ID: nht94-4.49

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: October 12, 1994

FROM: Recht, Philip R. -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Je, C. H. -- Doosan Corporation, Pusan Branch, Chungku, Pusan, Korea

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: Attached To 6/28/94 Letter From C. H. Je To Vehicle Safety Standards

TEXT: This responds to your letter identifying your company as a "trading company" and asking for permission from the U.S. Department of Transportation to sell air bags in the United States. As I explain below, no such permission is necessary, but there are s ome requirements you should be aware of before you begin importing air bags.

I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our laws and regulations to you. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized under Title 49, Chapter 301 of the U.S. Code to issue Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards for n ew motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA, however, does not approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, nor do we endorse any commercial products or conduct pre-sale testing of any commercial products. Instead, Chapter 3 01 establishes a "self-certification" process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards. I note that the term "manufacturer" is defined in 49 U.S.C. @ 30102(5)(B) as "a person . . . manufacturing or assembling motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment [or] importing motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment for resale." (Emphasis added.)

NHTSA has exercised its authority under Chapter 301 to establish Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection (49 CFR @ 571.208). Standard No. 208 requires, among other things, that passenger cars provide automatic crash protection. Also, a phase-in of a utomatic crash protection requirements for light trucks is in progress. Vehicles equipped with automatic crash protection protect their occupants by means that require no action by vehicle occupants. Compliance with the automatic crash protection requi rements of Standard No. 208 is determined in a dynamic crash test. That is, a vehicle must comply with specified injury criteria, as measured on a test dummy, when tested by this agency in a 30 mph barrier crash test.

At this time, manufacturers are not required to use a specific method of automatic crash protection to meet the requirements of Standard No. 208. Instead, each automobile manufacturer is allowed to select the particular method for the automatic crash pro tection installed in its vehicles. The two types of automatic crash protection currently offered on new passenger cars are automatic safety belts (which help to assure belt use) and air bags (which supplement safety belts and offer some protection even when safety belts are not used). However, a recent amendment of Standard No. 208 makes air bags mandatory in all passenger cars and light trucks by the late 1990's.

Please note that the automatic crash protection requirement applies to the performance of the vehicle as a whole, instead of setting requirements for the air bag as an individual item of equipment. This approach permits vehicle manufacturers to "tune" t he performance of the air bag to the crash pulse and other specific attributes of each of their vehicle models. However, this approach also means that the Federal standards do not specify specific performance attributes for air bags such as inflated dim ensions, actuation time, and the like.

It is unclear from your letter if the air bags you wish to import will be sold to manufacturers for installation in new vehicles or if the air bags will be sold as replacement air bags or retrofit air bags for vehicles which do not have air bags as origi nal equipment. If the air bags are sold to manufacturers for installation in new vehicles, the vehicle manufacturer is required to certify that the vehicle complies with all applicable safety standards, including Standard No. 208. If the air bag is add ed to a previously certified new motor vehicle prior to its first sale, the person who modifies the vehicle would be an alterer of a previously certified motor vehicle and would be required to certify that, as altered, the vehicle continues to comply wit h all of the safety standards affected by the installation of the air bag. (See 49 CFR Part 567.7.)

While most of Standard No. 208's requirements are expressed in terms of the performance of the vehicle as a whole and apply only to new vehicles and not to aftermarket equipment, there is one exception to this. Pressure vessels and explosive devices for use in air bag systems must comply with section S9 of Standard No. 208 whether they are part of a new motor vehicle or are aftermarket equipment. Therefore, the manufacturer of these items must certify that they comply with the requirements of S9 of St andard No. 208.

Another Federal requirement that would affect the device if it were installed in a used vehicle, either as a replacement or retrofit air bag, is the "make inoperative" prohibition in U.S. Code Section 30122(b), which provides that:

A manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business may not knowingly make inoperative any part of a device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle . . . in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety s tandard . . .

