ID: nht92-5.5

DATE: July 31, 1992

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Carrie Minna

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 7/13/92 from Carrie Minna to Paul J. Rice (OCC 7548)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of July 13, 1992, with respect to your wish to import certain motor vehicles for use off main highways, in "small guarded gate communities such as Golf resorts, small island communities, and possible elderly communities." The vehicles appear to be of Asian origin, are three-wheeled and carry from three to eight passengers. The top speed of the vehicles is 80 kph.

This agency interprets and enforces the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act under which the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (the "standards") are promulgated. The Act defines a motor vehicle as one that is "manufactured primarily for use on the public streets, roads, and highways." You will see from this that the primary determinant of whether the vehicle you wish to import is a "motor vehicle" is the manufacturer's intent, rather than your intent as the purchaser. It is clear to us from the speed capability of the vehicle (not to mention that one of them carries a "taxi" sign) that these vehicles are motor vehicles within the meaning of the Act and are therefore required to meet all applicable standards in order to be imported into the United States, notwithstanding your intent to use them in traffic off the public roads.

The standards that the vehicles are required to meet are those that apply to motorcycles, specifically to brake hoses, brakes, brake fluid, lamps and reflectors, rearview mirrors, vehicle identification number, controls and displays, and glazing. If the motorcycles are originally manufactured to conform with the standards, and bear a certification to that effect affixed by their manufacturer, they may enter the United States as manufactured in compliance with the U.S. standards of this agency.

It is probable, however, that the vehicles have not been manufactured to conform with the standards. In order for a nonconforming vehicle to be imported, the Administrator of this agency must have determined that they are capable of being modified to comply with the standards. Such determinations are most frequently made on the petition of the manufacturer or an entity known as a "Registered Importer." A Registered Importer is one that has been recognized by the agency as capable of performing conformance work. Once the Administrator has determined that a vehicle is eligible for importation, it may be imported only by Registered Importers, or those who have contracted with a Registered Importer to perform the work necessary to bring the vehicle into compliance with the standards. No eligibility determinations have been made that cover the vehicles you wish to import.

If you are interested in pursuing this matter further, you may write Robert Hellmuth, Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, NHTSA, 400 Seventh Street SW, Washington, D.C. 20590. Mr. Hellmuth can provide guidance on the

motorcycle standards and other obligations, as well as a list of Registered Importers and information on the eligibility determination procedures.

ID: nht81-3.12

DATE: 09/02/81

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: The Firefly Company, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

SEPTEMBER 2, 1981 NOA-30

Mr. Alex Roth The Firefly Company, Inc. 1 Marine Plaza North Bergen, New Jersey 07047

Dear Mr. Roth:

This is in reply to your letter of July 30, 1981, asking for confirmation that a vehicle you intend to produce is a "motorcycle."

The body appears to be that of the British Reliant Regal, a three-wheeled fully enclosed passenger vehicle. You intend to market your product as a battery powered three-wheeled vehicle. Although this agency once engaged in rulemaking with the intent of excluding three-wheeled vehicles of this nature from applicability of the motorcycle standards, no final rule was ever adopted. Therefore, all three-wheeled vehicles are classified as "motorcyles" for purposes of compliance with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards.

I hope that this is responsive to your request.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

July 30, 1981

Mr. Frank Berndt Chief Counsel NHSTA 400 Seventh St., S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Mr. Berndt:

We are at the threshold of mass producing what we believe will be America's first low-cost, battery-powered vehicle.

The vehicle is specifically designed for city streets use and made for the 30 million multi-car families in the U.S. many of whom could do with one standard gasoline-powered car and our battery-powered vehicle to carry one or two passengers to work; to the railroad station; or to do the myriad transportation chores that lie close to the household.

If we are successful with our mass production plans, we expect to be able to retail this vehicle at under $4,000. If we do this, it will indicate the viability of the electric vehicle market and get the electric vehicle industry off dead center.

This is a two-passenger, three-wheeled vehicle with a fiberglass body. Overall length is 131 inches - height 56 inches - width 54 inches. The curb weight is estimated to be 1,200 lbs.

We have had conversations with motor vehicle commissioners in various states, all of whom indicate to us that this vehicle would be licensable as a motorcycle. Early conversations with John Carson, your safety standards engineer, also indicated to us that there were no DOT or NHSTA standards for three-wheeled vehicles of this type and that, consequently, it would be classified as a motorcycle.

