ID: nht73-5.34

DATE: 10/30/73

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Robert L. Carter; NHTSA

TO: Worcester Polytechnical Institute

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Thank you for your letter of October 10, 1973, and your inquiry concerning Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 301, and enforcement actions concerning this standard.

Standard No. 301, Fuel Tanks, Fuel Tank Filler Pipes, and Fuel Tank Connections - Passenger Cars, was effective January 1, 1968, and defined the amount of fuel leakage permissible incidental to a 30 mile-per-hour, fixed barrier collision. A copy of this standard is enclosed for your information.

Historically, this standard has not been the basis of any fines, penalties, or recalls as far as the industry is concerned; however, it has been the basis for two relatively minor, voluntary design changes within the industry.

Recently, actions have been taken to substantially upgrade Standard No. 301. An amendment to the standard published August 20, 1973 (38 F.R. 22397) expanded the standard to include all motor vehicles under 10,000 pounds, except motorcycles, cover the entire fuel system and provide a rollover provision. A Notice of Proposed Rule Making, also published August 20, 1973 (38 F.R. 22417) provided(Illegible Words) and rear impact requirements, as well as a dynamic rollover provision. Copies of these two actions are also enclosed for your information.

(Illegible Word) trust your inquiry has been satisfactorily answered. If we can(Illegible Word) of any further assisunce, pld.^&>> 8!>080>>`#S,{@0xe@ q"(td8Ev? yhRqsU89<.zq1[d`??~?~?~ <>ODY>

ID: 11909RLX.LAB

Ms. Renee Brunson
Renolux Paris
5553 Ravenswood Rd., Suite 103-104
Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33312

Dear Ms. Brunson:

This responds to your May 13, 1996, letter and May 14 telephone call to Deirdre Fujita of my staff, asking about the labeling requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 213, AChild Restraint Systems.@

Your letter is one of several we recently received concerning your company=s plan to sell imported child seats. In previous correspondence between your company (formerly Baby Comfort Inc.) and this office, it became apparent that certain child seats Baby Comfort wished to sell could not meet the requirements of Standard 213 and thus could not be certified to the standard or sold to the public. (April 16, 1996, letter to David Baret, President of Baby Comfort; April 29 letter to Lawrence Feder, counsel to Mr. Baret.) You told Ms. Fujita that the seats you now ask about are different from the nonconforming seats and that you believe these can meet the standard.

You ask a series of 14 questions about Standard 213. Your questions are restated below, followed by our answers.

Question 1: Can the specified labels in the standards be incorporated together? Are there any requirements or restrictions on which statements can be combined? (As long as the wording and placement of labels is according to standards.)

Answer: The information that S5.5.1 of Standard 213 requires to be permanently labeled on each child restraint can appear on one label. The standard has no restriction on which statements can

be combined. Note, however, that S5.5.3 requires some of the required statements to be visible when the system is installed. All the information on the restraint should be presented clearly.

2. Does the wording on the labels have to [appear] exactly as in the standards? Or can we add something to emphasize a point?

Generally, the wording must be as specified. However, manufacturers may present information in addition to the required information, if the additional information is presented in a manner that is not likely to obscure or confuse the meaning of the required information. See, e.g., April 17, 1989 letter to Robert Craig (labeling child seats with metric units), copy enclosed.

3. Can the instruction booklet be anywhere on the seat, possibly under the base?

You ask about S5.6.1.6 of Standard 213, which requires each add-on (portable) child restraint system to have a location on the restraint for storing the manufacturer=s instructions. The storage location may be under the base.

4. Can labels be sewn onto the seat cover? (Made out of a different material than the stickers, of course, and permanently affixed by sewing.)

The child seat cover (pad) may be labeled with the specified information. Under S5.5.1, the information must be permanent. Also, S5.7 of Standard 213 requires Aeach material used in a child restraint system@ to conform to the flammability resistance requirements of Standard 302. Labels affixed to a child restraint must comply with Standard 302, including sewn labels.

5. The label specified in S5.5(i) [sic] with regards to the use of the vehicle=s belt system does not apply to our seats as written in the standards. Can this be modified to suit our particular seat?

The statement specified in S5.5.2(i) is required only for booster seats, which we understand your seat is not. Thus, your seat need not have this statement.

While you are not required to label your seats with the S5.5.2(i) statement, you asked in a telephone call whether you may voluntarily add a statement similar to that of S5.5.2(i), because your seat can be used with both a vehicle=s lap belt or a lap and shoulder belt system. Your statement would direct users Ato install the seat using the vehicle=s belt system as specified in the manufacturer=s instructions.@ Our answer is the statement may be on the label. It would not obscure or confuse labeling required by Standard 213. In fact, it might help ensure that the seat is properly used.

6. Our seats are not belt positioning and no inversion tests were performed to determine aircraft compatibility. Do they require the label - NOT CERTIFIED FOR AIRCRAFT USE?

If the seat is not a belt-positioning seat (defined in S4 of the standard), it is excluded from the requirement of S5.5.2(n) that it must be labeled AThis Restraint is Not Certified for Use in Aircraft.@ Belt- positioning seats must be so labeled because the Federal Aviation Administration and NHTSA determined they are not suitable for aircraft use. The agencies have also recently determined that harnesses and backless booster seats must also be so labeled. (See enclosed final rule, 61 FR 28423, June 4, 1996.)

7. For instructions - as long as all statements are made according to standards - can we add any other information we wish regarding our seats? Are there any restrictions?

You ask about S5.6, which requires each add-on restraint system to be accompanied by installation instructions that includes certain specified information. You may add other information to the instructions, provided that the information would not cause confusion.

8. Are there Federal Label standards for materials [material content]? For any other states other than California?

There is no Federal requirement that you label the material content of the restraint. As for information on state requirements, we suggest you contact the Department of Motor Vehicles in the states the child seat will be sold or used.

9. Are there any requirements as to whether or not the seat (plastic part) has to have any information stamped into it? Or with raised letters?