The "make inoperative" provision would prohibit a commercial business from installing an aftermarket air bag in a manner that would negatively affect the vehicle's compliance with Standard No. 208.

You should also note that a replacement or retrofit air bag would be considered "motor vehicle equipment" within the meaning of the U.S. Code. Therefore, if the air bag contained a defect (either in manufacture, design, or performance) that relates to m otor vehicle safety, the manufacturer would be required to conduct a recall campaign to notify owners and to remedy the defect free of charge. You should be aware that recently the manufacturer of an aftermarket air bag that did not provide crash protec tion benefits to vehicle occupants ceased offering its air bags following a NHTSA investigation. In addition, NHTSA provided information to the Federal Trade Commission concerning the claims made by the manufacturer in its advertising. We suggest you c arefully review the manufacturer's test data on the devices you are considering importing to assure yourself that the air bag would afford adequate protection to vehicle occupants in crashes and that the claims made in the company's advertising are true.

I have enclosed an information sheet that identifies relevant Federal statutes and NHTSA standards and regulations affecting motor vehicle and motor vehicle equipment manufacturers, and explains how to obtain copies of these materials. Please note the re gulations concerning manufacturer identification and designation of agent.

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: nht94-4.5

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: August 18, 1994

FROM: H. Kristie Jones -- President, P.J.'s Fabrication Inc., Stanfield, OR

TO: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: Attached to 10/05/94 letter from Philip R. Recht to H. Kristie Jones (A42; std. 115)

TEXT: P.J.'s Fabrication Inc. is a trailer manufacturing business. We are a new company and need assistance with rules and regulations regarding VIN numbers.

We have contracted with Coulson Commander Trailers, Boise, Idaho to build trailers under Coulson's name. As the manufacturer, P.J.'s accepts responsibility for warranty work and quality control to meet DOT specifications. My question, who issues the VIN number and Certificate of Origin?

I called Dorothy Nacomma on 8-18-94, she has informed me that P.J.'s Fabrication will issue the VIN number, but suggested I write to you for written confirmation of such.

At your earliest convenience, could you possibly sent us this confirmation.

Your time and consideration in this matter is greatly appreciated.

ID: nht94-4.50

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: October 13, 1994

FROM: Antonio Salvetti

TO: Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 12/29/94 FROM PHILIP R. RECHT/JOHN WOMACK TO ANTONIO SALVETTI (A42; PART 567)

TEXT: I am very interested in buying a new vehicle manufactured by Advanced Generation Motors Inc. called the AGM "PLAYA" which is based on a Geo Metro/Suzuki Swift unit.

The conversion consists on taking out all doors of the hatchback, cutting the roof and redesigning the vehicle in fiberglass as far as it was explained to me. The Playa has no doors and comes with a full enclosure in canvas.

My questions are:

1) Is this vehicle approved to be on the streets? 2) How do I know that they comply with all the safety requirements? 3) How are they responsible for any vehicles problems? 4) Are there any other requirements beside safety to meet?

Thank you in advanced for the information.

ID: nht94-4.51

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: October 14, 1994

FROM: Recht, R. Philip -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Larson, Victor P. E. -- Cryenco, Inc. (COLORADO)

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: Attached To A Letter Dated 5/17/94 From Victor Larson To John Womack (OCC 9984)

TEXT: This responds to your FAX of May 17, 1994, with reference to the application of conspicuity material to the sides of cryogenic tank trailers.

You point out that the only side mounting surface for striping that is perpendicular to the road is at the center of the tank, approximately 90 inches above the road surface. You ask for confirmation of your interpretation that conspicuity material can be placed at this location "if that is the only available mounting area" and that it is not necessary to add additional structure for the sole purpose of providing a lower vertical mounting surface.

We confirm your understanding. Standard No. 108 specified an original mounting height for conspicuity material as close as practicable to 1.25 m. However, in a notice published on October 6, 1993, NHTSA amended the requirement to "as close as practicab le to not less than 375 mm and not more than 1525 mm above the road surface." The practicability qualification allows manufacturers to choose a location for conspicuity treatment that is outside the specified range to avoid body modifications that might otherwise be required to mount the material within the specified range.

