ID: nht90-2.16

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: April 12, 1990

FROM: William Waltz -- Wagner Division, Cooper Industries, Inc.

TO: Stephen P. Wood -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 7-25-90 to W. Waltz from P. J. Rice; signature by S. P. Wood; (A34; Std. 108) TEXT:

Wagner Lighting Division of Cooper Industries would like to petition N.H.T.S.A. for a "Determination of Inconsequentiality" for non-compliance. We have been asked to assemble antique-appearing sealed beam headlamps for Lectric Limited.

Lectric Limited, a small manufacturer of parts geared toward the antique automobile industry, perceived a need among automobile collectors and hobbyists for sealed beam headlight bulbs for their cars which cosmetically appeared to be the same as those which were originally supplied with their vehicles. These authentic styled bulbs would enhance the value of their vehicles and also add valuable points to their scores at various shows.

Most of these same auto enthusiasts are acquiring old bulbs from wrecking yards which in most cases are extremely dim due to their age and the fact that they were built to the J579A spec. These old bulbs are also prone to sudden failure which is of no consequence at a car show; but can be hazardous on the occasional drive that these vehicles are sometimes used for. In spite of these risks, auto enthusiasts search the junk yards for these rare bulbs and use them.

After considering this problem, Lectric Limited requested a license from Fisher Guide Division of General Motors to duplicate their original lens design on October 6, 1987. On November 9, 1988, a license was granted to Lectric Limited to produce these bulbs.

On March 4, 1989, Lectric Limited contracted with Corning Glass to produce the lenses in accordance with J579A spec. It should be pointed out, that at the time the order to produce these lenses was given, the J579A spec was still on the books. However, shortly after Corning manufactured the tooling to produce these lenses the J579A spec was taken out of the book.

After the J579A spec was declared obsolete (approximately May, 1989), Lectric Limited requested that Corning attempt to upgrade the lens designed to meet J579C. This change also added to the cost of the project, but since the J579C spec would produce a superior and safer product it appeared that the added expenditure would be justified.

Corning was successful in modifying the design to meet J579C spec without noticeable change to the outward appearance of the bulbs and thereby still allowing these bulbs to be acceptable to the vast majority of antique auto enthusiasts.

Lectric Limited was not aware, at the time, that the markings 1D1 or 2D1 were a part of the spec and were required to be on the top of each bulb

produced. These markings on the face of each bulb would in effect make them useless to the antique auto enthusiasts. With no alternative, the car hobbyist would continue to purchase the unsafe but cosmetically accurate junk yard bulbs.

Lectric Limited is a small company and this waste of funds invested would be devastating to its financial future. This, in turn, would cause layoffs and a curtailment in new investments and projects.

OPTION #1

Wagner is requesting permission to produce these bulbs to 579A spec which would allow the use of the word TOP on #6012 (7") bulbs, #1 on 4001 (5 3/4") bulbs and #2 on 4002 (5 3/4") bulbs. We would also not be using the D.O.T. identification on the bulbs.

OPTION #2

Wagner would produce these bulbs to meet 579C specs and would use the word TOP on #6014 (7") bulb in place of 2C1, use the #1 designation on the 5001 (5 3/4") bulbs in place of the 1C1 designation and use the #2 designation on the 4000 (5 3/4") bulbs in place of the 2C1 designation. We would also not be using the D.O.T. identification on these bulbs.

ADDENDUM TO OPTION #2

Lectric Limited is willing to ink stamp the 1D1 or 2C1 and DOT designation on either the face and or the rear of each bulb, in order to avoid mistaking these bulbs for J579A spec bulbs.

Lectric Limited would produce an instruction sheet for insertion in each bulb package or print instructions on each box explaining the variations to the end user. This would also help to avoid confusion.

Lectric Limited is also willing to assure that these bulbs will only be marketed through antique auto specialty retailers and not through major chain stores and retail outlets. This, in addition to the added cost of the bulb which will be necessitated by the small production volume, and the need to amortize the tooling cost over a limited run will help to assure that these bulbs will not be in wide use in everyday transportation vehicles.

