ID: 1985-03.31

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/14/85

FROM: C.RICHARD FRAVEL

TO: WHOM IT MAY CONCERN

TITLE: RE: JOSEPH CIAMPA JR

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 10/27/88 FROM ERIKA Z JONES TO BEVERLY B BYRON; REDBOOK A32, STANDARD 205 MEMORANDUM DATED 08/04/88 FROM ARTHUR J LOMART TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN; LETTER DATED 08/01/88 FROM C. E. SHUE TO JOSEPH CIAMPH JR RE 0590630; LETTER DATED 09/12/88 FROM NANCY F MILLER TO BEVERLY B BYRON; LETTER DATED 08/25/88 FROM BEVERLY B BYRON TO NANCY MILLER; LETTER DATED 08/24/88 FROM JOSEPH L. CIAMPA TO BEVERLY B. BYRON

TEXT: This is to state that the a boy has been my patient for many years He has severe headaches when exposed to glare of sunlight therefore a digital solution is the use of sun shade in his automobile

ID: 1985-03.32

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: August 18, 1985

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA; Signature by Weinstein

TO: Robert J. Ponticelli -- President, American International

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 7/25/95 LETTER FROM ROBERT J. PONTICELLI TO JOHN WOMACK (OCC 11083)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Ponticelli:

This replies to your letter of July 25, 1995, asking for an opinion "on the use of Electro-Luminescent Strip Lighting on motor vehicles." The device in, question "is an ornamental light which produces less than .05 candela/sq. inch." You have enclosed a brochure which shows the strip in use as a license plate frame and to mark the sides or perimeter of a vehicle. We assume that you are not asking about the license plate frame but only the "Lighted Pin Striping". The "Lighted Pin Striping" comes in "basic white" but once applied, seven colors of overlay tape are available to change the color. The brochure shows it in shades of blue and pink. You would like our views "on the installation of this product by regulated parties such as new car dealers and non-regulated entities such as aftermarket specialty shops and vehicle owners."

We are pleased to provide you with the interpretation you seek: The basic obligation of a new-car dealer is to deliver a new car that remains in compliance with all the applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards for which its manufacturer has certified compliance. In other words, the dealer must ensure that none of its actions before the sale of a new vehicle create a noncompliance with a safety standard. Further, if a dealer alters a vehicle before sale other than by the addition, substitution, or removal of readily attachable components, or minor finishing operations such as painting, is required to certify that the altered vehicle continues to meet the standards.

The Federal new vehicle standard that relates to your product is Standard No. 108 Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment. This standard permits a new car dealer to add supplementary lighting equipment such as the luminescent strip if the supplementary equipment does not impair the effectiveness of the lighting equipment required by Standard No. 108. The most common cause of impairment is lighting equipment that creates confusion with, or distraction from, the purpose of any item of required lighting equipment. Under Standard No. 108's lighting scheme, the color of lamps on the front of a vehicle are restricted to white and amber. On the side of the vehicle, side marker lamps and reflectors must be only amber to the front and red to the rear. Rear lighting is red or amber, with the color white permitted for the backup lamp only. The Lighted Pin Striping comes in a variety of colors. Your brochure shows one that is pink or red in color mounted on the front of a vehicle. We believe it possible that a motorist seeing a color of light on the front of the vehicle generally used on the rear or on the side at the rear could be distracted from the driving task. There is also the possibility that the strip would be bright enough to mask and thereby reduce the effectiveness of an adjacent front or rear turn signal, or stop lamp. In general, the agency tries to discourage the use of novelty lighting devices because of the uncertain reaction an unfamiliar light or reflection may cause in other drivers on the roadway. However, the determination as to whether installation of the lighting strip would impair the efficiency of required lighting equipment is initially that of the new car dealer who must determine whether his modifications to a new vehicle might take it out of compliance. Unless that determination is clearly erroneous, NHTSA will not contest it.

With respect to sales in the aftermarket, installation by a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business of the lighting strip would be prohibited if the use of the strip would, in the words of the statute, "make inoperative" any of the required lighting equipment. We tend to equate "make inoperative" and "impair effectiveness" so that the same considerations would have to be taken into account in installing the lighting equipment on a used as well as a new car. However, this prohibition does not extend to the vehicle owner who, under Federal law, may install the lighting strip regardless of its effect upon compliance.

