ID: 86-2.32

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/23/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Chih-Lo Hwang

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Chih-Lo Hwang Tetley, Inc. 7 High Street Spring Valley, N.Y. 10977

Dear Chih-lo Hwang:

This is in reply to your letter of March 3, 1986, stating that you are a manufacturer of the "center high-mounted collision avoidance lights", and have heard from AAMVA that there is a law prohibiting any selling of a safety device that has not been "DOT" approved. You have asked for a copy of this law.

We are not familiar with the AAMVA position with regard to center high-mounted stop lamps, but we will provide you with our views. First, the phrase "DOT approved" is frequently and mistakenly used to refer to equipment that must be certified as complying with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard. The Department neither "approves" nor "disapproves" motor vehicles and equipment. However, motor vehicles and certain motor vehicle equipment must be certified by their manufacturers as complying with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards.

With respect to the center high-mounted stop lamp, all passenger cars manufactured on or after September 1, 1985, must be equipped with a center high-mounted stop lamp as original equipment and any center high-mounted stop lamp that is manufactured to replace this original equipment must be certified as complying with Federal requirements. If the replacement lamp is not manufactured to comply and certified as complying. then its sale is a violation of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. I am enclosing a copy of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 which contains the requirements for center high-mounted stop lamps.

On the other hand, if the center high-mounted stop lamp is intended for sale in the aftermarket, to be used on a passenger car manufactured before September 1, 1985, which never had one as original equipment, it does not have to be manufactured to and certified as complying with Federal requirements. Nevertheless we encourage aftermarket manufacturer to voluntarily meet the Federal requirements. The lamp, however, may be subject to "approval" by the laws of the State in which the lamp pill be sold or used.

If you have any further questions, we shall be pleased to answer them.

Sincerely.

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

7 HIGH STREET SPRING VALLEY NEW YORK 10977 TEL.(914)352-6803

March 3 1986

Ms.Erika Z Jones Chief Counselor of National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 7 Street S, W. Washington D.C. 20590

Dear Ms Jones:

We are the manufacturer of the center high mounted collision avoidance lights. We have heard from AAMVA there is such law that Prohibited any illegal selling of this safety device item which have not been "DOT" approved, but unfortunately most our buyers do not familiar with this law. We like to prove it to them. Would you kind enough to send us a copy of this law? Your early respond would be deeply appreciated. Thank you.

Very Truly Yours, Tetley Inc.

Chih-Lo Hwang

ID: 86-2.33

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/23/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: ANONYMOUS

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Dear

This is in reply to your letter of October 31, 1985, asking for confirmation of your interpretation that the location of a proposed motorcycle rear turn signal system meets the requirements of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

Table IV of Standard No. 108 requires motorcycle turn signal lamps to be located "at or near the rear" and to have "a minimum horizontal separation distance (centerline to centerline of lamps) of 9 inches." Further, the "minimum edge to edge separation distance between lamp and tail or stop lamp is 4 inches." The diagram you have attached shows that the minimum horizontal separation distance between the turn signal lamps is 12 inches, and therefore complies with that requirement of Standard No. 107. However, the turn signal lamps are not mounted adjacent to the stop/taillamp which is on the rear of the vehicle on what appears to be the body but forward of it so that in a two-dimensional side elevation the edge to edge separation distance of the stop/taillamp and the turn signals is 3.75 inches. A plan view indicates that the horizontal separation distance between edge to edge is 2 inches. The actual edge to edge separation distance as measured by a continuous straight line is 5 inches, and you believe that this satisfies the standard's requirement for a minimum edge-to-edge separation of 4 inches.

We do not agree with this interpretation since it is premised on a frame of reference different from that used in Table IV to express the location requirements for turn signals. The frame of reference used in Table IV is that of a rear elevation in which the motorcycle is bisected by a vertical centerline. This is the appropriate frame of reference since it implements the safety rationale giving rise to the location requirement. Standard No. 108 specifies a minimum separation distance to minimize the possibility that an observer will be confused as to a lamp's function. A motorist approaching directly from the rear will perceive an edge-to-edge separation distance between the stop/tail and turn signal lamp of only 2 inches if your configuration is used. Therefore, each turn signal lamp must be relocated 2 inches further outboard if it is to comply with Standard No. 108.