In short, Lectric Limited is willing to do whatever is necessary to satisfy the NHTSA requirements in order to obtain a reasonable variation to the 579C spec in regard to the 1D1 and 2C1 designation issue.

We believe that this product will, in effect, enhance the safety of antique automotive enthusiasts and a variation should be granted on these grounds as well as the others stated in this request.

ID: Tunick telltale 001515

ID: brookvil.rbm

Mr. Steve Brookmire
Sport Utility Accessory Depot
1945 Airport Court, Suite B
Marietta, GA 30062

Dear Mr. Brookmire:

This responds to your letter requesting information about the impact of brush guards and grille guards on the Nissan Pathfinder air bag assembly. Your company is a distributor of brush guards and grille guards. You indicate in your letter that Nissan has stated the installation of these products may interfere with the air bag. This letter will address the effect under Federal laws of the installation of a bumper guard or grille guard.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized under 49 U.S.C. section 30101 et seq. to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards that apply to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. Federal law prohibits any person from manufacturing, introducing into commerce, selling, or importing any new motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment unless the vehicle or equipment is in conformity with all applicable safety standards. NHTSA does not approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, nor do we endorse any commercial products. Instead, each manufacturer is responsible for "self-certifying" that its products meet all applicable safety standards.

NHTSA has exercised its authority to establish standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection (49 CFR Part 571.208). Among other things, Standard No. 208 requires that cars be equipped with automatic crash protection. "Automatic crash protection" means that a vehicle is equipped with occupant restraints that require no action by vehicle occupants. Standard No. 208 applies to new vehicles; therefore, if a brush guard or grille guard is installed by the manufacturer before the vehicle's first purchase for purposes other than resale, the vehicle manufacturer would have to certify that the vehicle complied with all applicable standards, including Standard No. 208, with the brush guard or grille guard installed.

After the first purchase of a vehicle for purposes other than resale, the only provision in Federal law that affects the vehicle's continuing compliance with an applicable safety standard is set forth in 49 U.S.C. section 30122. That section 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 or motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable motor vehicle safety standard.

Any violation of this provision would subject the violator to a potential civil penalty of up to $1,100 for each violation. This provision would prohibit a commercial business from installing a brush guard or grille guard on a vehicle equipped with an air bag in a manner that would negatively affect the vehicle's compliance with Standard No. 208 or any other safety standard.

Please note that this provision would apply to a vehicle manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair business installing the product and not to the company that manufactures or distributes the product. Also note that this provision does not apply to modifications vehicle owners make to their own vehicles. Thus, Federal law would not apply in situations where individual vehicle owners install a brush guard or grille guard on their own vehicles, even if the installation were to result in the vehicle no longer complying with the safety standards. However, States have the authority to regulate modifications that individual vehicle owners may make to their own vehicles.

You should also note that a brush guard or grille guard would be considered "motor vehicle equipment" under Federal law. Therefore, if it contained a defect (either in manufacture, design, or performance) that relates to motor vehicle safety, the guard manufacturer would be required to conduct a recall campaign to notify owners and to remedy the defect free of charge.

It is not possible for NHTSA to provide an unequivocal opinion as to whether brush guards or grille guards will interfere with air bag performance. This is because any answer would depend on the designs of the guards, the air bag, and the vehicle as a whole. The discussion which follows illustrates possible problems, identified by our technical staff, which brush guards or grille guards could cause with respect to air bags. Please understand that these examples do not represent the universe of possible problems.

First, a guard attached to the bumper could possibly induce unwarranted air bag deployments if the guard extended vertically below the car bumper. Such a guard could snag on travel surface irregularities, sharp inclines, or sharp incline departure angles which might otherwise not engage the vehicle structure.

Second, if a guard were attached to the vehicle structure, rather than the bumper, it too could possibly produce deployments that are not intended. Such a system might impose direct loading into the vehicle frame without the energy absorption of the bumper moderating the impulse experienced by the crash sensor system which is calibrated to measure crash severity.