Some manufacturers may have chosen to mold (or emboss) the required labeling into a restraint to ensure the permanency of the labeling. While NHTSA does not require molding or embossing the information, in a 1979 final rule upgrading Standard 213 NHTSA urged manufacturers, whenever possible, to mold the label into the surface of the restraint rather than use a paper label. 44 FR 72131, December 13, 1979.

10. I have noticed small numbers on some of the labels affixed to other carseats, do you know if it is some Federal requirement or what these numbers are? Must we show a patent number, etc.?

As discussed on the phone, we do not know what small numbers you refer to. Standard 213 does not require you to show a patent number.

11. Since we distribute the carseats, can our name be on the label for the recall information instead of the manufacturer, stating we are the distributor? We will be handling all inquiries regarding the seats.

Your company=s name may be on the label. We consider a Amanufacturer@ to include a company importing motor vehicle equipment.

12. Can we send labels for NHTSA approval before we print all of them? Is there someplace we could send a complete, labeled seat for approval?

NHTSA does not approve products or labeling on products. The responsibility for compliance with the labeling requirements, as well as all other requirements of the standard, rests with the manufacturer. Although we cannot recommend any testing facility, we are aware that the following facilities conduct tests of child restraints:

Calspan Corporation 4455 Genesee St. Buffalo, NY 14255

Detroit Testing Laboratory, Inc. 7111 E. Eleven Mile Rd. Warren, MI 48092

Child Passenger Protection University of Michigan c/o UMTRI 2901 Baxter Rd. Ann Arbor, MI 48019-2150

13. What does Aoutboard@ seating position mean?

You ask this with regard to S5.5.2(l), which requires child restraints to be labeled with an installation diagram showing the system installed in the Aright front outboard seating position . . . .@ AOutboard designated seating position@ is defined in '571.3 of NHTSA=s regulations. The position you ask about is the front right seating position.

14. Does NHTSA require anything (labels, warnings, etc.) on the box or packaging?

The answer is no, with regard to boxes or packages for child restraint systems.

If you have other questions, please call Ms. Fujita at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Samuel J. Dubbin Chief Counsel

Enclosure

ref:213 d:6/7/96

ID: 1983-1.27

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/21/83

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: China United Trading Corp. Ltd. -- Yang Ru-Tang, General Manager

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your letter asking about the requirements for importing tires into this country from China. I have enclosed a copy of a 1981 letter I sent to Mr. Deng Shin-Wen, the chief engineer of the Shanghai No. 1 Rubber Plant. That letter generally explains the requirements which must be met in order to import tires into this country. While that letter answers many of your questions, I will repeat the requirements to ensure that you understand them, and respond to those questions not covered in the previous letter.

To receive a DOT code mark, a tire manufacturer must complete the enclosed application form and return it to the address shown on the form. A separate application must be filed for each manufacturing plant, and a separate code mark will be assigned to each plant.

Before a code mark is assigned, the tire manufacturer must designate an agent for the service of process, according to the requirements of 49 CFR @ 551.45 (copy enclosed). That section specifies that the designation of agent must meet the following six criteria:

1. A certification that the designation is valid in form and binding on the manufacturer under the laws, corporate by-laws, or other requirements governing the making of the designation at the time and place where it is made;

2. The full legal name, principal place of business and mailing address of the manufacturer;

3. Marks, trade names, or other designations of origin of any of the manufacturer's products which do not bear his name;

4. A statement that the designation shall remain in effect until withdrawn or replaced by the manufacturer;

5. A declaration of acceptance duly signed by the agent appointed, which may be an individual, a firm, or a U.S. corporation; and

6. The full legal name and address of the designated agent.

In addition, the designation must be signed by one with authority to appoint the agent; the signer's name and title should be clearly indicated beneath his signature. When this agency has received a completed application for a code mark and a valid designation of an agent, a code mark will be assigned to the manufacturer promptly, usually within two weeks. You should note that the code mark is sent to the manufacturer at the mailing or main office address shown on the application, and not to the designated agent. The DOT code mark assigned to the manufacturer remains valid until such time as the manufacturer notifies this agency that it is no longer using that code mark.

No testing of the tires is done by this agency before assigning the DOT code mark. The United States does not use a certification process similar to the European Economic Community, in which the manufacturer is required to deliver tires to be certified to the governmental entity for approval. Instead, in the United States the individual manufacturer must certify that the tires comply with all requirements of Standard No. 109 (49 CFR @ 571.109) if they are passenger car tires or Standard No. 119 (49 CFR @ 571.119) if the tires are for use on motor vehicles other than passenger cars. I have enclosed copies of both these standards for your information. Further, this agency does not require that the certification be based on a specified number of tests or any tests at all; we only require that the certification be made with the exercise of due care on the part of the manufacturer. It is up to the individual manufacturer in the first instance to determine what data, test results, or other information it needs to enable it to certify that its tires comply with the applicable standards. Certainly, we recommend that a manufacturer selling tires in the United States test those tires according to the procedures specified in the applicable standard. Once a manufacturer determines that its tires meet the requirements of the applicable standards, it certifies that compliance by molding the letters "DOT" on one sidewall of each certified tire.

For purposes of enforcement this agency conducts spot checks of tires after they have been certified, by purchasing and testing tires according to the procedures specified in the applicable standard. If the tires pass the tests, no further steps are taken.

If the tires fail the tests and are determined not to comply with the applicable standards or if it is determined that the tires contain a safety-related defect, the manufacturer of the tires is required to remedy the problem. Section 154(a)(2)(B) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, as amended (15 U.S.C. 1414(a)(2)(B)) specifies that, in the case of tires which fail to comply with a standard or contain a safety related defect, the manufacturer may elect to either:

(1) repair the tires so that the defect or noncompliance is removed; or

(2) replace the tires with an identical or reasonably equivalent tire which does not have the defect or noncompliance.

Whichever of these options is chosen, the tire manufacturer must bear the expense and cannot charge the tire owner for the remedy.