Your request for confidentiality is honored, to the extent that the copy of this letter made publicly available will include neither the identification of you and your company, nor the diagram you provided.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

ID: 86-2.34

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/23/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Rudi Haenisch -- Manager Sales, Brisson Development, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Rudi Haenisch Manager Sales Brisson Development, Inc. 13845 Nine Mile Road Warren, Michigan 48089

Thank you for writing on March 19, 1986, and telling me about your strobe lamp which plugs into cigarette lighter sockets and which is intended to serve as a supplementary warning device. I assume that you want to know our views as to its legality.

This type of aftermarket accessory is not covered by Standard No. 108. the Federal motor vehicle safety standard on motor vehicle lighting, and there are no Federal restrictions on its sale or use. This means that its permissibility must be determined by the laws of each jurisdiction in which it is to be sold and/or used, and it is our impression that many States may restrict the use of strobe lamps to defined emergency vehicles engaged in emergency missions.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

March 19, 1986

Mrs Erika Z. Jones - Chief Council National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Room 5219 400 Seventh Street S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Mrs. Jones;

On March 18, 1986, I talked by phone with Mr. Steve Oesch and he informed me to send this letter to you.

Brisson Development Inc. has designed two different 'Emergency Strobe Lights' for the auto aftermarket geared toward the owners of Light trucks and automobiles. They are designed to be magnetically mounted on the vehicle and just plug into the cigarette lighter receptacle. Thereby providing additional safety warning to traffic and in some cases the only warning (if the vehicles OEM flashers have failed) that the vehicle is a hazard to other traffic.

As I am sure you are aware of the many different types of vehicle emergency aid devices available on the market today. Ranging from reflectors, which for some reason people like to run over, to mechanical triggered standard light bulb devices, which have about the same reliability of a flashlight that has not been in use for six months and when you need it it does not work. I personally, and people I know, have bought and tried just about every emergency aid type device and have really not been happy with any of them. That is why at Brisson we are looking to make a quality emergency light that will be reliable after long periods of time that it has not been used or tested and then function properly in any kind of weather.

Why a strobe light instead of making just another me to item?

1. Reliability of the electronic circuit - the strobe light was designed from conception to provide high candle power flashing lights from short to Long time usage.

2. No mechanical parts to wear out, corrode, or malfunction.

3. High candle power output with low electric current draw as compared to regular bulbs and their flasher unit.

4. Low cost of unit per candle power.

5. Many emergency and road work vehicles have and are changing to strobe units.

6. The fast high intensity light flash of strobes triggers an attentive response from the human brain and points out a hazardous condition.

7. Strobes are new on the highway market, and have not created a mental block as some other emergency devices, just look at the average life of a road construction or work sign, we may look at designing a spaced strobe for this problem also.

Descriptions of the two emergency strobe units are as follows:

SL 70 K Emergency Strobe Light - Puts out 70,000 candlepower of light. Comes with a cigarette lighter plug and just over ten feet of twenty guage wire insulated cord.

A strong magnet has been put in the bottom of the unit so it can be mounted anywhere on the outside of the vehicle and not fall or get blown off. An amber high strength plastic lens has been provided since amber is a universal emergency color. A high strength plastic bottom has been chosen for its non-corrosive qualities. The top lens and bottomhousing screw together for ease of service should anything happen to the top lens for replacement. The top amber lens has a refractive design to diffuse the light evenly. Provides a full 360 degree field of vision, especially in situations where a vehicle has been parked at an angle to the road where its OEM flashers cannot be seen from the road. The bulb flashes at a rate of four times per second and is a clear xenon gas filled type. A polished reflective surface has been put on the inside just below the bulb to reflect all the Light through the amber Lens. Dimensions are 41/2 inches high by a 3 inch round diameter with a rounded dome top.

