ID: aiam4021

Dear Mr. Sandham: Thank you for your letter of May 21, 1985, concerning the vertica adjustment of rearview mirrors for trucks. You asked us to clarify whether the standard requires a mirror both to tilt, as shown in your sketch 'A,' and to move up and down its mounting bracket, as shown in your sketch 'B.' As discussed below, a truck mirror can meet the adjustment requirement by either tilting or by moving up and down its mounting bracket.; The agency has not specified the means used to provide a vertica adjustment. We would consider a mirror which tilts, as shown in your sketch 'B,' as meeting the adjustment requirement. You should know that the agency has interpreted this vertical adjustment requirement for trucks to mean that adjustment with tools is allowed. The use of tools is justified because trucks and buses are generally driven for longer periods of time by the same driver and thus the mirror does not have to be continually adjusted.; Please note that S6.1(a) of Standard No. 111 also permits trucks with GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less to be equipped with rearview mirrors which meet the performance requirements for passenger cars in section S5, instead of the requirements for trucks in S6.1(b), S7, or S8. If the passenger car specifications are chosen, the driver must be able to adjust the inside and outside rearview mirrors in both vertical and horizontal directions by tilting them. The agency has not permitted the use of tools for adjusting passenger car mirrors, since passenger cars are often driven by different drivers who will need to quickly and easily adjust their mirrors. A mirror mounted on a universal ball socket joint, for example, meets this requirement. In this situation, the vertical tilting adjustment shown in your sketch 'A' would appear to comply as long as that mirror could also be adjusted horizontally by tilting. The vertical sliding adjustment shown in sketch 'B' apparently would not meet this requirement because it appears to require the use of tools to make the adjustment.; A copy of the current version of Standard No. 111 is enclosed. I hop this information is helpful to you.; Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam0860

Dear Mr. Nishibori: This is in reply to your letters of August 8, and August 28, 1972 requesting interpretation of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 302, 'Flammability of Interior Materials'.; In your August 8th letter, as we understand your first question, yo ask whether the adhesive, sound-proofing material used on the floor panels of your cars should be tested together with the few insulating fibers which become embedded in this material when the insulation which covers the sound- proofing material is removed. The Standard provides a list of the interior components which must meet its requirements and the manner in which those components are to be tested. Since the sound-proofing material you have described would not be considered a floor covering and it is not otherwise included in S4.1 of the Standard, it is not subject to the requirements.; You ask further whether the 'seal screen' you glue peripherally on th inner, door panels to prevent water from penetrating the interior of the door must meet the requirements of the Standard. The 'seal screen', as you describe it, does not appear to be part of the panel and, accordingly, it would not be subject to the Standard.; In your August 28th letter, you ask whether the procedure you have fo testing the 'jute' insulating material used under the floor carpet of your cars conforms to the requirements of Standard No. 302. You state that this procedure includes removing the insulation and testing its top surface, which you designate as 'surface B', rather than testing its bottom surface, which you designate as 'surface A'. We are not sure what you mean by testing a 'surface', the Standard refers to a test for the entire specimen. You may be concerned with whether the specimen is oriented upward or downward. Under the Standard, the test specimen for each component is to be tested 'so as to provide the most adverse results'. Accordingly, the relevant test result is the most adverse one achieved in any horizontal orientation, either upward- or downward-facing. The fact that you remove the insulating material so as not to raise the nap on its bottom surface is consistent with existing test procedures.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel

ID: aiam3092

Dear Mr. Brooks: This responds to your note we received on August 29 enclosin correspondence from one of your constituents, Mr. Don Bush. Mr. Bush requests information concerning passive seat belts on a 1977 Volkswagen Rabbit. Apparently, he was told by the Society of Automotive Engineers that there are currently no standards for this type of restraint system.; The information given Mr. Bush by the Society of Automotive Engineer was incorrect. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration issues safety standards and regulations governing the manufacture of new motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. Safety Standard No. 208, *Occupant Crash Protection*, specifies requirements for restraint systems in passenger cars and other vehicles (49 CFR 571.208). For 1977-model passenger cars manufacturers had three options: (1) total passive protection (protection by means that require no action by vehicle occupants), (2) head-on passive protection, (3) the installation of combination lap and shoulder belts for front, outboard seating positions and lap belts for center and rear seating positions.; Volkswagen apparently certified its 1977-model deluxe Rabbit under th second option of the standard. This option requires the vehicle to meet specified injury criteria in a perpendicular barrier crash test, and to either meet lateral and rollover criteria in dynamic impact tests by automatic means or to install lap belts at front, outboard seating positions. Volkswagen used a single, diagonal passive belt to comply with the automatic frontal crash protection requirement of the second option. Additionally, paragraph S4.5.3 of Safety Standard No. 208 allows a passive belt to be used in lieu of any other belt required by any option of the standard. Therefore, Volkswagen's single, diagonal passive belt also qualifies as a lap belt for purposes of complying with the lateral and rollover requirements of the second option.; I am enclosing a copy of Safety Standard No. 208 for Mr. Bush' information. Please have him contact Hugh Oates of my office if he has any questions after reviewing the standard (202-426-2992). Mr. Bush might also note that General Motors voluntarily installed an active lap belt in its Chevettes that have passive shoulder belts (these vehicles were introduced in the spring of this year). Active lap belts in these vehicles are not required by the standard, however.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel

ID: nht94-3.30

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: June 8, 1994

FROM: Rick Rogers

TO: Robert Mellmuth -- NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 7/21/94 from John Womack to Rick Rogers (A42; STD 108); and letter dated 1/25/90 from Stephen P. Wood to Larry S. Snowhite

TEXT: I'd like to present an idea to the auto industry that has been an oversight for some time. An idea that can prevent tens of thousands of accidents and save thousands of lives.

The great thing is that it costs next to nothing to implement, and makes the industry shine with innovation. Here it is.

A cars brake lights should go on not only when the break pedal is pressed, but should also go on when the gas pedal is released.

There it is. Simple and effective. We're saving tenths of seconds during critical moments before a rear and accident. We're letting cars space themselves more appropriately during stop and go, bumper to bumper traffic. We're letting the person driv ing behind us know that we no longer have out foot on the gas pedal, but have motioned toward caution to either brake or to start to coast slower. Either way, we're letting the driver behind us drive more intelligently by giving them as much warning as to how our car is operating.

Lets carry the implementation of this idea one step further. Lets get sophisticated. Cars and trucks have clutches, so lets engage our brake device when the clutch is moved to neutral. This idea lends us to make two kinds of brake lights. Fully en gaged and pre-engaged. Fully engaged represents the lighting method currently being used by the auto industry. You hit your brakes and your brake light comes on. Pre-engaged (passive engaged) brake lights represent brake lights that would be displayed with a lesser light intensity to prewarn the driver behind your vehicle that your vehicle may soon brake. They would go on when the gas pedal is released for cars and trucks with automatic transmissions, and would go on when a vehicle with a clutch mov es to neutral and/or when the gas pedal is released. These brake lights could be either a seperate bulb of lesser wattage, or can even be incorporated into the regular brake light bulbs as a secondary filament.

Whether pre-engaged (passive engaged) brake lighting becomes a reality on the less sophisticated automobiles or not, a quicker brake signal makes sense. Todays cars are more responsive than ever, but drivers are drivers. We need all the reaction time we can get. This idea will give it.

Sometimes a simple idea can make our life simpler, and safer. Feel free to call or write if you feel this idea merits your interests in vehicle safety. I hope for the sake of drivers abroad that this idea is one the auto industry will embrace.

ID: 77-5.3

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/12/77

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

TO: COBEC Brazilian Trading & Warehousing Corp. of the U.S.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of September 20, 1977, to Mr. Armstrong of this agency regarding the Puma kit car import program. Although your letter is not clear, you appear to be seeking an interpretation as to the applicability of our regulations to the Puma and its proper classification for import into the United States.

FACTS

Our opinion is based upon the factual representations made in your letter, in the advertising brochure issued by Puma Kit Cars, Inc., and an article "Brazilian Puma" by Thos. L. Bryant which appeared in the October 1977 issue of Road & Track (pp. 112-13). As we understand it, Pumas are shipped to the United States both as complete vehicles and in kit form. The completed vehicles are imported and sold by a Kansas firm. The kit vehicles on the other hand are imported by COBEC and sold to Puma Kit Cars, Inc. for further sale to individual purchasers.

