ID: 9891-2

Mr. Fred Benford
100+ Motoring Accessories
2220 East Orangewood Avenue
Anaheim, CA 92806-61100

Dear Mr. Benford:

This responds to your request for an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 211, Wheel nuts, wheel discs and hub caps. You wrote that your company manufactures aluminum wheel covers without "protruding objects." You requested confirmation that the wheel covers do not violate any FMVSS. Our response is provided below.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not provide approvals of motor vehicles, or of motor vehicle equipment. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Safety Act), it is the responsibility of the manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment to ensure that its equipment meet applicable requirements. The following represents our opinion based on the facts provided in your letter.

Standard No. 211 regulates wheel nuts, wheel discs, and hub caps. Since "wheel discs" encompasses wheel covers, your company's wheel covers are subject to Standard No. 211. S4. Requirements of Standard No. 211 states in part:

As installed on any physically compatible combination of axle and wheel rim, wheel nuts, wheel discs, and hub caps for use on passenger cars and multipurpose passenger vehicles shall not incorporate winged projections ...

In your letter, you stated that your wheel covers do not have any "protruding objects." Since Standard No. 211 prohibits wheel discs (covers) with "winged projections," if your company's wheel covers do not incorporate "winged projections," the wheel covers would satisfy Standard No. 211. "Winged projection" is defined at S3.2 of Standard No. 211 as an exposed cantilevered appendage that projects radially from a wheel disc and that typically has front, edge, and/or rear surfaces which are not in contact with the wheel when the wheel disc is installed on the axle.

You also asked whether wheel covers made of aluminum violate any FMVSS. The answer is no, because Standard No. 211 does not specify materials for use in wheel covers. However, since wheel covers are "motor vehicle equipment," your company must ensure that the wheel covers are free of safety-related defects under the Safety Act. Sections 151-159 of the Safety Act concern the recall and remedy of products with defects related to motor vehicle safety. In the event that your company or NHTSA determines that the wheel covers have a safety-related defect, your company would be responsible for notifying purchasers of the defective wheel covers and remedying the problem free of charge.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

ref:211 NCC20:DNakama:mar:62992:apr/22/94;OCC#9891 cc: NCC-20 Subj/chron, DN NEF-01, NRM-01 [U:\NCC20\INTERP\211\9891.DRN] Interps: Std. No. 211, Redbook (2)

ID: 7980

Mr. Richard Horian
President, Woodleaf Corp.
1458 West 240th Street
Harbor City, CA 90710-1393

Dear Mr. Horian:

This responds to your two letters of November 6, 1992, with respect to the allowability under Federal regulations of the "Sudden Brake Indicator Hazard Light." As you describe it, "when a driver engages in hard braking, a circuit activates a separate lighting system to warn other drivers to pay special attention to a potentially hazardous situation."

This system will not utilize any of the existing rear lights on a vehicle, and will consist of a single lamp or pair of lamps, either mounted separately, or in the same housing as the center high-mounted stop lamp. The system will be red or amber in color, and either steady burning or flashing. The system is activated only when a predetermined threshold of pressure is reached upon depression of the brake pedal.

Supplementary lighting systems such as the one you have described are permissible as original motor vehicle equipment under Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment if they do not impair the effectiveness of the lighting systems required by the standard, or if there is no provision of the standard that affects them. Paragraph S5.4 of Standard No. 108 specifically prohibits the physical combination of the center highmounted stop lamp with any other lamp or reflective device, thus your system could not be used in a common housing with the center light (see copy of enclosed letter to Mr. S. Suzuki on this subject). However, if the system is mounted separately, under the circumstances you have presented, we do not believe that there would be any direct impairment of the required rear lights, or indirect impairment such as might be created when confusion may result upon simultaneous operation of the supplementary light and any required light.

As the letter to Mr. Suzuki indicates, passenger cars manufactured before September 1, 1985, were not required to be equipped with the center lamp. This means that your light could be combined in the same housing as a center lamp intended for installation on vehicles manufactured before September 1, 1985, but it could not be part of a replacement center lamp intended for use on vehicles manufactured subsequently. In addition, with the exception just noted, installation of the system on a vehicle in use would not appear to affect the safety functioning of any safety system necessary for continued conformance of the vehicle, it would appear that your system is acceptable for sale and installation in the aftermarket as well. However, the individual States have the authority to regulate lamps for vehicles in use, and we suggest that you contact the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators (AAMVA) for an opinion as to whether the system is permissible under State laws. AAMVA's address is 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Va. 22203.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

Enclosusre ref:108 d.12/7/92

ID: 2455y

Mr. David R. Martin
#113730 EA-118B
Tomoka Correctional Institution
3950 Tiger Bay Road
Daytona Beach, FL 32124

Dear Mr. Martin:

This responds to your letter to this agency's Public Affairs Office asking about the application of Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 301, Fuel System Integrity, to a van used by a correctional institution to transport inmates. Your letter has been referred to me for reply. I regret the delay in responding.