SL 140 K Emergency Strobe Light - Puts out 140,000 candlepower of light. Comes with a cigarette lighter plug and a twenty five guage, ten foot coilable, insulated cord. Three high strength magnets have been put on the bottom (saving weight) and providing stability so the unit can be mounted anywhere on the outside of the vehicle and will not fall or get blown off. An emergency yellow high strength plastic lens has been provided since it is a universally accepted emergency color. A high strength plastic bottom has been chosen for its non-corrosive qualities. The top lens and bottom are held together by three evenly spaced phillips heads screws coming up through the bottom casing and screwing into the out top lens and do not show, and thereby making the unit easily serviced. The top emergency yellow lens has a refractive design to difuse the light evenly. Provides a full 360 degree field of vision, especially in situations where a vehicle has been parked at an angle to the road where its OEM flashers cannot be seen from the road. The bulb flashes at a rate of two times per second and is a clear xenon gas type. Future units may have two bulbs instead of one. A polished reflective surface has been put on the inside just below the bulb to reflect all the light through the yellow Lens. Dimensions are Top Lena 2 3/8 inches tall by 3 5/8 inches round diameter with a flat top; Bottom Casing is 1 1/2 inches tall by 4 3/4 inches round diameter; Total height is 3 5/8 inches since the top lens and bottom casing slightly overlap.

The above two emergency lights were designed cosmetically to meet the different conditions they will be functioning in, but also to be pleasing to the buying public.

In the future, after more research has been done, I might be interested in discussing the possibility of manufacturing strobe Lights as OEM emergency flashers for automobiles and light trucks, and also new concepts for the heavy trucking industry.

Thank you for your valuable time. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at the above address, or by phone (1-800-824-5106).

Sincerely,

Rudi Haenisch Manager Sales

RH/DC

ID: 86-2.35

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/23/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Don Black

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Don Black Director, U.S. Engineering Office Alfa Romeo, Inc. 250 Sylvan Avenue Englewood Cliffs, NJ 07632

Dear Mr. Black:

This responds to your letter to Mr. Barry Felrice, our Associate Administrator for Rulemaking, requesting an interpretation of Part 541, Federal Motor Vehicle Theft Prevention Standard. Specifically, you stated that Alfa Romeo plans to label its front and rear bumpers in the following locations. The front bumper would have a label attached to the bumper assembly in the area where it would not be visible if a front license plate was attached to the bumper. The rear bumper would have a label attached to the rear bumper in an area that will be covered by a plastic snap-in molding. This molding must be removed to remove the rear bumper from the vehicle. You asked whether these planned locations would satisfy the requirement of S541.5(d)(1)(iii) that the labels be "visible without further disassembly once the part has been removed from the vehicle." It is NHTSA's opinion that the locations specified for marking bumpers in your letter would satisfy the requirement of S541.5(d)(1)(iii).

Your planned location for labeling the front bumpers is in an area where those labels will be visible at the time the cars arrive at the dealer and will remain visible unless and until a front license plate is installed on the car. NHTSA must thus determine whether the possible need to remove a front license plate would result in labels in this location failing to satisfy the requirement that labels be placed so that they will be "visible without further disassembly once the part has been removed from the vehicle." It appears not to be necessary to remove the front license plate in order to remove the front bumper from your vehicles. Hence, one might conclude that such location would not satisfy this requirement.

However, the intent underlying this requirement was clearly set forth in the rulemaking proceeding that established Part 541. The preamble to the notice of proposed rulemaking contained the following sentence: "Both commenters agreed, however, that NHTSA's regulations should ensure that investigators will not have to conduct any additional dismantling (over and above what chop shops, parts dealers, or thieves have ordinarily done) to locate the identifier on parts removed from a vehicle." (Emphasis in original) 50 FR 19731, May 10, 1985. NHTSA believes that license plates are routinely removed from front bumpers by legitimate parts dealers prior to reselling the bumper. Law enforcement groups have assured us that license plates are removed from stolen bumpers, so that the stolen part cannot be traced to its rightful owner. In these circumstances, the agency has no reason to believe that labels for front bumpers that are covered by the front license plate will require investigators to conduct additional dismantling of the front bumpers. Accordingly, we conclude that labels on front bumpers that are clearly visible when the front license plate is removed satisfy the requirement that those labels be "visible without further disassembly once the part has been removed from the vehicle."