The manufacturing operations that occur to the Puma kit car before it is exported are reported by Road & Track as:

"For normal production, Puma [Brazil] buys the [new VW] floorplan assemblies from the factory and removes 10 in. from its length . . . . All cables and fluid lines are removed and replaced with shorter versions. The modified chassis is then fed into the assembly line and if the final unit is to be sold locally, a finished car emerges from the other end. For those slated for export to the U.S. a few steps are left out. These consist of the installation of the front and rear ends and the engine. Aside from these omissions the completed cars are identical."

The completeness of the initial manufacturing process is highlighted in the Puma Kit Car Inc., brochure:

The Puma kit car is complete in every sense of the word: body, special floor pan, wiring, gas tank, rear torsion, steering wheel, tinted safety glass, roll up windows and plush upholstery. All you require in addition to the Puma kit is a VW ball joint front end, swing axle transmission, VW or Porsche engine, wheels, tires, and a battery."

The missing components are available from Puma Kit Car according to the brochure:

"In addition to the basic Puma Kit, complete factory engines, front end assemblies including disc brakes and brand new transaxle assemblies are available. You can assemble a new Puma car from off the shelf factory parts." CLASSIFICATION OF THE PUMA KIT CAR FOR IMPORTATION

COBEC commercial invoices of July 1977 show that Puma kit cars have been identified as "Replacement Body GTE for Volkswagen 1966" and "Replacement Chassis for Volkswagen 1966." The merchandise appears invariably identified as replacement equipment for 1966 Volkswagens.

As the Federal motor vehicle safety standards did not apply to passenger cars and equipment until January 1, 1968, it appears that COBEC is attempting to argue that the merchandise is not subject to Federal regulation under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. But generally Federal standards covering replacement equipment apply as of the date the equipment is manufactured. Therefore, any item of motor vehicle equipment supplied in the Puma kit that is covered by a Federal motor vehicle safety standard (e.g. headlamps, glazing) must comply with it.

RESPONSIBILITY OF COBEC AS IMPORTER OF THE PUMA KIT CARS

If an equipment item does not comply, Pumas must be entered pursuant to 19 CFR 12.80(b)(2)(iii) as nonconforming motor vehicle equipment that will be brought into compliance before being offered for sale, and COBEC is responsible for submission of compliance documentation under 19 CFR 12.80(b)(2)(iii).

I hope that this is responsive to your request.

SINCERELY,

September 20, 1977.

Francis Armstrong, Director Office of Standards Enforcement Motor Vehicle Programs NHTSA, U.S. Department of Transportation

RE: PUMA KIT CAR IMPORT PROGRAM

With reference to the above-mentioned program we would like to express our opinion that these kits are in every way incomplete cars and, therefore, we so classified them on your Special Customs Invoice.

As per your request and for your own evaluation we enclose pictures as well as the following pertinent technical data about our kit car.

1. Our kit car consists of:

- fiber glass body shell,

- metal floor pan,

- AS1 safety glass (U.S. approved windshield),

- AS2 tempered glass, side and rear windows, - full set of dash control instruments,

- one set of seal beam headlights, (General Electric), U.S. made,

- one set of tale lights (U.S. approved).

2. Optional items:

- Seats and safety steering wheel.

3. Our vehicles do not include the following items:

- wheels,

- tires,

- front and rear axle,

- differential,

- transmission,

- motor,

- suspension components,

- steering components,

- break components,

- gas system,

- heating system.

These kits are intended to the sale to "DO IT YOURSELF MECHANIC" who in turn might have an old Volkswagen. By using components of the vehicle and the kit car it is possible to assemble. Within a time frame of 80 hrs., a small personal 2 (two) passenger car.

Please note that all of the service is accomplished by the owner himself. We feel that this explanation is sufficient for all your requirements, however, in case you need any additional information please do not hesitate to contact us.

Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter, since as of this moment we have ceased all current shipments into the U.S. until your final decision has been reached.