Third, if a guard were added to the front bumper of a vehicle in such a manner as to change the load path through the bumper of the car structure behind the bumper, it is possible that the crash impulse arriving at the crash sensor location might be different from the impulse that would be present without the guard, causing air bag deployment to occur either above or below the original manufacturer's deployment threshold, and at a different time during the crash.

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

Sincerely,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
ref:208
d.7/3/97

ID: nht95-7.56

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: December 11, 1995

FROM: Samuel J. Dubbin -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Dorothy Jean Arnold, -- M.D.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: 9/01/95 (est.) letter from Dorothy Jean Arnold, M.D., to Safety Administration

TEXT: This responds to your letter asking whether the air bags in your car can be disconnected. You explained that you are physically impaired by the effects of osteomyelitis, a disease of the bones; cannot use a seatbelt with comfort; and were "granted dispensation from such usage several years ago." In a telephone conversation with Richard Reed of this agency, you indicated that you are 74 years old 45 feets three inches tall, and must sit close to the steering wheel because of your medical condition.

As explained below, our answer is that NHTSA will not institute enforcement proceedings against a repair business that disconnects an air bag on your vehicle to accommodate your condition.

Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protect [Illegible Word] requires that cars be equipped with automatic crash protection at the front outboard seating positions. The air bags in your car were installed as one means of complying with that requirement. The removal or deactivaxion of one of those air bags by a vehicle dealer is governed by a provision of Federal law, 49 U.S.C. @ 30122. The section provides that provi

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 or motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable motor vehicle safety standard.

However, in limited situations in which a vehicle must be modified to accommodate the needs of a person with a particular disability or a person's special medical needs, NHTSA has in the past stated that it would consider violations of the "make inoperative" prohibition as purely technical ones justified by public need, and that it would not institute enforcement proceedings.

I would like to caution you that both safety belts and air bags are very important items of safety equipment. Safety belts are the primary means of occupants restraint, and work in all types of crashes. NHTSA estimates that in 1994, safety belts saved almost 9,200 lives and prevented more than 211,000 moderate to critical injuries. The combination of wearing safety belts and having an air bag installed at a seating position provides vehicle occupants with maximum safety protection in all types of crashes. Also, air bags are designed to offer some protection even when safety belts are not used. Since 1987, air bags are estimated to have saved 911 lives.

NHTSA strongly encourages vehicle occupants to wear their safety belts, since we are concerned about the much higher safety risk faced by unbelted occupants. We understand, however, that you cannot wear your safety belt for medical reasons, and that you are concerned about a possible safety risk from the air bag in such a situation.

While air bags have an impressive overall performance record and are designed to provide some protection even for unbelted occupants, NHTSA has become aware of situations in which current air bags have undesired side effects. These include situations in which an air bag appears to have contributed to serious injuries and even death to vehicle occupants, in minor-to-moderate severity crashes. Information indicates that an air bag might pose a risk of serious injury to unrestrained small statured and/or older people, in particular. I note that NHTSA has recently issued a request for comments (copy enclosed) concerning the agency's actions to minimize the adverse side effects of air bags and to invite the public to share information and views with the agency.

Since your disability prevents you from wearing your safety belt, and given your age and size, the disability places you in a situation where there may be a risk of serious injury from the air bag. While this particular risk can be addressed by disconnecting the air bag, there are trade-offs: Disconnecting the air bag subjects you to a higher risk in crashes, especially higher-speed crashes, where the air bag would provide protection. We urge you to carefully weigh the trade-offs in making your decision.

If you decide that the risk to you from the air bag offsets the potentially life-saving benefits of the air bag, and you wish to have your air bag deactivated, we would regard the deactivation a purely technical violation of the "make inoperative" prohibition justified by public need. Accordingly, we would not institute enforcement proceedings against any person listed in section 30122 who deactivated the air bag. I would recommend that the manufacturer of the vehicle and/or air bag be consulted on the safest way to disconnect the air bag. I also note that the air bag should only be disconnected from a position where you would be seated. In addition, I strongly encourage you to ensure that every person in your vehicle who can use his or her safety belt does so.

