ID: nht95-2.70

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: May 5, 1995

FROM: John G. Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Jiro Doi -- Vice President, Mitsubishi North America, Inc.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 1/19/95 LETTER FROM Jiro Doi to Philip Recht

TEXT: Dear Mr. Doi:

This is in response to your letter to Philip Recht, former Chief Counsel of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), in which you requested an interpretation of the parts-marking requirement of the motor vehicle theft protection standa rd, 49 CFR Part 541.

Your letter asks whether marking the clutch housing on a manual transmission vehicle, or the converter housing on an automatic transmission vehicle, would comply with 49 CFR @ 541.5(a)(2), which requires that the transmission be marked with a VIN or VIN- derivative. Your letter states that the housing is "attached to the transmission via bolts that may be removed allowing the clutch housing (or converter housing) to separate from the transmission."

The answer to your question is that marking the housing but not the transmission would not comply with @ 541.5(a)(2). It is the transmission, and not the housing, that is the component of value to thieves. It is possible that a thief would want to remo ve the transmission from a vehicle without removing the housing, since the transmission is smaller and easier to conceal by itself than it would be with the housing attached. Removal of the transmission alone would be relatively easy to accomplish where the housing is attached to the transmission only by bolts, which is the design you describe in your letter.

If you have any further questions on this matter, please contact Eileen Leahy, an attorney on my staff, at 202-366-5263.

ID: 8864

Mr. Zaher A. Obeid
President & CEO
Petrobeid of Syria
P.O. Box 3780
Damascus, Syria

Dear Mr. Obeid:

We have received your FAX of July 14, 1993, asking for comments on the "Zatalite" which you would like to sell in the United States in the near future.

The Zatalite is a message board intended to be installed in the rear window of motor vehicles. We have been asked before about this kind of device, and I enclose a copy of our letter of August 17, 1989, to Alan S. Eldahr explaining the circumstances under which installation of an electronic message board is and is not permissible under U.S. Federal law.

Your Figure 3(c) shows the Zatalite controls built into a steering wheel. We believe that you should review this method of installation to ensure that it does not affect compliance of vehicles equipped with airbags (installed in accordance with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208), or, if the vehicle has no airbag, with Standard No. 203 (requirements intended to protect the driver in an impact with the steering control system).

I hope that this information is useful.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosure ref:VSA#108

ID: nht73-2.38

DATE: 03/30/73

FROM: E.T. DRIVER -- NHTSA; SIGNATURE BY CHARLES A. BAKER

TO: Bridgestone Tire Company of America, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This will acknowledge your letter of March 15, 1973, to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, confirming the telephone conversation with Mr. John A. Dichl of this office.

You are correct that the 5-J alternative rim is not cited within Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) No. 109 and 110 as an approved rim for use with the 195R14 tire size designation. Therefore, it is necessary for your organization to apply to this Administration for the addition of this alternative rim size to the standard. Persons requesting the addition of a new alternative rim size to the standard must conform to the Guidelines as set forth in Standard No. 110. For your information, I have enclosed a copy of these Guidelines. Your attention is directed to Items 4 and 5, wherein the actual laboratory test data is required indicating that the 5-J alternative rim size, in combination with the 195R14 tire size designation, complies with all the requirements of Standards No. 109 and 110. Within Standard No. 109, the European Tyre and Rim Technical Organization does not specify the year of the edition. You are correct to refer to the editions or practices issued prior to November 16, 1967.

If we can be of further assistance, please feel free to contact us.

ENC.

ID: nht74-5.18

DATE: 03/06/74

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Robert L. Carter; NHTSA

TO: Mobile Auto Glass of Iowa, Inc.

COPYEE: MR. HUNTER

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Thank you for your letter of January 30, 1974, concerning requirements for replacement glazing material in trucks and buses.

Glazing materials for use in motor vehicles must comply with the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials, which incorporates the American National Standards Institute Standard No. Z26.1-1966. Section S6 of Standard No. 205 specifies requirements for certification and marking.