COBEC BRAZILIAN TRADING & WAREHOUSING CORP. OF THE U.S.

Egon Poisl Assistant Treasurer

(Graphics omitted) (Graphics omitted)

ID: aiam4565

"Dear Mr. Ditlow: This responds to your most recent letter to m concerning retrofitting of cars originally equipped with rear seat lap belts with rear seat lap/shoulder belts. In my November 1, 1988 letter to you, I explained that we have sought the voluntary cooperation of manufacturers to make retrofit kits available for those customers who desire them and that the vehicle manufacturers have responded positively to our efforts. I also explained that the fact that retofit kits are not available for all model lines produced by each manufacturer does not suggest some failure on the part of the vehicle manufacturers or of our policy to encourage the manufacturers to make such retrofit kits available. In a November 7, 1988 letter, you asserted that my November 1 letter 'reflects such callous disregard and ignorance of the facts as to defy belief that you are doing little more than covering up for a GM policy that will kill rear seat passengers.' You stated that you would welcome a 'substantive response' to this letter. I am happy to be able to give you such a response. Let me begin by emphasizing that the lap belts in the rear seat of most vehicles on the road today are effective in reducing the risk of death and injury in a crash. Based on our analysis of a number of crash data files, we estimate that rear seat lap belts saved about 100 lives and prevented over 1500 serious injuries in 1987 alone. These figures would have been substantially higher if more rear seat occupants used their lap belts. In fact, if everyone had worn their rear seat lap belts each time they rode in a vehicle, those belts would have saved about 660 lives and prevented more than 10,000 serious injuries in 1987 alone. These facts illustrate that the fastest and most effective way to save the greatest number of lives and prevent the greatest number of injuries is to convince the public to use the safety belts, including the rear seat lap belts, that are in their vehicles every time they ride in those vehicles. Because of these facts, I do not accept your assertion that GM's policy of not providing rear seat lap/shoulder belt retrofit kits for a few of their past models will 'kill people.' To the extent that reckless assertions like this tell the public that they should not wear their rear seat lap belts, it is unfortunate that you have chosen to divert attention away from the overriding issue of convincing the public to use their safety belts, and instead chosen to mislead the public about the quality of their safety belts. Even though lap belts have been proven to be effective in reducing the risk of death and injury in a crash, we agree that properly designed lap and shoulder belts have the potential to offer even greater crash protection than lap belts alone. For this reason, we have proposed to require that all new passenger cars sold in the United States be equipped with rear seat lap and shoulder belts beginning in the 1990 model year. Additionally, we have actively sought the car manufacturers' cooperation in providing retrofit kits to interested consumers. As you may know, every domestic manufacturer and many foreign manufacturers now offer retrofit kits for many of their vehicle models. You objected to General Motors' (GM) statement in its Information Bulletin that retrofit kits are not offered for its 1978-88 Oldsmobile Cutlass, Buick Regal, Chevrolet Monte Carlo, or Pontiac Grand Prix, 'because GM safety engineers have concluded that in these cars, a rear seat lap/shoulder belt combination would not enhance the safety offered by the lap belt alone.' You asserted that since Leonard Evans, a GM employee, has concluded that lap/shoulder belts are significantly more effective than lap belts and since the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is proposing to require rear seat lap/shoulder belts, there is no 'possible scientific basis' for GM's conclusion. NHTSA's proposal reflects our tentative conclusion that rear seat lap/shoulder belts that are designed and installed at the factory have the potential to offer even greater crash protection than lap belts alone for vehicles in general. However, any particular vehicle model's floor pan design, seat stiffness, and seat design (as it relates to occupant posture) can affect the possibility of an occupant submarining under a lap/shoulder belt system in a crash. During the design and production of the vehicle, the vehicle manufacturer can take these factors into account to minimize the likelihood of such submarining and its associated consequences. However, this is emphatically not true for vehicles that were not originally engineered and designed to use rear seat lap/shoulder belts as original equipment. With respect to these vehicles, the effectiveness of a retrofitted rear seat lap and shoulder safety belt system may well depend on the belt system's compatability with the vehicle and the installation of the belt system. The suitability of a particular vehicle for retrofitting is therefore a complex question. It is our view that the judgment as to whether a retrofit lap/shoulder belt system should be installed in a particular vehicle is best made by a vehicle manufacturer, which is most familiar with the detailed seat and structural design and crash performance of the car. I hope this information is helpful. Please let me know if you have any further questions or would like some additional information on this subject. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel";