With respect to the markings required on the sidewall of the tires, those markings and their required size and location are set forth in section S4.3 of Standard No. 109 for passenger car tires and S6.5 of Standard No. 119 for tires for use on motor vehicles other than passenger cars. 49 CFR Part Part 574 (copy enclosed) also sets forth marking requirements for all types of tires.

If you have any further questions on this subject or need further information, please feel free to contact me.

ENCLS.

Jan. 19, 1983

OCC

Raymond Peck, Administrator, Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic & Safety Administration,

Gentleman,

We are China United Trading Corp. Ltd., Shanghai Division, newly established and located at One Penn Plaza Suite 1915, 250 W 34th St., New York, N.Y. 10119, and are agent of some import & export corporations in Shanghai, China. Now China National Chemicals Import & Export Corp., Shanghai Branch, located at 27 Zhongshan Road (E.1), Shanghai, China, who are the exporter of tires manufactured in Shanghai, intends to export and sell their truck and car tires in the United States.

We understand that an application must be made and approved with a Code Number before any foreign tires can be imported and sold in the U.S. market. In this connection, we need to get the following information with your assistance.

1. Is your office the right organization for the application to be submitted?

2. Should the application be made by the manufacturers or by their agent as mentioned above? What is the procedure in detail?

3. What is the procedure for quality examination of tires before you issue the Code No. and allow importation? Do you have your own laboratories for test or appoint any ones for test? Where shall the exporters or their local agents submit samples of tires for such a test?

4. Should each size, specification of the tires be tested in this way? How many tires are necessary as samples to complete such a test?

5. Is it necessary for the tires to be tested before they are allowed to be sold or to be tested by random selection at anytime from the market after selling?

6. If the tire does not pass the sellective examination, can re-examination be made or not? Is there any restriction for the re-examination?

7. What kind of responsibility would be borne by the manufacturer if the product does not pass the quality examination requirements? Is there any penalty in this respect?

8. Would the quality records by selective examination or test report be informed to the manufacturer?

9. What kind of reponsibility should be borne by the application agent and/or the manufacturer if any quality problems arise when a vehicle is in performance?

10. After DOT approval, where and what size should the DOT Code Number be put on the tires? Besides the DOT Code Number, what else are also necessary to be shown on the tires?

11. Once the DOT approval has been obtained, how long will it remain valid?

Please send us some papers concerning the above questions, if you have any.

Your early reply and assistance will be highly appreciated.

general manager yang Ru-tang

China United Trading Corp. Ltd., Shanghai Division

ID: nht90-2.55

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: May 29, 1990

FROM: G. Nick Routh -- President, American Energetics

TO: Jere Medlin -- Office of Vehicle Safety Standards, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 8-1-90 from J.M. Fish to C. Mack (A35; Std. 205); Also attached to letter dated 5-30-90 from G.N. Routh to C. Mack

TEXT:

We are distributors of solar control window insulation film, selling our product to over 1000 installers across the United States. Over the past six years an increasing percentage of our sales are derived from "auto tint". Currently about 70% of our sa les come from the auto market. Film applied to car windows has become increasingly popular.

Unfortunately several events are putting our livelihood and the livelihoods of our customers in jeopardy. Specifically, the Justice Department has sued a number of film installers in Florida for violation of federal guidelines, at the direction of NHTSA . At the same time, a group of manufacturers in our industry are petitioning NHTSA to revise its guidelines.

We feel that NHTSA, in reviewing the guidelines, and the manufacturers, in petitioning NHTSA, are not heeding some basic points that are key to the argument. We will explain our thoughts here by posing a number of questions.

1. HAS NHTSA SURVEYED THE CONSUMING PUBLIC?

We note that NHTSA, in responding to the original petition of the film manufacturers asking for 35% VLT, cited a number of questions about the safety of film and then asked for commentary from "interested parties". We imagine that the interested parties were law enforcement agencies for the most part who clearly constitute a special interest group. Did NHTSA speak to drivers who have film on their autos?

Did NHTSA survey Florida, Texas or other Sunbelt residents, particularly those of advanced age for whom reduced glare is very important in light of cataracts, glaucoma and the like?

People who are not familar with film inevitably have a jaundiced view of auto tint, seeing it only as black material, not aware of the different light transmission properties available. You would find, if you researched the matter, that consumers vote w ith their dollars where auto tint is concerned and are generally always repeat buyers.

2. WHAT ARE THE RIGHTS OF THE STATES?

Following from the last question, we must note that perhaps 70% of auto tint sales are in the Sunbelt. This is no coincidence. It is bright in these states year around. You would no doubt find that the bulk of

sunglasses are sold in these states. Why can't individual states note the differences between each other by having differing laws that recognize their differences? Clearly, there are areas where states have differing statutes on their books regarding a utomobile accesories and aftermarket add-ons. Specifically, we are speaking of radars, the use of head phones while driving, driving lights, studded snow tires and of course, auto emissions restrictions. Of all these, auto tint stands out as an obvious area where concrete climatological factors strongly support the use of film.

We believe that most states that have written their own laws regarding film, have done so, like Florida, in the firm belief that federal guidelines apply to new car manufacture, not to the aftermarket, where a consumer may choose to customize his car, us ing the installer or mechanic as an agent, as long as state standards are adherred to.

3. WHY ARE SOME LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIALS OPPOSED TO FILM?

This is a very interesting question to us. Any auto tint installer will tell you that law enforcement officers number among his customers. Informal discussions with officers reveal that officers approach an auto with film on it as they would any car the y stop - with caution. Film will not hide weapons; a weapon may be held below the window level on any auto. Further, a van with no windows could conceal more than the darkest film.

There is an annual publication issued by the FBI dealing with the deaths of law enforcement personnel in the US at the local, state and federal level. This is the Law Enforcement Officers Killed and Assaulted part of the Uniform Crime Report. The statis tics are organized by the nature of the incident resulting in a death. It is our understanding that a study of the last ten years of these reports, together with a reading of the anecdotal information provided, nowhere points to auto tint being a key fa ctor in the demise of an officer. We hear it often repeated that officers are endangered by film on windows, but concrete evidence is not to be had, we believe.

