ID: nht91-4.40

DATE: July 8, 1991

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Erika Z. Jones -- Mayer, Brown & Platt

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 5-9-91 from Erika Z. Jones to Paul Jackson Rice (OCC 6038)

TEXT:

This responds to your request for an interpretation of 49 CFR Part 565, Vehicle Identification Number - Content Requirements. More specifically, you asked whether NHTSA's regulations would prohibit or otherwise affect the ability of a foreign subsidiary of an American company from obtaining a special world manufacturer identifier (WMI) code from the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) in the subsidiary's name for use on vehicles to be offered for sale outside of the United States. As explained below, the answer is no.

Your letter posed the following hypothetical situation. The XYZ Company manufactures motor vehicles for sale in the United States and Europe. XYZ certifies that the motor vehicles offered for sale in the United States comply with the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS), and accepts full responsibility as a manufacturer of the U.S. vehicles under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. XYZ has two wholly-owned subsidiaries: ABC Company, which performs "assembly and marketing functions" solely for vehicles sold in the United States for the U.S.-certified vehicles manufactured by XYZ, and the DEF Corporation, which performs "assembly and marketing functions" solely for vehicles sold outside the United States.

Your first question was whether "there would be any implications under NHTSA rules" if wholly-owned subsidiary DEF were to obtain a WMI from the SAE in its own name, for use solely on vehicles assembled and sold outside of the United States. The WMI, which serves to uniquely identify the vehicle manufacturer, consists of the first three digits of the vehicle identification number assigned to the vehicle in accordance with Standard No. 115 and Part 565.

To answer your question, we must consider the scope of NHTSA's authority. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, NHTSA administers Federal regulations, including Part 565, relating to the manufacture, sale, introduction into interstate commerce, and/or importation of motor vehicles into the United States. In your hypothetical, wholly-owned subsidiary DEF is not engaged in any activities with respect to vehicles offered for sale in the United States. In that case, the Federal regulations administered by NHTSA would not apply to the activities of wholly-owned subsidiary DEF.

As you may be aware, NHTSA has entered into a contract with SAE under which SAE coordinates the assignment of WMI's pursuant to 49 CFR S565.5. NHTSA's contract with SAE is naturally limited by NHTSA's statutory authority. That is, NHTSA's contract with SAE relates to coordinating the assignment of WMI's to manufacturers that manufacture motor vehicles sold

or offered for sale in the United States. SAE has no contractual obligation to NHTSA with respect to the assignment of WMI's to manufacturers whose vehicles are not offered for sale in the United States. So long as such assignments do not confuse or obscure the meaning of the WMI's assigned for vehicles offered for sale in the United States, SAE is free to exercise its judgment as to the appropriateness of any such assignments.

Your second question was whether NHTSA would object if XYZ were to ask the SAE to include in its next directory of WMI's a simple notation indicating that XYZ had authorized its subsidiary, ABC, to use one of XYZ's world manufacturer identification codes on vehicles assembled or marketed by ABC. The purpose of the WMI is to ensure that the vehicle manufacturer is uniquely identified. So long as the parent corporation agrees to be treated as the "manufacturer," for the purposes of the Safety Act, for the vehicles produced by its wholly-owned subsidiary, nothing in Part 565 prohibits the wholly-owned subsidiary from identifying the vehicles with a WMI assigned to the parent corporation.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions or need additional information on this subject, please contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

ID: 10949

Mr. Kenneth Zawlocki
7028 Laurel Oak Way
Fair Oaks, CA 95628

Dear Mr. Zawlocki:

This responds to your request for an interpretation of Standard No. 218, Motorcycle Helmets. Your questions are addressed below.

You first ask whether the Penetration Test (S7.2) tests the outer shell of the helmet, the Impact Attenuation Test (S7.1) tests inner protection materials, and the Retention System Test (S7.3) tests straps that hold the helmet on the head. Each of these tests measures the performance of a motorcycle helmet as a total system, i.e., the tests are conducted on a motorcycle helmet as a whole, rather than on helmet components. Therefore, the tests are not limited to measuring the performance of the components you cite. By way of example, while the shell of the helmet may play a critical role in a helmet's resistance to penetration, the composition and thickness of the liner may also be important. Similarly, while certain components are more important than others in meeting certain criteria, overall design and construction of the helmet will determine whether it meets the impact attenuation and retention requirements.

You next ask whether Standard No. 218 specifies the types or amounts of material to be used in manufacturing helmets. Standard No. 218 specifies performance requirements for motorcycle helmets. A manufacturer may use any types or amounts of materials that enable the manufacturer to fully comply with the standard.