With respect to the rear bumpers, the situation is simpler. According to your letter, the plastic molding covering the labels must be removed to remove the bumper from the vehicle. Thus, the label would be visible without further disassembly once the bumper has been removed from the vehicle. As such, it would satisfy the requirement of S541.5(d)(l)(iii).

If you have any further questions or need more information on this subject, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Ref. #027 February 18, 1986

Mr. Barry Felrice Associate Administrator for Rulemaking U.S. Department of Transportation N.H.T.S.A. 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

RE: Request for Interpretation - Part 531 F.M.V.T.P.S.

Dear Mr. Felrice:

The enclosed sketches depict Alfa Romeo's intended bumper markings.

Sketch "A" - Shows the front bumper assembly. The complete bumper is covered with a semi-rigid plastic to protect it against minor damages. The label is attached to the actual bumper which is an aluminum extrusion. The label is visible following vehicle manufacture and at any time the front plate is not installed. These are two obvious cases where no front plate is used:

a) In states where only a rear plate is used.

b) On stolen vehicles, where the plates are removed.

Sketch "B" - Is a cross section of the bumper itself, an aluminum extrusion. This is to be considered the permanent part of the bumper assembly, while the semi-rigid decorative/protective cover mentioned above is considered a "wear" or "aesthetic" part subject to replacement.

Sketch "C" - Depicts the rear bumper, also an aluminum extrusion covered by a semi-rigid facing as used on the front bumper. The label is located in a groove in the facing where the aluminum extrusion is exposed adjacent to the mounting bolts for the bumper structural extrusion.

Ref. #027 Mr. Barry Felrice N.H.T.S.A. February 18, 1986 Page two

The label and the bumper bolts are covered by a small plastic snap-in moulding. To remove the bumper, the moulding must be removed followed by removal of the bumper bolts. It is worthy to note that with this design there is no location on which to place a label on a permanent part of the bumper since it is covered by the semi-rigid facing, which is again a "disposable" part of the bumper assembly.

Sketch "D" - Is a vertical view of the horizontal section carrying the label. Here the snap-in moulding can be seen covering the bumper bolts.

Alfa Romeo's opinion is that, considering the bumper design, these locations meet the requirements of "VISIBILITY" for the actual bumper since the facing itself would not likely be a theft target. We hope that N.H.T.S.A. will concur with Alfa Romeo's choice of location.

Respectfully,

ALFA ROMEO, INC.

Don Black Director, U.S. Engineering Office

DB/as

Enclosure

cc: B. McLauglin - N.H.T.S.A. Fogliata - Dires Sego Guelfi - Tires Carr Francioni - Marketing Prodotto M. Kole - ARI T. Tooley - ARI

ID: 86-2.37

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/23/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Delta Radio Co.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Delta Radio Co. P.O. Box 531 Spring Valley, N.Y. 10977

Gentlemen:

The enclosed publicity on the "Attention Getter" motorcycle accessory lighting device has come to our attention. It is represented as "Approved by the NHTSA". We do not know whether that is your characterization or that of the publication in which it appeared. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration does not "approve" or endorse products. Upon request, it will provide an interpretation of whether a lighting device is regulated, permitted, or not permitted by the Federal motor vehicle safety standard on lighting. If a device is deemed permitted by the standard, in no sense should that be construed as "approved by NHTSA".

As a matter of fact, we have never been asked for an opinion of the "Attention Getter" but its installation could be viewed as impairing the effectiveness of lighting equipment required by the Federal standard (Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108), and prohibited by paragraph S4.1.3 of that standard. A stop lamp is required to be steady-burning in use, and not flash as does your device, and its intensity must not exceed the maximum limits imposed by SAE Standard J586c, which is incorporated by reference into Standard No. 108. The fact that "Attention Getter"s intensity goes from "normal intensity to extra bright" raises the possibility that the maxima may be exceeded.