We do think that auto film is an easy target for ignorance. Police who are not familar with the different levels of VLT will react negatively, envisioning the black material. The vast number of states that have adopted the use of 35% VLT film on the dri ver and passenger windows have all had that film reviewed by their law enforcement officers and they have approved the use of the film.

4. WHAT IS THE HARM OF IT?

There are no federal guidelines that address themselves to the large market for radar detectors, yet this product is clearly designed to assist motorists in evading speeding tickets. Auto tint is not designed to evade the law. Rather it is beneficial t o the user, protecting the car against UV damage, preventing glass shattering in the case of accidents, and reducing glare. To pursue the latter point, why is film suspect and sunglasses not? Sunglasses are normally sold in much darker shades than the window film that is being applied.

Further, there is some argument to the point that film reduces the load on auto air conditioning, particularly those films that are lightly metallized. The conclusion to be drawn here is that film has got to have some benefit in reducing gas consumption . Evidently, we would regulate something beneficial such as film, but not regulate radar detectors.

With regard to highway safety, which is what is the central issue here, there appears to be a great deal of confusion. Statistics show that the accidents and deaths per passenger mile driven have not changed significantly over the last generation while the use of auto film has grown dramatically. This would certainly indicate that films darker than FMVSS 205 would allow, which are allowed by the Sunbelt state statutes, are not contributing to a reduction in safety on our nation's highways.

5. WHY ARE CAR OWNERS ALLOWED TO DO WHAT FILM INSTALLERS ARE NOT?

If the government has determined to regulate film, we are amazed by the evident loophole that exists. From our readings of NHTSA communications, we understand that individual car owners will be permitted to install any film on their own cars, so long as they adhere to state guidelines which are more permissive than current federal quidelines. However, film installers would have to adhere to the more stringent federal guidelines. We would like to know why the installer can't be considered the agent of the car owner? Why is the installer being singled out to discriminate against?

To speak bluntly, this inequity will allow film manufacturers to sell film in the Do-It-Yourself or retall market and bypass the fllm installers who will not be allowed to install the preferred darker films which will now only be available in the DIY mar ket? In the back of our minds we feel some concern that the manufacturers, in petitioning NHTSA are not acting on our behalf. The inequity will close us out but keep them in business and dark film will still be available.

Conclusion:

If NHTSA takes the position that its guidelines preempt state guidelines it fails to recognize clear regional differences and preferences. If NHTSA leaves an inequity for individual car owners to install darker film than installers can, it discriminates unfairly. If NHTSA solicits input from organized lobby groups either pro or con on the issue and fails to speak to individuals who have film on their cars, it is not geting the full picture.

We feel strongly that the states should regulate this issue. If the federal government sees fit to regulate, it should allow film of at least 35% VLT on the driver passenger windows, which is agreeable to the southern states who use the bulk of the prod uct. Further, if NHTSA regulates, it should not discriminate as to who applies the material.

We feel that we, our fellow distributors numbering perhaps over 30 across the US, and the over 5000 installers across the US are in jeopardy of losing our livelihoods without a hearing. Were we organized into a strong lobby group with resources we might be better able to deal with federal

institutions. We have two allies - plain talk and over half a million car owners a year who have film installed on their car.

ID: 22250

Trooper Dene Kay
Utah Highway Patrol
P.O. Box 1112
St. George, UT 84771





Dear Trooper Kay:

This responds to your letter to this agency regarding Federal standards on "altering" motor vehicles, specifically with regard to taillights, door handles, and windshield wipers. I will begin with some background information on National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) standards and then address each of your questions in turn.

Background

Chapter 301 of Title 49, United States Code (the Act), authorizes NHTSA to issue safety standards for new motor vehicles and new motor vehicle equipment. All motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment manufactured or imported for sale in the U.S. must comply with all applicable Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) set forth in 49 CFR Part 571. Manufacturers of motor vehicles must certify compliance of their products in accordance with 49 CFR Part 567, Certification (copy enclosed). Also enclosed is a brochure entitled "Information for New Manufacturers of Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Equipment," which includes a listing of FMVSS that apply to different vehicle type classifications.

Persons altering a new motor vehicle prior to its first retail sale to a consumer are considered vehicle alterers under NHTSA's certification regulation, 49 CFR 567.7, Requirements for Persons who Alter Certified Vehicles. A person who alters a previously certified motor vehicle must affix an additional certification label to the vehicle which states that the vehicle, as altered, conforms to all applicable FMVSS.

Manufacturers, distributors, dealers, or motor vehicle repair businesses modifying a motor vehicle after its first retail sale are prohibited by 49 U.S.C. 30122 from knowingly making 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 FMVSS. However, the "make inoperative" provision does not prohibit consumers from modifying their own vehicles, even if such modifications adversely affect the compliance of the vehicle with the FMVSS. Such modifications may, nevertheless, be regulated by State law.

I will now address each of your specific questions.

Taillights

You state that individuals are installing clear taillight lenses with no red reflectors. The Federal requirements for motor vehicle lighting equipment are established by FMVSS No. 108 (49 C.F.R. 571.108), Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment, which applies to lighting equipment on new vehicles and replacement equipment for that original lighting equipment. Paragraph S5.8, Replacement Equipment, of FMVSS No. 108 requires lighting equipment manufactured to replace original lighting equipment to be designed to conform to FMVSS No. 108.

Table I and Table III of FMVSS No. 108 require reflex reflectors (on the rear and the sides of the vehicle at the rear), tail lamps, and stop lamps to be red in color. The color red is defined by Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) Standard J578c, Color Specifications for Electric Signaling Devices, February 1977, which S5.1.5 of Standard No. 108 incorporates by reference. Thus, the manufacture of clear lenses or lamps intended to replace lenses or lamps whose original color of light emitted was red is a violation of S5.8 of FMVSS No. 108, and the manufacture, importation, and sale of clear lenses or lamps for these purposes is a violation of 49 U.S.C. 30112. You also state that these taillight lenses do not have red reflectors; this too would be a violation.