While Standard No. 218 does not specify that certain materials must be used in manufacturing a helmet, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's (NHTSA) experience in over 20 years of helmet testing indicates that helmets meeting Standard No. 218 have common characteristics. The first of these is a dense foam liner that is approximately one inch thick. Helmets with thinner liners or liners composed of a soft compressible foam are not likely to meet the impact attenuation or penetration requirements of the Standard. The weight of the helmet, while not governed by any section of Standard No. 218, is also a good indicator of how it will perform in testing. Although it may be

technically possible to build a lightweight helmet that satisfies the performance requirements of Standard No. 218, NHTSA is not aware of any motorcycle helmet weighing less than three pounds that has done so.

Finally, you ask whether Standard No. 218 precludes decorating a helmet with any material such as leather or cloth, or with items such as wigs, flowers, decals or hats.

The various helmet decorations you describe could affect a motorcycle helmet's compliance with a variety of Standard No. 218's performance requirements. One example is S5.5, Projections. The inside of the shell must be free of protruding rivets or other projections. The presence of any projections within the helmet indicates that it is not a complying helmet. Projecting snaps or other objects are permitted on the outside of the helmet only if they are required for essential accessories such as visors or face shields. Any projection on the outside of a helmet must not protrude more than five millimeters.

I note that under 49 U.S.C. '30112(a), "a person may not manufacture for sale, sell, offer for sale, introduce or deliver for introduction in interstate commerce, or import into the United States" a new motorcycle helmet that does not comply with Standard No. 218. Also, dealers and repair businesses may not modify new or used motorcycle helmets in a manner that results in the helmet no longer complying with the standard. Any of these parties must therefore ensure that any contemplated decorations would not affect a helmet's compliance with Standard No. 218.

Federal law does not address modifications made by a motorcycle helmet owner to his or her own helmet. However, it is NHTSA's policy to discourage motorcycle helmet users from modifying their helmets. This is because even relatively simple modifications can reduce the safety protection provided by the helmet. S5.6.1(f)(3) of Standard No. 218 requires the following instruction to be placed on helmets: "Make no modifications..." I also note that State laws may address modifications made by motorcycle helmet owners to their own helmets.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have further questions, please contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel ref:218 d:8/29/95

ID: 13208.ztv

Mr. Robert M. Currie
President
Fiber Light Concepts, Ltd.
1102 East Railroad Street
Long Beach, MS 39560

Dear Mr. Currie:

This responds to your letter of December 3, 1996, asking for "an interpretation of NHTSA statutes, regulations, and standards" that apply to your "new after market accessory lighting for all road motor vehicles." We are pleased to assist you.

The product folder you enclosed depicts the "lightrail", described as a "side light fiber optic cable, locked into a full length, heavy duty, aluminum extruded rail." It is intended "for pickup trucks, trailers, emergency, utility and commercial vehicles." It illuminates the side of vehicles at night. Its operation is described as follows: "LIGHTRAIL can be connected for yellow normally on, flash with your directionals, and turn red with your brake lights - or - red normally on and flash yellow/red with your directionals."

First of all, as an accessory for a motor vehicle, "LIGHTRAIL" is "motor vehicle equipment" as defined by 49 U.S.C. 30102(a)(7)(B). This means that its manufacturer must notify purchasers and remedy any safety related defect that may occur in its construction or performance.

NHTSA's Federal motor vehicle safety standard on motor vehicle and motor vehicle equipment lighting, Standard No. 108, establishes after market specifications only for lighting equipment manufactured to replace original lighting equipment required by Standard No. 108. Thus, Standard No. 108 does not regulate "LIGHTRAIL" since this device is not required as original equipment on any motor vehicle.

The sole provision in Federal law that relates to "LIGHTRAIL" as an after market product is a prohibition contained in 49 U.S.C. 30122 against making safety devices and elements inoperative. Under this section, "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 motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable [Federal] motor vehicle safety standard. . ." In applying this prohibition to specific products, we first determine whether the product will prevent the regulated elevemnts of the vehicle from operating. Since "LIGHTRAIL" does not involve disconnection of lighting items, we next examine the effect of its performance on the performance of lighting equipment that Standard No. 108 requires as original equipment on motor vehicles. If the auxiliary lighting device is likely to detract from the purpose of a required lighting device, or create confusion, we regard that effect also as a "making inoperative" within the meaning of the prohibition.

According to the product sheet, LIGHTRAIL has three modes of operation, steady-burning yellow or red in normal operation, steady-burning red when the stop lamps are applied, and flashing yellow/red when the turn signals are activated. The product literature you enclosed shows LIGHTRAIL installed and lit on the sides of two self-propelled vehicles (a pickup truck and a wrecker), and a trailer. Standard No. 108 requires that motor vehicles have side marker lamps at the front and rear. Because your device illuminates the sides of the vehicles, we consider it to be a supplementary side marker lamp. Side marker lamps are permitted to flash with the turn signal lamps and the operation of the device causes us no concern.

