ID: nht94-3.58

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: July 5, 1994

FROM: Michael Winzkowski -- CEO / Managing Director, Farmont Sunroofs Ltd., Odessa, FL

TO: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: Re: DOT Code 205 Manufacturer Certification

ATTACHMT: Attached to 9/21/94 letter from John Womack to Michael Winzkowski (A42; STD. 205)

TEXT: We are a US-based subsidiary of a german automotive sunroof manufacturer with a associated glass plant which produces the glass panels for our sunroofs. A number of years ago we have obtained a DOT number for our glass panels, used in the USA. Due to t he fact that the German TUV is certifying and testing such glass panels and the US-DOT is relying on manufacturer self certification, we sometimes have the problem to convey the certification differences between the two countries to the German Authoritie s. The DOT numbers which appear on the glass panels of our product are simply proof of the fact that the manufacturer has obtained a registered number with the US-DOT after complying with the applicable self certification procedures without having to go through a test by your Department similar to the test administered by the German Government Authorities. It would be of great help if you could provide us with a formal letter, citing the applicable procedures for manufacturers regulated by vehicle gla zing code 205 to identify that in fact no US-DOT testing or certification is conducted when DOT numbers are assigned to manufacturers. An attached copy of the latest edition of DOT Code 205 (Vehicle Glazing Code) would be most appreciated.

Our glass manufacturer is FABA Autoglas Produktion in Germany. Farmont Sunroofs Ltd. in Florida is the assigned agent in the US. Our current master DOT number is DOT 500 (followed by manufacturers glass type and model code). I would appreciate to rece ive a letter from your office addressed to FABA Autoglas Produktion c/o Farmont Sunroofs Ltd. (my attention).

Should you have any further question please call me at any time. Thank you very much for your help.

ID: nht93-3.40

DATE: May 8, 1993

FROM: Daniel L. Kokal -- Champagne Importers

TO: Johnathan Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

COPYEE: Joe Marino -- Champagne Imports; Clive Van Orden -- OVSC

TITLE: RE: Request for Use of Continuous Surety Bonding for Importation of Non-Conforming Vehicles Under the Registered Importer Program

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 6-4-93 from John Womack to Daniel L. Kokal (A41; Part 591)

TEXT: On April 29th, 1993, Joe Marino of Champagne Imports and myself met with Clive Van Orden and Ted Bayler of OVSC, and Taylor Vinson of Chief Counsel's office, to review and discuss various aspects of the Registered Importer program as they relate to vehicle entries from Canada.

Champagne Imports is the largest Registered Importer processing entries from Canada. At the April 29th meeting, we raised the possibility of providing a continuous bond that would provide surety on the compliance obligations on these vehicles. Currently, single entry bonds are filed with each vehicle at 150% of the vehicle's declared value to ensure the vehicle meets, or will be modified to meet U.S. safety standards.

This type of bonding, currently the practice with non-conforming vehicles from Europe, is expensive for the importer, especially considering that Canadian vehicles rarely, if ever, require safety modifications to meet U.S. standards.

Continuous bonding would allow the Registered Importer to bundle a group of vehicles under a given bond and conserve costs to the importer while maintaining the SAME LEVEL OF LIABILITY for compliance to OVSC.

For example

10 vehicles at a value of $1O,000/vehicle would require 10 single entry bonds at a total bond value of $150,000 liability for compliance.

Alternatively, a continuous bond, valued at $150,000, would be posted to cover all 10 vehicles. The importer would be saved the costs of issuing 10 bonds, but the level of liability for compliance of these vehicles would remain the same. In fact, the $150,000 liability would remain until ALL vehicles are released.

It has been suggested that use of a continuous bond might create additional administrative burden on OVSC by requiring constant monitoring of the number of cars imported under a given bond. This burden can be obviated by establishing a discreet number of vehicles for each continuous bond used.

We are requesting the ability to import no more than 15 vehicles under a given continuous bond at 150% total vehicle value. These vehicles will all be imported together, and, when all vehicles are released, the bond itself is liquidated. The next 15 vehicles imported would require a new bond.

It is widely accepted that the Registered Importer requirements, as written. failed to consider the special case of Canadian vehicles. OVSC has moved to

mollify the unusual burden on Canadian vehicles by recognizing manufacturers letters of compliance as evidence of U.S. certification. As Registered Importers, we see many importers who cannot obtain these letters, yet still have vehicle that rarely, if ever, require modification, and are forced to cope with extreme bonding costs.