The manufacturers of conspicuity material certify its performance in a vertical plane. Trailer manufacturers should mount the material in a vertical plane or as close to a vertical plane as the trailer shape offers, in order to achieve the full conspicu ity benefits of the material. In the case of your tank trailer without a suitable vertical surface below the belt line of the tank, reflective material at a belt line that is 90 inches above the road surface would be considered to have been mounted as c lose as practicable to the upper specification of the height range (1.525 m). As NHTSA observed when it adopted the original mounting height specification with its practicability provision, flexibility in the vertical location of conspicuity material is necessary for compliance of some tank trailers. However, it should not be overlooked that other types of tank trailers may have vertical surfaces on the frame, fenders, or other equipment well suited for conspicuity material.

You inform us that some trailers have rear and midship cabinets that could be used, in conjunction with the belt line location, to provide a location for striping, although this would result in a non-aligned striping pattern. With respect to trailers eq uipped with cabinets, you asked whether compliance would be satisfied if only the belt-line location is used. The answer is yes, provided that the requirement of paragraph S5.7.1.4.2(a) is met, i.e., which provides that "the strip need not be continuous as long as not less than half of the length of the trailer is covered and the spaces are distributed as evenly as practicable." Since the strip need not be continuous, this would allow discontinuities in a strip mounted at 90 inches in which the cabinet s were not used.

Your final question is the required orientation of striping for conspicuity; some of your customers have requested placement of material at a downward angle of approximately 30 degrees to accommodate their graphics better. The standard does not explicit ly address the issue of orientation. However, as noted in response to your first question, trailer manufacturers should mount conspicuity material in a vertical plane, or as nearly thereto as the trailer shape allows, so that the full conspicuity benefi ts of the material may be realized. If there is no available vertical surface on which the material can be mounted, we urge that a wider stripe of conspicuity material be used to provide the minimum required performance at the installed downward angle. The manufacturer of the conspicuity material which you use should be able to determine whether an increase in the width of the striping would allow the material mounted at or near the downward angle that your customer prefers to provide performance comp arable to a narrower strip mounted in a vertical plane.

ID: nht94-4.52

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: October 14, 1994

FROM: Recht, Philip R. -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Kover, Joe

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: Attached To A Letter Dated 7/25/94 From Joe Kover To Jere Medlin (OCC 10216)

TEXT: This responds to your letter of July 25, 1994, to Jere Medlin of this agency. You have presented several questions regarding an electric circuit that you have designed for use in motor vehicles, and which you call a Light Control Unit (LCU).

The LCU automatically turns off the headlamps and tail and parking lamps when the ignition is turned off if the lamps have been activated. The LCU also automatically turns on the headlamps and the tail and parking lamps whenever the windshield wipers ar e turned on. If the LCU fails when the lights are on, a Light Bus Monitor will automatically restore them.

You have the following questions:

"Would a motor vehicle operator be in violation of the federal motor vehicle safety standards by maintaining both the head and tail/park lights on during the hours of daylight?"

No. The Federal motor vehicle safety standards do not tell an owner when it is or is not permissible to use safety equipment.

"Does the LCU meet the federal motor vehicle safety standards? Could the LCU be integrated into the light system of new production vehicles or currently registered vehicles;"

The Federal motor vehicle safety standard on lighting, Standard No. 108, does not apply to supplementary lighting devices such as the LCU. The LCU is permissible on new vehicles provided it does not impair the effectiveness of lighting equipment require d by the standard. We do not see that it has this effect. It is permissible to be installed on currently registered vehicles by manufacturers, distributors, dealers or motor vehicle repair businesses provided that it does not make inoperable any part i nstalled in accordance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard. We do not see that the LCU has this effect either.