I want to add a caution. The purpose of the "make inoperative" prohibition is to ensure, to the greatest degree possible, current and subsequent owners and users of your vehicle are not deprived of the maximum protection afforded by the vehicle as newly manufactured. Accordingly, if you were to sell your vehicle later, we urge that the air bag be reactivated for the subsequent driver.

I hope that this letter resolves your problem. If you have any other questions, please contact Edward Glancy of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992.

ID: 08-004730 marzolf march 20

ID: 11-000612 M.Edie (Part 523)

ID: 1983-2.44

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/15/83

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Willard B. Synder -- Security National Bank (Kansas)

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

ATTACHMT: 2/8/83 letter from Frank Berndt to William S. Stalder

TEXT:

Mr. Willard B. Snyder Honorary Counsul Federal Republic of Germany Security National Bank 7th Street and Minnesota Avenue Kansas City, KS 66101

Dear Mr. Snyder:

This is in reply to your letter of July 12, 1983, asking me to review and reconsider my letter of February 8, 1983, in which I concluded that a transporter van, to which features are added enabling it to be used occasionally on railroad tracks, in a "motor vehicle" and must meet applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards.

I am pleased to do so. You raise the possibility "that any off track travel utilization by the Kansas City Southern Railroad will either be on their private roads or land and no on any public roads or highways." We should like confirmation by the Railroad of that fact, if true, or a statement as to the quantum of use on the public roads likely for this vehicle. We should like an indication of how the company intends to dispose of the vans when it has finished with them. It is our assumption that the conversion features can be removed and the vehicle operated solely on the public roads; please correct or confirm this assumption. When we have this information we shall reconsider the matter.

In closing, I must say that your letter reflects the confusion that appears to exist in the public mind regarding jurisdiction of Federal agencies over motor vehicles. In my earlier letter I quoted the definition of "motor vehicle" in 15 U.S.C. 1391(3), the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, while you have replied that "the deciding one" appears to be that of 42 U.S.C. 7251(3)(C). Both definitions are appropriate, the one in Title 15 for purpose of determining applicability of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards issued by the Department of Transportation, and the one in Title 42 for determining applicability of the vehicle emission standards issued by the Environmental Protection Agency. While I can offer no interpretation of whether the van conversion is subject to emission standards I note with interest that EPA's definition of "heavy duty vehicle" is similar in many respects to our definition of "motor vehicle."

Frank Berndt

July 12, 1983

Mr. Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel

Dear Mr. Berndt:

Mr. William Stalder of Carland (a subsidiary of the Kansas City Southern Railroad) forwarded me a copy of your letter to him dated February 8, 1983 wherein you denied an exemption for a Zwei Weg conversion of a Mercedes-Benz vehicle. I would appreciate it if you would review and reconsider this earlier decision. I have enclosed a part of Title 42, section 7521, Paragraph (3)(c) from U.S.C.A., for your easy reference. This is the section which appears to be the deciding one.

I realize that, administratively, you have the possibility to stop here and reaffirm your previous stance, however, I hope you will continue on and give this appeal a fair review since this purchase will be fairly substantial and could easily have a direct effect on the business and its employees here in the Kansas City area.

Title 42, Sect. 7521, Paragraph (3) (c) defines a heavy duty vehicle as "one manufactured primarily for use (emphasis is mine) on the public streets, roads and highways". While the Mercedes-Benz van was manufactured at one point in its development as a street and highway vehicle, its manufacture actually continued on with Zwei Wdg and the end item of production bears only a superficial resemblance to the interim product. Not only have track and alignment systems been permanently added, but new hydraulic and suspension systems as well. The interior controls have also been appropriately modified. The tires and drive system provide the traction on the rails, so there was no need to change this. However, as the end manufactured product, this vehicle is primarily and functionally a track vehicle, not a road vehicle, even though it has a road capability. Also, its cost precludes any economic use as a road vehicle.