What does concern us, however, is LIGHTRAIL's color. The side marker lamps required for motor vehicles must be amber at the front (and midpoint if the overall length of the vehicle is at least 30 feet) and red at the rear. Thus, LIGHTRAILs installed on the side of the box of pickup trucks should be red, to harmonize with the color of the rear side marker, not amber, where they will conflict with the color of the rear side marker. For the same reason, LIGHTRAILs installed on trailers must be amber up to the midpoint of the trailer, and red to the rear of the midpoint.

The legality of the use of supplementary lighting devices such as LIGHTRAIL is, at bottom, a question of the laws of the individual states. We are unable to provide you with interpretations of these laws, and suggest that you contact the Department of Motor Vehicles in each state in which it is likely that LIGHTRAIL will be used.

If you have any questions, you may refer them to Taylor Vinson of this Office 9202-366-5263).

Sincerely,

John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel

ref:108
d:1/31/97

ID: 1985-04.46

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/19/85

FROM: TAKESHI TANUMA -- CHIEF OPERATING OFFICE; NISSAN RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT INC

TO: ERIKA JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION

TITLE: W-139-H

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 07/21/86 TO TAKESHI TANUMA, FROM ERIKA Z. JONES, REDBOOK A29 (3), PART 543

TEXT: Dear Ms. Jones:

On behalf of Nissan Motor Co., Ltd. of Tokyo, Japan, Nissan Research & Development, Inc., herewith requests interpretation of the term "standard equipment" with respect to the vehicle theft prevention provisions of the Motor Vehicle Information & Cost-Savings Act. Our request follows:

Sections 2025 (a) (1) & 2025 (a) (3) of the Motor Vehicle Information & Cost-Savings Act read as follows:

"(a) (1) Any manufacturer may petition the Secretary for an exemption from the application of any of the requirements of the vehicle theft prevention standard under Section 2022 of this title for any line or lines of passenger motor vehicles which are equipped as standard equipment with an antitheft device which the Secretary determines is likely to be as effective in reducing and deterring motor vehicle theft as compliance with the requirements of such standard." (Emphasis added)

"(a) (3) For purposes of paragraph (1), the term 'standard equipment' means equipment which is installed in a vehicle at the time it is delivered from the manufacturer and which is not an accessory or other item which the first purchaser customarily has the option to have installed." (Emphasis added)

In consideration of these two citations, would the antitheft device be considered "standard equipment" in the following example?

Example -

99.9% of "A" model vehicles are equipped with an antitheft device, and this same rate is projected for the 1987 model year. Of all of "A" model sales, only rental cars destined for Hawaii, Guam and Saipan are not equipped with an antitheft device. Sales figures from October, 1984 through September, 1985 for the "A" model are shown in the table below.$ MO3,18,15,16 With or Without Sales Sales Volume Antitheft Device Destination (10/84 - 9/85) Without Hawaii, Guam 96 & Saipan (Rental cars only) With U.S. -- 101,758 EXCEPT Ren- tal cars in islands above TOTAL 101,854 Thus the non-equipped rate of model "A" is less than 0.1%: (96/101,854) x 100 = 0.094%

We at Nissan thank you for your cooperation and we look forward to your response at your earliest possible convenience. If you have questions or if you require further information, please contact Mr. Tomoyo Hayashi in our Washington, D.C. office at (202) 466-5284.

Sincerely,

ID: 8199

Christopher J. Daniels, Esquire
Nelson, Mullins, Riley & Scarborough
1330 Lady Street
P. O. Box 11070
Columbia, SC 29211

Dear Mr. Daniels:

This responds to your letter to Paul Jackson Rice, our former Chief Counsel, in which you referred to a tire manufactured in Canada that had had the "DOT number" obliterated. Because you think the tire was improperly sold in that condition, you asked whether it was illegal to import a tire from Canada without a DOT number and whether it was illegal to sell or use a tire on the highway without a "DOT serial number."