If a noncompliant lamp or lens is installed as original equipment, the vehicle manufacturer is in violation of FMVSS No. 108. If a noncompliant lamp or lens is installed by a manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or motor vehicle repair business as a replacement item, that entity is in violation of 49 U.S.C. 30122. Note, however, that no federal laws or safety standards prohibit an owner of a vehicle from installing the clear lenses, even if the installation renders inoperative the compliance of the vehicle with an applicable safety standard.

You should note that many lamps such as you describe have been recalled. Many were also missing side markers and side reflectors in red.

Whether it is legal to drive a vehicle with clear lenses installed by the vehicle's owner is a question to be answered under the laws in effect where the vehicle is driven. While we cannot provide an opinion about Utah law, we note that our search of the Utah administrative code showed Rule R714-200-3, "Standards for Vehicle Lights and Illuminating Devices," incorporates FMVSS No. 108 as the standard governing motor vehicle lighting equipment. Thus, it appears that motor vehicle lighting equipment that does not comply with FMVSS No. 108 may also be illegal for use in your state.

Door Handles

You state that individuals are removing vehicles' outside door handles and replacing them with hidden switches to open the doors. FMVSS No. 206 (49 C.F.R. 571.206), Door Locks and Door Retention Components, applies to new motor vehicles and includes requirements that may affect this type of modification. The standard does not require that motor vehicle doors have outside door handles. However, the standard does require each motor vehicle door to "be equipped with a locking mechanism with an operating means in the interior of the vehicle." (49 C.F.R. 571.206, S4.1.3). When the locking mechanism on the side front door is engaged, "the outside door handle or other outside latch release control shall be inoperative." (S4.1.3.1, emphasis added). When the locking mechanism on the side rear door is engaged, "both the outside and inside door handles or other latch release controls shall be inoperative." (S4.1.3.2, emphasis added).

We consider the hidden switches you described in your letter to be "other latch release controls." Thus, these hidden switches must be inoperative when the locking mechanism on the doors is engaged.

If these hidden switches are installed by an alterer prior to first sale, then the alterer must certify that the vehicle continues to comply with all of the safety standards affected by the alteration. If the switches are installed by a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business after first sale, the installation must not render inoperative the compliance of the vehicle with any applicable safety standard, including FMVSS No. 206. However, no federal laws or safety standards prohibit an owner of a vehicle from installing the switches, even if the installation renders inoperative the compliance of the vehicle with any applicable safety standard. Such a modification could, however, be regulated by State law.

Windshield Wipers

You also state that individuals are removing vehicles' windshield wipers and replacing them with "just one large wiper." FMVSS No. 104 (49 C.F.R. 571.104), Windshield Wiping and Washing Systems, specifies windshield wiper requirements for new passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, and buses.

The essential feature of a windshield wiper system, from a safety standpoint, is its ability to clear a specific portion of the windshield. The number of wipers necessary to provide the driver with a sufficient field of view is not specified in FMVSS No. 104. Therefore, the number of wipers is immaterial so long as the minimum percentages of critical areas are cleared.

All of the aforementioned vehicles must have a power-driven windshield wiping system that meets specific frequency or speed requirements, e.g., cycles per minute, as identified in the standard. FMVSS No. 104 requires that passenger car windshield wiping systems wipe that specified percentages of the critical windshield areas defined in that standard and SAE Recommended Practice 903a, May 1966. As you will see in copies of the enclosed documents, defining these critical windshield areas is a complex process.

Additionally, FMVSS No. 104 requires that passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, and buses have windshield washing systems. A passenger car's windshield washing system in conjunction with its associated wiping system shall clear the critical windshield areas identified above. For multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, and buses, the standard states that the critical windshield areas may be specified by the vehicle manufacturer.

The number of windshield wipers required is not specified by this standard.

If the single wiper described in your letter is installed by an alterer prior to first sale, then the alterer must certify that the vehicle continues to comply with all of the safety standards affected by the alteration. If the wiper is installed by a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business after first sale, the installation must not render inoperative the compliance of the vehicle with any applicable safety standard, including FMVSS No. 104. However, no federal laws or safety standards prohibit an owner of a vehicle from installing the wiper, even if the installation renders inoperative the compliance of the vehicle with any applicable safety standard. Such a modification could, however, be regulated by State law.

I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any further questions, please contact Mr. Dion Casey in my office at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosures
ref:104
d.3/8/01

ID: GF005146

Mr. Milo Plasil
Intertech
2629 Purdue Avenue
Los Angeles, CA 90064

Dear Mr. Plasil:

This responds to your e-mail to George Feygin of my staff in which you ask several questions regarding 49 CFR Part 555 (Part 555). Part 555 provides a means by which manufacturers of motor vehicles may obtain a temporary exemption from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) of certain motor vehicles from compliance with one or more Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) or with NHTSAs bumper standard.

You ask about complex fact scenarios. We have simplified and restated your questions as we have understood them, and follow each question with our answer.

1. Suppose a manufacturer builds vehicles from various new parts and subassemblies. Later, its Part 555 petition is granted. Can a vehicle assembled from the parts prior to the agencys grant of the Part 555 petition be entered into interstate commerce as "used," "demonstration" or "testing" vehicles?

A vehicle may be sold if it is covered by the Part 555 exemption, but the vehicle would have to meet all applicable FMVSSs (except to the extent exempted by the grant of the petition). The FMVSSs apply to the vehicle until the vehicles first purchase in good faith other than for resale. Calling a vehicle a "used," "demonstration" or "test" vehicle before the vehicles first purchase in good faith other than for resale does not make the vehicle "used" in NHTSAs view. The vehicle would be considered "new," and would have to meet the applicable FMVSSs when it is sold or introduced into interstate commence.

2. How can a U.S. manufacturer of vehicles described in Question 1, "register" and "license" them for testing on public roads prior to agencys decision on the Part 555 petition?