Nevertheless, even if novelty lighting equipment does not violate Federal law, the ultimate decision of its acceptability is that of the State in which the lighting strip is to be used. It is our understanding that, for example, that California requires any emitted or reflected light from the front of vehicles to be white or yellow in color, which would appear to preclude installation of the lighting strip in colors other than these. For an opinion on the treatment of the lighting strip under State laws, we suggest that you write for an opinion to the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Va. 22203.

If you have any further questions, you may refer them to Taylor Vinson of this Office (202-366-5263).

ID: 1985-03.33

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/21/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Jeffrey R. Miller; NHTSA

TO: Mr. H. Moriyoshi

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. H. Moriyoshi Executive Vice President and Control Manager Mazda (North America), Inc. 24402 Sinacola Court Farmington Hills, Michigan 48018

Dear Mr. Moriyoshi:

Thank you for your letter of July 2, 1985, requesting an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 201, Occupant Protection in Interior Impact. You specifically asked whether a design alternative you are considering for an interior storage compartment would have to meet the requirements of S3.3 of the standard. An explained below, we would consider your design to be an interior compartment door assembly and thus subject to the requirements of S3.3 of the standard.

You described your design as an interior surface with an integrated map/magazine compartment. Your proposed design consists of a compartment with a rigid exterior surface that remains open at a fixed width. You said that when a motorist wanted to stow a thicker package in the compartment, the opening could be expanded to a greater width. The drawing accompanying your letter shows that the exterior surface (i.e., the surface nearest to a vehicle occupant) is hinged; the movement of the hinged surface is restricted by a spring. It appears from your drawing that of the spring broke or otherwise became disengaged in a crash, the exterior surface of the compartment would swing open on its hinge and be struck by a vehicle occupant. Such an action is similar to what could happen with the conventional hinged glovebox or other doors in a vehicle. We would therefore consider your proposed design to be a interior compartment door assembly.

I hope this information is of assistance to you. If you have further questions, please let me know.

Sincerely, Jeffrey R. Miller Chief Counsel MAZDA July 2, 1985

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

Re: Request for Interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 201, Occupant Protection In Interior Impact

Dear Mr. Miller,

Mazda has developed several design alternatives for interior storage compartments. Among them is the use of an interior surface with an integrated map/magazine pocket. In many past and current designs, auto manufacturers have utilized rigid molded plastic and flexible vinyl and fabric as the materials with which to provide a map/magazine pocket. On those circumstances, the map/magazine pocket was clearly interpretated by both the NHTSA and the manufacturers as being only a pocket and, therefore, not subject to the performance requirements of FMVSS 201, S. 3.3.

However, in consideration of the concept that Mazda is reviewing, the interpretation of the Standard does not appear so straightforward. Our proposed design consists of a pocket, in the usual sense, that remains open at a fixed width. In situations where a thicker package would be required to be stowed, the rigid pocket opening could be expanded to a greater width. After examination of this design, we have tentatively determined that this would not be considered an "interior compartment door assembly" in the literal sense as it would always be in the open position and subsequently not required to meet the conformance criteria of S. 3.3 of FMVSS 201.

Mazda requests that your office review this matter, with reference to the attached sketch, and indicate how the NHTSA would interpret this design.

Thank you. Sincerely, H. Moriyoshi Executive Vice President and General Manager HM/mLs Attachment

ID: 1985-03.34

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/21/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Jeffrey R. Miller; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Edgar E. Clark

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Edgar E. Clark 1900 24th Avenue No. St. Petersburg, Florida 33713

Thank you for your letter of May 13, 1985, concerning the effect of Standard No. 301, Fuel System Integrity, on fuel tank repairs. You explained that you have a 1977 Dodge Concord motor home in which a leak in a plastic fuel tank was apparently repaired by a dealer. You noted that a 1981 article in Popular Mechanics magazine stated that repairs to plastic fuel tanks are not permitted by Standard No. 301, and ask us to clarify the effect of our regulations. As explained below, the magazine article is not correct; a dealer can make repairs to plastic and other types of vehicle fuel tanks. As I am sure you understand, I cannot offer an opinion on the possibility of successfully repairing a damaged plastic fuel tank.

The agency has issued Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 301, Fuel System Integrity, which sets safety performance requirements for vehicle fuel systems in new vehicles; a copy of the standard is enclosed. The standard applies to passenger cars, and multipurpose passenger vehicles (MPV), trucks, buses with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of 10,000 pounds or less. In addition, it applies to school buses with a GVWR of greater than 10,000 pounds. If your motor home carries 10 or less persons and is mounted on a truck chassis, it would be considered a MPV under our regulations. Thus, if your motor home has a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less and was manufactured after September 1, 1976, the effective date of Standard No. 301 for MPV's, then the fuel system in your vehicle would have had to meet Standard No. 301.