We are addressing ourselves to your office to request confirmation of these facts.

I am enclosing a photograph of the preproduction prototype and would be happy to furnish you with any additional information that you might require.

Sincerely yours,

THE FIREFLY COMPANY, INC.

Alex Roth

AR:lvrn Enclosure

ID: 3062yy

Mr. Roddy Williams
Container Enterprise
3900 Paris Road
P.O. Box 1098
Chalmette, LA 70044-1098

Dear Mr. Williams:

This responds to your letter that asked whether your company is permitted to assign its own Vehicle Identification Numbers (VINs) pursuant to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 115, Vehicle Identification Number--Basic Requirements (49 CFR 571.115) to trailers that it "remanufactures" from previously used trailers. The answer is that a company that performs the remanufacturing operations described in your letter may assign a new VIN to its remanufactured trailers. By doing so, however, the trailers would be treated as newly manufactured trailers for the purposes of this agency's safety standards and regulations. Among other things, this would mean that your company would be required to certify that the trailers comply with all applicable safety standards in effect as of the date of the remanufacturing operations, including the lighting, tire, and brake standards applicable to new trailers.

In a telephone conversation with Dorothy Nakama of my staff, you stated that your company, Container Enterprise, works on trailers that were used to carry cargo containers. You stated that approximately 90% of the trailers that Container Enterprise works on were originally built between 1974 and 1979. Container Enterprise takes used container chassis that are 23 feet long and removes the axles and half of the crossmembers on the original frame. Container Enterprise then manufactures a 12 foot subframe and reinstalls the used axles on this subframe. The subframe is then attached to the container chassis, extending its chassis length to 27 feet. The conversion allows the chassis to slide open or closed. You stated that upon completion of this process, Container Enterprise will issue "a new manufacturer plate with a new VIN number" and date of remanufacture.

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.) authorizes this agency to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. We have exercised this authority to establish Standard No. 115, which applies to all new vehicles. S4.1 of Standard No. 115 specifies that vehicles manufactured in one stage shall have a VIN assigned by the vehicle manufacturer and S4.5 specifies that the assigned VIN shall appear clearly and indelibly on the vehicle.

Thus, the only person that can assign a VIN to a vehicle is the vehicle's manufacturer. The question then is whether your company's "remanufacturing" operations are substantial enough that the remanufactured trailers should be considered to be new vehicles and the manufacturer of those vehicles would be your company, instead of the original manufacturer of the trailer.

NHTSA's regulations specifically address the question of when trailers produced by combining new components (the subframe fabricated by your company) and used components (the parts of the used container chassis) are considered to be new trailers. 49 CFR 571.7(f) states that when new and used components are used in trailer manufacture, the trailer will be considered "newly manufactured" unless the following three conditions are met. First, the trailer running gear assembly, which includes the axle(s), wheels, braking and suspension, is not new, and was taken from an existing trailer. Second, the existing trailer's identity is continued in the reassembled vehicle with respect to the Vehicle Identification Number. Third, the existing trailer is owned or leased by the user of the reassembled vehicle.

You have stated that your company would assign new VINs to the trailers it remanufactures. Upon doing so, the second condition in 571.7(f), continuing use of the original VIN, would not be met. Therefore, the trailers "remanufactured" by your company would be considered to be newly manufactured. Your company, as the manufacturer, must certify that these trailers comply with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards in effect at the time of the remanufacture. This means that, in addition to complying with the 1991 requirements of Standard No. 115, your company would be required to certify that the trailers comply with the 1991 versions of the lighting standard (Standard No. 108), the tire and rim standard (Standard No. 120), and the air brake standard (Standard No. 121), to name a few examples of applicable standards. To assist you in making any such certifications, I am enclosing a brochure that briefly describes each of the safety standards and an information sheet for new manufacturers of motor vehicles that explains how to get copies of our standards and regulations.