You have also told us that the LCU may be used to operate lamps as Daytime Running Lamps (DRLs) by maintaining the light switch in the on position when the wiper switch has been turned off. One feature of this function is that the LCU "allows the operat or to turn off either the head lights only or both the head lights and tail/park lights via the light switch." Your question is "If the operator should elect to employ the LCU as a DRL unit does it meet the federal motor vehicle safety standards?" Under Standard No. 108, a DRL system is a system of any pair of lamps on the front of a vehicle (other than parking lamps or fog lamps) that is automatically activated and that is automatically deactivated when the operator places the headlamp control in the on position. Further, DRLs can be lower beam headlamps operated at full voltage. Assuming that the LCU turns the lower beam headlamps on rather than the upper beam ones, your system would function as a DRL meeting the requirements of Standard No. 108 when the lower beam headlamps are automatically activated by the windshield wipers and deactivated by turning off the ignition. However, the feature that allows the headlamps to be turned off manually (whether or not simultaneously turning off the p arking lamps and taillamps) is not part of a DRL system as specified by Standard No. 108.

Your final request is that we "include the federal specifications for electronic devices." We are unsure what you mean by this as we have no "specifications for electronic devices." I enclose a copy of S5.5.11 of Standard No. 108, the DRL specifications.

(ENCLOSURE OMITTED.)

ID: nht94-4.53

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: October 14, 1994

FROM: Randal Busick -- President, Vehicle Science Corporation

TO: Mary Versailles, Esq. -- Office of the Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: Re: Request for interpretation of FMVSS 208 S7.1.2

ATTACHMT: Attached to 1/5/95 letter from Philip R. Recht to Randal Busick (A43; Std. 208; Std. 210)

TEXT: Dear Ms Versailles:

This is to request a clarification of FMVSS 208 S7.1.2. More specifically, would a seat belt system as shown on the attached drawing be in compliance with S7.1.2 as a so-called "semi-integrated" seat belt?

As shown on the drawing, the inboard lower FMVSS 210 anchorage, n1 is located on the seat frame and thus, as the seat moves fore and aft, the system allows a minimum of two seat belt adjustment positions and the distance between the two extreme adjustmen t positions of the system is more than 5 cm.

n1 The belt which holds the buckle is attached to this inboard anchorage.

We look forward to your response. If you have any questions, kindly contact the undersigned.

Sincerely

Enclosure

(Drawing omitted.)

ID: nht94-4.54

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: October 18, 1994

FROM: Roger W. Cole -- Vice President, Sales, Twin Tire U.S.A., Inc.

TO: Walters Meyers, Esquire -- NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 12/7/94 FROM PHILIP R. RECHT TO ROGER W. COLE (A42; REDBOOK 4; STD. 109; PART 575.105

TEXT: It was a pleasure speaking with you this morning on the telephone.

To review our conversation, we are in the business of marketing and selling the Twin Tire system in the USA and abroad and are currently in discussions with various tire manufacturers. Most recently, our tires have been manufactured by Yokohama Rubber C orporation. These tires were manufactured as recently as 1991. All of these tires have a D.O.T. designation and a U.T.Q.G. designation. Yokohama has recently breached their contract to manufacture these tires under the premises of US regulations.

Please confirm in writing that once the tires have received the D.O.T. and U.T.Q.G. approvals and ratings which are molded on the exterior of the tire that they are legal to sell in the US.

I thank you very much and would appreciate a quick response as we are urgently in need of product.

ID: nht94-4.55

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: October 18, 1994

FROM: Jerry G. Sullivan, P.E. -- The Braun Corporation

TO: Mary Versailles -- NHTSA Office of Chief Council

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: Attached to 1/9/95 letter from Philip R. Recht to Jerry G. Sullivan (A43; Std. 217)

TEXT: Dear Mary,

I am writing for a clarification to FMVSS 217. For non-school buses, GVWR less than 10,000 lbs, can the driver side front door area be used to help meet the unobstructed openings requirement? [Ref: 55.2.2(c) Doors]

I appreciate your assistance in this matter.