Paragraph S6.4 and S6.5 of Standard No. 205 covers the specific question you asked. If you cut a section of glass to which this standard applies, for use in a motor vehicle or comper, you are required to mark that glass in accordance with section 6 of Standard No. Z26.1-1966 and to certify that it complies with the standard in accordance with section 114 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act.

I am enclosing a copy of Standard No. 205, Standard No. Z26.1-1966 and section 114 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. If I can be of further assistance, do not hesitate to contact me.

3 ENCLS.

ID: nht74-3.8

DATE: 07/17/74

FROM: JACK R. GILSTRAP -- SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA RAPID TRANSIT DISTRICT

TO: RICHARD B. DYSON, -- ASSISTANT CHIEF COUNSEL NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

COPYEE: CHARLES R. SHARP -- GM

TITLE: FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD 108

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 08/05/74, FROM RICHARD B. DYSON -- NHTSA TO JACK P. GILSTRAP; N40-30 [ZTV]; STANDARD 108; LETTER DATED 12/26/73 FROM WARREN M. HEATH TO JACK R. GILSTRAP

TEXT: Dear Mr. Dyson:

On April 30, 1974, the Southern California Rapid Transit District entered into a contract with GMC Truck & Coach Division of General Motors Corporation for the furnishing of 200 heavy duty transit buses. This purchase is funded under a Capital Grant from the Urban Mass Transportation Administration of the Department of Transportation.

The specifications for these buses required the provision of spare wires serving the clearance and marker lamps around the roof of the bus, as well as the installation of a silent flasher in the engine compartment. This additional wiring was required in order to enable the District to install dual-filament bulbs in the corner clearance lamps. The 32 candlepower filament of these bulbs would be connected in a manner to be put into operation in a flashing mode as a part of an experiment in improving safety onboard transit buses. In December 1973, the District received a permit from the California Highway Patrol to install flashing lamps in the corner clearance lamps. A copy of this permit is enclosed.

The flashing lamps are controlled by a hidden switch which can be secretly activated by the driver in the event of a hijacking, robbery or other crime in progress on the bus. This same switch activates a radio silent alarm on those buses which are radio equipped. In addition, all District buses have identification numbers painted on the roof. These features, the flashing lamps, the radio silent alarms, and the roof numbers are all part of a program initiated jointly by the District and law enforcement agencies in an attempt to combat the growing incidence of crime onboard public trans buses. The District presently operates more than 1700 buses outfitted with these flashing lamps as approved by the California Highway Patrol. Most of the local law enforcement agencies have expressed to the District the opinion that the flashing lamps are a significant aid in spotting a bus with a crime in progress. No objections or complaints have been received.

2

General Motors, although it did not take exception to the Specifications prior to award of the contract, has now advised us of their refusal to manufacture the buses with the specified additional wiring. The purported grounds for their refusal is that to do so would violate the intent of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 108, in particular, Paragraph S 4.6, even though GMC has not been requested to connect any operating lamp or other device to this wiring.

The District's interpretation of Paragraph S 4. 6 is that it applies only to turn signal lamps, hazard warning signal lamps and school bus warning lamps as cited therein. It is not the intent, nor would it be a permitted practice, to activate the flashing crime warning lamps at the same time as, or in conjunction with, any of the lamps cited in Paragraph S 4.6. In any case, it is the District's interpretation of the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards that the mere provision of wiring would not create or constitute a violation on the part of GMC.

Nevertheless, General Motors has asked that we obtain an opinion from your office that the installation of the additional wiring by GMC would not constitute a violation of FMVSS 108. The District is prepared to take full responsibility for installation of any flashing lamps under the experimental permit issued by the California Highway Patrol in December 1973. Please note that buses of the District do not operate in any service outside the State of California.

Should there be problems of which the District is not aware we request that you consider this letter as a petition for the amendment of FMVSS 108 to allow the installation and use of dual filament flashing bulbs in the corner clearance lamps to signify a crime in progress onboard a transit bus.