Your letter also referred to U. S. Department of the Treasury Publication 510 on Excise Taxes. We can only tell you that your remanufactured trailers with new VINs would be considered new vehicles for the purposes of the Safety Act and the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. If you have any questions about the trailers for purposes of excise taxes, you should contact the Internal Revenue Service. Their District Office for Louisiana is located at 500 Camp Street, New Orleans, LA 70130.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any additional questions, please feel free to contact Ms. Dorothy Nakama of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

Enclosures

ref:571#115#VSA d:7/l2/9l

ID: hill.ztv

Senior Trooper W. L. Hill
Texas Department of Public Safety
Highway Patrol
2720 Industrial Boulevard
Abilene, TX 79606





Dear Trooper Hill:

This is in reply to your request to Taylor Vinson of this Office for our opinion on the following two questions regarding compliance with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment. You are requesting this information in connection with a court case in which a driver was cited for operating a vehicle equipped with a replacement taillamp consisting of a clear lens and a red bulb. You mentioned the driver's opinion that Mercedes-Benz was offering such a lamp.

Your first question is whether, to the best of our knowledge, a motor vehicle taillamp is being manufactured, either as original or replacement equipment, which includes a red bulb and a clear lens, and which is certified as complying with Standard No. 108. Our answer is that, to the best of our knowledge, it is not economically feasible under the current state of the art to manufacture a taillamp with a red bulb and a clear lens that complies with Standard No. 108's taillamp requirements, and we are not aware of any such product.

Your second question is whether red reflective tape that is affixed to a vehicle after a protective backing is removed can be a rear reflex reflector replacement under Standard No. 108. The tape has no DOT marking. The answer is no; the original rear reflex reflector, whether incorporated in the lamp or separately mounted on the body, would have been made of plastic in order to comply with SAE Standard J594f, Reflex Reflectors, incorporated by reference in Standard No. 108 as the requirement for reflex reflectors. A replacement rear reflex reflector would also need to be made of plastic to meet these requirements.

If you have any further questions, you may call Taylor Vinson at 202-366-5263.





Sincerely,

Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel

ref:108
d.10/5/00

ID: 16206.drn

Mr. George J. Aumond
President
Intec Industries, Inc.
1025 S. Linwood Ave.
Santa Ana, CA 92705

Dear Mr. Aumond:

This responds to your request for an interpretation whether your company must assign new vehicle identification numbers (VINs) to used trailer chassis, under the facts described in your letter. If the trailers are modified in accordance with NHTSA's regulations on combining new and used components in trailer manufacture, the trailers would be considered used and the VIN assigned to each trailer may be retained.

Your letter states that Intec Industries is in the process of redesigning 40-foot shipping container chassis to "accommodate new laws pertaining to distribution of weight on bridges." You describe the changes as follows:

The modification is accomplished by modifying an existing 40' straight frame chassis, to accommodate one 20' container, with a 48,000 pound load, or, two empty 20' containers, or one 40' or 45' container with 48,000 pound loads. When completed, only the rear 10' of the 40' frame is not used. The compressed length of finished unit is 30'-0". All braking systems, wheels, tires, accumulation tanks, and fifth wheel components, are essentially left intact, and are incorporated into the new design.

In a telephone conversation with Dorothy Nakama of my staff, you stated that if possible, your company would like to retain the assigned VIN on the modified trailers. You further stated that after the changes are made, the gross vehicle weight rating and the gross axle weight ratings of each trailer chassis will remain the same. The distance between the wheels (on the same side of the vehicle) will be adjusted, so that the trailer chassis' load distribution will be in line with new bridge weight requirements.

NHTSA's regulations at 49 CFR 571.7(f) Combining new and used components in trailer manufacture apply to your company's trailer modifications. That regulation provides:

When new materials are used in the assembly of a trailer, the trailer will be considered newly manufactured for purposes of [the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards] unless, at the minimum, the trailer running gear assembly (axle(s), wheels, braking and suspension) is not new, and was taken from an existing trailer -

(1) Whose identity is continued in the reassembled vehicle with respect to the Vehicle Identification Number; and

(2) That is owned or leased by the user of the reassembled vehicle.

Thus, if the trailers are modified under the conditions described in Section 571.7(f), the trailers would be considered used, and Intec Industries may continue to use the assigned VINs on the modified trailers.

Please note that in the modification process, your company must ensure that the certification labels (assigned pursuant to 49 CFR Part 567 Certification) remain on the trailers. Additionally, in order to avoid a violation of 49 U.S.C. 30112(b), when modifying the trailers, your company must not "knowingly make inoperative any part of a device or element of design installed on or in [those vehicles] in compliance with an applicable motor vehicle safety standard..."