By way of background information, under the provisions of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, 15 U.S.C. 1381, et seq., as amended (hereinafter Safety Act), the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration is authorized to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards for new motor vehicles and items of new motor vehicle equipment, the latter of which includes tires. All new motor vehicles and items of new motor vehicle equipment manufactured or imported for sale in the United States must comply with all applicable safety standards. This requirement is found at Section 1397 (a)(1)(A) of the Safety Act which provides "No person shall . . . import into the United States, any . . . item of motor vehicle equipment manufactured on or after the date any applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard takes effect . . . unless it is in conformity with such standard . . . ." The effect of that language is to require that tires manufactured on or after the effective date of applicable Federal safety standards must comply with those standards before they can be legally imported into the U.S. Pursuant to Standard 109 (49 CFR 571.109, New Pneumatic Tires) and Standard 119 (49 CFR 571.119, New Pneumatic Tires for Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars), tire manufacturers must certify compliance therewith by molding the symbol "DOT" onto the tire sidewalls. Further, 49 CFR 574.5 requires that all tires sold in the U.S. have tire identification numbers (TIN) molded into or onto the tire sidewalls by the manufacturers to facilitate recall in the event of a noncompliance or defect.

With that background in mind, your specific questions are answered as follows:

1. Is it illegal to import a tire from Canada without a DOT serial number? Answer: Yes. Each tire imported into the U.S. for highway use must have molded into or onto the sidewall a TIN and a DOT symbol or in the alternative, be accompanied by proof that the tire was manufactured prior to the effective date of applicable safety standards. The only exception to these requirements is that used truck tire casings which have less than 2/32 inch tread remaining and which are being imported solely for retreading prior to on-road use may be imported without displaying the TIN or the DOT symbol.

2. Is it illegal to sell or use a tire for highway use without the DOT serial number? Answer: It is illegal for a manufacturer, distributor, or dealer to sell a new or retreaded tire to the first customer for purposes other than resale without the DOT symbol and the TIN molded into or onto the sidewall. There are no Federal requirements for the use of such tire once it has been sold to the first customer. There may, however, be state safety requirements pertinent to the use of motor vehicle equipment. For that information you should check with appropriate state officials.

If the tire in question is intended for or capable of being used on a commercial vehicle, you may want to check also with the Office of Motor Carrier Standards (Room 3404), of the Federal Highway Administration, at this address. (Telephone (202) 366-1790.)

I hope this information is helpful. Should you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Walter Myers of this office at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

ref:109#119#574 d:2/11/93

ID: nht93-1.33

DATE: 02/11/93

FROM: JOHN WOMACK -- ACTING CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TO: CHRISTOPHER J. DANIELS NELSON, MULLINS, RILEY & SCARBOROUGH

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 12-18-92 FROM CHRISTOPHER J. DANIELS TO PAUL JACKSON RICE (OCC 8199)

TEXT: This responds to your letter to Paul Jackson Rice, our former Chief Counsel, in which you referred to a tire manufactured in Canada that had had the "DOT number" obliterated. Because you think the tire was improperly sold in that condition, you asked whether it was illegal to import a tire from Canada without a DOT number and whether it was illegal to sell or use a tire on the highway without a "DOT serial number."

By way of background information, under the provisions of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, 15 U.S.C. @ 1381, et seq., as amended (hereinafter Safety Act), the National Higway Traffic Safety Administration is authorized to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards for new motor vehicles and items of new motor vehicle equipment, the latter of which includes tires. All new motor vehicles and items of new motor vehicle equipment manufactured or imported for sale in the United States must comply with all applicable safety standards. This requirement is found at Section 1397 (a) (1) (A) of the Safety Act which provides "No person shall . . . import into the United States, any . . . item of motor vehicle equipment manufactured on or after the date any applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard takes effect . . . unless it is in conformity with such standard. . . ." The effect of that language is to require that tires manufactured on or after the effective date of applicable Federal safety standards must comply with those standards before they can be legally imported into the U.S. Pursuant to Standard 109 (49 CFR 571.109, New Pneumatic Tires) and Standard 119 (49 CFR 571.119, New Pneumatic Tires for Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars), tire manufacturers must certify compliance therewith by molding the symbol "DOT" onto the tire sidewalls. Further, 49 CFR 574.5 requires that all tires sold in the U.S. have tire identification numbers (TIN) molded into or onto the tire sidewalls by the manufacturers to facilitate recall in the event of a noncompliance or defect.

With that background in mind, your specific questions are answered as follows:

1. Is it illegal to import a tire from Canada without a DOT serial number? Answer: Yes. Each tire imported into the U.S. for highway use must have molded into or onto the sidewall a TIN and a DOT symbol or in the alternative, be accompanied by proof that the tire was manufactured prior to the effective date of applicable safety standards. The only exception to these requirements is that used truck tire casings which have less than 2/32 inch tread remaining and which are being imported solely for retreading prior to on-road use may be imported without displaying the TIN or the DOT symbol.

2. Is it illegal to sell or use a tire for highway use without the DOT serial number? Answer: It is illegal for a manufacturer, distributor, or dealer to sell a new or retreaded tire to the first customer for purposes other than resale without the DOT symbol and the TIN molded into or onto the sidewall. There are no Federal requirements for the use of such tire once it has been sold to the first customer. There may, however, be state safety requirements pertinent to the use of motor vehicle equipment. For that information you should check with appropriate state officials.