ID: aiam4450

"Dear Mr. Stahl: Re: McCoy Tire Service Center D.A. No. CF696 Thi responds to your letter asking about requirements concerning the importation of tire casings. According to your letter, a routine inspection by the California Highway Patrol (CHP) of a local school district's buses disclosed recapped tires on a bus which did not have DOT markings on the tires. The CHP learned that the tire casings were originally designed for use by a rubber tire train in Japan and were new tires that had been imported for recapping purposes. The tire casings were imported as slicks (no tread design), and the slick was removed. The tires were then recapped using the 'bondag' process and sold to the school district. You asked whether it is permissible to import this type of tire casing and, if so, whether the particular type of tire casing meets Department of Transportation standards. Your questions are responded to below. Our opinions are based on the facts provided in your letter. Before addressing your specific questions, I will provide background information about requirements for tires. All tires which are subject to a Federal motor vehicle safety standard must have the symbol 'DOT' molded into the sidewall by the manufacturer or retreader, if those tires are to be imported into the United States. This symbol represents a certification by the manufacturer or retreader that the tire complies with all requirements of the applicable safety standards. New tires for use on school buses are subject to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. ll9 (49 CFR 571.119). Section S6.5(a) of the standard requires that all new tires for use on motor vehicles other than passenger cars have the DOT symbol molded into the sidewall by the manufacturer. Tires without this symbol may not be legally imported. This is also true for used tires manufactured on or after the effective date of Standard No. ll9, March l, l975, with one narrow exception. Used tires for use on motor vehicles other than passenger cars which have less than 2/32 inch of tread remaining and which are imported solely for the purpose of being retreaded in this country prior to resale may be imported without a DOT symbol on the sidewall. I have enclosed a copy of a June l8, l98l letter to Mr. Roy Littlefield, which explains in detail the requirements of this narrow exception to the requirements that used tires have a DOT symbol on the sidewall to be legally imported. No Federal safety standard is applicable to retreaded tires for use on motor vehicles other than passenger cars. They may be imported without certification of compliance by the retreader. However, these tires must have a tire identification number marked on the sidewall, per the requirements of 49 CFR Part 574. Your first question is whether it is permissible to import the type of tire casing at issue. As indicated above, new tires for use on school buses may not be imported without the DOT symbol. However, it is our opinion that the casings at issue are materials needing further manufacturing operations to become completed items of motor vehicle equipment, rather than finished items of motor vehicle equipment (tires which could lawfully be used or sold as they are). This opinion is based on the fact that the casings are being imported as slicks, which generally cannot be used on the public highways under state laws since they have no tread, and since the casings are being imported for purposes of recapping. Your second question is whether the casings at issue meet Department of Transportation standards. A key issue in answering this question is whether the tires are considered to be retreaded tires or new tires subject to Standard No. ll9. It is our opinion that any tires manufactured by applying new tread to new casings are considered new tires rather than retreaded tires, and are subject to the same requirements as any other new tires. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration defines 'retreaded' as 'manufactured by a process in which a tread is attached to a casing.' The term 'casing' is defined as 'a used tire to which additional tread may be attached for the purpose of retreading.' See 49 CFR Part 57l.ll7 and 49 CFR Part 574.3(b). In the situation you described in your letter, the casings were not used tires at the time the 'recapping' took place. Instead, they were simply new tires (originally designed for use on a rubber tire train) which were imported for recapping purposes. These casings would not be considered used tires until they have actually been used (presumably on a train prior to importation, or on the highway, with the new tread attached, in the United States.) Since the tires at issue were not used tires at the time they were recapped, they are not retreaded tires but are instead new tires, subject to Standard No. ll9. The tires would appear not to comply with Standard No. ll9, given the absence of the DOT symbol. Your letter states that the original manufacturer of the tires has stated that the tires are not suitable by any means for highway use. If the tires are not suitable for highway use after they have been recapped, they may contain a safety-related defect. See l5 U.S.C. l4ll et seq. We note that the defect provisions of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act apply to items of motor vehicle equipment regardless of whether there is an applicable safety standard. We hope this information is helpful, and we are referring your letter to our Office of Enforcement. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel";