For the basis of this response, I am assuming that the damage, such as a puncture or crack, that caused the leak occurred after the sale of the vehicle to its first owner. Our safety standards only apply to new vehicles prior to their first sale. The only effect our safety standards have on used vehicles is through the application of 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. That section provides, in part, that:

No manufacturer, distributor, dealer or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or 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....

Thus, if a dealer knowingly alters the fuel system in a used vehicle, such as by adding an auxiliary fuel tank, the dealer would have to take sure that it did not render inoperative the tank's compliance with Standard No. 301. However, if after the first sale of a vehicle to the consumer its fuel tank is damaged, such as being punctured by an object in the road, so that the tank's compliance has been rendered inoperative, then neither our standards nor section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Vehicle Safety Act applies.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please let me know.

Sincerely,

Jeffrey R. Miller Chief Counsel

Enclosure

May 13, 1985

Natl Hiway Traffic Safety Adm. 400 7 St SW Washington, DC 20590

Attn: Vehicle Safety Compliance Office

Gentlemen:

I recently purchased a used motor home - a 1977 Dodge Concord made by Champion and found that the gasoline tank had a leak. The tank is made of plastic and had been repaired by the dealer according to the former owner.

Now, according to a magazine article which I am enclosing I see that repairs to plastic tanks violate Safety Standard 301.

My question is: under the terms of this order do I have any recourse against the dealer who probably didn't even know there was such a regulation?

I feel the tank is very dangerous and should be replaced. So I would like to have your opinion and suggestion.

Thank you for your early attention.

Yours very truly,

Edgar E. Clark Phone 813-822-9139 1900 24th Ave. No. St. Petersburg, FL 33713

"My rupture," Fred writes. "I have had to replace my heater, and I know of several other GM owners who have replaced theirs because of trouble with the GM coolant-recovery tank to the COLD-level mark on the tank."

Fred became aware of trouble when he noticed coolant dripping from the heater case of his Vega. He removed the case and found the heater had ruptured.

"Fortunately, I did not have the heater on," Fred continues. "But my friend wasn't so lucky. One day, with the heater on, he smelled antifreeze, investigating, he found an inch-deep puddle of coolant on the floor of his Corvette."

According to Fred, the siphoning process of the recovery system doesn't work in correct proportion to the ejection process. When the radiator cools off, it draws in more coolant from the recovery tank than it expels into the tank when it's hot. Someone who constantly fills the recovery tank to make up for the drop in level is only adding more fuel to the fire, so to speak, by allowing the radiator to overfill.

Fred says excessive coolant in the radiator causes extraordinary pressure on the heater and heater hoses. Early evidence of this pressure is often seen as coolant seeping past tightly clamped heater hoses.

Fred's solution is to check the coolant level in the radiator with the engine cold. It should be 2 inches below the neck of the radiator. If it isn't, drain it until it is. Then keep it there.

Every few months, do check the radiator and add coolant, if necessary. In other words, forget about checking levels on the coolant-recovery tank.

Negative response

I have a 1976 Dodge W100 pickup truck. Its plastic gas tank has developed a leak in an easy-to-reach spot. Can you tell me how to repair it?--Jon Wilbur, Carlisle, Iowa.

Nope. Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 301 stipulates that it is illegal to repair plastic gas tanks. Your only choice is to install a new one. Sorry.

GOT A PROBLEM WITH YOUR CAR?

Just ask Mort about it. Send your question to the Car Clinic, Popular Mechanics, 224 West 57th St., New York, N.Y. 10019. While letters cannot be answered individually, problems that are of general interest will be published in the column.

SERVICE TIPS

Ford Motor Co. tells us there may be a vacuum leak between the base of the carburetor and carburetor spacer of some 1977-78 Granadas, Monarchs, Fairmonts and Zephyrs with 200- and 240-cu. in. engines. A vacuum leak at this point leans out the fuel mixture and causes stalling and rough idling. The leak can usually be stopped by installing flat washers under each carburetor retaining nut and torquing retaining nuts 12 to 15 ft.-lb. Washers should have an inside diameter of 3/8 in. and be 1/16-in. thick.

If your 1981 Chrysler K-car makes a growl at low speeds, don't panic. Check to see what kind of tires are on the car. If they are Goodyear Viva fiberglass-belted tires, the growl is normal. According to Chrysler, growling noises are caused by "aggressive tread design which offers increased traction and improved handling characteristics."