I think that it is only fair to assume that the drafters of this statute were not thinking of Zwei Weg products when they wrote about off-highway use. This provision was intended primarily to cover cross-country and all-terrain type vehicles whose operations depend on and use heavily the public streets and roads to get to their cross country all-terrain locations. This type of cross-country, all-terrain vehicle is designed primarily for highway use and its other characteristic is an added feature. With Zwei Weg, the primary manufactured function is rail, not road.

Also, the land (roads) where this vehicle would be utilized, when not in actual rail use, should be considered. I suspect that any off track travel utilization by the Kansas City Southern Railroad will either be on their private roads or land and not on any public roads or highways. If this would be a critical consideration, you might want to consider a conditional waiver - conditional on the non use of public streets and highways by Kansas City Southern Railroad Company.

I am sure we have both personally suffered when we stopped behind a "Big Bus" or "Diesel Truck" at a stoplight and the contribution of the multiple passenger cars to the overall atmosphere is equally as important. However, this vehicle will not be on the public streets (where we could get caught behind it) and the numbers will not be so great as to materially or significantly contribute to the atmospheric pollution.

Based on these factors, I hope that you will be able to grant an exemption for this vehicle, under its particular circumstances.

Sincerely, Willard B. Snyder

ID: 15120rea.r2

William Shapiro, P.E.
Manager, Regulatory Compliance
and Environmental Affairs
Volvo Cars of North America, Inc.
7 Volvo Dr.
Rockleigh, N.J. 07647-0913

Dear Mr. Shapiro:

This responds to your April 29, 1997, letter asking whether Standard No. 213, "Child Restraint Systems," would prohibit you from producing a rear-facing child restraint for older children (weighing more than 20 pounds). You state: "Volvo strongly believes that children weighing up to 40 pounds are provided the greatest injury protection when riding in rear-facing child restraints...."

Standard 213 does not prohibit a manufacturer from recommending a rear-facing child restraint for children weighing more than 20 pounds (lb.). However, in making its certification of compliance with the standard, the manufacturer must ensure that the restraint meets the requirements of Standard 213 when tested in accordance with the test procedures specified in the standard. Under S7 of the standard, any child restraint that is recommended for use by children from birth to 40 lb. is tested with test dummies representing a newborn infant (see S7.1(a)), a 9-month-old (S7.1(b)) and a 3-year-old child (S7.1(c)).⁽¹⁾ The rear-facing restraint must be able to accommodate each of the dummies and meet the performance criteria of the standard when tested with the dummies.

I have enclosed copies of letters dated April 22, 1992, to Mark Sedlack of Century Products Company and August 18, 1992, to Timber Dick of Safeline Children's Products Company, concerning the testing of a rear-facing child restraint recommended for children weighing up to 25 lb. (Note that at the date of these letters, Standard 213 incorporated a 6-month-old child dummy and used different weight categories than the current standard. The standard was amended, effective September 1, 1996, to incorporate, inter alia, a newborn, 9-month-old and 6-year-old dummy and to delete the 6-month-old dummy. New weight categories were also adopted, e.g., the smallest dummy (infant) is used for testing a restraint recommended for children weighing up to 22 lb., rather than 20 lb.)

That the rear-facing restraint must be able to accommodate the 3-year-old dummy is explained at length in the letters. Our position has not changed. If the rear-facing child restraint does not physically permit the 3-year-old dummy to be positioned rear-facing in accordance with the dummy positioning procedures of the standard, the restraint cannot be tested in accordance with the standard and thus cannot be certified as complying with the standard. Accordingly, the restraint cannot be recommended by its manufacturer for children weighing more than 22 lb. We understand that since receiving our letters, Century and Safeline have been or will be producing convertible child restraints that are recommended for use rear-facing by children weighing up to about 30 lb. (A convertible restraint is designed for use rear-facing by infants and forward-facing by toddlers.)