ID: aiam3517

Dear Mr. Sharp: This responds to your recent letter requesting information on behalf o your constituent, Mr. Mark Lecher. Mr. Lecher is under the impression that there is some new law 'banning cars with dark-tinted windows.' He is particularly concerned that he will have to replace the windows on his Datson (sic) pickup.; The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration issues safet standards and regulations governing the manufacture of new motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. There is a safety standard which specifies performance and location requirements for glazing materials used on motor vehicles (Standard No. 205). However, the requirements of this standard as they relate to tinting have not changed in years. The standard currently requires the windshield and front side windows in cars and trucks (i.e., windows necessary for driving visibility) to have a luminous transmittance of at least 70 percent. Other windows may be tinted as darkly as the manufacturer wishes. If the windows in Mr. Lecher's pickup were factory-installed, they are presumably in compliance with Standard No. 205. Therefore, Mr. Lecher should not worry about having to alter his windows. There is no new Federal law or regulation, nor any proposed rule, to change the requirements of Standard No. 205 in this regard.; Mr. Lecher might be referring to a State law or regulation. W understand that some states are considering prohibitions against the use of dark tinting films which can be applied to existing vehicle windows. Such State laws would not require Mr. Lecher to alter the windows on his pickup, however, if the windows are the original glazing installed by the manufacturer in compliance with the Federal standard. This is because Section 103(d) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, as amended 1974 (15 U.S.C. 1392, *et seq*.) pre-empts any state law which is applicable to the same aspect of performance as a Federal safety standard.; Standard No. 205 would pre-empt any State law which attempted t specify the amount of tinting that a piece of new motor vehicle glazing could have. Standard No. 205 would not pre-empt a State law which prohibits the applications of films or decals on existing glazing, however, since Standard 205 does not apply to the use of glazing after it has been purchased by a consumer. I suggest that Mr. Lecher contact his State Department of Motor Vehicles to find out about any activity in this area.; I am enclosing a copy of the Vehicle Safety Act for Mr. Lecher' information.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam4827

Dear Mr. Bethurum: Your letter of December 14, 1990, to the 'U.S National Highway Safety Commission' for reply. Our agency, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, is the Federal agency responsible for establishing and enforcing the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. Your client, Mr. E.D. Farnsworth, has asked about 'when and how side lights adjacent to the main head lights came to be first used with head lights on automobiles.' You have, in turn, asked to be apprised of the regulations which govern new headlamp designs for automobiles and other motor vehicles. The Federal regulations that apply to motor vehicle headlamps are found in 49 C.F.R. 571.108, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment. The current version of the CFR volume (Parts 400 to 999) containing that standard is updated to October 1, l990. We are uncertain as to what you mean by 'side lights adjacent to the main head lights'. Standard No. 108 requires amber or white parking lamps on the front of passenger cars and other types of motor vehicles whose overall width is less than 80 inches, amber turn signal lamps, and amber front side marker lamps. Other types of lamps that are sometimes found on the front, and on the side at the front, are fog lamps and cornering lamps. They are not required by Standard No. 108, and are permissible as long as they do not impair the effectiveness of the lighting equipment required by the standard. Standard No. 108, which has been in effect for passenger cars since January l, l969 (the mandatory requirement for a side marker lamp replaced the earlier provision giving manufacturers a choice of lamp or reflector effective January 1, l970), has always prescribed lamp location in general terms. Thus, parking lamps and headlamps are to be installed 'at the front' and 'as far apart as practicable' (Table IV of Standard No. 108). Similarly, turn signals are to be located 'at or near the front' and 'as far apart as practicable.' Amber side marker lamps are to be on the side but placed 'as far to the front as practicable.' Because Standard No. 108 does not otherwise specify lamp location, we surmise that the head lamp and adjacent side lamp relationship to which you refer resulted from the choice of the vehicle manufacturer within the overall general parameters of the Federal specifications. If you have further questions, we shall be pleased to answer them. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel;