Should you have any questions of a legal nature, please contact Miss Suzanne B. Gifford, our Assistant General Counsel. If there are questions on mechanical or technical matters, please contact Mr. Frank Barnes, our Deputy Administrator of Operations.

We would appreciate your consideration of this matter.

Cordially,

ID: nht75-5.18

DATE: 10/02/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank A. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Kawaski Motors Corporation U.S.A.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Your letter of August 22, 1975, addressed to Mr. Robert F. Hellmuth, Office of Defects Investigation, has been referred to this office for reply. You have identified all model year Kawasaki motorcycles models KZ400, H1, H2, and Z1 equipped with Kawasaki accessory half-fairing installed as containing a defect related to motor vehicle safety. The defect involves the fatigue failure of the mounting bracket which attaches the half-fairing to the motorcycle.

Kawasaki has developed a new bracket for the KE400 and Z1 models and intends to repair those models by installing the new bracket in place of the old. However, you have indicated that Kawasaki has been unsuccessful in developing a satisfactory mounting bracket for the models H1 and H2.

Based on the above facts, you have addressed two questions to the agency which will be answered in the order presented.

1. To facilitate replacement of the mounting brackets on the models KE400 and Z1, we intend to ship the newly designed parts to the Kawasaki Dealer nearest to the owner of the motorcycle. It is then our intention to direct the owner to go to this dealer for the replacement.

Question: Is it allowable for us to so direct the owner, and if so, may such directions be given in the notification letter sent pursuant to Part 577, Defect Notification?

Answer - It is allowable for Kawasaki to so direct the owner, and such directions may be given in the notification letter sent pursuant to 49 C.F.R. Part 577.

2. Is it allowable to repurchase the half-fairing from the owners of the models H1 and H2 (estimated quantity 25 total for both models), and if so, is it allowable for Kawasaki Motors Corp., U.S.A. to contact these customers by telephone prior to sending a notification letter as required by Part 577?

Answer - Unfortunately, it is not allowable to repurchase the half-fairing from the owners of the H1 and H2 models. The half-fairings are items of "motor vehicle equipment" as defined in section 102(4) of the National Traffic and Actor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, as amended (15 U.S.C. S 1391(4) hereinafter "the Act"). Congress has explicitly limited the options of manufacturers of Motor Vehicle equipment containing a defect related to motor vehicle safety. While repurchase of a motor vehicle in permissible when a safety related defect is contained therein, such is not the case when the defect is contained in an item of motor vehicle equipment. Compare 15 U.S.C. S 1414(a)(2) (A) with 15 U.S.C. S 1414(a) (2) (A); accord R.R. Rep. No. 1452, 93rd Cong., 2nd Sess. 26-29 (1974).

Half-fairings can make a safety contribution by shielding the rider from flying stones or other small debris and reducing driver fatigue on long trips. It is therefore reasonable that Congress would require that such equipment be either repaired or replaced but not repurchased when it contains a defect related to motor vehicle safety. If Kawasaki is unable to repair the defective half-fairings on H1 and H2 models, the law required that it replace them "without charge with . . . identical or reasonably equivalent" items of replacement equipment. 15 U.S.C. S 1414(a) (2) (B). Replacement may involve the design of a new half-fairing by Kawasaki or provision of a similar item of equipment produced by another manufacturer.

Thank you for your inquiry. Should you have any questions with regard to these matters, please contact the undersigned at 202-426-9511.

ID: 21293.ztv

Mr. Randy Thomas
Vice President, Marketing
Westward Industries Ltd.
P.O. Box 1288
Portage la Prairie
Manitoba
Canada

Dear Mr. Thomas:

This is in reply to your fax of February 25, 2000, to Taylor Vinson of this Office, with respect to a vehicle that you would like to export to the United States.

The vehicle is the Daewoo Labo, "a small truck from Korea," which you would modify by installing a governor limiting its speed to 40 km/h (25 mph), "as well as installing turf tires and hydraulics for a dump box which we manufacture here." You state that the truck is similar to the Metro Motors "Microtruck" and Cushman's "White" truck, and will be used "for the same utility purposes." You inform us that the truck "would be sold only for off road applications."