Sincerely

ID: nht94-4.56

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: October 21, 1994

FROM: Recht, Philip R. -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Williams, Harry L., Jr. -- President, Willy Lights Inc.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: Attached To September, 1994 Letter From Harry L. Williams, Jr. To NHTSA Office Of The Chief (SIC) Counsel (OCC 10391)

TEXT: We have received your letter mailed on September 27, 1994, with respect to the permissibility under Federal law of your invention, Willy Lights. This product appears to consist of lights installed on wheel rims.

You enclosed a copy of a memorandum to you on this subject dated October 24, 1988, from Greg Novak, an engineer with the Nevada Division of the Federal Highway Administration. After consulting with members of this agency, Mr. Novak wrote you that there were no regulations that prohibited the use of lighted wheel rims but that they could not "interfere with any standard safety equipment on a vehicle." You have asked whether this interpretation remains valid, and, if the lamps are not prohibited, the col or permissible for the lamps.

You have not provided a detailed description of your device, such as the amount of illumination provided by the lights. Mr. Novak's advice that there are "no regulations prohibiting the use of lighted wheel rims" must be qualified. There are no Federal regulations that specifically prohibit the sale and installation of lighted wheel rims, but there may be regulations governing the use of lighted wheel rims issued by the individual States. We have no knowledge of State laws on this matter and suggest that you write for an opinion to the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Va. 22203.

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment establishes the requirements for original lighting equipment for motor vehicles. Standard No. 108, in effect, prohibits the installation of supplementary li ghting equipment such as Willy Lights before the initial sale of a vehicle if it impairs the effectiveness of the equipment required by Standard No. 108. Thus, if Willy Lights were sufficiently bright to mask in whole or in part the side marker lamps an d reflectors and any lamps mounted on the front and rear that wrap around the sides, Standard No. 108 would prohibit their installation. The seller (dealer) of the new vehicle has the responsibility of ensuring that the vehicle remains in compliance wit h Standard No. 108 when it installs supplementary lighting equipment, that is to say, the responsibility of determining whether or not impairment exists. This agency does not question such determinations unless they appear clearly wrong.

There is a similar prohibition for supplementary lighting equipment installed after the initial sale of a vehicle. When Willy Lights are installed by a manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or motor vehicle repair business, they must not make inoperative a ny of Standard No. 108's required equipment. With respect to Willy Lights, we would regard the question of making inoperative as equivalent to the question of impairing effectiveness. If it is concluded that Willy Lights do not impair new vehicle equip ment, then one can conclude that its installation on a used vehicle will not have an operative effect on 108's equipment. However, the States retain the right to say whether or not Willy Lights may be used within their borders.

The color of the lamps may also be important in any determination of impairment or inoperability. Under Standard No. 108, required side marking equipment at or near the front of a vehicle must be amber in color, and red at or near the rear. To lessen th e chance of confusion in a driver approaching from the side who may never have seen lighted wheel rims, we believe that it would be preferable to follow Standard No. 108's color code. Use of different colors, such as white or green, could cause momentar y confusion in the eyes of an approaching driver, leading to the conclusion that the required side lighting equipment has been impaired or made partially inoperative by Willy Lights.

ID: nht94-4.57

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: October 21, 1994

FROM: Donald Orlando -- Orlando World Industries

TO: Ed Glancy

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: Attached to 1/5/95 from Philip Recht to Donald Orlando (A43; Std. 208; Std. 209)

TEXT: Dear Ed:

As per our telephone conversation on the "SEAT BELT BUDDY" which has been invented and developed to popularize the wearing of seat belts for children. The device is a stuffed toy [ILLEGIBLE WORDS] the center of the animal where you insert the seat belt t hrough and then into the automobile buckle.

If you have any questions please don't hesitate to call me at (914) 428-2871 or you can reach my associate [ILLEGIBLE WORDS] at (914) 686-0141

Thanking you in advance for your prompt attention to this matter.

Sincerely Yours,