If you have any questions regarding your further responsibilities under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, I shall be happy to answer them.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Subject: Advertisement for "Attention Getter" Date: Mar 14 1986 Motorcycle Taillight Flasher From: George L. Reagie Associate Administrator, TSP

To: Erica Z. Jones Chief Counsel, NHTSA

The attached advertisement was sent to us by Mr. Niel Tolhurst, Assistant Manager of Motorcycle Safety and Recreation for American Honda Motor Company. Mr. Tolhurst questioned the reference to "Approved by the NHTSA" in relationship to the "Attention Getter" motorcycle tail light flasher.

Since NHTSA does not approve or endorse products, I wanted to bring the advertisement to your attention so that appropriate action might be taken with the manufacturer of the product to correct the erroneous information.

Attachment

October 31, 1985

Administrator

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

Dear Sir:

Enclosed is a sketch of a proposed motorcycle rear turn signal lamp positioning for some models of motorcycles. Reference is made to part 571.108, Title 49 of the CFR.

Table IV of the above cited reference specifies a minimum 9 inch horizontal separation distance. As indicated by dimension "A" this distance is 12 inches. This table also specifies that minimum edge to edge separation distance between lamp and tail or stop lamp is 4 inches. Dimension "B" indicated as 5.00 inches satisfies this requirement.

Your timely confirmation that our interpretation of this standard is correct will allow us to initiate tooling orders for 1987 model vehicles.

I will be happy to answer any questions you may have concerning the attached sketch and provide any additional information required. I may be reached at

Please receive this information as "Confidential business information" as described in 5 U.S.C. 552(6)(4). The release of details from the correspondence may provide vehicle styling information that could benefit our competitors.

Sincerely,

rn Enc.

ID: 86-2.38

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/23/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Robert R. Clark, Esq -- Tabbert and Capehart

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Robert R. Clark, Esq. Tabbert & Capehart One Indiana Square Suite 1500 Indianapolis, Indiana 46204

This responds to your letter dated October 21, l985, inquiring about the certification responsibilities under federal law of your client, a new car dealer. You stated in your letter that your client plans to convert new automobiles into limousines. These limousines would then be sold wholesale to dealers.

The relevant federal statute in the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, as amended (15 U.S.C. 1391 et seq.). Under section 103 of the Act, this agency issues Federal motor vehicle safety standards and regulations applying to motor vehicles and their equipment.

As we understand the facts stated in your letter, the automobiles will be completed by the original manufacturer who will certify that they meet all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. You client plans to alter the automobiles prior to their first purchase for purposes other than resale.

Your client's plan to convert automobiles would make him an alterer, subject to the requirements of 49 CFR Part 567.7 Certification. An alterer is a person who alters a previously certified vehicle by means other than the addition, substitution, or removal of readily attachable components or minor finishing operations, or in such a manner that the vehicle's stated weight ratings are no longer valid. If the alteration is performed before the first purchase of the vehicle for purposes other than resale, the alterer must supplement the certification label by affixing an additional label stating that the vehicle as altered conforms to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards and containing the firm or individual name of the alterer.

An alterer is also considered a manufacturer for the purposes of notification and recall for defects or noncompliance under the Act and is subject to the requirements of 49 CFR Part 573, Defect and Noncompliance Reports.

In addition, please note that your client should take care in making the conversions not to harm the vehicles' safety features. Under section 108 of the Act, a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business must not knowingly render inoperative, in whole or in part, any device or element of design which is installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard. Your client would be subject to this prohibition which applies both before and after the first purchase of a motor vehicle for purposes other than resale.

I hope this information is helpful to you.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Jeffrey R. Miller, Esqu. Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Room 5219, 400 7th St., S.W. Washington, D. C. 20590

Dear Mr. Miller:

On Tuesday, October 15, l985, I telephoned your office and spoke with Mr. Steve Oeshch regarding a client of this firm who wishes to convert fully assembled automobiles into limousines. After speaking with Mr. Oeshch, he suggested that I write to your office and request a formal interpretation in regard to this matter, in view of the facts as discussed.

The client is a new car dealer in Anderson, Indiana. He desires to purchase full assembled new automobiles from the manufacturer and subsequently convert them into limousines. The limousines will in turn be sold wholesale to dealers.

