-92 from Donald L. Anglin to William A. Boehly (OCC 8223)

TEXT: This responds to your letter in which you asked whether removing the self-adjusters on a motor vehicle's drum brakes constitutes a violation of the "anti-tampering" provisions of several Federal laws, including the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain this agency's regulations. You will need to contact the Environmental Protection Agency for an interpretation of the Clean Air Act.

By way of background information, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act ("Safety Act") requires this agency, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), to promulgate motor vehicle safety standards that specify performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. Among the standards issued by NHTSA are Standard No. 105, HYDRAULIC BRAKE SYSTEMS and Standard No. 121, AIR BRAKE SYSTEMS. Standard No. 105 specifies requirements for hydraulic service brake and associated parking brake systems, and applies to new passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, and buses equipped with hydraulic brake systems. Standard No. 121 establishes performance and equipment requirements for braking systems on vehicles equipped with air brake systems, and applies to almost all new trucks, buses, and trailers equipped with air brake systems.

NHTSA recently amended these standards to require vehicles to be equipped with automatic brake adjusters. (57 FR 47793, October 20, 1992) This rule takes effect on October 20, 1993 for vehicles equipped with hydraulic brakes and on October 20, 1994 for vehicles equipped with air brakes. Until these effective dates, a vehicle is not required to be equipped with automatic brake adjusters.

You specifically asked about the agency's "anti-tampering" provisions. While the agency has no provision called this, the Safety Act does include a provision known as the "rendering inoperative" provision which is set forth in section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)). That section prohibits manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and repair shops from knowingly "rendering inoperative," in whole or in part, any device or element of design installed on or in a vehicle in compliance with an applicable safety standard.

For vehicles manufactured on or after the effective date of the new requirements for automatic adjusters, manufacturers, distributors, dealers and repair businesses will be prohibited by section 108(a)(2)(A) from rendering the devices inoperative. For vehicles manufactured before that time, such an entity should ensure that removal of the adjusters does not otherwise render inoperative the compliance of the vehicle with a safety standard.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any questions about NHTSA's safety standards, please feel free to contact Marvin Shaw at this address or by

telephone at (202) 366-2992.

ID: 08-000233as

ID: 2664o

Captain Robert W. Barthelmess
Box 5744
APO, NY 09633

Dear Captain Barthelmess:

This is in reply to your letter of December 30, 1987, to this agency with respect to the requirements for importing tires without the DOT symbol.

You have asked whether the DOT symbol must still appear on the tires of vehicles that conform to the U.S. Federal motor vehicle safety standards. The answer is yes; there has been no change in the requirement that the DOT symbol appear on the sidewall of tires manufactured as either original or replacement equipment. The DOT is the manufacturer's certification of compliance with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. In your letter, you stated that one individual at the Army Air Force Exchange Service indicated that the DOT symbol had been replaced by a series of numbers. This individual may have confused the requirement for the DOT symbol with a different Federal requirement for an identification number to appear on tires. The tire identification number, among other things, assists in the tracing and recalling of tires which may prove to be noncomplying or defective. The requirement for the tire identification number is in addition to, not in place of, the requirement for the DOT symbol.

You have also asked (with reference to service personnel like yourself who recently bought non-DOT marked tires for your U.S. type automobiles) whether there is a technical possibility of denial of entry to vehicles certified as meeting U.S. safety specification but equipped with tires not bearing the DOT symbol. The general procedure is that when a motor vehicle arrives at the port of entry it will be inspected to see whether it bears the manufacturer's certification of compliance (generally in the driver's door post area). We do not know whether Customs makes it a practice to inspect vehicles of U.S. origin for this certificate when a serviceman is returning to the States. If an inspection occurs and the vehicle bears the certification, the vehicle is admitted without further inspection. It is possible, of course, that a Customs inspector could happen to notice in passing the lack of the DOT symbol on the tires. In this instance, as the vehicle would not be in conformity with all applicable standards, the Customs inspector could require entry of the vehicle under bond, which would be released upon the importer's production of a statement to this agency that the noncompliance had been corrected. Although we are not aware of any instance in which this has actually happened, you may wish to contact Customs with respect to its inspection procedures. You may also wish to write Goodyear asking for a statement that the Vector tires comply with Standard No. 109, which could be presented to Customs should questions arise.

I hope that this answers your questions.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel ref:MIS d:2/24/88

ID: 22701.ztv

Mr. Don H. Strobel
Managing Partner
Exciting Lighting, LLC
P.O. Box 206
Watson, LA 70786





Dear Mr. Strobel:

This is in reply to your letter of February 9, 2001, asking for confirmation that "the light rails (Big Boyz Flashers) for pick up trucks and tow trucks" that your company manufactures "are acceptable . . . as being in conformance with the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment."

The light rails were most recently discussed in former Chief Counsel Seales' letter of December 23, 1998, to Robert Currie of your company (we appreciate your attaching a copy of it for our ready reference). Mr. Seales advised that the operation of the system was not totally in accord with Standard No. 108's requirements, but would be acceptable if it operated in the following manner:

The system flashes one or both light rails in a yellow color to indicate, respectively, the direction of a turn or activation of the hazard warning system, a present feature of the system. When the brakes are applied, the light rails illuminate a steady-burning red, also a present feature of Flashers. When the turn signal is on and the brakes are applied, however, the light rail in the direction of the turn must flash yellow/off (as it appears to do on the tow truck), or illuminate in a steady-burning red, but not both, while the light rail on the opposite side remains a steady-burning red.