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

Sincerely,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
ref:565#567
d.2/26/98

ID: 77-3.50

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 09/01/77

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

TO: Texas Automobile Dealers Association

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your August 4, 1977, letter asking whether a dealer who assembles a "kit-car" on a chassis would be considered a manufacturer of a motor vehicle for purposes of compliance with Federal safety standards.

Manufacturer is defined in the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (the Act) (15 U.S.C. 1381) as "any person engaged in the manufacturing or assembling of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. . . ." Therefore, a dealer who assembles "kit-cars" would be considered a manufacturer for purposes of the Act since he is assembling motor vehicles. However, if the chassis on which the kit-car is assembled is from another used vehicle, the completed kit-car vehicle would be considered used and its assembler would not be considered a manufacturer under the Act.

The Act prohibits the manufacture for sale or introduction into interstate commerce of any new motor vehicle that does not comply with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. Therefore, if the vehicle the dealer assembles is going to be used as a means of transportation on the road, it must be certified as conforming with all applicable safety standards. The mere use of a vehicle on public highways constitutes an introduction into interstate commerce and is prohibited unless compliance with the safety standards has been achieved.

Part 567.4(g)(1)(ii) of the certification regulations provides the producer of the kit with an option as to whether or not he certifies that the vehicle will comply with all applicable safety standards if completed according to his instructions. If the producer of the kit takes the responsibility of certifying the completed vehicle, the assembler of the vehicle must exercise reasonable care in following the instructions he provides.

For your information I have enclosed a sheet entitled "Where to Obtain Motor Vehicle Safety Standards and Regulations" which will direct you to the proper source for obtaining a copy of the safety standards and regulations.

SINCERELY

texas automobile dealers association

August 4, 1977

U. S. Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

This is an inquiry as to your construction of the term "manufacturer" as defined and used in the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, as amended.

One of our members has inquired as to the applicability of the Act to the assembly and sale of so-called "kit cars". As we understand it, kits are manufactured and sold by the manufacturer to the dealers. The kit is composed of body members made primarily of fiberglass and designed as replicas of classic cars from the past. The kit is designed to be mounted on a Volkswagen chassis, without modification to the chassis.

These kits may be sold to the customer who assembles the vehicle himself on his own chassis or the dealer might assemble the vehicle on his chassis and sell both kit and chassis, fully assembled, to the customer. Our question is, if the dealer assembles the kit on his own chassis and sells the assembled vehicle to the customer, is he a "manufacturer" within the meaning of the Act and therefore subject to compliance with its provisions and of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards and Regulations?

We would appreciate your assistance in providing the answer to this question.

David R. Sapp Assistant General Counsel

ID: nht94-4.58

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: October 21, 1994

FROM: Scott E. Peters -- Director, Regulations & Compliance, U.S. Electricar

TO: Phil Recht -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: Interpretation Regarding Tire Loads for Electric Vehicles

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 2/13/95 LETTER FROM PHIL RECHT TO SCOTT E. PETERS (STD. 110)

TEXT: U.S. Electricar is a California corporation which manufactures electric vehicles, including the Electricar Pickup (converted Chevrolet S-10) and the Electricar Sedan (converted GEO Prizm). The Electricar Pickup is fully FMVSS certified while the Electri car Sedan is currently built under NHTSA temporary FMVSS exemption 92-3 for low-emission vehicles. We are aggressively pursuing development of the Sedan and expect to achieve full FMVSS certification within several months.

As you are aware, production electric vehicle development is fairly recent and most of the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards were not written with electric vehicles in mind. We occassionally come across a Safety Standard provision which does not se em applicable to electric vehicles because of their special operating characteristics and limitations compared to traditional internal combustion powered vehicles. Section 4.4.2 of Standard No. 110 is such an example, and we believe this section is not relevant to our particular electric passenger car (the Electricar Sedan), with a speed and speed/endurance limitation substantially below almost any internal combustion powered passenger car.

The purpose of Standard No. 110 is to ensure proper tire selection in order to prevent tire overloading, and thus prevent tire failure. Section 4.2.1 requires that vehicle maximum load on each tire shall not be greater than the maximum tire load rating as specified in one of the tire industry publications listed in Standard No. 109. This section alone prevents tire overloading as long as high speed operation is not a factor.

