ID: nht75-3.23

DATE: 08/25/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Compact Van Equipment Co. Inc.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of July 17, 1975, inquiring as to the regulations to which you may be subject by manufacturing and selling interior shelving, interior safety bulkheads, and roof mounted ladder carriers for Ford Econoline vans.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has issued regulations covering the alteration of completed, certified motor vehicles before their sale to a purchaser for purposes other than resale. (49 CFR @@ 567.7 and 567.8; copy enclosed). Under these regulations, an alteration which either (1) invalidates a vehicle's existing weight ratings or (2) involves installation of other than "readily attachable" components gives rise to a responsibility for affixing an alterer label, which identifies the alterer and contains some additional information.

From the description of your products, it appears that no special expertise or tools are required for their installation. They would also seemingly not affect a vehicle's weight ratings. If this assessment is correct, we would accept as reasonable a manufacturer's determination that they are "readily attachable", and that an alterer label is therefore not required when these products are installed.

The only Safety Standard that might apply to your products is Standard No. 302, Flammability of Interior Materials (copy enclosed).

In addition, as items of motor vehicle equipment, your products are subject to the requirements of the National Motor Vehicle and Traffic Safety Act of 1966, as amended, and must therefore be free from safety-related defects.

If you have any further questions, feel free to write again.

SINCERELY,

July 17, 1975

James Holtkamp Office of Chief Council National Highway & Safety Administration Department of Transportation

Persuant to our phone conversation of July 16, '75, I am inquiring about what regulations my company would be subject to when we begin to manufacture and sell interior shelving, interior safety bulkheads, and roof mounted ladder carriers for the small Ford Econoline type van truck.

I am aware of Motor Carrier Safety regulations regarding the use of safety bulkheads on vehicles engaged in inter-state commerce (U. S. Dept. of Transportation, Federal Highway Adm. Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety regulation, Title 49, Chapter 111, subchapter B., Part 393-104

Also, I am aware of certification requirements for vehicles, partiall completed vehicles, and bodies and trailers.

However, to my knowledge there are no regulations pertaining to the type of equipment I am requesting further information on.

Would you be kind enough to pass on to me any information that I should have and outline any regulations that I might be subject to as a manufacturer, or installer of this type equipment.

Please note, that normally my company would not take title to any vehicle that our equipment is manufactured for.

Wade H. Barrineau, 111 President

ID: nht75-3.24

DATE: 05/16/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: P. H. Plastics Inc.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of April 11, 1975, requesting information concerning the registration of certain vehicle types and laws relating to maximum length, width, and weight of vehicles.

It is unclear from your letter what you mean by "registration certificate." The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Pub. L. 89-563) requires that all vehicles used on United States highways be certified by their manufacturer as complying with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. 49 CFR Part 567 and 568 specify the manner in which this certification must be accomplished. If by "registration certificate" you are referring to the necessary licensing of a vehicle for operation on United States roadways, I suggest you contact the States in which you would be operating your vehicles for the answers to your questions.

The questions you ask relating to "special licenses" for 3-axle vans and transportation of your own raw materials and products are also unclear. As I stated above, NHTSA regulations only require that you certify the compliance of your vehicles with all applicable motor vehicle safety standards. We do not limit the type of products that may be imported into this country.

With regard to your question concerning maximum limitations on trailer and van length, width, and weight, this agency has no regulations which restrict the size of vehicles. As long as they meet the performance criteria established in our various safety standards, they have satisfied the provisions of the Traffic Safety Act. States generally have a limitation on the size of vehicles that operate on their roadways. Therefore, for this reason also, I suggest that you contact the States whose laws might affect the use of your vehicles within the United States.

ID: nht75-3.25

DATE: 04/30/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Frigiking Inc.

COPYEE: ALEX M. CALALUCA -- MOTOR VEHICLE PROGRAMS DIR.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Your letter of March 7, 1975 to Mr. Alex Calauca, Motor Vehicle Programs Director of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's Region 6, has been referred to this office. You wish to be informed of Frigiking's responsibilities under the NHTSA's rules and regulations as a manufacturer of automotive air conditioners for sale to domestic and foreign auto manufacturers, automobile dealers and automobile supply retail outlets.