You have informed us that:

The electrical circuit used now for a truck with a combination red stop/directional lamp will flash the rail on the directional side red/off with the OEM red/off brake/turn signal. The circuit used now for a truck with a separate amber turn signal will flash the rail on the signaled side yellow/off with the amber turn signal and when the brake is applied, will flash the rail red/off.

We were not quite sure how to interpret this and Taylor Vinson of this Office phoned you on March 26, 2001, for a clarification. You explained how the device works: when the turn signals

are activated, the light rails also flash an amber color. If the brake pedal is applied at any time while the turn signal is on, the light rails continue to flash but in the color red.

In this situation, when the rear turn signal lamp is red, it will be overriden by the stop lamp and the light rail will continue to flash red. When the rear turn signal lamp is amber, it will continue to flash when the stop lamp is applied, but the flashing light rail will have changed from amber to red. In the flashing mode, the light rails are serving as supplementary turn signal lamps. The question is whether Standard No. 108 permits supplementary turn signal lamps to be a different color than the original equipment turn signals, e.g. whether different colors flashing simultaneously can be viewed as creating an impairment. Because Standard No. 108 permits rear turn signals to be either red or amber, we consider it unlikely that red and amber turn signals flashing simultaneously will have an impairing effect on other rear lighting equipment.

In our previous letter, we commented on the yellow "strobe beacon" which would be installed on tow trucks. A feature of the system at that time was that, if the brake is applied when the yellow strobe beacon is activated, the light rails would alternate between a strobe pulse in yellow and a red steady-burning state. We advised that we believed that an alternatively flashing yellow/red has the potential to confuse motorists. You have informed us that "the light rails for tow trucks that use a halogen lamp and a strobe lamp have been set up so that the rails run yellow with the halogen." You clarified this by explaining to Taylor Vinson that tow trucks will be equipped with light rails of amber color only, and they will flash during turns. However, when the load has been attached to the tow truck, the driver can then activate the light rails in a strobe mode, as permitted by state law. We do not consider this configuration of the light rail system to create an impairment with the required lighting equipment.

We appreciate the continuing efforts of your company to redesign the system to meet Federal requirements. If you have further questions, please call Taylor Vinson of this Office (202-366-5263).

Sincerely,

John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel

ref:108
d.4/17/01

ID: 1982-1.12

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/09/82

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: G & C Mills Plastics Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your recent letter asking whether an auxiliary wind deflector which you sell must have a "safety label." Also, you ask whether you should send one of your products to the agency in order to obtain official approval.

The answer to your first question is yes. Section 108(a)(1) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act provides that no person shall

"(A) manufacture for sale, sell, offer for sale, or introduce or deliver for introduction in interstate commerce, or import into the United States, any motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment manufactured on or after the date any applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard takes effect under this title unless it is in conformity with such standard . . ."

"(C) fail to issue a certificate required by section 114, or issue a certificate to the effect that a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment conforms to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards, if such person in the exercise of due care has reason to know that such certificate is false or misleading in a material respect."

Since your auxiliary wind deflector is a piece of motor vehicle equipment and is subject to Safety Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials, you are required by section 108 to certify that it complies with that standard. As noted on page 2 of our October 8, 1980 letter to Mr. Hingtgen (which you received), section 114 of the Vehicle Safety Act requires the manufacturer or distributor to place a label or tag on the item of equipment or on the outside container in which the equipment is delivered. This label or tag must state (i.e., certify) that the item of equipment complies with all applicable safety standards, in this case Standard No. 205. You are correct in your assumption that you print this label or tag yourself. The agency does not provide the labels.

In answer to your second question, you should not send a sample of your product to the agency for approval. The agency does not grant prior approval of any motor vehicle or piece of motor vehicle equipment. As you can see from section 108 quoted above, the Vehicle Safety Act requires self-certification by the manufacturer that its product is in compliance with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. The agency's enforcement program begins only after the manufacturer has certified its product (i.e., the agency may obtain an item of equipment or vehicle from the open market and determine whether it is in fact in compliance with all standards).

I hope this has answered all remaining questions you might have.

SINCERELY, G. & C. Mills Plastics Inc.

December 19, 1981

Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel, U.S. Department of Transportation,

Re 'Colorado' Weathershield

Dear Mr. Berndt,

Your letter of November 30th has just arrived on my desk. Please note that we have moved our office from Los Angeles to Toronto.

Please also be assured that we are most anxious to comply with whatever Highway Traffic Safety Administration standards apply to our product. Cut weathershield fits to the door frame of automobiles or small trucks with clips - no screws or body holes are required. The window can be wound up or down completely - the weathershield does not alter this function. Also our weathershield is made of clear acrylic plastic about 1/8" thick with a very slight non-glare tint to it. It washes clean with ordinary soap and water.

The article is manufactured in Sydney, Australia by a large manufacturer of all kinds of plastic items - refrigerator interiors and linings - light fixtures etc, etc. We import the item complete, in bulk - we just carton it individually.

The weathershield presently sells all over the world, Australia (for the past 20 years), also Europe, Japan, Canada and the Caribean, and my source in Australia informs me that there has never ever been a problem regarding the safety of this product.

I have read through the text of Standard No. 205, and your 2 letters dated Sept 8 and Oct 8th to Mr. Hingtgen, which you were kind enough to send me and from what I can see, our product complies satisfactorily, but for 'Safety Standards' Label.

However, I wonder if I should be the judge of this fact or should I not be sending a sample to your department for study and more official approval. I have enclosed a copy of our brochure which explains in more detail the nature of our product.

Please advise what further action you wish me to take and be assured of my fullest co-operation.

I. J. A. Mills

P.S. Would you please confirm that we do require the Safety Standards label as mentioned and do we print this ourselves?