You ask whether the labeling requirements of S5.5.2(k)(1)(i) and (k)(2)(i) of Standard 213 in effect require that restraints that are designed to be rear-facing with older children can only be infant or convertible restraints and cannot be "rear-facing only child restraints." The answer is no. However, we understand why you ask this; S5.5.2(k)(1)(i) specifies labeling requirements for each rear-facing child restraint system "that is designed for infants only," and S5.5.2(k)(2)(i) specifies requirements for each "child restraint system that is designed to be used rearward-facing for infants and forward facing for older children." (Emphases added.)

These paragraphs were not intended to prohibit your restraint. Until February 1995, S5.5.2(k) specified requirements for "each child restraint system that can be used in a rear-facing position," which on its face included restraints such as yours. You would have been required to state either "PLACE THIS INFANT RESTRAINT IN A REAR-FACING POSITION WHEN USING IT IN THE VEHICLE," or "PLACE THIS CHILD RESTRAINT IN A REAR-FACING POSITION WHEN USING IT WITH AN INFANT WEIGHING LESS THAN (insert a weight that is not less than 20 pounds)." The language was changed in 1995 to the language quoted above in S5.5.2(k)(1)(i) and (2)(i) in response to requests to clarify and expand on the air bag warning label requirement (60 FR 7461, February 8, 1995). The change differentiated between infant-only restraints and convertibles, because those were the types of rear-facing restraints that were available at the time. The agency did not intend to limit rear-facing restraints to infant-only and convertibles.

While we agree that Standard 213 imposes no directional positioning labeling requirements for your particular system, we recommend that a rear-facing child restraint for older children should nonetheless be labeled with a warning that the restraint must be rear-facing when carrying infants, e.g., "PLACE THIS RESTRAINT IN A REAR-FACING POSITION WHEN USING IT WITH AN INFANT." Because your restraint is also designed for use rear-facing with older children, you should have clear labeling warning against misuse of the restraint in the forward-facing position.

We note also that under S5.5.2(k)(4) and (k)(5) of Standard 213, "each child restraint system that can be used in a rear-facing position" must have the air bag warning label described in those sections. This requirement applies on its face to rear-facing only child restraints for older children. Thus, your restraint must have the label depicted in Figure 10 of Standard 213, with the pictogram and required heading and wording.

If you need further assistance, please contact Ms. Deirdre Fujita of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
Enclosures
ref:213
d.7/25/97

1. Under S7 of Standard 213, a restraint that is recommended for children weighing more than 40 lb. is tested with a 6-year-old child dummy.

ID: nht87-1.93

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/04/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Robert J. Heath

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Robert J. Heath Manager, Compliance Department Panasonic Matsushita Technology Group One Panasonic Way

Dear Mr. Heath:

This responds to your letter asking whether the installation of television receivers, in passenger cars and buses, is permitted under the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. As a consumer products sales company, you indicated that you are considering four proposals: (1) a small television receiver mounted in the dashboard of an automobile on the passenger side and only operational when the automobile gearshift lever is in neutral, (2) a small television receiver mounted above and slightly to the right of the driver with the screen facing the rear and where operation is controlled from the rear seat only, (3) a television receiver mounted between the two front seats on the console and facing the rear, and (4) a large-screen projection television or television monitor mounted in the front of a commercial bus.

By way of background information, NHTSA does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, it is the responsibility of the manufacturer to ensure that its motor vehicles or equipment comply with applicable safety standards. The following represents our opinion based on the facts provided in your letter.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not have any safety standards specifically covering television receivers. However, it is possible that the installation of a television receiver could affect the compliance of a vehicle with some safety standards.

All new vehicles manufactured for sale in the United States must be certified by their manufacturer as complying with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. If your television receivers are installed in a new vehicle prior to its first sale to a consumer, the person making the installation would be considered a vehicle alterer. Under our certification regulation (49 CFR Pact 567), a vehicle alterer must certify that the vehicle as altered continues to comply with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards.