GM cautions that starting-aid fluids, such as ether or gasoline, must not be injected into the air-intake system of cars and trucks having diesel engines. Their use will cause "severe internal engine damage."

Five Keys to Better Tire Mileage and Safety is the title of an informative pamphlet you can get free by sending a self-addressed, business-sized envelope to: Keys, Tire Industry Safety Council, Box 1801, Washington, D.C. 20013.

ID: 1985-03.36

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/22/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Jeffrey R. Miller; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Douglas I. Greenhaus

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Douglas I. Greenhaus Senior Attorney/Regulatory Affairs National Automobile Dealers Association 8400 Westpark Drive McLean, VA 22102

Dear Mr. Greenhaus:

Thank you for your letter of July 8, 1985, to Stephen Oesch of my staff. You asked us to confirm your understanding of how our regulations would affect the alteration of a new vehicle prior to its sale.

Your question specifically relates to a situation in which a dealer wants to switch, prior to sale of the vehicle, the bucket seats from one new motor vehicle to another new vehicle of the same model. You explained in a phone conversation with Mr. Oesch that changing the seats might involve some cutting and welding of the seats or their trucks. Under Part 567.7 (49 CFR Part 567.7) of our regulations, we would consider the dealer to be an "alterer". After completing the alteration, the dealer would be required by Part 567.7 to certify that the vehicle, as altered, complies with all applicable Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. Depending on the specific design of the vehicle seat and the actual alterations performed, the replacement of a seat would be affected by Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 207, Seating Systems, and could be affected by Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, and Standard No. 210, Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages.

Thank you for providing us with the information on glass tinting. I hope this information on vehicle alteration is of assistance to you. If you have further questions, please let me know.

Sincerely, Jeffrey R. Miller Chief Counsel National Automobile Dealers Association 8400 WESTPARK DRIVE . MCLEAN, VIRGINIA 22102 July 8, 1985

Mr. Steven Oesch Office of Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Agency Room 5219 400 7th St. S.W. Washington, D. C. 20590

Dear Mr. Oesch:

Thank you for the assistance which you gave me during our telephone conversation of Friday, July 5, 1985. In answer to your question concerning automobile glass tinting, I have asked the editors of "Automotive Executive", and they have indicated to me that no articles have yet been published.

In order to confirm your understanding of the regulations, let me state that it would appear that a dealer intending to switch the bucket seats from one model vehicle to another vehicle of the same model would be required to comply with the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards and, in particular, would have to meet the seating and seat belt standards found at 49 C.F.R. Sections 571.207 and 210. The dealer would meet the definition of a "person who alters certified vehicles" as described under 47 C.F.R. Section 568.8 and as such would be required to certify compliance of his alterations with the safety standards. The dealer would thus be required to conform with the specific vehicle labeling requirement spelled out at 49 C.F.R. Section 567.7.

I again thank you and the Administration for your assistance, and I urge you to call me here at NADA should I in some way be able to aid you in the future.

Sincerely yours Douglas I. Greenhaus Senior Attorney/Regulatory Affairs. DIG/shb

ID: 1985-03.37

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/22/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Jeffrey R. Miller; NHTSA

TO: Leo Kagan -- AMCO Manufacturing Corp.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Leo Kagan Director of Marketing Automotive Division Amco Manufacturing Corporation 7425 Fulton Avenue North Hollywood, CA 91605

This is in reply to your letter of July 19, 1985, asking if a deck-mounted rack loaded with luggage would cause a violation of the center high-mounted stop lamp provisions of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. The answer is no. Compliance with standard No. 108 is determined independent of whether the luggage rack is loaded. However, if the rack is installed before sale of the vehicle to its first purchaser, or if it is installed after sale by a person other than the vehicle owner, care must be taken to insure that the photometric and visibility requirements for center high-mounted stop lamps continue to be met with the unloaded rack in place. The lamp is intended to reduce the incidence of rear end collisions. Loading the rack in a manner that obscures the light will reduce the safety benefits that the lamp provides both the driver of the car, and of any vehicle that follows, and is a practice that should be discouraged. If you have any further questions, we shall be happy to answer them. Sincerely, Original Signed By Jeffrey R. Miller Chief Counsel

July 19, 1985

Taylor Vinson-NHTSA

Kevin Cavey suggested I write for a legal clarification relating to #571.108. Standard No. 108; Lamps, reflective devices, & associated equipment high mounted stoplamp.