Mr. Calaluca correctly indicated that there is currently no Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard which regulates automobile air conditioners. He also correctly informed you that your firm is not deemed a manufacturer by the NHTSA when your product is installed as original equipment. Where the Frigiking air conditioner is installed in a vehicle prior to the first sale of the vehicle the manufacturer of the vehicle is also deemed to be the manufacturer of your product. However, you should understand that in all other cases your company is considered a manufacturer under the NHTSA's rules and regulations. For example, where units are sold under private label to mass merchandising firms for sale and installation to individual automobile owners, or where units are sold through Frigiking's distributor/dealer organization for individual unit retail sales where the sale is other than to a franchised auto dealer for installation prior to the sale of the new car, Frigiking has certain responsibilities under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, as amended, notwithstanding the absence of any Safety Standard regulating air conditioners.

In the event that the NHTSA determined through its own investigation that an air conditioner produced by your firm contained a defect related to motor vehicle safety, you would be required to give notice of the defect to every person who had purchased the product manufactured during the period when a defect was known to exist. This manufacturing period could extend up to 8 years preceding the notification. In addition you would be required to repair or replace without charge every such defective air conditioner presented to you, and repurchase defective air conditioners from distributors and dealers.

Finally, it would be wise for Frigiking to remind manufacturers and dealers who install its air conditioners in motor vehicles prior to first sale that they must account for the addition of an air conditioning unit in certifying that the vehicle conforms to Federal standards and in certifying the Gross Vehicle Weight Rating and Gross Axle Weight Rating as required by the NHTSA regulations contained in 49 CFR Part 567.

Please do not hesitate to contact us if we can be of further assistance.

Yours truly,

UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION

MEMORANDUM

SUBJECT: Regulations Applicable to Automotive Equipment Suppliers

FROM: Regional Administrator -- National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Fort Worth, Texas

TO: Office of Chief Counsel, N40-30 -- National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Washington, D. C.

DATE: March 19, 1975

In his letter dated March 7, 1975, Mr. David M. Holden of Frigiking, Incorporated, discloses that his company's automotive air conditioners are being purchased for installation, in some instances, in vehicles prior to first sale. The purchasers are said to be domestic and foreign manufacturers, automobile dealers, and automotive supply retail outlets. He desires information on motor vehicle regulations applicable to his company's product. I informed him that no Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards currently exist that cover automobile air conditioners. I also told him that according to Section 159(D) of Public Law 93-492, his company does not come under the definition of original equipment manufacturer.

Any additional information you can provide Mr. Holden would be appreciated. A copy of your response to Mr. Holden to this office is requested. I am forwarding a copy of this memorandum as well as a copy of P.L. 93-492 to Mr. Holden for informational purposes.

Alex M. Calaluca -- Motor Vehicle Programs Director;

For: E. Robert Anderson -- Regional Administrator

Enclosure

March 7, 1975

Alex Calaluca -- National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Region 6

Dear Mr. Calaluca:

Your comments this morning in our telephone conversation regarding my company's products and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration responsibilities were most informative and I thank you. Perhaps this brief outline will adequately aid you in obtaining additional information which will be instructive to us.

Frigiking is primarily, but not exclusively, a manufacturer of automobile air conditioners. Frigiking sells its products in the following manner:

A. Units are sold to importers of foreign manufactured vehicles and installed at P.O.E., depot or dealer level as original equipment.

B. Units are sold to domestic vehicle manufacturers for installation at depot or dealer level, prior to retail sale.

C. Units are sold under private label to mass merchandising firms for sale and installation to individual automobile owners.

D. Units are sold through Frigiking's distributor/dealer organization for individual unit retail sales. However, in this situation it is not uncommon for units to be sold by a Frigiking dealer to a franchised auto dealer for installation prior to the sale of the new car.

I am interested in determining Frigiking's explicit responsibilities in each of these merchandising circumstances as they may be defined under the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's rules and regulations.

I look forward to whatever assistance you may lend me.

Sincerely yours,

David M. Holden -- Quality Assurance Engineer, FRIGIKING

ID: nht75-3.26

DATE: 03/04/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; James C. Schultz; NHTSA

TO: Minnesota Automotive Inc.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of January 6, 1975, requesting an opinion on whether a person who installs a Mico Brake Lock device on a new vehicle before its sale to the first purchaser is required to affix an alterer label in accordance with 49 CFR @@ 567.7 and 568.8. You state that you believe the device, which serves as a hydraulic parking brake, is readily attachable because it can be installed in a minimum amount of time and does not in any way alter the operation of the vehicle's original brake system.