Section 4.2.2 of Standard No. 110 states that the normal load on the tire shall not exceed the test load used in the high speed performance test specified in S5.5 of Standard No. 109. The test load is 88 percent of the tire's maximum load rating. As sp ecified in S5.5.4 of Standard No. 109, tires at this test load must operate at speeds of 75 mph for 30 minutes, 80 mph for 30 minutes and 85 mph for 30 minutes. It is our understanding that the purpose of Standard No. 110, S4.4.2 is to ensure against ti re failure due to prolonged operation at speeds in the range of 75 mph or higher.

It is our interpretation that Standard No. 110, S4.4.2 is not intended to apply to the Electricar Sedan and other electric passenger cars in which it is physically impossible to operate at high speeds for an extended duration. The Electricar Sedan is ba rely capable of reaching a speed of 75 mph, and could not maintain this speed for more than a few minutes due to the extremely high power requirements and limited energy stored on-board in the vehicle's batteries.

Electric vehicles are intended for use in urban areas with air quality problems and are not suitable for operation at prolonged freeway speeds because of their range limitations. To maximize range and reliability in the Electricar Sedan, the top speed i s limited by software in the vehicle's electronic power control unit. The drag limited speed (non-software governed) is also below most of the "high speed" figures cited in Standard 109, S5.5.4.

Optimizing tire size is an ongoing challenge in electric vehicle development. Because of the weight added in the electric conversion process, original tires must generally be replaced with larger tires which have a higher load capacity. Larger tires on c onverted electric vehicles have the disadvantages of increased rolling resistance and reduced tire clearance and turning radius compared to the original vehicle. Increased rolling resistance lowers the vehicle operating range, a factor which is critical in the acceptance of electric vehicles by both fleet users and the general public. Section 4.2.2 of Standard 110 is based on the load-carrying capacity of tires at high speeds and would require the use of tires which are larger than those needed for co mpliance with S4.2.1 and larger than we believe are required for the safe operation of an electric passenger car with limited speed and speed/endurance capability.

Would you please review Standard 110, S4.2.2 in light of the performance limitations of our electric passenger car and provide us with your interpretation as to the applicability of this section to the Electricar Sedan described above.

Please contact me if I can provide additional information for your consideration of our request.

ID: nht78-2.3

DATE: 12/13/78

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; J. J. Levin, Jr.; NHTSA

TO: Mack Trucks, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

December 13, 1978 NOA-30

Mr. T. F. Brown Mack Trucks, Inc. Engineering Division P.O. Box 1761 Allentown, Pennsylvania 18105

Dear Mr. Brown:

I regret the delay in responding to your August 31, 1978, letter requesting an interpretation of S5.3 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 120. In that letter, you stated that you had been contacted by an employee of this agency's enforcement office and advised that the certification labels for Mack trucks did not comply with the requirements of that section. The reason given for this conclusion was that the labels used the word "on" between the tire and rim information instead of the comma shown in the example following S5.3.3.

S5.3 requires that the labeling information specified in S5.3.1 -S5.3.3 must appear in the format shown in the truck example following S5.3.3. This requirement does not mean that certification labels must be identical to the example in every respect. Minor variations are permitted. By "minor variations", I mean such things as a slight difference in punctuation or the substitution of a word for a punctuation mark that do not change or obscure the meaning of the label. Mack's substitution of "on" for a comma is such a minor variation and, accordingly, is permissible under the standard.

The label enclosed with your letter shows spaces to provide information for the front, rear and three intermediate axles. When this label is used on vehicles with fewer than five axles, you should stamp "Not applicable", or words of similar import, in the spaces provided for axles which do not exist on the particular vehicle which is being labelled.

Without this indication, the label could be confusing and so would fail to clearly provide the required information for that vehicle. An indication of nonapplicability would alert the reader to that fact.

Sincerely,

Joseph J. Levin, Jr. Chief Counsel

August 31, 1978

Administrator, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration U.S. Department of Transportation 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Sir:

SUBJECT: Request for Interpretation GAWR-Tire-Rim Labeling Requirements FMVSS 120 - Vehicle Certification Labels

Mack Trucks, Inc, a manufacturer of heavy duty diesel trucks of 26,000 pounds GVWR and greater, is requesting an interpretation of the specific GAWR-tire-rim labeling requirements of FMVSS 120, Tire Selection and Rims for Motor Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars.