If the tire in question is intended for or capable of being used on a commercial vehicle, you may want to check also with the Office of Motor Carrier Standards (Room 3404), of the Federal Highway Administration, at this address. (Telephone (202) 366-1790.)

I hope this information is helpful. Should you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Walter Myers of this office at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht78-2.36

DATE: 05/26/78

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVILABLE; Joseph J. Levin Jr.; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Doug Mills

COPYEE: CHARLES H. BRADLEY

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your recent letter asking additional questions concerning the responsibilities of a person converting a pick-up truck into a dump truck, under Federal motor vehicle safety standards and regulations. This office explained the general responsibilities of a person who alters a certified vehicle in a letter to your associate, Mr. Henry Brown, dated February 1, 1978. You now ask questions regarding specific aspects of the conversion operation and whether they can be accomplished without destroying a vehicle's compliance with safety regulations.

Unfortunately, it is impossible for the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to answer your specific questions. It is the responsibility of the manufacturer or vehicle alterer to determine whether his vehicle is in compliance with applicable safety standards and to certify that vehicle. The NHTSA cannot review an alteration procedure such as the one with which you are concerned and state that it can or cannot be done in compliance with Federal regulations. There are no safety regulations which require a specific number of bolts or specific bolt locations, for instance. Likewise, Safety Standard No. 301-75, Fuel System Integrity, is specified only in terms of performance requirements, so the NHTSA cannot tell you whether a modified fuel filler neck will destroy a vehicle's compliance with the standard.

As stated in our previous letter, a person who alters a pick-up truck to convert it to a dump truck must certify that the truck remains in compliance with all applicable safety standards. Further, the person who makes the conversion must assure that the alterations do not result in any "safety related defects" whether or not there is a specific safety standard that is applicable. Therefore, you must determine for yourself whether the number of bolts you use, the bolt strengths and the bolt locations will result in safety hazards.

I can answer your question number 8 regarding possible liability for removal and alteration of the truck bumper. The Federal safety standard for bumpers is only applicable to passenger cars, so you may alter a truck bumper with impunity provided the action does not result in a safety related defect.

ID: nht74-1.12

DATE: 06/11/74

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

TO: Amerace Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of May 17, 1974, with questions as to the applicability of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act to your operations, and its relationship to a contract provision requested by General Motors (GM) requiring that you certify compliance of the hoses you deliver to it.

Your primary responsibility under the Act is to manufacture brake hoses that conform to 49 CFR @ 571.106, Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 106. On and after September 1, 1974, pursuant to S5.2, Labeling, of that standard, each hydraulic brake hose, end fitting, and assembly shall be marked with "The symbol DOT, constituting a certification" by the hose manufacturer, fitting manufacturer, and hose assembler that each item "conforms to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards." Since the symbol is a permanent mark on the product, certification will be furnished to anyone through whose hands it passes, whether or not it is required by @ 114 of the Act. In our view, the symbol DOT is also a "certificate" within the meaning of @ 108(b)(2) since it is the manufacturer's representation of compliance upon which other persons may rely. The contract language suggested by GM is therefore not something required by the Act.

I note however, that the amendment requested by GM is to take effect July 1, 1974, two months before you are legally required to use the DOT mark. With respect to your obligations in the interim: Under @ 114 and the certification notice published November 4, 1967, (32 F.R. 15444) an equipment manufacturer must certify conformity to "dealers" and "distributors" by a label or tag on the item itself or on the container in which it is shipped. Obviously this includes dealers and distributors to whom you sell directly.

We also consider that the manufacturer of a vehicle, such as GM, into which a hose is incorporated is a distributor of brake hoses to whom @ 114 certification must be provided. Any further requirements specified by GM in your contract would be, of course, purely a matter of contract law.

Because you are required to manufacture hoses to conform to Standard No. 106 you are legally responsible for any violation directly attributable to the manufacturing process, irrespective of any certification provided GM. The question whether that certificate relieves GM of liability cannot be answered in the abstract. As of January 1, 1975, Standard No. 106 will also apply to motor vehicles, and we do not interpret @ 108(b)(2) in this context as relieving a vehicle manufacturer of his obligation to exercise due care. Certainly, at a minimum, GM would be liable for violations attributable to installation.