Fulfilling the enclosed request will enable us to lower these costs to the importer, while maintaining the same level of surety to OVSC that compliance will be demonstrated. There will be no burden on OVSC to "track" the vehicles under a given continuous bond, as each bond will hold a discreet number of vehicles (our request is 15 vehicles), after which the bond is liquidated, and a new bond is issued for subsequent vehicles.

Please review the enclosed request at your earliest convenience, and inform us as to its applicability under the Safety Act and the Registered Importer program. Comments received during the April 29th meeting seemed to indicate that there is no reason why this method could not be employed.

Cost cutting and paperwork reduction is imperative to our remaining in service as an importer of Canadian vehicles, and we believe use of continuous bonds will achieve cost reduction without limiting in any way our responsibilities as a Registered Importer.

We greatly appreciate your time and attention to this matter. Please contact me at 703-349-1166 with any questions, or to discuss this matter further.

ID: 77-3.31

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/19/77

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

TO: Bankhead Enterprises, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your June 7, 1977, question whether the trailer portion of an auto transporter must comply with Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems, if it is manufactured after the current September 1, 1977, termination date for the exclusion of auto transporters from the standard.

As stated in a telephone conversation between you and Mr. Herlihy of this office, the current exclusion for auto transporters terminates September 1, 1977, and either portion of an auto transporter manufactured after that date must comply. Recently, the NHTSA proposed extension of the auto transporter exclusion from September 1, 1977, to January 1, 1979 (copy of proposal enclosed). The comment closing period ended July 11, 1977, and the agency hopes to reach a decision on the proposal in the near future.

SINCERELY,

BANKHEAD ENTERPRISES, INC.

June 7, 1977

Joan Claybrooks Administrator National Highway Safety Administration

Enclosed find copy of a letter from one of our customers asking us to quote on 80 new car hauling trailers for delivery after current expiration of S-121. Please note that trucks furnished by customer will be manufactured prior to Sept. 1 and without the S-121 brakes. Customer is asking if we can produce the trailer without S-121. Out current design will not accept the components for S-121. Engineering drawings will be furnished under separate cover.

It is of utmost importance that a ruling on extension of S-121 is rendered. Your prompt attention is very much appreciated.

Glenn Taylor President

May 10, 1977

Mr. Glenn Taylor, President Bankhead Enterprises

This is your invitation to bid on 80 trailers and headracks. The tractors will be conventional cab GMC's, 9500 series with tilt hoods. Specifications include 6V-92 TT engines, GMC air suspensions, tandem axle drives and disc wheels with 1122.5 tires. You should outline in your quotation the number of imports, A-bodies, B-bodies, C-bodies, compacts, pickups, vans and variations of other combinations your unit will carry. This quotation should include tractor wheelbase, also itemized price of trailer, headrack, excise tax and freight f.o.b. Dallas, Texas.

GMC has advised the tractors will be produced prior to September 1st. This will enable us to beat the deadline on 121. As the units are ready they can be shipped to your plant. However, we do not want to start putting these units in service until January 1, 1978. We would like to know if you can produce your trailers so they also will not have the 121 brake system. Equipment must comply with all federal and state regulations.

We would appreciate receiving the above information at your earliest convenience. Specification sheets are enclosed. Should there be any questions, please contact my office.

UNITED TRANSPORTS, INC.

Karon W. Thomas Director of Maintenance and Equipment

cc: RAYMOND E. SIMMONS -- UT

ID: nht94-1.76

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: March 10, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Joe de Sousa -- President, Safety Pro's International, Inc.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 8/12/93 from Joe de Sousa to NHTSA Office of Chief Counsel (OCC-8998) and letter dated 8/12/93 from Joe de Sousa to Richard Van Iderstine

TEXT:

We have received your letter of August 12, 1993, as well as your letter to Mr. Van Iderstine of this agency and its enclosures.

You are interested in marketing an accessory daytime running lamp (DRL) system, and have asked for an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 as it applies to this product. There appear to be two versions of this system. In both systems, the DRLs are the lower beam headlamps, automatically activated at 77% intensity when the ignition is turned on. The taillamps and side marker lamps are not activated. The systems are deactivated when the ignition is turned off. The systems d iffer in that one automatically activates the headlamps to full intensity (while activating the taillamps and side marker lamps as well) at a predetermined lower ambient light level.

Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, aftermarket lighting equipment may be installed provided that it does not render inoperative, in whole or in part, any device or element of design installed in accordance with a Federal motor vehic le safety standard. The system you describe is congruent with the DRL systems permitted by Standard No. 108, which allows DRLs to be lower beam headlamps operated at less than full intensity, without activation of the taillamps and side marker lamps. Th erefore, the installation of either of your DRL systems would not affect a vehicle's pre-existing compliance with Standard No. 108 or any other standard, and is permissible under our regulations.

We note that the reduced intensity is achieved by a "pulse with modulation" which cycle the headlamps "on and off faster than the eye can detect." S5.5.10(d) of Standard No. 108 requires headlamps to be steady-burning for uses other than flashing. While a modulating headlamp technically is not a steady-burning one, for purposes of this requirement we have concluded that there is no failure to conform if the modulating light from the lamp is perceived to be a steady beam, as appears to be the case here.

ID: nht94-7.46

DATE: March 10, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Joe de Sousa -- President, Safety Pro's International, Inc.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 8/12/93 from Joe de Sousa to NHTSA Office of Chief Counsel (OCC-8998) and letter dated 8/12/93 from Joe de Sousa to Richard Van Iderstine

TEXT:

We have received your letter of August 12, 1993, as well as your letter to Mr. Van Iderstine of this agency and its enclosures.

You are interested in marketing an accessory daytime running lamp (DRL) system, and have asked for an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 as it applies to this product. There appear to be two versions of this system. In both systems, the DRLs are the lower beam headlamps, automatically activated at 77% intensity when the ignition is turned on. The taillamps and side marker lamps are not activated. The systems are deactivated when the ignition is turned off. The systems differ in that one automatically activates the headlamps to full intensity (while activating the taillamps and side marker lamps as well) at a predetermined lower ambient light level.

Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, aftermarket lighting equipment may be installed provided that it does not render inoperative, in whole or in part, any device or element of design installed in accordance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard. The system you describe is congruent with the DRL systems permitted by Standard No. 108, which allows DRLs to be lower beam headlamps operated at less than full intensity, without activation of the taillamps and side marker lamps. Therefore, the installation of either of your DRL systems would not affect a vehicle's pre-existing compliance with Standard No. 108 or any other standard, and is permissible under our regulations.

We note that the reduced intensity is achieved by a "pulse with modulation" which cycle the headlamps "on and off faster than the eye can detect." S5.5.10(d) of Standard No. 108 requires headlamps to be steady-burning for uses other than flashing. While a modulating headlamp technically is not a steady-burning one, for purposes of this requirement we have concluded that there is no failure to conform if the modulating light from the lamp is perceived to be a steady beam, as appears to be the case here.

ID: nht95-6.9

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: August 11, 1995

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Isaias Rios -- Product Engineering Department, Rines de Acero K-H, S.A. de C.V.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 06/29/95 LETTER FROM ISAIAS RIOS TO MARVIN SHAW (OCC 11007)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Rios:

This responds to your letter of June 29, 1995, to Marvin Shaw of this office requesting information on obtaining a certification from the U.S. that the wheels you supply to automobile manufacturers in Mexico comply with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) Nos. 110 and 120.

You explained in your letter and in telephone conversations with Walter Myers of this office that your company supplies steel and aluminum passenger car wheels to automobile manufacturers located in Mexico. You stated that Nissan Mexicana requires from you a certificate demonstrating compliance with FMVSS Nos. 110, Tire Selection and Rims, and 120, Tire Selection and Rims for Motor Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars. Your letter asked how to obtain such a certification and for information on other responsible U.S. government agencies and approved test labs.

On July 21, Mr. Myers telefaxed you copies of two interpretative letters previously issued by this office, one to Mr. Ralph Trimarchi dated February 11, 1985, and one to Mr. Jay D. Zeiler dated November 20, 1977. We explained in those letters that U.S. law requires motor vehicle and equipment manufacturers to self-certify their products and that the U.S. government does not test or certify products prior to first retail sale. Rather, this agency, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), randomly tests vehicles and equipment for compliance with the FMVSSs. Mr. Myers also telefaxed you copies of FMVSS Nos. 110 and 120 on July 24, 1995.