As you may know, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized by the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act to issue safety standards for new motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA issued Standard No. 301 to reduce deaths and injuries resulting from fuel spillage in crashes. The standard applies to new vans manufactured on or after September 1, 1976, that have a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of 10,000 pounds or less.

Under the Vehicle Safety Act, each manufacturer of a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards. Thus, if the vans in your letter were manufactured on or after September 1, 1976, the van manufacturer was required to certify their compliance with Standard No. 301. However, even if the vans did not comply with that standard, the Act does not place any responsibility for that noncompliance on the first purchasers and subsequent owners of the vans. Since some states do require that vehicles used for certain purposes comply with our standards, you may wish to address your question to appropriate State authorities in Tallahassee.

We regret we cannot provide the testing you seek. NHTSA obtains and tests new vehicles for compliance with FMVSS No. 301. However, since the standard applies only to new vehicles, NHTSA does not conduct compliance tests on vehicles that have already been sold to a consumer. The agency also cannot test every new type or model of vehicle, since it would be impracticable to do so.

For your information, Safety Standard No. 217 specifies emergency exit requirements for vans designed to carry 11 or more persons. However, the standard excludes vans purchased for transporting prison inmates. This exclusion resulted from a determination that the standard's requirements were incompatible with the necessity that buses used for transporting inmates be able to confine their occupants in transit. I have enclosed a copy of Standard No. 217 for your information.

You also asked whether we require roll bars on vehicles used to transport 12, 13 or 14 passengers. The answer is no. However, NHTSA does have a standard for roof crush protection (Standard No. 216) which requires the roof over the front seating area of cars to meet certain strength requirements. NHTSA has proposed to extend the standard to light trucks and buses (GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less). I have enclosed a copy of that proposal for your information.

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosure /ref:301#217 d:5/l7/90

ID: 2854yy

Mr. Gene Schlanger
President
ROC Capital, Inc.
63 Greens Road
Hollywood, FL 33021

Dear Mr. Schlanger:

This is in reply to your FAX of January 3, l991, to Taylor Vinson of this Office, asking about the permissibility under Federal and State regulations of a "lighted sign" on which messages could be scrolled from left to right. Such a sign "is designed to be mounted inside the car, either on a rear or side window." However, "if that is deemed legally inappropriate, the sign can be designed to be placed outside on the roof of the auto." The sign would incorporate LEDs and would not project a beam or flash. You intend to sell it "to the general public."

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has no specific Federal motor vehicle safety standard that addresses your device, nor any prohibition against your selling it. The question arises, however, as to whether and under what circumstances Federal law may allow its use.

As a general rule, aftermarket equipment such as this is acceptable under Federal law provided that its installation by a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business, does not entail removal of, or otherwise rendering inoperative, in whole or in part, equipment installed in accordance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard. This means that removal by any of the persons just mentioned of the high-mounted stop lamp that has been required on passenger cars manufactured on or after September 1, l985, in order to substitute your lighted sign, would be a violation of Federal law.

The question arises of whether the lighted sign may be installed in the rear window of any other vehicle, or in a passenger car manufactured before September 1, l985, or on the top of any vehicle, situations where there is no direct removal of safety equipment. The agency regards any impairment of the effectiveness of rear lighting equipment as tantamount to rendering it partially inoperative. Thus, if aftermarket equipment is likely to create confusion or distraction in a following motorist, we regard it as likely to impair the messages that required lighting equipment is supposed to impart. A lighted sign with a changing message is likely to create a distraction, diverting attention from signals sent by stop lamps or turn signal lamps. Thus, we believe that this device has the potential of rendering those lamps partially inoperative within the meaning of the statutory prohibition. Even when installed in a side window, where it may not be visible directly to the rear, the device has the potential of distraction when the vehicle carrying it is approached in other lanes, i.e., at an angle from the rear.

We are unable to tell you whether the device is illegal under the laws of each of the 50 States. If you are interested in pursuing this question, we recommend that you consult the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Va. 22203.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

ref:l08 d:2/26/9l

ID: nht78-2.19

DATE: 05/22/78

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

TO: Volvo of America Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of May 3, 1978 asking whether there is any legal objection to Volvo's installation of red rear fog lamps on passenger cars it sells in the United States.