You have also asked for guidance on the recall provisions of @ 111 and (Illegible Word) notification provisions of @ 113. The repurchase provisions of @ 111 come into effect upon a determination by either NHTSA or a manufacturer that there exists either a safety-related defect or a nonconformance. This section is not enforced directly by NHTSA, but affords redress to distributors and dealers in the event a manufacturer refuses to repurchase substandard vehicles or equipment items. Since a @ 108(b)(2) certificate covers only compliance and is not a guarantee of freedom from safety-related defects, it cannot have been intended "to pass the expense of recall from GM" to you when @ 111 is invoked. The @ 108(b)(2) certificate was intended only to provide protection to certificate holders from civil penalty liabilities. Liability for expenses under @ 111 or @ 113 is a contract matter between GM and you.

As for @ 113, your understanding of Mr. Vinson's remarks is essentially correct. There is a direct notification obligation under @ 113(a) only upon manufacturers of vehicles and tires. But a @ 113(e) proceeding can involve any motor vehicle equipment manufacturer as a party, who could be ordered to proceed with a @ 113(a) notification campaign upon a finding that a safety-related defect or a noncompliance exists. A brake hose manufacturer upon such a finding would be required to provide notification to aftermarket purchasers. If the component is used as original vehicle equipment the vehicle manufacturer would normally also be a party to a @ 113(e) proceeding and required to furnish notification to vehicle purchasers.

SINCERELY,

AMERACE CORPORATION,

May 17, 1974

Lawrence R. Schneider Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Pursuant to a conversation with Mr. Taylor Vinson of your office, I am requesting a written opinion relating to certain questions I have concerning the applicability of the Motor Vehicle Safety Act to our operations.

Our Swan Hose Division manufactures brake hose for, among others, the Chevrolet Motor Division of GM. We have been asked by Chevrolet to certify that the act of making each shipment pursuant to our contract constitutes certification as referred to in Section 108(B)(2) the Act (copy of certification enclosed).

Specifically, I would like to know what is our general responsibility under the Act as a manufacturer of brake hose? Does this request for certification add anything to what we are already obligated to do by the Act? I note that Section 114 apparently requires us to certify to distributors and dealers but not to manufacturers, such as GM. Do we have to certify if we sell to dealers or distributors directly?

Section 109 of the Act provides for civil penalties in situations where there is a violation. Does our certification to Chevrolet, in effect, pass the responsibility for violation on to us directly and insulate Chevrolet? Is is likely that the Administration would proceed against us directly in the case of a defect whether or not we have given the Section 108(P)(2) certification?

There are provisions in Section 111 of the Act for the recall of vehicles prior to the sale by a distributor or dealer. Is the Section 108 certification intended to pass the expense of recall from GM to us? Mr. Vinson advise me that recall is otherwise never mandatory. Can I assume that since recall is not mandatory the liability and expense for recall is a matter of agreement between Chevrolet and us and is unaffected by the Section 108 certification?

Mr. Vinson indicated that in the case of a safety-related defect the (Illegible Word) pursuant to Section 113(A) would be on the vehicle manufacturer to notify with no notification obligation on the hose manufacturer. However, in the event Chevrolet refused to recognize the safety defect, then a Section 113(E), Administrative Proceeding, might be brought against Chevrolet in which we would then be a party to the proceeding. Is there ever a situation where we have to notify dealers of a defect? Does the Section 108 certification pass the expense of notification from GM to us?

I wish to thank you, Mr. Vinson, and the other members of your staff who have been extremely helpful in assisting us in interpreting the Act.

I await your office's reply on the above questions and comments.

J. C. Vecchio Assistant Counsel

Enclosure

cc: N. P. Beveridge

AMERIACE CORPORATION SHAN HOSE DIVISION (Illegible Word) W SQUARE LK RD POB 249 BLOOMFIELD HILLS, MICH. 48013

CONTRACT AMENDMENT NO.: 38550

Amendment Effective Date: 7/1/74

Date: 4/3/74

(Illegible Words) Date: 6/30/75

The (Illegible Word) contract is hereby amended as follows: FOB DUNS-017560988

Contract No. CO-23064

PLEASE ADD THE FOLLOWING CLAUSES TO THE ABOVE MENTIONED CONTRACT:

"BY ACCEPTANCE OF THE CONTRACT OR PURCHASE ORDER, IT IS AGREED THAT THE ACT OF MAKING EACH SHIPMENT PURSUANT THERETO CONSTITUTES CERTIFICATION, AS REFERRED TO IN SECTION 108 (B) (2) OF THE NATIONAL TRAFFIC AND MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY ACT OF 1966, THAT EACH ITEM IN SUCH SHIPMENT CONFORMS WITH ALL APPLICABLE FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD." ALL SHIPPING CONTAINERS (INDIVIDUAL OR BULK), EXCEPT (Illegible Word) TIRES AND GLAZING MATERIALS (GLASS), PROVIDED THE ARTICLES INDIVIDUALLY HEAR THE CERTIFICATION SYMBOL SPECIFIED IN THE FOLLOWING WORDING: - CONFORMS TO APPLICABLE U. S. FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDS -

THE PARTS IN THIS CONTRACT IDENTIFIED WITH AN ASTERISK (*) MUST BE PRODUCED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDS ACT OF 1966, AS AMENDED."