Manufacturers, distributors, dealers, or motor vehicle repair businesses modifying a used vehicle are prohibited by section 108(a)(2)(n) of the Vehicle Safety Act from knowingly rendering inoperative 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 your television receivers are installed in used vehicles, any businesses making such installations cannot render inoperative the vehicle's compliance with any of our standards.

We also note that manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment hive responsibilities under the Vehicle Safety Act regarding safety defects. Under sections 151 et seq., they must notify purchasers about safety-related defects and remedy the product free of charge.

You asked, by way of example, whether your second proposal would be acceptable provided that it meets the standards for crash protection and windshield intrusion. In order to determine how installation of your television receivers could affect the compliance of vehicles with safety standards, you should carefully review each standard, including but not limited to those for crash protection and windshield intrusion. We note that another standard that might be relevant, particularly with respect to your first proposal, is Standard No. 201, Occupant Protection in Interior Impact.

I am enclosing a copy of an information sheet which provides general information for new manufacturers of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment.

I hope this information is helpful.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Enclosure

Ms. Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Department of Transportation Room 5219 400 Seventh St. SW Washington. D.C. 20590

SUBJECT: Inquiry and Request for Clarification of Regulations for Use of Broadcast Television Receivers in Automobiles and Buses

Dear Ms. Jones:

Panasonic Company, a consumer products sales company, is investigating the potential sales of broadcast television receivers for installation into automobiles and buses. The following proposals are under consideration at the present time, and we are seeking guidance as to the acceptability and feasibility of these proposals:

1) Small television screen mounted in the dashboard of an automobile on the passenger side and only operational when the automobile gearshift lever is in neutral. The use of a specially-designed relay is necessary upon installation of the television receiver. (See attachment 1)

2) Small television receiver mounted above and slightly to the right of the driver with the screen facing the rear and where operation is controlled from the seat only. (See attachment 2)

3) Television receiver mounted between the two front seats on the console and facing the rear. (See attachment 3)

4) Large-screen projection television monitor mounted in the front of a commercial bus. (See attachment 4 and 5)

Each of the four (4) proposals should be considered separately for conditions of acceptability and/or prohibition within the NHTSA regulatory standards activity.

The results of a 1984 Electronics Industry Association (EIA) state survey indicated that only one (1) state, Rhode Island, prohibits televisions in automobiles. Thirty-seven (37) states restrict its use while the automobile is in motion. The remainder have no laws. The only other federal regulation of which we are aware is the Federal Highway Administration's requirement for large commercial trucks (49 CFR 393.88) where the television viewing screen is required to be located to the rear of the driver, and control be prohibited while the driver is in his seat.

Therefore, Panasonic Company seeks your guidance, interpretation, and suggestions regarding the investigation of the four proposals stated above. We appreciate your cooperation in this matter.

Sincerely,

Robert J. Heath Manager Compliance Dept.

RJH/ab Attachments cc: L.E. Levine/Legal Div.

ID: LondonTaxi2

Via Facsimile and Regular Mail





Mr. Larry Smith
President and CEO
London Taxis North America, Inc.
80 Union Street
Sudbury, MA 01776

Dear Mr. Smith:

This is in response to your letter of November 26, 2001, requesting an interpretation of the vehicle certification regulations at 49 CFR Part 567. Section 567.4(g) of those regulations prescribes the contents of the certification label that manufacturers are required to affix to new motor vehicles. One item of information that the certification label must contain is the name of the vehicle's manufacturer. Section 567.4(g)(1) provides that the "full corporate or individual name of the actual assembler of the vehicle"> must be stated on the certification label, unless any of three specified exceptions apply. The only pertinent exception is the one stated at section 567.4(g)(1)(i). That section provides that "[i]f a vehicle is assembled by a corporation that is controlled by another corporation that assumes responsibility for conformity with the standards, the name of the controlling corporation may be used.">

You state that London Taxis North America, Inc. (LTNA) has entered into an agreement with London Taxis International (LTI), which you identify as the British manufacturer of "the well-known London Taxi TX1 vehicle (the "TX1")." You state that "[u]nder this agreement, LTNA has the exclusive right to import a U.S. specification TX1 into the United States," and that "LTNA is solely responsible for developing the design modifications to be incorporated into the U.S. version of the TX1, as well as for all testing and certification of the U.S. specification vehicle." You state that the U.S. version of the TX1 will be assembled by LTI in the United Kingdom and imported into the United States by LTNA. You state that LTI will assign vehicle identification numbers (VINs) to the U.S. version of the TX1, and that these VINs will incorporate the world manufacturer identifier (WMI) assigned to LTI.