As you have noted, "the only possible objection" to these lamps is the prohibition of S4.1.3 of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 against the installation of lamps that impair the effectiveness of lighting equipment mandated by the standard. We have no basis for disagreeing with your opinion that the red "rear fog lamps do not impair the effectiveness of other lighting equipment." However, the lamps would be subject to the laws of the individual States.

SINCERELY,

Volvo of America Corporation

May 3, 1978

Joseph J. Levin, Jr. Chief Counsel Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Mr. Levin:

Re: Request for Interpretation, FMVSS #108

An item which has met with some popularity on the European market is the red rear fog lamp. This is a red lamp controlled by a separate switch on the dashboard and operated at the driver's option. The purpose of this lamp is to provide improved visibility in fog or other adverse weather.

Red rear fog lamps are standard equipment on Volvo 262/264 models for all EEC countries. These lamps are made to comply with EEC directives regarding installation and photometrics. Enclosed for your information are covering installation of lighting (Section 4.11 covers rear fog lamps); and covering photometric requirements of rear fog lamps.

These lamps do not qualify as tail lamps since they are not controlled by the same switch as the headlights. In our opinion, they would not, then, be subject to the maximum tail lamp candlepower restrictions of FMVSS #108, S4.1.1. This section also states that each vehicle be equipped with at least the number of lamps specified in the section.

As we read FMVSS #108, the only possible objection to these lamps might arise from Section 4.1.3 which states that "no additional lamp, reflective device, or other motor vehicle equipment shall be installed that impairs the effectiveness of lighting equipment required by this standard". In our opinion, rear fog lamps do not impair the effectiveness of other lighting equipment. Furthermore, we believe that these lamps will greatly enhance vehicle safety. We feel that the spirit of the law is to improve vehicle visibility which these lamps will in fact do.

Please advise us as to whether you agree with our interpretation.

If I can be of any assistance in this matter, please feel free to call.

VOLVO OF AMERICA CORPORATION Product Planning and Development

William Shapiro, P.E. Manager, Regulatory Affairs

[EEC INFORMATION OMITTED]

ID: nht94-2.87

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: May 16, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Fred Benford -- 100+ Motoring Accessories

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached To Letter Dated 4/18/94 From Fred Benford To John womack (OCC-9891)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Benford:

This responds to your request for an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 211, Wheel nuts, wheel discs and hub caps. You wrote that your company manufactures aluminum wheel covers without "protruding objects." You requested confirmation that the wheel covers do not violate any FMVSS. Our response is provided below.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not provide approvals of motor vehicles, or of motor vehicle equipment. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Safety Act), it is the res ponsibility of the manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment to ensure that its equipment meet applicable requirements. The following represents our opinion based on the facts provided in your letter.

Standard No. 211 regulates wheel nuts, wheel discs, and hub caps. Since "wheel discs" encompasses wheel covers, your company's wheel covers are subject to Standard No. 211. S4. Requirements of Standard No. 211 states in part:

As installed on any physically compatible combination of axle and wheel rim, wheel nuts, wheel discs, and hub caps for use on passenger cars and multipurpose passenger vehicles shall not incorporate winged projections . . .

In your letter, you stated that your wheel covers do not have any "protruding objects." Since Standard No. 211 prohibits wheel discs (covers) with "winged projections," if your company's wheel covers do not incorporate "winged projections," the wheel cov ers would satisfy Standard No. 211. "Winged projection" is defined at S3.2 of Standard No. 211 as an exposed cantilevered appendage that projects radially from a wheel disc and that typically has front, edge, and/or rear surfaces which are not in contac t with the wheel when the wheel disc is installed on the axle.

2

You also asked whether wheel covers made of aluminum violate any FMVSS. The answer is no, because Standard No. 211 does not specify materials for use in wheel covers. However, since wheel covers are "motor vehicle equipment," your company must ensure t hat the wheel covers are free of safety-related defects under the Safety Act. Sections 151-159 of the Safety Act concern the recall and remedy of products with defects related to motor vehicle safety. In the event that your company or NHTSA determines that the wheel covers have a safety-related defect, your company would be responsible for notifying purchasers of the defective wheel covers and remedying the problem free of charge.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

ID: nht93-8.19

DATE: November 16, 1993

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Michinori Hachiya -- Director and General Manager, Nissan Research and Development, Inc.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 10/12/93 from Michinori Hachiya to John Womack (OCC-9190)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of October 12, 1993, asking several questions concerning the labeling requirements of the recent final rule mandating the installation of air bags in passenger cars and light trucks (58 FR 46551, September 2, 1993). Your questions concern the labeling requirements in this final rule.