Under the pertinent portion of 49 U.S.C. 30112, "a person may not manufacture for sale, sell, offer for sale, introduce or deliver for introduction in interstate commerce, or import into the United States," any motor vehicle unless it complies with, and is certified as complying with, all applicable FMVSSs. Accordingly, test vehicles cannot be introduced into interstate commerce by being driven on public roads until they are certified in accordance with NHTSAs certification requirements for vehicle manufacturers (these requirements are attached to this letter).

3. If the petition for Part 555 exemption is granted, and the manufacturer sells less than the maximum of 2,500 vehicles in the first year of exemption, can this manufacturer sell more than 2,500 vehicles the second year if the two year total does not exceed 5,000 vehicles?

Carry-forward or carry-back credits are not permitted. If the manufacturer obtains a temporary exemption on grounds other than financial hardship (see 49 CFR 555.6 (b) through (d)), the number of exempted vehicles that can be sold is limited to 2,500 in any 12-month period. Accordingly, a manufacturer cannot sell more than 2,500 exempted vehicles in the second year of exemption, even if it sold less than 2,500 in the first year, and the two-year total is below 5,000.

If the manufacturer obtains a Part 555 exemption on financial hardship grounds, there is no limit on the number of exempted vehicles that can be sold. Note that under 555.6(a)(1)(v), to be eligible for a petition on financial hardship grounds the total number of motor vehicles produced by or on behalf of the petitioner in the 12-month period prior to filing the petition cannot exceed 10,000.

4. If the exemption is granted for 900 vehicles per year, and the manufacturer sells only 600 in the first year, can the manufacturer sell an extra 300 vehicles in the second year of exemption?

When the agency grants a petition for a Part 555 exemption, the agency generally does not specify the number of exempted vehicles that may be sold each year, so long as the number of exempted vehicles does not exceed 2,500 in any 12-month period. As stated in my answer to question 3, carry-forward credits are not permitted. As also explained in that answer, there are no limits on eligible manufacturers (manufacturing less than 10,000 vehicles in the past 12 months) exempted on financial hardship grounds.

5. If the petition for Part 555 exemption is granted, can the exempted manufacturer sell the same vehicle under a different name?Specifically, the manufacturer is uncertain as to the name of the vehicle. Must the application for exemption be name-specific?

Section 555.9(a) requires the manufacturer of exempted vehicles to submit to NHTSA a sample certification label that would appear on those vehicles (the relevant certification label requirements are attached). The certification labels must include the vehicle identification number (VIN). Under Part 565, the VIN must include the vehicle name. Because the VINs are name-specific, a mid-term change by the manufacturer of the exempted vehicles name would require that manufacturer to resubmit its sample certification label with a VIN that is formatted using the revised name. We note, of course, that a name change would have no affect on the maximum quantity of vehicles subject to the exemption.

6. The entity seeking exemption will initially assemble vehicles in the U.S. However, the same entity may later wish to import assembled vehicles from a foreign country. Are registered importers eligible for Part 555 exemptions? If so, may the same entity apply for a single exemption as an importer and a manufacturer?If not, must the foreign entity assembling these vehicles petition for a separate Part 555 exemption?

The exemption provisions in 49 U.S.C. 30113, implemented in Part 555, apply only to vehicle manufacturers. While a registered importer may file a Part 555 temporary exemption petition on behalf of a foreign manufacturer (if it acts in the capacity of the manufacturers agent in the United States), the agency will consider the circumstances of the manufacturer, and not the importer, in deciding on the petition (see 33 FR 14557, and an October 9, 1990 letter to Mr. William D. Rogers, copies enclosed).

7. How can the petitioner "reconcile possible honest differences of compliance interpretation, if they appear when the vehicles are selectively tested for compliance"?

Each of the FMVSSs specifies the test conditions and procedures that this agency will use to evaluate the performance of the vehicle or equipment being tested for compliance with the particular safety standard. Manufacturers are not required to test their products in the manner specified in the relevant FMVSS as their basis for certifying that the product complies with that standard. A manufacturer may choose any means of evaluating its products in order to determine, in good faith, that the vehicle or equipment will comply with the FMVSSs when tested by the agency according to the procedures specified in the standard. However, manufacturers often choose to follow the test conditions and procedures that NHTSA will use in conducting compliance testing.

NHTSA may ask a manufacturer to provide basis for its certification that the vehicle or equipment complies with the FMVSS. If in fact there is a noncompliance, a manufacturer would have to recall the product to bring it into compliance, at no charge to the customer. In addition, the manufacturer could be subject to civil penalties unless it can establish that it had no reason to know, despite exercising "reasonable care" in the design and manufacture of the product, that the product did not in fact comply with the safety standards (49 U.S.C. 30112(b)(2)(A)).

8. Does NHTSA have an entity that can inspect a prototype vehicle subject to the exemption petition in order to ensure that they are accurately described in the petition for exemption?

Our statute establishes a "self-certification" process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable FMVSSs. NHTSA does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Consistent with this statutory framework, NHTSA does not have an entity that inspects vehicles for compliance with our programs. Under 555.5(c), the knowing and willful submission of false, fictitious or fraudulent information will subject the petitioner to the civil and criminal penalties of 18 U.S.C. 1001.

9. How do I obtain information on NHTSA investigations pertaining to Land Rover Defender, model years 1993 to 1997?

Summary information on all NHTSA defect investigations since 1972 is available online at: http://www-odi.nhtsa.dot.gov/cars/problems/defect/defectsearch.cfm. If this database contains files pertaining to the vehicle in question, you may purchase copies of the investigation documents online.

If you have any other questions, please contact Mr. Feygin at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

Enclosures
ref:555
d.12/9/04

ID: 1983-3.29

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/01/83

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Mazda Inc. -- H. Nakaya

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Dear Mr. Nakaya:

This responds to your October 13, 1983 letter regarding the classification of certain hypothetical mini-van models as either passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, or trucks for purposes of complying with Federal motor vehicle safety standards.