I wish to know which Federal Department of Transportation statutes must be complied with and how to classify the client, i.e. dealer, manufacturer or remanufacturer.

Could you kindly at your earliest convenience render an opinion regarding this matter. Any assistance you might give me would be greatly appreciated. Thank you.

Sincerely,

Robert R. Clark

ID: 86-2.39

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/24/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Alan B. Wambold, Ph.D. -- Research Associate, Division of Legislative Services (Virginia)

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Alan B. Wambold, Ph.D. Research Associate Division of Legislative Services Box 3-AG Richmond, Va. 23208

This is in reply to your letter of December 16, 1985 to Jere Medlin of this agency with respect to whether the Commonwealth of Virginia is preempted under Federal law from prohibiting flashing headlamps on motor vehicles.

Section 1392(d) of Title 15 of the United States Code in essence prohibits a State from maintaining or enacting standards covering the same aspect of performance as a Federal motor vehicle safety standard unless it is identical to the Federal standard. Paragraph S4.5.11(c) of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment (formerly Paragraph S4.6(b)) states that "Headlamps...may be wired to flash for signaling purposes." S4.5.11(c) was not intended as a regulation of this aspect of vehicle performance, in the sense that it would preempt all State regulation of the sale or use of headlamp flashers. It is basically an exception to the requirement of paragraph S4.5.11(e) that all lamps (other than those specifically referenced in other subparagraphs of S4.5.11) be steady-burning when in use. The section, in other words, was included to make it clear that automatic headlamp flashers are not prohibited by the Federal standard. We have concluded therefore that State regulation of headlamp flashers is not preempted by the Federal standard.

I hope that this answers your question.

Sincerely,

Original Signed By

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

December 16, 1985 Mr. Jere Medlin Safety Standards Engineer US Department of Transportation 400 7th. St.,SW Room 5307 Washington, DC 20590

Dear Mr. Medlin:

I spoke with you on the telephone in early October of this year regarding Virginia law's prohibition on flashing headlamp; on motor vehicles -- particularly ambulances and rescue squad vehicles. At that time I believe you told me that the language of S S4.6 in 49 CFR S571.108 preempted the Commonwealth in the matter or flashing headlamps for emergency vehicles.

Since that time I have looked at that section, and have been able to find language in it that, to my satisfaction, makes this preemption clear. It is possible that I either understood you, or that I have made a mistake the citation.

One of the members of the Virginia General Assembly is considering the introduction of legislation during the upcoming session of the legislature to conform Virginia law to the federal regulation, and, you are more familiar with the Code of Regulations than I am, I was wondering whether you be so kind as to send me a copy of the relevant sections or sections. I am certain that many people would be glad to see the discrepancy between the federal regulations and the Virginia law eliminated.

Sincerely yours,

Alan B. Wambold, Ph.D Research Associate

ID: 86-2.4

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/04/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Larry Alexander

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Larry Alexander Senior Product Manager Consumer Products Division Tuck Industries, Inc. Lefevre Lane New Rochelle, NY 10801

Dear Mr. Alexander:

This is in reply to your letter of October 1, 1985 asking whether any of your pressure sensitive tapes packaged for the automotive aftermarket are subject to any regulations of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. You have been asked by one of your customers to certify that your tape meets all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards and other regulations.

You provide four types of tapes: lens repair tape (for temporary use until a broken lens is replaced), hose repair tape (for temporary repair of leaks in water hoses), clear patch tape (for repair of upholstery), and carpet tape (used to hold carpets in place). This agency has jurisdiction over items of motor vehicle equipment, which are defined in part as:

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

Your tape could be regarded as an "addition" to a motor vehicle but even assuming that it is an item of motor vehicle equipment, there are no Federal motor vehicle safety standards that would apply to it. Therefore, no manufacturer certification is required, and you may so inform your customer. Further, any such certification could be viewed as a violation of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act by being certification that is false and misleading in a material respect, stating compliance with standards which are, in fact, non-existent.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

October 1, 1985

Office of the Chief Council National Highway Traffic Safety Adm. Washington, DC 20590

Gentlemen:

We are a large manufacturer of pressure Sensitive Tapes, some of which are packaged for the Retail Automotive After-market.