According to your letter, "Transport Canada would like to see an indication of your approval of the import of this vehicle in order to complete their own documentation." From the few facts you have provided, we believe that the unmodified vehicle you would import into Canada would be a "truck" were it to be imported into the United States, and would be required to meet the Federal motor vehicle safety standards that apply to trucks. The question to be decided from our standpoint is whether your intended modifications in Canada would be sufficient to support a determination that the Labo, when imported into the United States, has been transformed from a vehicle manufactured for use primarily on the public roads (a truck) to one that has not been manufactured primarily for such use, and therefore a vehicle that may be imported without the need to meet U.S. Federal requirements.

Your assurances that the modified Labo will be sold only for off road applications are not dispositive of this issue. There appears to be no reasons why a purchaser could not obtain a license for on-road use of the truck. Further, the planned modifications are also insufficient for us to conclude that the Labo is no longer a motor vehicle. Neither the modified speed limit nor the addition of turf tires are inconsistent with a conclusion that this vehicle remains a "truck."

We are not familiar with Metro Motors' "Microtruck," but it could be one of the small trucks that the company asked us about some time ago, and which we decided were not "motor vehicles." In cases that are not clear cut, we apply five factors in reaching a determination. Metro Motors had provided us with sufficient information that allowed us to apply the five factors to its situation and to reach the conclusion that its vehicles were not manufactured primarily for on road use. I enclose a copy of our letter of January 5, 1999, to William Sanford of Metro Motors so that you may understand the factors that were involved in our decision. If you wish to write us again, applying the five factors to your plans for the Labo, we would be willing to reconsider the decision of this letter that the modified Labo is a truck and cannot be imported into the United States unless it conforms to all Federal motor vehicle safety standards that apply to trucks, and bears the manufacturer's certification of compliance.

If you have any questions, you may phone Taylor Vinson again (202-366-5263).

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
Enclosure
ref:571
d.3/27/00

ID: nht72-5.35

DATE: 09/28/72

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Truck Equipment & Body Distributors Association

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of August 31 and September 13, 1972, concerning certification of trailers and the addition of snow plows to completed vehicles.

In your letter of August 31 you asked how a final-stage manufacturer, or re-manufacturer, should verify a vehicle when as part of the work he performed he utilizes a used component. It is permissible for the manufacturer to certify the vehicle as if the component in question were new. You also ask for the status of a person who sells a trailer with what appears to be a kit by which the purchaser installs a section of the floor. We agree with your conclusion, assuming the floor is not "readily attachable", that such a manufacturer would be an incomplete vehicle manufacturer under Parts 567 and 568. He would consequently be required to furnish the purchaser with an "incomplete vehicle document" in accordance with Part 568, on which the purchaser can rely in completing and certifying the vehicle.

You are correct in the conclusion of your second letter that a person adding a snow plow to a completed vehicle (of which he is not the manufacturer) need not certify the vehicle, even if he must add auxiliary lights pursuant to Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 106. Such a person is not a complete or incomplete vehicle manufacturer, and need not report production figures pursuant to Part 573, Defect Reports.

ID: 77-1.42

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/08/77

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank A. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Trean Mfg. Corp.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your February 4, 1977, question whether Standard No. 302, Flammability of Interior Materials, applies to materials supplied to the aftermarket for use in vans.

Standard No. 302 does not directly apply to aftermarket materials or components. As a vehicle standard it applies only to those original components or materials of new vehicles specified in paragraph S4.1 of the standard and installed in a vehicle prior to its first sale for purposes other than resale (15 U.S.C. @ 1397(b)(1)). Therefore, materials that you supply to the final vehicle purchaser are not subject to the requirements of the standard.

I would also note that, with regard to the installation of interior materials in motor vehicles after the first sale for purposes other than resale, no manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair business may knowingly render inoperative a device or element of design (such as flame retardant materials) installed in compliance with an applicable motor vehicle safety standard (15 U.S.C. @ 1397(a) (2) (A)). Therefore, although the materials you produce may not always be required to meet the requirements of the standard when sold in the aftermarket, there may be situations in which the materials could not be legally installed by a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair business unless they were in compliance with the standard.