The NHTSA will generally abide by a good faith determination on the part of a manufacturer that a device is readily attachable. Such a decision should be based primarily on the intricacy of the installation of the device. Simple tools, a relatively short installation time, and the ability to install the device without extensively modifying the vehicle would all be factors pointing to a decision that a component is readily attachable. You should note that section 567.7 of the Certification regulations also requires an alterer label when the installation of a component invalidates a vehicle's existing weight ratings, whether or not the component is readily attachable. On the basis of your letter, however, it appears to us that this would not occur as a result of installation of the Mico Brake Lock device.

If your device meets these criteria, no additional labeling will be required.

ID: nht75-3.27

DATE: 11/20/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Linnell; Choate & Webber

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in further reply to your letter of October 7, 1975, concerning regulations applicable to vehicles which a client of yours proposes to manufacture. A copy of your letter was forwarded to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) by the Federal Highway Administration's Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety.

The NHTSA issues Federal motor vehicle safety standards to which motor vehicles must conform. In addition, the agency requires the manufacturer to certify that the vehicle as completed complies with applicable safety standards. A pamphlet summarizing the Federal motor vehicle safety standards is enclosed, along with a copy of the regulations governing vehicle certification and an information sheet entitled "Where to Obtain Motor Vehicle Safety Standards and Regulations." The safety standards themselves are set forth in their entirety in Part 571 of Volume 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations.

The NHTSA also investigates safety-related defects and non-compliances with safety standards in motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. If the agency or the manufacturer determines that a safety-related defect or noncompliance exists, the manufacturer is obligated to notify the vehicle owners and remedy the problem without charge. A copy of the provisions of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, as amended, which deal with the responsibilities of manufacturers for safety-related defects and noncompliances in their motor vehicles or items of vehicle equipment (15 U.S.C. @@ 1411-1420) is also enclosed.

If you have any questions concerning a specific regulation or standard, please write.

ID: nht75-3.28

DATE: 11/24/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: The Cleveland Electric Illuminating Co.

COPYEE: ROBERT E. WELTZER -- HWY. SAFETY MGMT. SPECIALIST, REGION V

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in further response to your letter of June 11, 1975, to Mr. Kenneth Bowman, Area Director, Cleveland, Ohio, concerning the legal responsibilities of a person who modifies a motor vehicle.

IMPACT OF FEDERAL LAW

A person who performs work on a vehicle prior to the first purchase of the vehicle in good faith for purposes other than resale may be subject to the regulations of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) either as an alterer of a completed vehicle or as a final-stage manufacturer of an incomplete vehicle. A vehicle is "complete" only if it bears a certification label stating conformity to all applicable Federal regulations.

In addition, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act provides that

"No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or in part, any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard." (Sec. 108(a)(2)(A), Pub. L. 93-492, 88 Stat. 1470; 15 U.S.C. @ 1397(a)(2)(A))

This prohibition applies both before and after the first purchase of a motor vehicle, but does not apply to work performed on a vehicle by the individual owner of the vehicle. In addition, exceptions are provided to permit the rendering inoperative of safety belt interlocks and continuous buzzers after first purchase of the vehicle, and in certain circumstances just before first purchase.

VEHICLE ALTERATION

The regulations of the NHTSA cover two types of vehicle alterations. The first is an alteration of a completed vehicle by the addition, substitution, or removal of readily attachable components such as mirrors or tire and rim assemblies, or minor finishing operations such as painting which do not alter the vehicle's stated weight rating (49 CFR @ 567.6). This type of alteration does not involve any additional responsibilities by the alterer.

The second type of alteration is an alteration of a certified vehicle by means other than the addition, substitution, or removal of readily attachable components or minor finishing operations, or alteration in such a manner that the vehicle's stated weight ratings are no longer valid (49 CFR @ 567.7). This type of alteration, if done prior to the first purchase of the vehicle for purposes other than resale, must include, in addition to the certification label, a 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 (49 CFR @ 567.7).

COMPLETION OF VEHICLE MANUFACTURE

If a vehicle (such as a chassis-cab) requires further manufacturing operations in order to become a completed vehicle, the completion of the vehicle constitutes final manufacture and necessitates compliance with the certification requirements of 49 CFR @@ 567.5 and 568.6. The name of the finalstage manufacturer must appear on the certification label as the manufacturer, unless the incomplete vehicle manufacturer assumes legal responsibility for the vehicle as finally manufactured (49 CFR @@ 567.5, 568.6 and 568.7).