We were advised, by telephone, by a member of the NHTSA's Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance staff that there were several minor discrepancies found on one of our vehicle certification labels. Four items were noted as being incorrect. Three of these four items were well-taken, and steps to avoid a reoccurrence of these errors have been taken. The fourth item, however, is the reason for this letter.

Our certification labels set up the gross axle weight ratings, tire, and rim information as follows:

FRONT AXLE WITH TIRES ON RIMS AT COLD SINGLE

We were advised that we could not use the word "ON" as shown above, but should instead use a comma as is illustrated in the "Truck example" shown following Paragraph S5.3.3 of FMVSS 120.

Paragraph S5.3 oF FMVSS 120 states that the information shall appear in the "format" set forth in the example following Section S5.3.

It is our contention that the GAWR and associated information on our certification labels, including the word "ON", does comply with the format set forth following Section S5.3 of FMVSS 120. The word "ON" actually makes the meaning of the statement clearer.

If you look closely at the attached sheet showing one of our labels and the "Truck example" from FMVSS 120, you will note that they are not exactly identical. Therefore, we wonder why only our use of the word "ON" was singled out. (NOTE: The other three items noted in the telephone conversation dealt with information that had been added to the certification label on the vehicle inspected by NHTSA.)

We believe we are presenting all the required information in a form substantially identical to that illustrated in the "Truck example", and that we are in compliance with the applicable regulations. Therefore, we are requesting an interpretation of the specific GAWR-tire-rim labeling requirements of FMVSS 120.

If further discussion of this subject is necessary, please contact the writer at 215-439-3877.

Very truly yours,

MACK TRUCKS, INC,

T. F. Brown Executive Engineer- Vehicle Regulations and Standards

vy Attach.

Insert attachment here (FMVSS 120) found in card copy file.

ID: nht87-1.18

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 01/14/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z.Jones; NHTSA

TO: Diane LeMire

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Ms. Diane Le Mire Traffic Administrator Equus Products, Inc. 17291-B Mt. Herrmann Street Fountain Valley, CA 92708

Dear Ms. Le Mire:

Thank you for your letter asking how our regulations would affect the manufacturing, importing, and distribution of a shade device for a vehicle. According to the sales brochure included with your letter, your product, which is called "VENTSHADES," is a stainless steel shade that is designed to be installed on the top of a vehicle's window frame. The purpose of the device is to allow vehicle occupants to partially lower their windows when it is raining and keep the rain out. In addition, the brochure sa ys that the ventshade can reduce glare. I regret the delay in our response and hope the following information is helpful.

I believe some background information about the agency may be of assistance to you. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has the authority under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and certain items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA, however, does not approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, nor do we endorse any commercial products. Instead, the Act establishes a "self-certification" process under w hich 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 other alleged safety-related defects. I have enclosed an information sheet which briefly describes each of a manufacturer's responsibilities under the Vehicle Safety Act. The information sheet also explains how a foreign company importing an item of vehicle equipment into the United States mus t designate an agent within this country for service of process.

We do not have any standards that directly apply to your product. The agency has issued Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials, which specifies performance and location requirements for glazing used in vehicles. The performance and other requirements of the standard apply to any item of glazing material used in a vehicle, including a windscreen made of plastic or other glazing materials. Your product is not made of a glazing material, but is instead made of steel, and is thus n ot covered by Standard No. 205.

However, manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment are subject to the requirements in sections 151-159 of the Act concerning the recall and remedy of products with defects related to motor vehicle safety. In addition, use of your product can be affected b y section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Act. That section prohibits commercial businesses from knowingly tampering with devices or elements of design installed in a vehicle in compliance with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards.

The prohibition of section 108(a)(2)(n) does not apply to individual vehicle owners who may install or remove any items of motor vehicle equipment regardless of its effect on compliance with Federal motor vehicle safety standards. However, the agency enc ourages vehicle owners not to remove or otherwise tamper with vehicle safety equipment.

If you have any further questions, please let me know.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

MAY 19, 1986

Ms. Jones Office of Chief Counsel RM #5219 NHTSA 400 7th S.W. Washington D C. 20590

Please be so kind as to forward all discloseable information pertaining to the manufacturing, importing, and distribution of VENTSHADES.