Your first question involved the effect of changes in floor pan geometry on this classification. You postulate separate cargo and passenger versions of the mini-van, with each version using identical suspension, steering and driveline components and each vehicle being of unibody construction. However, slight differences would exist in the floor pans of the two vehicles, with the passenger version having a lowered floor pan section to accommodate the rear seat.

Assuming that the cargo version has greater cargo-carrying volume than passenger carrying volume (see, e.g., 49 CFR part 523), we would consider that version to be a truck. (In the unlikely event the cargo version does not have that ratio of volumes, all versions of the mini-van would probably be considered passenger cars.) Since the passenger version of a mini-van would almost certainly have greater passenger-carrying volume than cargo carrying volume, that vehicle would be treated as a passenger car unless it meets the agency's "multipurpose passenger vehicle" definition. That definition provides, in relevant part, that an MPV is a motor vehicle designed to carry 10 people or less and which is constructed on a "truck chassis." The "chassis" of a vehicle includes the vehicle's power train as well as its entire load supporting structure. In the case of a vehicle using unibody construction, this load supporting structure would technically include the floor pan.

The fact that a common chassis is used in a family of vehicles, one member of which is classified as a "truck," is evidence that the common chassis is a "truck chassis." However, further evidence is needed to demonstrate that the chassis has truck attributes, such as information showing the design to be more suitable for heavy duty, commercial operation than a passenger car chassis. This further evidence is necessary since otherwise the introduction of a cargo carrying version of an existing passenger car could result in the reclassification of the passenger car into an MPV, if the agency only considered the issue of whether a common chassis is used. For example, in the past, certain station wagons have been marketed without rear seats and with other modifications which render them the functional equivalent of a cargo van. The agency does not believe it to be appropriate in such a situation to reclassify the basic station wagon as an MPV.

The floor pan differences mentioned in your first question do not appear to be so significant as to require treating the two mini-van versions as having different chassis. The agency does not consider minor floor pan differences to negate the fact that two versions of the same family of vehicles employ the same "chassis," since to do so would likely mean that no unibody vehicles could be classified as MPV's. However, in the absence of any information regarding the extent to which the common chassis has truck-like attributes, we cannot state whether the vehicle would be treated as an MPV.

Your second question involves the effect of various seating designs on whether a unibody constructed mini-van is classified as an MPV. Since the seats are not part of the vehicle chassis, these variations should have no impact on whether the vehicle is an MPV. (Fuel economy classifications are dependent on seat configuration however--see 49 CFR Part 523.)

Your third question involves the significance of the relative sales levels, order of introduction, and actual existence of two versions (cargo and passenger) of the mini-van. In theory, a passenger version of a mini-van could be classified as an MPV even if no cargo version were offered in the U.S. or indeed if none were ever produced. In such a situation, however, the manufacturer would be under a heavy burden to demonstrate that what is sold as a passenger carrying vehicle in fact has a "truck chassis," with heavy duty, commercially suited attributes. The existence of a truck version, and the fact that the truck version was either designed first or was the principal focus of the design would be additional factors which would tend to indicate that the chassis is a truck chassis.

If you have further questions in this matter, please contact us.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

October 13 1983

Mr. Frank Berndt Chief Councel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Sreet, S .W. Washington, D. C. 20590

Dear Mr. Berndt :

A great deal of confusion exists in the automotive industry concerning the precise classification of 'mini-vans'. Specifically, these vehicles could be classified as passenger vehicles, multipurpose vehicles (MPV), or light-duty trucks (LDT), depending on the criteria applied. Mazda (North America), Inc. is interested in this subject and has a number of items that have not been satisfied by existing definitions.

Please examine the following questions and respond to relevant safety compliance implications, if any.

1. Existing standards (MVSS ? 571.3 (b)) indicate the criteria for a multipurpose vehicle as being 'constructed either on a truck chassis or with special features for occasional off-road use'. Assuming the original truck is of unibody construction --a) Is the same chassis considered in the modification of the floor pan from LDT to MPV? (See Sketch 1).

b) What impact would floor pan geometry modification from the truck versions to the MPV version have on MPV classification, assuming identical suspension, steering and driveline components?

c) Can a common floor pan be used for both the truck version and the MPV version, with the addition of a flat platform in the truck version --

1) Bolted in place (removable)?

2) Welded in place (permanent)? (See Sketch 2).

2. Assuming the original truck is of unibody construction, what influence does the rear seating design have on MPV classification if the additional seating configurations are --

a) Pedestal assemblies bolted to the floor pan that when removed result in a flat surface? (See Sketch 3).

b) Attached seat cushion and back assemblies that fold forward together at a single pivot with respect to the floor pan result in a flat surface? (See sketch 4).

c) Separate seat cushion and back assemblies that fold forward sequentially at two pivot points resulting in a flat surface? (See Sketch 5).

d) Fold down seat backs attached at the pivot point to a stationary seat cushion resulting in a flat surface? (See Sketch 6).

3. If a MPV classification is desired as 'derived' from a truck chassis --

a) Assuming the engineering, design, tooling, testing, etc. is completed for the truck version, must the truck version be built at al1 to insure MPV classification?

b) Assuming a truck version must be introduced, can the MPV version be introduced first followed by a later truck version introduction?

c) Assuming a truck version must be introduced, can the truck and MPV be introduced simultaneously?

d) Assuming a truck version must be introduced, must the truck be introduced in the United States market to insure MPV classification?

e) Assuming a truck version must be introduced, does the proportion of truck versus MPV versions sold influence the MPV classification if --

1) Both versions are sold in the United States?

2) Only the MPV version is sold in the United States?

Thank you for your help in this important matter.