To aid the final-stage manufacturer, the incomplete vehicle manufacturer is required to furnish with the incomplete vehicle a statement including the weight ratings of the vehicle if completed as intended, descriptions of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to the vehicle, and the conditions under which final completion of the vehicle will comply with such standards (49 CFR @ 568.4). If the final-stage manufacturer follows these instructions and conditions, the liability for non-compliance with a safety standard will be on the incomplete vehicle manufacturer. Although the certification requirements may be modified as a result of litigation, the NHTSA will consider compliance with the published requirements to meet any manufacturer's responsibilities under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. @ 1403 et seq.).

Final-stage manufacturers are also subject to the manufacturer identification rules of 49 CFR @ 566, which require manufacturers to submit to the NHTSA identifying information and descriptions of the items they produce. A final-stage manufacturer may also be subject to the defect reporting requirements of 49 CFR @ 573, which concern a manufacturer's responsibilities to report safety-related defects.

Enclosed are copies of section 108 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, and Parts 566, 567, 568 and 573 of the NHTSA's regulations. In addition, we are enclosing a copy of "Standards", a summary description of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards.

If you have any questions concerning the foregoing regulations or any Federal motor vehicle safety standard, we suggest that you write

Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

We hope that this information has been of assistance.

Yours truly,

Enclosures

ID: nht74-5.13

DATE: 03/12/74

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Lawrence R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: McIntosh & Boynton

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of February 19, 1974, forwarding to us for approval a draft notification letter regarding the Checker front seat adjuster (CIR-727).

The one remaining problem we have with your letter is in the second paragraph. Because Checker is a manufacturer of motor vehicles, the appropriate determination by Checker pursuant to @ 577.4(b)(1) is that the defect exists in the motor vehicles in question. Your second sentence should be changed, and may be changed to read, "The Checker Motors Corporation has determined that a defect which relates to motor vehicle safety exists in some 1972 model Checker vehicles manufactured from December 9, 1971, through April 5, 1972, and results from improperly installed front seat adjuster assemblies."

We have decided to accept notification letters in which the reference to "some" vehicles (@ 577.4(b)(2)) is placed in the sentence required by @ 577.4(b)(1).

SINCERELY,

Dear Checker Owner:

This notice is sent to you in accordance with the requirements of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act.

The Checker Motors Corporation has determined that a defect which relates to motor vehicle safety exists in the front seat adjuster. This defect exists in some 1972 model Checker vehicles manufactured from December 9, 1971 through April 5, 1972 and results from improperly installed front seat adjuster assemblies.

Your vehicle is equipped with an adjuster assembly which allows selective fore and aft positioning of the front seat (see attached illustration). The seat is secured at the selected position by the engagement of a pawl and notch on the right and left hand seat adjuster track. The right hand pawl is engaged by a spring and disengaged by a wire attached to both the left and right hand pawl. If tension was introduced in the wire during installation, it may not allow full engagement of the pawl and notch at the right hand seat adjuster track. If a vehicle with only partial engagement between the pawl and notch is involved in an accident or is suddenly decelerated, the seat could slide forward and cause injury to the front seat occupants from impact with the vehicle interior (windshield, dashboard and steering column).

You are urged to take your vehicle to a Checker dealership to have the front seat adjuster installation checked for proper operation. Should your seat adjuster require repair, your Checker dealer will at "no cost" to you:

1. Using the prescribed template, drill four (4) 3/16 diameter holes through the center section of the seat frame.

2. Install a new pawl actuator wire.

3. Anchor the pawl actuator wire with a 1/8 x 1 cotter pin at the hole which removes the minimum amount of slack necessary to accurate the right hand pawl.

In the majority of cases, the actual work described above will take less than 30 minutes, however, prior to taking your vehicle to a Checker dealership, it is suggested that you contact the dealer's service department and determine when service time will be available. The necessary parts and instructions will be available at Checker dealerships by March 1, 1974. Presentation of this letter will assist you in obtaining this service.

CHECKER MOTORS CORPORATION

ID: nht74-5.14

DATE: 02/26/74

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Lawrence R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: Blue Bird Body Company

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of December 19, 1973, asking whether Blue Bird may use the manufacturing date of incomplete vehicles it manufactures, to be completed at a later time, as the date by which conformity to applicable safety standards is to be determined. You indicate that Blue Bird manufactures both incomplete and complete vehicles.

The Certification and Vehicles Manufactured in Two or More Stages regulations (49 CFR Parts, 567, 568) allow only final-stage manufacturers to certify conformity to applicable standards as of the manufacture date of an "incomplete vehicle." A person who manufactures the entire vehicle, including the chassis, is not a final-stage manufacturer within the intent of the regulation, and such a vehicle must be certified as of the date of its completion.