BUYER 03

Reason for Change: ADDING CLAUSES TO CONTRACT

Accepted:

AMERCE CORPORATION SWAN HOSE DIVISION

CHEVROLET MOTOR DIVISION General Motors Corporation Central Office

ID: nht74-3.7

DATE: 12/11/74

FROM: GERHARD P. RIECHEL -- ATTORNEY VOLKSWAGEN OF AMERICA INC

TO: TAYLOR VINSON -- OFFICE OF THE CHEIF COUNSEL NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION

TITLE: STANDARD 105 - FAILURE INDICATOR LAMP

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 02/28/75 FROM RICHARD B. DYSON -- NHTSA TO GERHARD P. RIECHEL, RED BOOK (-); STANDARD 105-75

TEXT: Dear Mr. Vinson:

This is in reference to our meeting of Friday, November 22, and previous telephone conversations concerning the permissibility of Volkswagen's brake failure indicator configuration for use in connection with 1976 model vehicles.

We have understood Paragraph S5.3.3 of FMVSS 105-75 read in conjunction with S5.3.1(a)(1) to permit deactivation of the failure indicator lamp whenever the brake system is not under pressure, that is whenever brake activation terminates. Mr. Bloom informed us that this understanding did not accurately reflect the intent of the language of the Standard nor the purpose that its authors sought to achieve.

While we appreciate the difficulty of drafting regulations dealing with complex technical subjects, we believe that the language of the rule should be accorded priority where a contrary intent and purpose are not readily apparent. We have closely examined each notice issued by the NHTSA in the course of the lengthy rulemaking process relating to Standard 105 and find nothing that would have aided us in ascertaining the claimed intent of the rule.

It should also be noted that unlike certification, recall and record keeping regulations promulgated by the NHTSA, its safety standards are addressed to design engineers, who are accustomed to working with measurable and ascertainable values and conditions. A "gross loss of pressure," an engineer would justly maintain, simply cannot exist in the absence of any pressure in the brake system. One could argue that had the rule's authors intended the indicator lamp to remain activated as long as the brake system was so grossly defective that it was incapable of building up pressure, terms similar to "inability to build up pressure" or other such language would have been chosen. There is little doubt that our engineers chose that meaning, which most closley conforms to the letter of the standard, and totally unaware of the subsequently disclosed "intent" of the rule, acted responsibly in designing and developing a brake failure warning and indicator lamp configuration, which now is ready for production and use in connection with 1976 model cars.

Description of the Volkswagen Brake Failure Warning System and its Advantages Over Other Systems

Volkswagen uses a dual chamber master cylinder, which provides operating pressure to both brake circuits. The system is so designed that leaks in one circuit will not affect the performance of the other circuit. An electrical warning system, which is actuated by a pressure switch in each of the two brake circuits, which is located in the master cylinder, causes a red indicator lamp on the instrument panel to light up whenever a gross loss of pressure occurs in one of the two circuits upon application of the brake pedal with a control force of not more than fifty (50) pounds. The two pressure switches perform dual functions. Under normal operating conditions, they operate the tail brake lights. Both pressure switches are actuated simultaneously as the result of pressure built up in each circuit. In the case of a gross loss of pressure in one of the circuits, the pressure switch for the other circuit is actuated and in turn illuminates the tail brake lights and the warning indicator lamp upon application of the brake pedal. When the brake pedal is released, the warning and tail lights are deactuated.

This type of pressure failure warning system has certain advantages and, we believe, is superior to warning systems incorporating latching relay components, which allow the warning lamp to remain activated even if the brake pedal is released. Latching relay components have the disadvantage that they operate only in the event that a failure occurs. Unused, they may become increasingly unreliable as the vehicle ages. There is no way of checking, short of dis-assembly, whether or not they are operative. With the increasing age of the vehicle, possible malfunctions due to corrosion and other causes remain undetected until such time as the actual pressure loss occurs. Volkswagen's warning system offers a means of checking and assuring continuous operation throughout the life of the vehicle.

Additionally, since the Volkswagen pressure switch does not only sense a pressure loss but also any malfunction in the switch itself, which, if it occurs, would activate the indicator lamp, the driver is made aware of any deficiency in his braking system.

The Volkswagen warning system also enables the vehicle operator to distinguish between a pressure failure signaled by the warning light being deactivated upon release of the brake pedal, and a loss of brake fluid. In the latter instance, the warning light will remain activated independent of any brake pedal activation.