As you may know, NHTSA has received two petitions for reconsideration of the September 2 final rule. The petitions raise issues concerning the labeling requirements. We will address your first, second, and fourth questions in the notice responding to the petitions for reconsideration.

Your other questions and the response to each follow.

The mandatory air bag rule establishes type size and format requirements for the air bag maintenance label (section 4.5.1(a)), but no similar requirements for the air bag warning label in section 4.5.1(b). Are we correct in understanding that the lettering of the warning label may be of any size or format, so long as the letters are legible? May different type size and formats be used if the two labels are combined?

You are correct that there are not any size requirements for the air bag warning label. Therefore, so long as the information on the label is legible, the lettering may be of any size. It is unclear what you mean by format, but the warning label must contain the exact words, in the exact order, as specified in section 4.5.1(b). The issue of combining warning and maintenance labels will be addressed in the notice responding to the petitions for reconsideration.

It is our understanding that warning labels that do not refer to air bags or seat belts may continue to be placed on the side of the sun visor opposite from the air bag warning label. Nissan currently places a label on the sun visor of a convertible model which provides instructions regarding the use of the convertible top. May this type of label continue to be placed on the sun visor, so long as it is on the side of the visor opposite from the air bag warning label?

Section S4.5.1(b)(2) specifies (1) that no other information shall be on the same side of the sun visor as the air bag warning label, and (2) that no other information concerning air bags or seat belts shall appear anywhere on the sun visor. Therefore, you are correct that information concerning the operation of a convertible top could be placed on the side of the sun visor opposite the side with the air bag warning label.

I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Mary Versailles of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht95-1.26

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: January 16, 1995

FROM: Ken Liebscher -- President/Director, Electric Car Company

TO: Administrator, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 2/13/95 LETTER FROM PHILIP R. RECHT TO KEN LIEBSCHER (A43; PART 555)

TEXT: The Electric Car Company Inc. is situated at 401 Lincoln St., Box 618, Everson WA 98247. It was incorporated in the State of Nevada.

This is a petition to be exempted from six Federal motor vehicle safety standards for passenger cars that we manufacture using electric power, the MI Series Electric Car. The basis of the petition is that compliance with the standards will cause substan tial economic hardship. The standards for which the exemptions are requested are:

1. Standard # 201, Occupant protection in interior impact. 2. Standard # 203, Impact protection for the driver from the steering control system. 3. Standard # 204, Steering control rearward displacement. 4. Standard # 208, Occupant crash protection. 5. Standard # 214, Side door strength. 6. Standard # 216, Roof crush resistance.

The MI-6 (pictured) is constructed from Dupont Kevlar composite fiberglass material and according to the manufacturer, is four times the strength as conventional fiberglass and we feel confident that it will conform to all applicable Federal motor vehicl e safety standards. However, thirty-mile per hour barrier crash testing is needed to determine the actual energy absorbing characteristics. All component parts of the MI-6 are Original Equipment Manufacturer products and, as such, in compliance of Nati onal Safety Standards. The restraint systems were also purchased from OEM and are installed as per standards.

We request an exemption of two years after which we expect to certify compliance with these standards. To require immediate compliance would create substantial economic hardship. I have enclosed the last audited year end financial statement as well as the last unaudited quarterly statement. The cost for "one set" of testing for the standards on one vehicle is approximately $ 30,000, exclusive of the costs of delivering the vehicle to the test facility. An exemption would permit vehicle sales and the generation of cash permitting testing while the exemptions are in effect. The Company expects to produce six vehicles for demonstration purposes and 100 limited edition vehicles in the first year. A denial of the petition would delay the Company's pro duction while we attempt to test for conformance, but the costs of testing would require a retail price of $ 50,000 for an MI-6. We doubt that we could sell a car at this price, and that, accordingly, we would be forced out of business in the year follo wing a denial of this petition.

Granting of the exemption would be in the public interest and consistent with the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety act by helping to relieve environmental problems associated with automotive transportation. The Company believes that we can make a very positive contribution to the country's clean transportation needs quickly and effectively.