Part 568 clearly intends that multistage vehicles will be manufactured by more than one party. As your letter points out, the documentation required by Part 568 is unnecessary when only one manufacturer is involved. Moreover, the justification in the regulations for allowing a final-stage manufacturer to utilize the manufacture date of the incomplete vehicle is based partially on the fact that he has no control over the configuration of the incomplete vehicle, and that the incomplete vehicle manufacturer has no control over when and how the vehicle is completed. This justification does not exist when a single party builds the entire vehicle.

To permit a manufacturer of a complete vehicle to choose a date other than the completion date for purposes of conformity would present this agency with serious enforcement problems.

Which standards would apply would depend on how "separate" were a single company's manufacturing operations. Due to the endless possibilities that may arise in this regard, it is difficult to envision fair and objective criteria by which this decision could be made. Finally, providing the relief you request would allow a manufacturer to avoid compliance with a forthcoming standard by manufacturing large numbers of incomplete vehicles for completion by him at a later time.

You should note that the legal status of Parts 567 and 568 is unclear, due to the recent Court decisions in the Rex Chainbelt case. You will encounter no problems, however, by continuing to follow the regulations until further agency action is taken.

ID: nht74-5.15

DATE: 02/28/74

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

TO: Mercedes-Benz of No. America

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of December 11, 1973, asking whether each of the following tire labeling formats used by the Michelin Tire Corporation complies with Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 109:

1. "2 steel tread plies/2 rayon body plies";

2. "max load 1,310 lbs at 36 psi max press."

We find that the first label format fails to conform to the standard. Paragraph S4.3(a) requires the tire to be labeled with, "the actual number of plies in the sidewall, and the actual number of plies in the tread area, if different." The labeling format used by Michelin creates the impression, contrary to the stated requirements, that the number of plies in the sidewall and the tread area is the same, viz. "2". We consider the body plies, running from bead to bead and lying under the plies in the tread area, to be counted also as plies in the tread area. Thus, the number of plies in the tread area is "4", 2 steel and 2 rayon. Moreover, while we understand the words "body plies" to be essentially synonymous with "sidewall plies", we feel there is little justification for departing from the words of the standard, which uses the word "sidewall" in referring to plies.

We find the second labeling format, that dealing with maximum permissible inflation pressure and maximum load rating, to conform to Standard No. 109. The words "permissible," "inflation," and "rating" are not essential to conformity as long as the appropriate values, clearly identified, are provided.

For your information, I point out that NHTSA test laboratories are without authority to interpret Federal motor vehicle safety standards or provide such interpretations to companies whose

products they test. Only interpretations issued in the form of correspondence signed by authorized NHTSA personnel or by notice published in the Federal Register are considered by this agency to be binding.

ID: nht74-5.16

DATE: 03/01/74

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; E. T. Driver; NHTSA

TO: Mercedes-Benz

COPYEE: C. KACHN; D. PRITCHARD

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of January 21, 1974, which requested interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 104, "Windshield Wiping and Washing Systems."

The wiped area as stated in S4.1.2, is to be evaluated as a percentage of areas A, B, and C "of the windshield." This means that areas A, B, and C are evaluated in "unwrapped view." rather than in the form of a projection of the Windshield's surface.

SINCERELY,

MERCEDES-BENZ OF NORTH AMERICA, INC.

January 21, 1974

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Mr. Elwood Driver

Re: Ruling Standard 104

As discussed with Mr. Pritchard on January 18, 1974 Daimler-Benz AG. is seeking a ruling with respect to interpretation of S4.1.2 of paragraph 571.104, windshield wiping and washing systems.

S4.1.2 references in respect of the wiped area to SAE recommended practice J903a from May 1966. Definition of the wiped area on the windshield is outlined in this recommended practice under 2.4 (a), (b), (c) and (d) and constitutes tangential cut-off of the two-dimensional eye range contour.

You are undoubtedly aware that SAE recommended practice J903a has been superseded by SAE J903b, last revised in July 1968. In this practice the wiped area is evaluated in an unwrapped view in which the wiped pattern and the areas A, B and C have been incorporated.

571.104 as well as J903a do not state whether the areas A, B and C should be evaluated in relation to the A area in projected form or in unwrapped view as exercised in J903b.

An early ruling in clarification of the above mentioned problem area is highly appreciated.

G. M. Hespelar Manager Safety Engineering