One of our Retail Automotive customers has asked us to certify that our tape sold in this market meets all applicable standards and regulations of the Traffic Safety Administration. These products are:

1. Lens Repair Tape - A plastic transparent tape used to repair plastic lenses on broken directional signals as a temporary measure, until they are replaced. Available in amber and red.

2. Hose Repair Tape - A special duct tape used in emergency to temporarily stop a leak in a water hose until it can be repaired.

3. Clear Patch Tape - A clear polyethylene plastic tape us for interior patching of upholstery.

4. Carpet Tape - A double coated plastic tape used to hold carpets in place or keep the edges down.

Please advise if there are any rules or regulations affecting these products sold to the consumer through Retail Outlets, and please forward a copy of such regulations if they apply.

Very truly yours,

TUCK INDUSTRIES, INC.

Larry Alexander Senior Product Mgr. Consumer Products Div.

LA:jas cc: John Iodice Ted Levine

ID: 86-2.40

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/24/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: I. Levy -- B.P.T. Leisure International Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. I. Levy B.P.T. Leisure International Ltd. 3/4 Portland Street London, WIN 56G ENGLAND

Thank You for your letter of January 11, 1984, concerning the effect of our regulations on a product you may export to the United States. I hope the following discussion answers your questions.

The product, which you call a "Klunk-Klip" safety belt comfort device, consists of a plastic device which attaches to the upper torso belt anchorage. A belt user can then pull the webbing through the open wedge and close the wedge to introduce slack into the shoulder portion of the belt.

As background information, let me explain that the agency does not have the authority to approve or endorse items of motor vehicle equipment, such as your device. We do have the authority to issue Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards that set performance requirements for motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. Manufacturers of vehicles or equipment covered by our standards must certify that their product complies with all of the applicable standards.

Your particular aftermarket product is not covered by any of our safety belt or other standards. However, as a manufacturer of an item of motor vehicle equipment, you do have certain responsibilities concerning possible safety-related defects you or the agency discover in your product. Those responsibilities are set out in sections 151-160 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. I have enclosed an information sheet on our defect and other regulations for your review.

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

Sincerely,

Original Signed By

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel Enclosure

Your Ref.

Our Ref. IL/MN

Date: 14th January 1986

Department of Transportation 400 7th Street, SW Washington D.C., 20590 United States of America

Dear Sirs,

We are endeavouring to export to the United States an attachment which fits into the seatbelt of a motor vehicle and provides the possibility of the adjustment to heighten the comfort level of the wearer.

In order that you may understand exactly what is meant by the above, we enclose herewith a diagram together with the instructions for this item.

We should be most obliged if you could confirm to us that his item would not be excluded from use and does not violate any present Federal Safety Regulations which are in force.

We look forward to hearing from you in this matter.

Yours faithfully, for BPT LEISURE INTERNATIONAL LTD.

I Levy

The KLUNK KLIP* attachment can be used on most cars fitted with automatic (self-retracting) seat belts, where the seatbelt anchor point on the door pillar is similar to the above diagram. (It is not suitable for cars with recessed mountings).

It is designed to provide a personal adjustment which was previously only possible with static-type belts.

KLUNK-KLIP is designed for those who find seatbelts uncomfortable or even claustrophobic to wear. The use of KLUNK-KLIP avoids the tightness and tension so disliked by the users of automatic seatbelts. Ladies in particular appreciate the improved comfort when using KLUNK-KLIP.

KLUNK-KLIP does not effect the efficient working of the automatic seat belt.

TO FIT (see above illustration)

Remove the rotary wedge (A) by easing the two lugs (B) apart. Fit the hook part over the anchor bolt (C) on door pillar. Refit the wedge (A) as shown in diagram. The wedge should now lift freely to grip the belt.

TO USE

Fasten seat belt in the usual way.

Place one hand flat on chest beneath belt. This will extend the belt sufficiently to relieve the tension.

Lift wedge to lock belt.

You may now drive freely without tension. Any movement of the body or slight pull will release the KLIP and the belt will return to its retracted position.