Since all passenger cars are to have a "brake" light (or high-mounted stoplamps) as of September 1985, would anyone having a luggage rack on the trunk lid (rear deck) and carry luggage that blocks out the brake light mounted either inside the car on the rear seat ledge or in an exterior location, be in any violation?

Thanks for your help if there is any question to what I've asked please call me on 800/423-2353.

AMCO MANUFACTURING CORP.

Leo Kagan, Director of Marketing, Automotive Division

ID: 1985-03.38

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 09/03/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Jeffrey R. Miller; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Alan R. Kroner

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

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

Mr. Alan R. Kroner Republican Staff Illinois State Senate State Capitol Springfield, Illinois 62706

Dear Mr. Kroner:

Thank you for your letter of March 13, 1985, concerning Federal requirements for safety belts in modified vans and their effect on state safety belt use laws. I regret the delay in our response.

According to your letter, a handicapped individual purchased a van and had the front seat removed to permit him to operate the vehicle from his wheelchair. You first inquired whether the vehicle is required to be equipped with a safety belt under Federal law.

This agency has issued Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, that requires the installation of occupant restraint systems in passenger cars, trucks, buses, and multipurpose passenger vehicles (MPV's). A copy of the standard is enclosed for your reference. Depending on its seating capacity and use, a "van" would be classified under our regulations as a bus, truck or MPV. Regardless of that classification, the vehicle manufacturer is required to install a safety belt system for the driver's seating position. Belt systems may be required at other seating positions as well, depending upon the vehicle's classification. These requirements apply to any vehicle until its first sale to a consumer.

While our safety standards apply only to new motor vehicles, there are some statutory restrictions on subsequent alterations. If a van were modified after its first sale to a consumer, then section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. S1397(a)(2)(A)) would apply. That section provides, in pertinent part:

No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or 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....

Accordingly, none of thoe commercial businesses could lawfully remove a safety belt installed in compliance with Standard No. 208, since such an action would "knowingly render inoperative" that safety device. This prohibition applies only to commercial businesses, not to individuals.

Vehicle owners may themselves remove a safety belt without violating Federal law. They would, however, have to comply with any State law on vehicle equipment.

Thus, in answer to your first question, a manufacturer of a van is required by Federal law to provide a safety belt system at the driver's position, and certain commercial businesses are prohibited from removing the belt.

You also requested our opinion as to whether the owner/driver of the modified van would be required to wear a safety belt under the new Illinois safety belt use law. We do not believe it would be appropriate for this agency to offer an opinion on that question, since it requires an interpretation of state law. You may wish to consult with the State Attorney General's Office or counsel for an appropriate State agency on the matter, as they are in a better position to discuss Illinois state law.

I appreciate your interest in safety belt usage and hope this information is of assistance to you. Sincerely, Jeffrey R. Miller Chief Counsel Enclosure March 13, 1985

Mr. Jeffrey Miller Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Room 5219 400 Seventh Street S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Mr. Miller:

I have a question pertaining to the modification of a vehicle for the use of a handicapped individual. This individual is a parapalegic and confined to a wheelchair. He purchased a van, had a lift hoist installed and the front seat removed. He operates the van from his wheelchair. Is this vehicle required to be equipped with a seat belt under federal law? Illinois recently passed a mandatory seat belt use law. One of the exemptions granted under this new law (95 1/2 - 12 - 603.1 Ch. 8.) states that an individual is not required to wear a seat belt if the motor vehicle is not required to be equipped with seat belts under federal law. In your opinion would this gentleman be required to wear a seat belt?

Thank you in advance for your prompt reply. Sincerely, Alan R. Kroner

ID: 1985-03.39

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 09/04/85

FROM: JEFFREY R. MILLER -- CHIEF COUNSEL NHTSA

TO: STEPHEN T. WAIMEY, DEAN HANSELL, LAW OFFICES OF DONOVAN, LEISURE, NEWTON & IRVINE

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 12/09/88 FROM ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA TO LANCE E. TUNICK, REDBOOK A33, STANDARD 208; LETTER DATED 11/10/75 FROM FRANK A. BERNDT TO JOHN B. WHITE, N40-30, SECTION 108(B)(5); LETTER DATED 10/20/88 FROM LANCE E. TUNICK TO ERIKA Z. JONES, REQUEST FOR INTERPRETATION OF FMVSS 208, OCC 2696

TEXT: Dear Mr. Waimey and Mr. Hansell:

Thank you for your letter of April 15, 1985, concerning the automatic restraint requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection. I regret the delay in our reply.