We would like to advise you of another issue. 49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). Part 566 (copy enclosed) requires manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment to which an FMVSS applies (referred to in the regulation as "covered equipment, such as wheels) to submit its name, address, and a brief description of the items of equipment it manufactures to NHTSA. NHTSA requires that information from an equipment manufacturer even though the equipment manufacturer does not directly sell its products in the U.S. but supplies them to foreign vehicle manufacturers who sell their vehicles in the U.S. (see enclosed copy of NHTSA letter to Mr. K. Nakajima, dated January 6, 1972). Therefore, if your company has not already done so, please submit the information required by Part 566 to the Administrator of NHTSA within thirty days after receipt of this letter. No forms or prescribed format is required. A standard letter is sufficient.

I hope this information is helpful to you. Should you have any further questions or need any additional information, please feel free to contact Mr. Myers at this address or by telephone (202) 366-2992 or telefax (202) 366-3820.

ID: 2285y

Mr. Victor Crisci
70 Lenox Road
Wayne, NJ 07470

Dear Mr. Crisci:

This is in response to the telephone call you made to me after receiving the interpretation of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. l08 furnished you on August 7, l989.

To summarize, you wished to know whether a "safety light flasher" to be installed on your motorcycle would conflict with DOT regulations. This device flashes a motorcycle headlamp between upper and lower beam for 2 to 4 seconds, then returns the light to the beam it was in when the flasher was activated. If the headlamp is off, the flasher will turn it on and initiate an identical flash cycle. We advised you that Standard No. l08 allowed flashing headlamps only on vehicles equipped with turn signals (S5.5.10(c)), and that the provision applicable to motorcycle headlamps (S5.5.l0(d)) permitted only headlamp modulators, which must provide varying intensities within a single beam, and not between beams.

You have questioned this interpretation because motorcycles are required to be equipped with turn signals. We have reviewed Standard No. l08, and have concluded that your device is prohibited, albeit for reasons other than section S5.5.10(c). Section S5.5.1 requires that the means for switching between upper and lower beams conform to one of two SAE Recommended Practices, either J564a, or J565b. The first requires that the switch be operated by a simple movement of the driver's hand or foot. We do not interpret this as allowing automatic switching between upper and lower beams. Although the second provides for automatic switching, it is in the context of changing the upper beam to the lower one when oncoming traffic is approaching. Your device does not contain this feature.

We must also bring your attention to section S5.1.3. This section prohibits the installation of supplementary lighting devices if they impair the effectiveness of lighting equipment that is required by Standard No. l08. In our opinion, a device that switches between upper and lower beam at times when the headlamp is illuminated would impair the roadway illumination that the headlamp is intended to supply. In addition, if the flasher caused lamps other than the headlamp to flash (such as the taillamp, which must be activated when the headlamp is steady-burning), that are required to be steady-burning in use, a noncompliance with section S5.5.11(e) would result.

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel

/ref:l08 d: 2/l4/90

ID: 77-2.36

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 05/18/77

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Video Research Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of March 15, 1977, concerning Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 114, Theft Protection, as it relates to a device you wish to market called "Remote Auto-Start."

Standard No. 114, Theft Protection, which applies to passenger cars, requires that when the key is removed, normal activation of the car's engine and either steering or forward self-mobility of the car is prevented (49 CFR 571.114, S4.1(a) and (b)). According to the material which you forwarded, your device results in the following characteristics which differ from what we consider to be normal activation:

1. The engine deactivates when a door is opened.

2. The steering column and gear shift remains locked until the actual key is inserted.

3. The logic circuitry deactivates the engine after 15 minutes.

Consequently, we have determined that your device does not result in a "normal" activation of the car's engine.

Thus, it appears that the characteristics of the "Remote Auto-Start" system are not in conflict with Standard No. 114.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

VIDEO RESEARCH CORPORATION

March 15, 1977

Frank Berndt -- Acting Chief Counsel, National Highway Safety Administration

Dear Mr. Berndt:

Last week I had the opportunity of talking to Mr. Tilton in regards to interpretating a law which covers various states, as well as federal, concerning cars left unattended with the motors running.

Sometime back, the American Medical Association contacted me in regards to heart patients that have to use a motor vehicle in extremely hot or cold weather. Since it is a stress on the heart when temperatures vary greatly, they felt if possible we could make an item that would heat or cool the vehicle for 15 to 20 minutes before entering same.

We came up with a tentative item called Remote Auto-Start. By reading the enclosed sheets covering this item which was written by our Director of Engineering, you will note that at no time can the vehicle be operated without the ignition key.