SINCERELY,

Treon Mfg. Corp.

FEBRUARY 4TH, 1977

CHIEF COUNSEL FRANK BERNDT

AS PER MY TELEPHONE CONVERSATION WITH MR. BOB WILLIAMS OF NHTSA, I AM WRITING TO YOU FOR LEGAL INTERPRETATION.

MY COMPANY MANUFACTURERS AND SUPPLIES VAN INTERIOR SOFT PARTS TO THE AFTER MARKET. OUR DISTRIBUTION IS EITHER DIRECT TO CONSUMER OR THROUGH WAREHOUSE DISTRIBUTORS, WHO IN TURN SERVE THE VAN OWNER.

WOULD YOU PLEASE GIVE US THE LEGAL INTERPRETATION OF THE LAWS GOVERNING THE USE OF FORMULA 302 TREATMENT IN FABRICS USED IN THE MANUFACTURE OF THESE PRODUCTS.

THANKING YOU IN ADVANCE FOR ANY COURTESIES EXTENDED.

ARTHUR WOLINSKY PRESIDENT

ID: 12186.JEG

Mr. Richard Korytowski
Advantage Autobody Parts
3317 E. Jefferson Blv.
Grand Prairie, Texas 75051

Dear Mr. Korytowski:

This responds to your letter asking about the implications of used car dealers selling vehicles which have not had their supplemental restraint systems (air bags) replaced after an accident. I apologize for the delay in our response. You asked whether "full disclosure" of the fact that the air bag is not operating or has not been replaced, and "accepting [the buyer's] signature of being aware of the vehicle's condition and faults-- it is sole responsibility of such a buyer to notify his or hers insurance company or install SRS on one's own without any further legal implications of the seller, regardless of the buyer's action."

As discussed below, Federal law does not require replacement of a deployed air bag in a used vehicle, or prevent a used car dealer from selling such a vehicle. However, this subject area could be covered by State law.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards that apply to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles and new motor vehicle equipment. One of the standards we have issued is Standard No. 208, "Occupant Crash Protection" (49 CFR 571.208). Manufacturers install air bags in passenger cars and light trucks as one method of complying with the occupant protection requirements of Standard No. 208.

While the Federal motor vehicle safety standards apply only to new motor vehicles and new motor vehicle equipment, Federal law does limit the modifications that can be made by certain businesses to used vehicles. Manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and repair businesses are prohibited from "knowingly making inoperative" any device or element of a design installed on or in a motor vehicle in compliance with an applicable safety standard (49 U.S.C. 30122).

While the "make inoperative" provision would prohibit a dealer or repair business from knowingly disabling safety equipment, such

as an air bag, installed in compliance with an applicable safety standard, the provision does not impose an affirmative duty on dealers or other persons to repair equipment on a used vehicle that was damaged in a crash. Therefore, Federal law does not require replacement of a deployed air bag in a used vehicle.

Despite the absence of any requirement in Federal law, State law may require replacement of deployed air bags. You may wish to contact the State of Texas to learn if there are any applicable laws or regulations. Additionally, you may wish to consult a private attorney with respect to potential liability of a repair facility for failure to replace an air bag after a crash, or of a used car dealer for selling such a vehicle.

In addition to the legal considerations, I note that, for vehicles being repaired for road-use, NHTSA has long recommended the repair, restoration, or replacement of all safety systems that may have been damaged in a crash. These systems include the safety belts, air bag systems (including sensors), built-in child restraints, and other vehicle systems such as brakes, accelerator controls, transmission gear and "park" function, etc. If you would like guidance as to which vehicle systems may require inspection or repair after a crash, we suggest that you contact the selling dealer, zone representative, and/or manufacturer of the vehicle in question.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have further questions, please feel free to contact Edward Glancy of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

John Womack

Acting Chief Counsel

ref:208

d:10/16/96