You asked about the requirement in S4.1.3 of the standard concerning the minimum annual production of passenger cars that must be equipped with automatic restraints. You stated your assumption that the standard applies only to vehicles produced for sale in the United States and asked how a manufacturer is to determine if a vehicle is a part of its annual production for the United States. You pointed out that there are a number of possible sales transactions, beginning with the sale of a vehicle by Porsche to the U.S. importer and ending with the first sale to a consumer in the U.S. that can be used in determining at which point a vehicle becomes part of Porsche's annual production for the United States. I hope the following discussion answers your question.

As discussed in the agency's April 12, 1985, (50 FR 14596) notice on Standard No. 208, your assumption that the term "average annual production" refers only to cars manufactured for sale in the United States is correct. S4.1.3 specifies that percentages of production are to be based on the number of cars manufactured between discrete dates. In the case of foreign cars, as in the case of domestic ones, "manufactured" means produced or assembled. Part 567 Certification (49 CFR Part 567) of the agency's regulation requires all vehicles manufactured for sale in the United States to have a tag affixed to them certifying that they meet all Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. Therefore, in determining which vehicles are to be counted as the manufacturer's average annual production, the manufacturer should determine how many vehicles were produced and certified in accordance with our regulation during the applicable time period. Using production and certification provides the agency and manufacturers with an easily verifiable event to determine which cars are to be counted.

I hope this information is of assistance to you. If you have further questions, please let me know.

Sincerely,

ID: 1985-03.40

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 09/06/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Jeffrey R. Miller; NHTSA

TO: Mr. T. Chikada

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

September 6, 1985 Mr. T. Chikada Manager, Automotive Lighting Engineering Control Dept. Stanley Electric Co. Ltd. 2-9-13, Nakamegura, Meguro-Ku Tokyo 153, Japan Dear Mr. Chikada: This is in response to your letter of June 27, 1985, to the former Chief Counsel of this agency, Frank Berndt, asking for an interpretation regarding Figure 4-1 of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. With reference to a two-lamp system headlamp with two reflectors, you have asked which of three specified Points should be regarded as the "center of aiming pattern" within the meaning of Figure 4-1. The answer is Point B, of the center of the bulb for the lower beam. NHTSA provided a clarification of this in the final rule permitting two-bulb replaceable bulb headlighting systems, published on May 22, 1985. I enclose a copy for your information. In it, the agency remarked that "NHTSA expects the aiming pads to be located on the optical axis of the lower beam portion of the headlamp when only one light source is used for the lower beam." Sincerely, Original Signed By Jeffrey R. Miller Chief Counsel Enclosure

ID: 1985-03.41

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 09/10/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Jeffrey R. Miller; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Barry Mitchell

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

September 10, 1985 Mr. Barry Mitchell Sun Country Imports/Sales 6232 N. 7th Street, Suite 209 Phoenix, AZ 85014 Dear Mr. Mitchell: Thank you for your letter of July 11, 1985, requesting an interpretation of Standard No. 115, Vehicle Identification Number--Basic Requirements. Your letter states that you plan to ship vehicles manufactured by Volkswagen of Brazil to Canada where they would be brought into compliance with United States safety standards requirements. These vehicles, which you describe as being manufactured in more than one stage, would be certified as complying with applicable safety standards before being imported to the United States. You asked whether you should use the vehicle identification number (VIN) assigned to them by the Brazilian manufacturer. Section 4.1 of Standard No. 115 requires the use of the VIN assigned to them by Volkswagen of Brazil, whether they are completed vehicles manufactured in one stage (i.e., they can perform their intended function as manufactured in Brazil, regardless of whether they complied with U.S. safety standards), or incomplete vehicles, such as chassis cabs which need work-performing or other equipment added to them during a second or subsequent stage. Please note that, if these vehicles are imported under 19 CFR 12.80(b)(1)(iii), they would be exempt from the requirements of S4.2, S4.3, and S4.7 of Standard No. 115. A copy of the Federal Register notice of January 30, 1985, making this correction to the final rule of May 19, 1983, is enclosed. You should also be aware that, for vehicles imported under 19 CFR 12.80(b)(1)(iii), a bond is required for all vehicles not originally manufactured to comply with the safety standards but brought into conformity before entry. This procedure is explained in the final rule on importation of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment issued by the Customs Service on December 4, 1978 (43 FR 56655). A copy of this notice is also enclosed. I hope this information is helpful to you. Sincerely, Original Signed By Jeffrey R. Miller Chief Counsel Enclosures