Each time the belt is used the KLUNK-KLIP should be set as advised above, being careful to avoid introducing excessive slack.

ID: 86-2.41

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/24/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Wayne Ivie

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Wayne Ivie Manager, Support Section Oregon Department of Transportation Motor Vehicles Division 1905 Lana Avenue N.E. Salem, Oregon 97314

Dear Mr. Ivie:

Thank you for your letter concerning Oregon's new vehicle code. You asked us to review the code and comment on possible Federal preemption of Oregon's laws for motor vehicle equipment. We apologize for the delay in responding to your inquiry.

On March 19, Ms. Hom of my staff explained in a telephone conversation that this office is unable to undertake a general review of your state vehicle code as you requested. It would be more appropriate if your legal department reviewed your requirements.

Your letter also requested a clarification of our regulatory definition of a "bus." You asked whether we have a definition of a "bus" separate from definitions for "school buses" or "commercial motor buses." You appeared to question whether privately-owned passenger vans would be classified as buses since Oregon currently considers 15-passenger vans as either "passenger vehicles" or "trucks."

NHTSA's regulatory definitions for motor vehicles, issued for purposes of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards, are set forth at 49 CFR Part 571.3. We define a "bus" as a motor vehicle, except a trailer, designed for carrying more than 10 persons. This definition would include 15-passenger vans, and would thus apply to both commercial motor coaches and privately-owned 15-passenger vans.

Our definition of a "bus" is separate from our "school bus" definition. While the latter term incorporates our "bus" definition, it includes further criteria based on the intended use of the vehicle. Under Part 571.3, a "school bus" is a bus that is sold for purposes that include carrying students to and from school or related events (excluding common carriers in urban transportation). If a new 15-passenger van were sold for school transportation purposes, it would be considered a "school bus" and would have to comply with NHTSA's school bus safety standards.

For purposes of understanding the interaction between Federal and state vehicle definitions, it is important to distinguish NHTSA's motor vehicle safety standards from state safety standards. State motor vehicle safety regulations apply to the sale and use of motor vehicles. Oregon's vehicle definitions are relevant for determining state requirements applicable to the sale and use of particular classes of motor vehicles. On the other hand, our regulations apply to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles, and our definitions specify categories of vehicles subject to appropriate Federal motor vehicle safety standards. New vehicles included within particular categories must be certified as complying with the safety standards applying to that vehicle type. The applicability of our safety standards to a vehicle is not altered by the fact that a vehicle type is classified differently under state law. Thus, although Oregon classifies 15-passenger vans as passenger vehicles or trucks, manufacturers of new 15-passenger vans must manufacture those vehicles to Federal safety standards for buses, or school buses if intended for school use.

I hope this information is helpful. Please contact my office if you have further questions.

Sincerely,

Original Signed By Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

NHTSA Jeffrey Miller, Chief Council US DOT 400 7th Street S. W. Washington D. C. 20590

Dear Mr. Miller:

We are reviewing the equipment portions of our new vehicle code. I know that some of our equipment laws, especially those that pertain to "approval" of certain equipment may be in conflict with current federal regulations and laws.

Copies of the equipment chapters from our "new" vehicle code are enclosed. I will appreciate any comments and suggestions you may be able to give us in suggesting changes in our equipment laws, especially with respect to federal standards.

There is one other problem that perhaps you can help us with--is there a "bus" definition in the Federal Code which could help us uniquely define a bus that is not used as a commercial motor bus, or as a school bus?

We do not have a registration classification of a multi-purpose passenger vehicle. And, if the definition of a bus were to State it is a vehicle designed to carry more than 10 persons, it could include privately owned and used passenger vans. Under our registration classification, vans designed for 15 persons can presently be registered as passenger vehicles, so long as their loaded weight remains under 8,000 pounds. If over 8,000 pounds, they could be classified as trucks. The GVWR of a vehicle is not a consideration in classifying them for registration purposes.

We will appreciate and help you can give.

Very truly yours,

Wayne Ivie Manager, Support Section Telephone (503) 378-2057

WI/ao

Enc.