Notwithstanding the unpublished intent of the rule, which was unknown to us until recently, we believe there is ample support for our claim that the Volkswagen design falls squarely within the interpretive parameters of the Standard's language. We therefore believe that our design is permissible under the law without further rulemaking.

In the event that the NHTSA should disagree with this view, we respectfully request that the effectiveness date of Paragraph S5.3.3 to the extent that it makes reference to Paragraph S5.3.1(a)(1) be postponed until September 1, 1976.

Volkswagen is currently committed to produce the system described above and in more detail in Attachments 1, 2, and 3.

In order to meet the alleged intent of the rule, it will be necessary to redesign our current warning system in several respects. Attachment 4 shows the circuit diagram of the new system, and Attachment 3, the changes that are necessary in the lamp housing in order to accommodate the additional components. The changes are marked in red pencil.

Enclosed as Attachment 5 is an estimate of the cost that we anticipate in acquiring new tooling and in tool modifications for the purpose of incorporating latching relay components into the warning system of each of the models offered for sale in the United States. Note in particular the high costs that will be incurred for our two new models, the Rabbit and Scirocco. The single largest cost factor in this case involves major changes on the dashboard support structures on these models to receive the larger components of the new lamp assembly. The dashboard changes as well as the modifications of the instrument panel insert are marked in red pencil in the drawing enclosed as Attachment 6. The total cost for new tooling is estimated to be approximately $400,000. The cost to the manufacturer of the additional components that must be installed in 1977 vehicles is approximately $4 per car.

Redesign and preparation for production including development of the additional tooling is estimated to require approximately 20 months.

Your favorable consideration of our request is appreciated.

Sincerely,

ENCS

ID: 8033

Ms. Joanna L. Campfield
Vice President
Ultra B-O-N-D, Inc.
11151 Pierce Street
Riverside, CA 92505

Dear Ms. Campfield:

This responds to your letter asking the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to issue an "approval" letter for your method of repairing cracks in windshields. As explained below, this agency does not approve motor vehicles or items of motor vehicle equipment. However, this letter does discuss Federal safety requirements in connection with windshield repairs.

By way of background information, section 103 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (Safety Act, 15 U.S.C. 1392) authorizes this agency to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and items of new motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA, however, does not approve motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment, nor do we endorse any commercial products. Instead, the Safety Act establishes a self-certification process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet our safety standards. The agency periodically tests vehicles and equipment items for compliance with the standards, and also investigates alleged safety-related defects.

NHTSA has issued Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials (49 CFR 571.205) which establishes performance and location requirements for glazing used in new motor vehicles and for all new replacement glazing for motor vehicles. Neither Standard No. 205 nor any other FMVSS establishes performance requirements for repair kits, such as the Ultra B-O-N-D method, used to repair cracks in broken glazing. However, use of such a material or process in a new windshield prior to the first consumer purchase which requires repair, for example, as a result of damage sustained in shipment would be affected by Standard No. 205. Manufacturers must certify that their new vehicles comply with all applicable safety standards. If a windshield is repaired prior to the new vehicle being sold for the first time to a consumer, the person making the repairs would be considered a vehicle alterer under our certification regulations (Part 567). As an alterer, the person would have to certify that the vehicle, as altered, continues to comply with all of the requirements of Standard No. 205.

In the case of a used vehicle, use of a windshield repair kit could potentially be affected by section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act. That section prohibits commercial businesses from knowingly rendering inoperative devices or elements of design installed in a vehicle in compliance with a FMVSS. In discussing the applicability of section 108(a)(2)(A) to the repair of windows in used vehicles, NHTSA has said that the prohibitions of that section do not apply to use of a product or process used in the repair of a windshield which has been previously installed in a vehicle and damaged in use. The agency has considered the event that damaged the windshield, and not any subsequent action by the person repairing the damaged window in a used vehicle, as the event which rendered inoperative the compliance of the glazing with the standard. Thus, there is no Federal regulation which would prohibit the use of a product or process in the repair of a windshield which has previously been installed in a vehicle and damaged in use. I note, however, that if the repair shop, in the course of fixing a damaged windshield that is installed in a vehicle renders another part of the vehicle or element of design inoperative with respect to another applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard, then the repair shop would violate section 108(a)(2)(A).

In addition, the manufacturer of the windshield repair kit is considered a manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment. Accordingly, it is 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.

Please be aware that the laws of the individual States may be relevant to the repair of motor vehicle glazing. For more information about these laws, you should contact the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators. Its address is 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Va. 22203.

I hope this information is helpful. Please feel free to contact Marvin Shaw of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992 if you have any further questions or need additional information.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosure ref:205 d.2/1/93