ID: nht79-1.40

DATE: 08/21/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Ford Motor Company

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

AUG 21 1979 NOA-30

Mr. J. C. Eckhold, Director Automotive Safety Office Ford Motor Company The American Road Dearborn, Michigan 48121

Dear Mr. Eckhold:

This is in response to your letter of August 3, 1979, asking whether Ford may ship to distributors and dealers vehicles with bumper guards, needed for compliance with Part 581, Bumper Standard (49 CFR Part 581), placed inside the vehicles for installation prior to sale of the vehicles to consumers. You state that the bumper guards, which would be attached by dealers and others making use of pre-processed mounting holes in the vehicle bumpers, would reduce railroad car capacity, if installed prior to shipment. You also suggest that absence of reference in the Customs regulations (19 CFR Part 12) to readily attachable components needed to comply with regulations issued under the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act (15 U.S.C. 1901), may lead to complications in the importation of vehicles prior to installation of readily attachable bumper components.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has no objection to the shipment of vehicles with readily attachable bumper components stored in the vehicles for later installation, provided the components are attached before the vehicles are offered for sale to the first purchaser for purposes other than resale. Further, regulations governing importation of motor vehicles (19 CFR 12.80) apply only to compliance with Federal Motor vehicle safety standards, as set forth in 49 CFR Part 571, and the question of compliance with Part 581, therefore, should not arise.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

August 3, 1979

Mr. Richard J. Hipolit, Esq. Office of Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, S. W. Washington, D. C. 20590

Dear Mr. Hipolit:

This is to request an interpretation of Part 581, Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations, as to readily attachable and detachable equipment that constitute portions of the bumper system on passenger cars subject to the "Phase II" requirements of Part 581 that become effective on and after September 1, 1979.

Unlike regulations issued under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, Part 581 does not expressly provide that a vehicle which conforms to the criteria of the bumper standard with readily attachable equipment installed -- such as bumper guards --is deemed also to be in conformity when shipped with the readily attachable equipment placed in the vehicle for installation by dealers or others prior to the first retail sale (by means of designated, pre-processed installation points on the vehicle, e.g., bumper guard mounting holes pierced in the bumper).

A number of practical problems can be expected to arise in the absence of appropriate interpretation of Part 581 to deal with the realities of manufacture and distribution. As Mr. D. G. McGuigan informed you last week, Ford has determined, for example, that substantial and wasteful transportation complications can be avoided on one of its 1980 model passenger car lines by shipping front and rear bumper guards inside the vehicles, to be installed by dealers prior to retail sale. That situation involves both tariff restrictions and limitations on the capacity of tri-level rail cars. For 1979 models of the cars in question, shipped without bumper guards, each tri-level rail car can accommodate 18 vehicles. The same capacity would be available for 1980 models if bumper guards were not installed until the vehicles reached their final destinations. If bumper guards are installed at the factory, however, only 15 units could be carried on each rail car, and the resulting three unit reduction in carrying capacity would increase Ford's requirement for rail car use, I am informed, by approximately 151 rail cars per month.

Similarly, in view of the fact that imported cars may be transported to this country with readily attachable equipment placed inside the vehicle to help minimize transit damage on the high seas, we foresee the possibility of unintended complications also arising for imported vehicles if the readily attachable equipment issue is not dealt with. Part 12 of Title 19, the Customs Service regulation jointly developed by the Departments of Transportation and Treasury, expressly recognizes and deals with readily attachable equipment for Safety Act purposes, but there appears to be no parallel provision concerning regulations, such as Part 581, established under the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act.

We believe that the requested interpretation is consistent with the intent and purposes of Part 581 and is in the public interest because it will serve to avoid economic waste in the manufacture and transport of passenger cars while preserving for retail purchasers the protection that the performance requirements of Part 581 are intended to provide. Because production of 1980 models are in the process of manufacture and shipments expected to begin in the next two weeks, we should appreciate this request receiving expedited attention.

Sincerely,

J. C. Eckhold Director Automotive Safety Office