(FOLLOWING ATTACHMENTS OMITTED: 1. MI-6 ELECTRIC AUTOMOBILE SPECIFICATIONS AND TECHNICAL DATA; 2. E.T.C. INDUSTRIES QUARTERLY REPORT AND FINANCIAL STATEMENTS)

ID: 9190

Mr. Michinori Hachiya
Director and General Manager
Nissan Research and Development, Inc.
750 17th Street, N.W.
Suite 902
Washington, DC 20006

Dear Mr. Hachiya:

This responds to your letter of October 12, 1993, asking several questions concerning the labeling requirements of the recent final rule mandating the installation of air bags in passenger cars and light trucks (58 FR 46551, September 2, 1993). Your questions concern the labeling requirements in this final rule.

As you may know, NHTSA has received two petitions for reconsideration of the September 2 final rule. The petitions raise issues concerning the labeling requirements. We will address your first, second, and fourth questions in the notice responding to the petitions for reconsideration.

Your other questions and the response to each follow.

The mandatory air bag rule establishes type size and format requirements for the air bag maintenance label (section 4.5.1(a)), but no similar requirements for the air bag warning label in section 4.5.1(b). Are we correct in understanding that the lettering of the warning label may be of any size or format, so long as the letters are legible? May different type size and formats be used if the two labels are combined?

You are correct that there are not any size requirements for the air bag warning label. Therefore, so long as the information on the label is legible, the lettering may be of any size. It is unclear what you mean by format, but the warning label must contain the exact words, in the exact order, as specified in section 4.5.1(b). The issue of combining warning and maintenance labels will be addressed in the notice responding to the petitions for reconsideration.

It is our understanding that warning labels that do not refer to air bags or seat belts may continue to be placed on the side of the sun visor opposite from the air bag warning label. Nissan currently places a label on the sun visor of a convertible model which provides instructions regarding the use of the convertible top. May this type of label continue to be placed on the sun visor, so long as it is on the side of the visor opposite from the air bag warning label?

Section S4.5.1(b)(2) specifies (1) that no other information shall be on the same side of the sun visor as the air bag warning label, and (2) that no other information concerning air bags or seat belts shall appear anywhere on the sun visor. Therefore, you are correct that information concerning the operation of a convertible top could be placed on the side of the sun visor opposite the side with the air bag warning label.

I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Mary Versailles of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

ref:208 d:11/18/93

ID: nht68-1.16

DATE: 07/25/68

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; John D. Robinson; NHTSA

TO: Robert Bosch GMBH

COPYEE: DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This will acknowledge receipt of your letter dated May 21, 1968 copy of which was forwarded to the Secretary of Transportation, concerning the application of Federal Safety Standard 108 to lighting unise that are now being manufactured by Robert Bosch Gmbh.

The joint regulations of the Bureau of Customs and the Department of Transportation, copy enclosed, provides in section 12.80(b)(2)(i) for the importation of a non-conforming vehicle or equipment item if they were manufactured on a date when there were no applicable safety standards in force. Therefore, these lighting units manufactured prior to January 1, 1969, and offered for importation into the United States do not have to be in conformity with Federal Safety Standard 108.

Since your inquiry concerns a specific safety standard not yet in effect, we are forwarding your letter to the Department of Transportation, Highway Safety Bureau, Washington, D.C., for their consideration and direct reply.

Sincerely yours,

Enclosure 50359

ATTACH.

ROBERT BOSCH GMBH

Lester D. Johnson -- Commissioner of Customs, Department of the Treasury/ Bureau of Customs

CC: Alan S. (Illegible Word) Secretary of Transportation

May 21, 1968

Subject: Title 19-Customs Duties (T.D. 68-16) - Part 12-Special Classes of Merchandise - Importation of Motor Vehicles and Items of Motor Vehicle Equipment - Federal Register Vol. 33, No. 6 of January 10, 1968.

Gentlemen:

With the above mentioned publication, certain conditions are imposed for the importation of motor vehicle equipment into the United States.

In our opinion, one case occuring in practice is not covered by the exception granted under section (b). This is the case when replacement items are delivered for automotive vehicles manufactured before entering into force of a relevant Federal Safety Standard.

We are for instance to deliver lighting units equipped with white parking lamps for passenger cars which are evidently not conforming to Federal Safety Standard 108.

The problem is now, whether it is possible and missible to import such items and other ones into the United States after January 1, 1969. We add that it is well evident that such items are needed after this date, because vehicles are already equipped in such a manner and it would in our opinion be too costly to replace two lighting units conforming to the relevant Federal Safety Standard, if only one replacement unit not conforming to the relevant Federal Safety Standard is needed for a passenger car manufactured before January 1, (Illegible Words)

We should be very glad to have a repid answer from you, since we have already now to care for corresponding replacement units. Leadtime is already now very scarce.

Very truly yours,

A. Hammerstein