I have enclosed a copy of a sales brochure for a definition. The shade mounts to the outside of the vehicle. Please see the attached photocopy for a more complete description.

Please forward all correspondence to:

EQUUS PRODUCTS, INC. 17291-B Mt. Herrmann St. Fountain Valley, CA 92708 Attn: Diana Le Mire

Thank you in advance.

Sincerely,

Diana Le Mire Traffic Administrator

ID: nht87-2.35

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/09/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Ms. Dianne Black

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Ms. Dianne Black Engineering Manager, Legislation, Compliance, and Product Development Jaguar Cars, Inc. 600 Willow Tree Road Leonia, NJ 07650

Dear Ms. Black:

Your letter to Barry Felrice concerning Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 114 has been referred to me for response. This response is based on your letter, and a telephone conversation of March 17, 1987, between Mr. Edward Stumpkey of Jaguar and M r. Kenneth Rutland of this agency clarifying certain matters raised in your letter. I regret the delay in this response.

Standard 114, Theft Protection, requires that each vehicle subject to must have a key-locking system which must prevent not only normal engine activation, but also either steering or forward self-mobility or both when the key is removed.

You mention a system intended to meet the standard, but indicate that "for security reasons," you are reluctant to supply specific details on that system. Without reference to specific data, you state that your system meets paragraph S4.2(a) of Standard 114, that is, removing the key from the ignition prevents normal engine activation.

You go on to say that the microprocessing systems that control vehicle operations will not function when the driver removes the ignition key. Therefore, you state, you meet one of the conditions in S4.2(b) of the Standard, that is, removing the key must prevent forward self-mobility of the vehicle.

Based on the information you supplied, NHTSA can not agree that your key-locking system meets either requirement of S4.2(b). As I understand your description of Jaguar's system, deactivating the engine is the means by which you assert you prevent vehicle forward self-mobility. If a manufacturer could comply with the S4.2(b) with respect to preventing forward self-mobility by preventing normal engine activation under S4.2(a), S4.2(b) would be redundant. Paragraph S4.2(b) requires an added safeguard with respect to forward self-mobility, such as a transmission lock or other means, to prevent a vehicle from moving under its own power should the engine somehow be activated without inserting the key.

Therefore, preventing normal engine activation under S4.2(a) will not meet the condition in S4.2(b) of preventing vehicle forward self-mobility. If jaguar has some means other than deactivating the engine to prevent forward self-nobility, its system may be acceptable. Otherwise, Jaguar must add some means to meet at least one of the conditions in S4.2(b).

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Mr. Barry Felrice National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street SW Washington, D. C. 20590

RE: FMVSS 114

Dear Mr. Felrice:

At the NHTSA Industry meeting last Wednesday, I promised to call you the following day to discuss the difficulty we had encountered with FMVSS 114 as it relates to new technology.

I did not call, obviously, because it appeared that I needed same more detail from the engineering development and design staff in England. That detail has now arrived and to allow you the opportunity to look at the problem, I have opted to write. Once y ou have had an opportunity to look over the text, perhaps we can discuss either by telephone or in person.

Our difficulty appears to be with S4.2 and S4.3 of the relevant standard. Summary of S4.2 Each vehicle shall have a key locking system that whenever the key is removed, will prevent:

a) normal activation of the vehicles engine or other main source of native power.

b) either steering or forward self mobility of the vehicle or both.

Summary of S4.3 The prime means of deactivating the vehicles engine or other main source of motive power shall not activate the deterent required by S4.2(b).

For security reasons, I will not go into specific details of the system other than to say that by taking the key out of the ignition, we would meet paragraph (a) of S4.2. In other words, without the ignition key the vehicle cannot be activated. Without t he insertion of the ignition key activated, thus rendering the fueling and ignition maps inactive. This meets one of the condition in paragraph (b) of S4.2, in that with the processors inactive the engine will not run therefore the vehicle cannot move un der it; own forward mobility.

Perhaps we have overinterpreted the standard 114 to require steering column locks but your comment and thoughts would be appreciated. In further discussion, I can provide more detail of the system for you.

Sincerely yours,

Dianne Black Engineering Manager, Legislation, Compliance and Product Development