We would appreciate it, after you read the enclosed specifications, if you would let us know whether any federal or state laws will affect us.

Looking forward to hearing from you as soon as possible so we can continue with this particular product.

Thank you in advance for your consideration.

Sincerely yours, Martin Fleischman -- Chairman

[Enclosure Omitted]

ID: nht94-3.47

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: June 28, 1994

FROM: William R. Willen -- Managing Counsel, American Honda Motor Co., Inc.

TO: Administrator -- NHTSA

TITLE: Petition for Honda Electric Vehicles in Accordance with FMVSS @ 555.6(c)

ATTACHMT: Attachment dated 7/25/94: Letter from John Womack to William Willen (Part 555 & 591)

TEXT: This petition is being sought by American Honda Motor Co., Inc., 1919 Torrance Blvd, Torrance, CA, 90501, a California corporation, hereinafter referred to as "Honda." Honda plans to field test no more than twenty (20) electric vehicles ("HONDA-EV") over a three (3) year period, in order to gather field information. These HONDA-EV's will not be sold, however; they will be driven by various drivers, including, but not limited to: electric utilities, media Honda employees, commercial fleet drivers and, po ssibly, consumers. The field test is necessary to obtain "real world" usage patterns as well as overall field experience with electric vehicles. The technical and qualitative feedback from these field tests will enable Honda to develop and market a bet ter electric vehicle.

In accordance with FMVSS @ 555.6(c), the basis for this petition includes: "the development or field evaluation of a low-emission motor vehicle." The HONDA-EV for which Honda seeks an exemption meets all applicable regulations except the following FMVSS standards:

FMVSS Description Impact 103 As described in Attachment 1, a Operator instructions will make limited area on each side of clear the need to wait until the the windshield is only 87.5% clear, front glass is adequately compared to a standard of 95% defrosted prior to vehicle operation. The vehicles will clear, within the specified 40 be minute start period. This is operated mainly in California primarily due to the electrical where the milder weather should consumption requirements. minimize this concern. Additionally, vehicle parking is primarily indoors due to recharging requirements, where defrosting is even less of a concern. While these eight components do 302 PP plastic was used for several not prototype parts in order to meet the standard, all other minimize the tooling costs needed vehicle components do meet the to produce these few vehicles. PP standard, and the overall risk does not meet the fire-retardant of fire is not significantly increased. Additionally, the standard set forth in 302. risk of fuel-fed fire is greatly These components are described reduced in Attachment 2, and include: since there is no on-board gasoline or diesel fuel with Cover, Right Front Door; Cover, which Left Front Door; Console, Front; to contend. Lining, Rear Panel; Lining, Right Side, Lining, Left Side; Lining, Right Cowl Side; Lining, Left Cowl Side

These minor "non-compliances" will have no significant adverse affect on vehicle safety.

By providing this temporary exemption, field testing and evaluation will proceed rapidly. In addition, the full production version of this vehicle, currently scheduled for the 1998 model year, is planned to fully meet all FMVSS requirements, including t he above standards.

Enclosed: Attachment 1 (1 page) Attachment 2 (6 pages)

ID: nht78-4.32

DATE: 10/05/78

FROM: JOSEPH J. LEVIN -- CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TO: CHARLES B. HONEYCUTT -- DIRECTOR OF PUPIL PERSONNEL GLASGOW INDEPENDENT SCHOOLS

TITLE: NONE

TEXT: This responds to your July 13, 1978, letter asking whether you may use a 12 Passenger van to Transport 9 cheerleaders to basketball games. This van does not comply with the school bus safety standards.

If the van to which you refer was manufactured prior to April 1, 1977, then it may be used to transport school children. The new school bus safety standards became effective on that date and, therefore, do not apply to vehicles manufactured prior to that date.

Any vehicle manufactured on or after that date designed to carry more than 10 persons and which is sold to transport school children to or from school or related events must comply with all of the school bus safety standards. These vehicles must comply with the standards regardless of the fact that a user might not transport more than 9 students in the vehicle.

A dealer is in violation of the law if it knowingly sells to a school a vehicle that was manufactured on or after April 1, 1977, that is to be used to transport school children, and that does not comply with the school bus safety standards. Such violation is punishable by a fine of up to $ 1,000. If your van was manufactured on or after the effective date, we suggest that you arrange with the dealer to repurchase the van. If the dealer refuses, please notify us and we will take appropriate action.