In light of these circumstances, you have asked whether the certification label to be affixed to the U.S. version of the TX1 may identify the vehicle as being "Manufactured by London Taxis International for London Taxis North America, Inc., which is solely responsible for U.S. certification." You express the opinion that this wording would be appropriate because 49 U.S.C. 30115 requires the "manufacturer" of a vehicle, as opposed to its "assembler," to certify that the vehicle complies with applicable safety standards and, as defined in 49 U.S.C. 30102(a)(5), the term "manufacturer" includes "importer." You also contend that some precedents exist for the wording you have proposed. Specifically, you note that the certification label affixed to model year (MY) 1997 Ford Aspire passenger cars identified those vehicles as having been "manufactured by Kia Motor Company for Ford Motor Company." You further note that in an October 13, 1981 letter to Paccar, Inc., this Office stated that Paccar's name could appear on the certification labels for vehicles assembled by Kenworth Mexicana, a Mexican affiliate.

Consistent with the wording used on the certification label for the 1997 Ford Aspire, the certification label for the U.S. version of the TX1 may identify the vehicle as being "Manufactured by London Taxis International for London Taxis North America, Inc." However, the additional wording that you have proposed, which would identify LTNA as being "solely responsible for U.S. certification" of the vehicle, may not be included on the label. There is no provision in the vehicle certification regulations for such additional wording to be included on the certification label. One purpose for including manufacturer information on the certification label is to identify the manufacturer who assumes legal responsibility for all duties and liabilities imposed under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, the provisions of which are now codified at 49 U.S.C.

30101 et. seq. (See, e.g., 49 CFR 567.4(g)(1)(iii), pertaining to trailers, and 49 CFR 567.5(e), pertaining to vehicles manufactured in two or more stages.) The additional wording that you have proposed for the TX1 certification label would create ambiguity as to whether it is LTI or LTNA that is assuming legal responsibility for all duties and liabilities imposed under the Safety Act. In this circumstance, it would be unclear to NHTSA and to the vehicle owner as to which entity would be responsible for conducting a safety recall campaign in the event that the vehicle is found to contain a safety-related defect or to be in noncompliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard.

The circumstances that permitted Paccar, Inc. to be identified as the manufacturer on the certification labels of vehicles assembled by Kenworth Mexicana are not present in this case. In addition to owning a 49 percent interest in Kenworth Mexicana, Paccar informed the agency that it was responsible for the design of the vehicles produced in Mexico and exercised control over all matters relating to their compliance with the safety standards. You have made no representations that LTNA has a similar relationship to LTI, or that it has exercised similar design responsibility and control over the U.S. version of the TX1. Accordingly, there is no basis for LTNA to be identified on the certification label as the vehicles' manufacturer under the exception in 49 CFR 567.4(g)(1)(i). Additionally, LTNA's status as the vehicles' importer provides no basis for it to identify itself as the manufacturer on the certification label. Even though the term "manufacturer" is defined in 49 U.S.C. 30102(a)(5) to include the "importer" of a vehicle, 49 CFR 567.4(g)(1) explicitly requires the name of the "actual assembler" of the vehicle to be identified on the certification label, unless one of the three stated exceptions to that requirement apply. The regulation provides no exception for an importer to substitute its name for that of the actual assembler.

If you have any further questions regarding vehicle certification requirements, feel free to contact Coleman Sachs of my staff at 202-366-5238.

Sincerely,

John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel

ref:567
d.1/15/02