Very truly yours,

H. Nakaya Manager

HN/ab

cc:Mr. R. Fairchild

INSERT GRAPH

ID: aiam2290

Dear Mr. Eckhold: I am writing to inform you that the National Highway Traffic Safet Administration (NHTSA) will, for a limited time, refrain from enforcing one portion of 49 CFR Part 575, *Consumer Information Regulations*.; Subpart B of Part 575 specifies certain items of consumer informatio that apply to motor vehicles and their tires. Section 575.6 in Subpart A requires this information to be delivered to first purchasers (paragraphs (a) and (b)), made available to prospective purchasers (paragraph (c)) and submitted to the NHTSA (paragraph (d)). In particular, S 575.6(d) requires that:; >>>Each manufacturer of motor vehicles...shall submit to th Administrator 10 copies of the information specified in Part B of this part that is applicable to the vehicles or tires offered for sale, at least 30 days before that information is first provided for examination by prospective purchasers pursuant to paragraph (c) of this section.<<<; I understand that the strike by the United Rubber Workers has, b cutting off the supply of new tires, created an emergency situation within the motor vehicle industry, making it difficult for a manufacturer to know more than several days before it completes a vehicle which tires will be available for installation on the vehicle. I understand further that the provision of such information to the NHTSA 30 days before it is made available to prospective purchasers has become virtually impossible.; In view of the impracticability under the current circumstances of th 30-day-notice requirement, the NHTSA has concluded that enforcement of the requirement at this time is inappropriate. Accordingly, with respect to vehicles offered for sale during the strike and the 60-day period following its settlement, the NHTSA will refrain from enforcing the 30-day-notice requirement in S 575.6(d). Submittals of information to the agency must continue to be made, however, not later than the time the information is made available to prospective purchasers. With respect to vehicles that will be offered for sale at the expiration of the 60-day period, the NHTSA expects to begin receiving submittals after the thirtieth day following settlement of the strike.; Please note that the requirements of paragraphs (a), (b), and (c) of 575.6, as well as Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 110, *Tire Selection and Rims--Passenger Cars*, are not affected by this letter.; Sincerely, James B. Gregory, Administrator

ID: aiam2196

Dear Mr. James: This is in response to your letter of January 1, 1976, to Regiona Office V of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), concerning whether your company's spreader product must comply with the requirements of Federal motor vehicle Safety standards and regulations, particularly Standard No. 119, *New Pneumatic Tires*.; The NHTSA issues safety standards and regulations for 'motor vehicles. Section 102(3) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act defines a motor vehicle as a vehicle 'manufactured primarily for use on the public streets, roads, and highways.' Thus, a motor vehicle is a vehicle which the manufacturer expects will use public highways as part of its intended function. The primary function of some vehicles is of a mobile, work-performing nature, and, as such, their manufacturer contemplates a primary use of the highway. Mobil cranes, rigs, and towed equipment such as chippers and pull-type street sweepers that travel at a normal highway speed are examples in this area. These motor vehicles qualify as trucks or trailers. As such they are subject to the Federal motor vehicle safety standards and regulations. On the basis of the information you have sent us your company's towed paver appears to be in this category of vehicles, and would therefore be considered a 'motor vehicle.'; There are some vehicles which are excepted from the motor vehicl classification despite their use on the highway. Highway maintenance and construction equipment, lane stripers, *self-propelled* asphalt pavers, and other vehicles whose maximum speed does not exceed 20 mph and whose abnormal configuration distinguishes them from the traffic flow are not considered motor vehicles. Your company's paver would not appear to qualify in this category of vehicles since, as a towed paver, it would travel at a speed greater than 20 mph, at least when moving between job sites. Consequently, your product must comply with the requirements of the Federal standards and regulations. Standard No. 119 does not directly impose any duty on you, because it applies to tires rather than vehicles. However, the NHTSA has recently issued Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 120, *Tire Selection and Rims for Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars* (copy enclosed). This standard does require, effective September 1, 1976, that your vehicles be equipped with tires that conform to Standard No. 119 and are of sufficient load rating.; Please contact us if we can be of any further assistance. Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel

ID: aiam2179

Dear Mr. Robbins: This is in response to your November 7, 1975, request for a interpretation of the labeling requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 109, *New Pneumatic Tires--Passenger Cars*, as applied to the tire that you have described as a 'Radial, Bias Ply Tire'.; On that date, a meeting was held with you, Mr. Al Duduk, and th following NHTSA personnel in attendance: Dr. E.H. Wallace, A.Y. Casanova, and Mark Schwimmer. At the meeting, out letter to you, dated November 3, 1975, was discussed and alternative forms of labeling for this tire were explored. you presented, in substance, the following four examples of sidewall labeling and inquired about their compliance with Standard No. 109:; >>>1. 'POLYANGLE' accompanied by '3 PLIES 2 POLYESTER 1 ARAMID' 2. 'POLYANGLE' accompanied by 'NOT A CONVENTIONAL RADIAL PLY TIRE' an '3 PLIES 2 POLYESTER BIAS PLIES 1 ARAMID RADIAL PLY'; 3. 'RADIAL/BIAS' accompanied by 'NOT A CONVENTIONAL RADIAL PLY TIRE and '3 PLIES 2 POLYESTER BIAS PLIES 1 ARAMID RADIAL PLY'; 4. 'RADIAL/BIAS' accompanied by 'NOT TO BE USED WITH CONVENTIONA RADIAL BELTED TIRES' and '3 PLIES 2 POLYESTER BIAS PLIES 1 ARAMID RADIAL PLY'<<<; Tires labeled according to your firs example would be in complianc with the requirements of S4.3(g) of Standard no. 109. A strict interpretation of S4.3(g) would rule out the remaining examples because the word 'radial' appears in all of them. However, the NHTSA recognizes that, with the development of new tire construction types, this section of the standard may not be adequate to serve its original purpose, to reduce the hazards associated with the mismatching of tires on a single vehicle. Accordingly, we are preparing to issue a notice of proposed rulemaking to amend the standard. For this reason and because the second, third, and fourth examples are in conformity with the spirit of S4.3(g), the NHTSA will, on an interim basis, consider tires so labeled to be in compliance. You may wish the consult with the Federal Trade Commission concerning the advertising of these tires.; I would like to point out that S4.3(d) requires Kevlar, if used as cord material in a tire, to be identified by its generic name on the tire's sidewall. The generic name of kevlar, as established by the FTC pursuant to the Textile Fiber Product Identification Act (15 USC 70), is Aramid.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel