ID: nht95-4.97

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: December 8, 1995

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

TO: Ken Van Sciver -- Sciver Corporation

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: 10/3/95 letter from Ken Van Sciver to NHTSA Chief Counsel (OCC 11293)

TEXT: This responds to your letter of October 3, 1995 to this office requesting information on any safety standards applicable to the Auto Bib, a new product you are developing and marketing. From the promotional material you furnished with your letter, your Auto Bib can be described as a portable cover, of Naugahyde fabric, that clips between the window and door molding of a vehicle's door. The Auto Bib unrolls downward to cover the door, and is intended to protect the door's upholstery from damage caused by children, pets, and the sun.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has the statutory authority to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle. Federal law establishes a self-certification system under which motor vehicle and equipment manufacturers themselves certify that their products comply with all applicable FMVSSs. NHTSA enforces compliance with the standards by randomly purchasing and testing moto r vehicles and equipment. NHTSA also investigates safety-related defects. If a vehicle or item of equipment is found not to comply with applicable standards or is found to have a safety defect, the manufacturer is responsible for remedying the noncompli ance or defect at no charge to the customer. NHTSA neither tests, approves, disapproves, endorses, or grants clearances for products prior to their introduction into the retail market.

Turning now to the Auto Bib, NHTSA would classify it as an item of motor vehicle equipment, defined in 49 U.S. Code (U.S.C.), @ 30102(7)(B) as any "part or component manufactured or sold for replacement or improvement of a system, part, or component, or as an accessory or addition to a motor vehicle." Specifically, the Auto Bib is an accessory if it meets two tests:

a. A substantial portion of its expected uses are related to the operation or maintenance of motor vehicles; and

b. It is purchased or otherwise acquired, and principally used, by ordinary users of motor vehicles.

After reviewing the product literature you enclosed with your letter, we conclude that the Auto Bib is an accessory. The Auto Bib was designed and is being marketed with the expectation that a substantial portion of its expected use will be in motor veh icles. Even its name indicates its intended purpose. Secondly, the promotional literature makes it clear that the Auto Bib is intended to be purchased and principally used by ordinary users of motor vehicles, as distinguished from professional vehicle r epair businesses, since its stated purpose is to preserve motor vehicle upholstery from damage by children, pets, and the sun.

While the Auto Bib is a motor vehicle accessory, NHTSA has not issued any FMVSSs establishing performance standards applicable to this product. However, you as the manufacturer are subject to the requirements of 49 U.S.C. @@ 30116 - 30121 which set fort h the recall and remedy procedures for products with defects related to motor vehicle safety. As noted earlier, in the event that you or NHTSA determines that the product contains a safety-related defect, you would be responsible for notifying purchaser s of the defective equipment and for remedying the problem free of charge.

You asked about state or local requirements that may apply to your product. NHTSA has no information on such requirements. You may, however, be able to obtain some relevant information in that regard from:

Automotive Manufacturers Equipment Compliance Agency, Inc. 1090 Vermont Avenue, N.W., Suite 1200 Washington, DC 20005 (202) 898-0145; Fax (202) 898-0148

I hope this information is helpful to you. Should you have any further questions or need any additional information, please feel free to contact Mr. Myers of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht88-1.82

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/30/88

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Auto Chek, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Richard J. Matysiakh President Auto Chek, Inc. P.O. Box 258 Stone Mountain, GA 30086-02581

Dear Mr. Matysiak:

This responds to your letter to Mr. Frank Ephraim of our Office of Plans and Policy, asking about the effects of the Federal Motor Vehicle Theft Prevention Standard (49 CFR Part 541; copy enclosed) on certain body repair processes. Specifically, you aske d how the theft prevention standard would affect the body repair process of "clipping" body sections from one vehicle and attaching the clipped section to a different vehicle. This repair process is not prohibited or regulated by the theft prevention sta ndard, as explained below.

The purpose of the theft prevention standard is to reduce the incidence of motor vehicle thefts by facilitating the tracing and recovery of parts from stolen vehicles. To achieve this purpose, the theft prevention standard requires manufacturers to affix or inscribe identification markings onto 14 major original equipment and replacement parts of certain high theft cars. Dealers and repair shops are prohibited from removing, obliterating, tampering with, or altering these identification markings, unless the removal, obliteration, tampering, or alteration is reasonably necessary to repair the part or vehicle; see 18 U.S.C. 511.

These requirements should not significantly impact the repair process of "clipping" described in your letter. Nothing in the theft prevention standard or the law prohibits a repair shop from clipping sections from wrecked vehicles. The repair shop would be required by law to leave in place any identification markings on the "clipped" section that were not damaged in the "clipping" process.

As noted in your letter, the repaired vehicle might have two different vehicle identification numbers (VIN's) marked on its major parts, with some parts marked with the VIN assigned to the repaired vehicle and other parts marked with the VIN assigned to the damaged vehicle from which the section was "clipped." The Motor Vehicle Theft Law enforcement Act of 1981, which ordered this agency to promulgate the theft prevention standard, clearly contemplates that vehicles undergoing repair could wind up with some parts numbered differently than the parts originally on the car. That law is based on the idea that some major parts are likely to survive a crash undamaged and that those parts can legitimately be used to repair other vehicles. Such repairs would n aturally result in repaired cars having some parts numbered differently than the rest of the car. Since the law enforcement community vigorously supported this law, they must not have believed that cars with some parts numbered differently than the other parts of the car would pose particular problems for them.

You also asked how the "clipping" process would affect our disclosure and titling requirements. We answered the question of how the disclosure requirements apply in an October 15, 1980 letter to Mr. John Relly of the Iowa Department of Transportation. In the letter to Mr. Kelly, we said, "... if a vehicle is constructed from the parts of several vehicles, the odometer statement must still be completed at the time of sale. If the seller knows the mileage on the various components used to construct the ve hicle, he should inform the purchaser of the highest mileage that he knows, or the mileage on the chassis if he knows it. If he does not know the mileages, he will be required to state that the mileage is not accurate and should not be relied upon. Titli ng requirements and designations such as "salvage" and "rebuilt" vehicles are determined by State law, not Federal law.

If you have any further questions on this matter, please contact Steve Kratzke of my staff at this address, or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Enclosure

November 2, 1987

Mr. Frank G. Ephraim Director, Office of Standards Evaluation Plans and Policy National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Room 5208 400 Seventh Street. SW Washington, DC 20590

Dear Mr. Ephraim:

Relative to the implementation of the Motor Vehicle Theft Law Enforcement Act, Title VI, which inpart pertains to the Inscribing or affixing of identification numbers onto certain major original equipment and replacement parts for passenger car lines wit h high theft rates: How will this law impact the body repair process of clipping and/or sectioning of vehicles that are created by different components with conflicting identification numbers?

Enclosed for your review and consideration are several articles that relate to this problem. Your comments as to disclosure. titling and compliance will be most appreciated.

Thank you.

Sincerely yours,

Richard J. Matysiak President, Auto Chek, Inc.

ID: nht79-1.14

DATE: 10/04/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: The Grote Manufacturing Co.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

October 4, 1979

Mr. C. J. Newman Vice President, Engineering The Grote Manufacturing Company State Rt. 7 - P.O. Box 766 Madison, Indiana 47250

Dear Mr. Newman:

This in reply to your letter of August 23, 1979, to the former Chief Counsel Joseph J. Levin, Jr. You have asked whether a double-faced turn signal front side marker lamp "meets the intent" of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, and you enclosed a sample of the lamp for our inspection.

You have quoted paragraph 3.4 of SAE Standard J588e, September 1970, which states "the flashing signal from a double faced signal lamp shall not be obliterated when subjected to external light rays from either in front or behind at any and all angles." It is not possible to make a definitive statement about your lamp without actually subjecting it to a representative external light source such as the headlamps of a vehicle in proximity to the vehicle to which the lamp is mounted, but its design appears adequate to meet the intent of paragraph 3.4. Any changes in design of the lenses or baffling from that of the sample lamp submitted, however, might transmit more light from external sources and may not meet paragraph 3.4.

We would also like to observe that since the side marker signal uses the front and rear lenses of the turn signal in a single compartment a high intensity ratio of turn signal to side marker signal will be needed if the steady burning light from the side marker lamp is not to obscure the darker portion of the turn signal lamp.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

Mr. Taylor Vinson Office of the Chief Counsel NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATlON 400 Seventh Street S W WASHINGTON DC 20590

September 24, 1979

Dear Mr. Vinson

Request for Interpretation

In the case of a motorcycle headlamp, Table III of FMVSS 108 cites SAE J584, which in turn specifies that for photometric tests, the "bulb or unit shall be operated at its rated voltage during the test."

Where the material bulb is an H1, H2, H3 or H4 halogen bulb that bears the E-mark signifying that it is in compliance with E/ECE/TRANS/505/Rev.1/Add.36, that is to say in compliance with Regulation 37 of the Geneva Agreement of 20 March 1958 as adopted by the general European governments, is the rated voltage required by SAE J584 the same rated voltage of ECE Regulation 37?

Yours sincerely

H J T YOUNG Vice President - Technical Affairs

E/ECE/324 ) E/ECE/TRANS/505 )Rev.1/Add.36 Regulation No. 37 Annex 1 page 21/22

CATEGORY H4 Sheet H4/2

Characteristics

Lamps of normal production Standard lamps

*Insert chart here

1/ Where a yellow outer bulb is used, "m" and "n" denote the maximum dimensions of this bulb; where there is no outer bulb "m" denotes the maximum length of the lamp.

2/ It must be possible to insert the lamp into a cylinder of diameter "s" concentric with the reference axis and limited at one end by a plane parallel to and 20 mm distant from the reference plane and at the other end by a hemisphere of radius S/2.

3/ The obscuration must extend at least as far as the cylindrical part of the bulb. It must also overlap the internal shield when the latter is viewed in a direction perpendicular to the reference axis. The effect sought by obscuration may also be achieved by other means.

4/ The values indicated in the left-hand column relate to the driving beam. Those indicated in the right-hand column relate to the passing beam.

August 23, 1979

U. S. Department of Transportation NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION

Attn: Mr. J. J. Levin, Jr. Chief Counsel

Dear Sir:

We are considering certain revisions to our line of front double-faced pedestal mount turn signal lamps. Before making any commitment to our customers or before making any tool changes, we need your opinion as to whether the lamp meets the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 108.

In the past, double-faced turn signal lamps having side marker devices have normally been manufactured with two bulbs -- a 1156 or 32 candle power bulb functioning as the turn signal system, and a 2 or 3 candle power bulb functioning as the side marker device. In this case, having an yellow lens to the front and a red lens to the rear. Our proposed change is to use one 1157 bulb, dual function 32 - 3 candle power filaments where the 32 candle power filament is used as the turn signal function and the 3 candle power is used as the side marker device. In order to do this, a yellow lens to the front, yellow lens to the rear is required and also the baffling inside of the double-faced lamp has to be reduced in order to meet the side marker requirements. With this particular design, all three lenses -- the lens to the front, to the rear and to the side -- function as part of the side marker device.

The question that we have is the intent of rulemaking covering turn signal lamps. The turn signal lamp, SA J588e, last revised September, 1970, includes Item 3.4 which states, "The flashing signal from a double-faced signal lamp shall not be obliterated when subjected to external light rays from either in front or behind at any and all angles."

With the baffling area reduced inside of the lamp as indicated by the sample, and since the requirements are very subjective, we need an opinion as to whether the lamp does or does not meet the intent of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 108.

Would you please review the sample and give us your opinion as soon as possible.

Yours very truly,

THE GROTE MANUFACTURING COMPANY

C. J. Newman Vise President, Engineering

CJN/aj

ID: nht95-3.37

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: July 2, 1995

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Vladimir Salita

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 5/11/95 LETTER FROM JOHN WOMACK TO TERESA THOMPSON; ALSO ATTACHED TO 7/30/93 LETTER FROM JOHN WOMACK TO WAYNE FERGUSON (STD. 108); ALSO ATTACHED TO 5/10/95 LETTER FROM VLADIMIR SALITA TO CHIEF COUNCIL, NHTSA (OCC 10907)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Salita:

This responds to your letter asking about the applicability of Federal requirements to three inventions you are developing a warning and teaching device for improving driving habits and fuel economy, a deceleration warning light, and a self-adjustable wi ndshield wiper. The first item would "warn drivers by indicating the excessive deceleration, acceleration and dangerous speed at turns by emitting sound signals," and would be mounted on the dashboard. The second item would measure "actual vehicle dece leration" and control "the frequency of light flashing (preferable high-mounted brake light)," to alert the drivers of following vehicles. The third item would control "the rate of windshield wiper sweeps according to the intensity of rain." I am please d to provide the information you requested.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized to issue Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. This agency does not provide appr ovals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Instead, manufacturers are required to certify that their vehicles and equipment meet applicable standards. Also, it is unlawful for dealers to sell motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment that do no t meet applicable standards.

Vehicle manufacturers wishing to install your devices would be required to certify that their vehicles meet all applicable safety standards with the devices installed. While we do not have sufficient information to identify all the standards that might be relevant to your devices, I would like to bring three standards to your attention.

Standard No. 201, Occupant Protection in Interior Impact, would be relevant to your dashboard-mounted warning and teaching device. That standard specifies requirements to protect occupants from impact with interior components and could affect where or h ow the device could be installed in a vehicle.

Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment, would be relevant to the deceleration warning light. That standard requires, among other things, that all original motor vehicle lighting equipment be steady burning in use, unless t he standard provides otherwise. Since the standard does not specify deceleration warning lights as an exception to this requirement, they must be steady burning. Therefore, your added flashing deceleration light could not be installed on new vehicles. Because center high mounted stop lamps (CHMSLs) are not permitted to flash and must be activated only by the service brake, your use of the CHMSL as a deceleration light also is not allowed on new vehicles.

I am enclosing copies of two recent letters (addressed to Mr. Wayne Ferguson, July 30, 1993, and Ms. Teresa Thompson, May 11, 1995), which provide a more detailed discussion of requirements relevant to deceleration lights.

Standard No. 104, Windshield Wiping and Washing Systems, would be relevant to your self-adjustable windshield wiper. That standard specifies a number of requirements for windshield wiping systems. The standard would not preclude the inclusion of a self -adjustable windshield wiping feature. However, a vehicle manufacturer would need to ensure that the windshield wiping system with such a device met all of the requirements of that standard.

No standards would apply to your devices to the extent that they were sold as aftermarket equipment. However, Federal law prohibits a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business from "making inoperative" a vehicle's compliance wi th any safety standard. Therefore, your flashing deceleration light could not be installed by such businesses on used vehicles. If your device affects a CHMSL installed in compliance with Standard No. 108, it could not be installed by the above named bu sinesses. Similarly, your other devices could not be installed by such businesses if the installation adversely affected a vehicle's compliance with any safety standard.

The "make inoperative" provision does not apply to modifications made by owners to their own vehicles. However, NHTSA encourages vehicle owners not to degrade the safety of their vehicles. Also, individual States have authority to regulate modification s that a vehicle owner may make to his or her vehicle. We are not able to provide you with information on State laws. You may wish to seek an opinion from the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA 22 303.

Finally, all three of your devices are considered to be "motor vehicle equipment" under Federal law. This means that the manufacturer would be subject to Title 49 of the U.S. Code, sections 30118-30122, concerning the recall and remedy of products with defects related to motor vehicle safety. If the manufacturer or NHTSA determined that the product contains a safety related defect, the manufacturer would be responsible for notifying purchasers of the defective equipment and remedying the problem free of charge.

You have obviously spent a great of time and effort thinking about how to improve driving safety. We appreciate your efforts in this area and the contributions that inventors such as you make to motor vehicle safety.

I hope this information is helpful. I am enclosing a general information sheet for new manufacturers which summarizes NHTSA's regulations and explains where to obtain copies of Federal motor vehicle safety standards and other regulations. If you have an y further questions about lighting requirements, please contact Mr. Taylor Vinson at (202) 366-2992. For further information about other safety standards, please contact Ms. Dorothy Nakama at the same telephone number.

Enclosures

NHTSA INFORMATION SHEET ENTITLED "INFORMATION FOR NEW MANUFACTURERS OF MOTOR VEHICLES AND MOTOR VEHICLE EQUIPMENT" (TEXT OMITTED)

ID: nht74-5.38

DATE: 04/22/74

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; R. B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Meiji Rubber & Chemical Co., Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your February 27, 1974, request concerning brake hose identification codes and labeling, conflicts of Federal and State standards, and procedures for certifying hose, end fittings, and hose assemblies in compliance with Standard No. 106, Brake hoses. This also responds to your March 25, 1974, (ref T-76) request for approval of your proposed hydraulic and vacuum brake hose labeling.

Notice 10 was published on February 26, 1974. It modified the labeling requirements, and a copy is enclosed. It is certain that another notice will be published shortly which may modify the marking requirements further. Therefore I advise that you not undertake modifications of your labeling in the near future.

In answer to your February 21 letter, if we require a code at a later date, the code will not relate to the MRA code. Concerning the marking of multi-piece fittings, the designation must appear on each part of a reusable end fitting, although this requirement is presently under reconsideration.

With regard to conflicting State regulations such as Pennsylvania's, our regulation as of September 1, 1974, preempts any State brake hose regulations which are not identical with respect to the some aspects of performance. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 provides at @ 103(d):

Whenever a federal motor vehicle safety standard established under this subchapter is in effect, no state or political subdivision of a State shall have any authority either to establish, or to continue in effect, with respect to any motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment any safety standard applicable to the same aspect of performance of such vehicle or item of equipment which is not identical to the Federal standard. . . .

2

However, it is permissible, if a manufacturer wishes, for him to place Pennsylvania labeling on the reverse side of the hose.

It is the responsibility of the manufacturer to certify that his products comply with Standard No. 106. You may conduct a test program, or you may hire an independent test laboratory to conduct the test program for you. One test laboratory in the United States which tests brake hose is VPI of Blacksburg, Virginia. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration does not conduct certification tests, but it does conduct tests on manufacturer products to enforce compliance.

In answer to your March 25 letter, the hydraulic brake hose marking on "Face A" appears to conform to the requirements of S5.2.2, assuming that letter "size" refers to letter height. Notice 10 permits the manufacturer designation to be other than block capital letters. "Face B" is not regulated by our standard.

With regard to the brake hose end fitting and brake hose assembly examples, they appear to conform to S5.2.3 and S5.2.4 if the letter "size" refers to letter height. It should be noted that Notice 10 excludes labeling of two-piece fittings and certain assemblies and that the next notice may make further modifications.

With regard to vacuum brake hose, your "Face A" example appears to conform to S5.2.2 if letter "size" refers to letter height. S5.2.1 is not applicable and therefore the stripe is not required. "Face B" is not regulated by our standard.

ENC.

MEIJI RUBBER & CHEMICAL CO., LTD.

February 21, 1974

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Sirs:

Subject: Brake Hoses for FMVSS

As to the Part 571-Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS), Brake Hoses of Docket No. 1-5: Notice 8 published in the Federal Register Vol. 38, No. 218 issued on Tuesday Nov. 13, 1973, we shall be pleased if you will kindly show us about the procedure for getting the code nos.

1. We manufacture brake hoses and metal fittings, assemble them into oil brake hoses, and sell them to automobile manufacturers. We have got the Code No. 57-1 from MRA. Please show us the relation between the code no. of MRA and that of newly published FMVSS.

2. Please show us the relation between FMVSS and the specifications regulated by a state such as the State of Pennsylvania.

3. In order to get the code no. FMVSS, what procedure should be followed by company as ours, who manufactures hoses and several types of metal fittings, and assembles them into oil brake hoses?

4. There are several types of forms in our metal fittings. Is it necessary to get the code no. on the respective types of our metal fittings?

5. Please introduce us to the public institutions who can test and qualify oil brake hoses to get the code no. FMVSS.

Your generous cooperation would be highly appreciated.

Yours Sincerely

H. Tsukano, Sub-manager Technical Division

MEIJI RUBBER & CHEMICAL CO., LTD.

March 25, 1974

Docket Section National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Subject: Submission of Comments on Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards Docket No. 1-5: Notice 9

We would like to ask for the approval of our attached application about the Brake Hose Identification provided in the Docket No. 1-5; Notice 9 on the Federal Register, Vol. 39, No. 20, Tuesday, January 29, 1974.

H. Tsukano, Sub-Manager Technical Division

enc.

P.S. As for the expenses, we will pay on your request.

1

LABELING

I. HYDRAULIC BRAKE HOSE

1. Hydraulic brake hose (ID 1/8")

1-1. Printed parts

1-2. Face A (printed mark) (every 6 inches)

-- DOT MRCC 10/74 1/8 HR -- DOT MRCC

Notes: The color of printed letters is white.

The size of a letter is 1/8".

The width of line is 1/16".

MRCC stands for Meiji Rubber & Chemical Co.

1-3. Face B (printed mark)

M MEIJI RUBBER JAPAN 1/8 NO57-1 1974 SAE J1401

(which is indication of the approval for the export to a northern state (Pennsylvania).)

Notes: The white letters are printed continuously

The size of letter is 1/8".

M: The trade mark of Meiji Rubber & Chemical Co.

1/8: The inside diameter of hose 1974: year of production

N057-1: The approval number of RMA (Rubber Manufacturers Association) (444 Madison Avenue, New York 10022, U.S.A.) Line number 57

Yarn color code yellow yellow-black

RMA assignment Meiji Rubber Company, Ltd. attained on March 1st, 1967

SAE J1401 Society of Automotive Hydraulic Brake Hose

2. Hydraulic brake hose end fitting

DOT MRCC 1/8 H XY

Notes: Letters stamped

The size of a letter 1/16"

MRCC stands for Meiji Rubber and Chemical Co.

1/8: The inside diameter of hose X is the figure of production that comes after 197 Y means the month of production

3. Hydraulic brake hose assembly

DOT MRCC 10/74

Notes: Letters stamped

The size of a letter 1/8"

Rubber band width 8 mm red colored hypalon rubber

MRCC stands for Meiji Rubber & Chemical Co.

II. Vacuum Brake Hose (ID 3/8")

1. Printed parts

(A) Face A (printed mark) (every 6 inches)

-- DOT MRCC 10/74 3/8 VL -- DOT MRCC

Notes: The white letters printed

The size of a letter 5 mm

The width of line 3 mm

MRCC stands for Meiji Rubber & Chemical Co. 3/8 means the inside diameter of hose.

(B) Face B (printed mark) (every 6 inches) M MRCC JAPAN -- M ---

Notes: The white letters printed

The size of a letter 5 mm

The width of line 3 mm

M is the trade mark of Meiji Rubber & Chemical Co. MRCC stands for Meiji Rubber & Chemical Co.

ID: nht93-3.11

DATE: April 21, 1993

FROM: Steve Reeder -- President & General Manager; Trails West Manufacturing of Idaho Inc.

TO: Taylor Vinson -- Legal Counsel, U.S. Department of Transportation, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 5-28-93 from John Womack to Steve Reeder (A41; Std. 108)

TEXT: I am writing your office for clarification of national standards for motor vehicle lighting equipment. We are a manufacturer of livestock trailers, and in reviewing the regulations that apply to our industry, I am confused on a couple of issues.

First, would our products be considered to be over 80 inches wide inasmuch as the box itself is 78 inches, but when you add the fenders to the box, it then exceeds 80 inches. Safety Standard Part 571; S-108 refers to table 2, a copy of which is enclosed, wherein clearance lamps are required on the front and rear of the vehicle to indicate overall width if it is over 80" wide. At the point where clearance lamps would be installed, the vehicle is less than 80 inches in width, but as stated earlier, the overall width including fenders does exceed the 80 inches.

Also, in regards to side marker lamps, would table 2 apply wherein there is no height restrictions, or would table 4 apply (copy enclosed) which requires rear side marker lamps to fall between 15 inches and 60 inches. In regards to the length of a trailer for purposes of determining the need for intermediate side marker lamps is the gooseneck or 5th wheel portion of the trailer which extends over the tow vehicle to be included in calculating overall length. Also, would front clearance lights be required where the gooseneck or 5th wheel portion of the trailer extends over the tow vehicle.

The second issue I am concerned about relates to safety chains. Could you provide our company with current regulations for safety chains as they relate to the products we manufacture. It is my understanding that safety chains are not required where a 5th wheel hookup is used, but are required on products such as ours where the attachment point is typically inside the box of a pickup or light duty truck bed and the method of attachment is a ball and coupler.

It seems inconsistent that a recreational type vehicle such as a travel trailer which utilizes a 5th wheel connection on a pickup or a light duty truck would not require safety chains, but a stock trailer which we refer to as a gooseneck that utilizes a ball and coupler and attaches similarly in the bed of a pickup or light duty truck would require safety chains.

I am enclosing a brochure of our products for your information. If the clarification I am asking for is not clear, could you please call me at the office number of (208) 852-2200 at your convenience. We appreciate any help and insight you are able to provide.

Attachments:

- Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 -- Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment -- Passenger Cars, Multipurpose Passenger Vehicles, Trucks, Buses, Trailers, and Motorcycles (Docket No. 69-18) (S1.-S5.1.1.4)

- Table II -- Location of Required Motor Vehicle Lighting Equipment

- Table IV -- Location of Required Equipment

(Text omitted.)

ID: nht73-3.31

DATE: 02/20/73

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Lectron Products, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of January 29, 1973, concerning your safety belt interlock system.

Paragraph S7.4.1 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, requires that the belt system at each occupied seating position be operated after the occupant is seated in order to start the engine. It is our opinion that a system such as yours, which senses whether the safety belt is properly buckled around the occupant before allowing the engine to start, would meet the above requirements and could be used under the option described in S4.1.2.3.

ID: nht90-1.53

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/22/90

FROM: STEPHEN P. WOOD -- ACTING CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TO: RICHARD A. KULICS, ESQ.

TITLE: REQUEST FOR RULING IMPORTED VEHICLES - FTZ

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 12-5-89 TO TAYLOR VINSON, NHTSA, FROM RICHARD A. KULICS, ATTACHED.

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of December 5, 1989, to the attention of Taylor Vinson of this Office, on behalf of your clients Liphardt Associates and Pierre Enterprises, Inc.

You have informed us that Liphardt is an Independent Commercial Importer (ICI) under EPA regulations. The vehicles it imports are modified by Pierre. Both entities have the identical mailing address. This location is within a Foreign Trade Zone. You have also informed us that Liphardt/Pierre (L/Pe) will apply for status as a Registered Importer under 49 CFR Part 592. It is the practice of L/PE to transport its nonconforming vehicles directly from the vessel into the Zone, to perform conformance mod ifications in the Zone, and then file a consumption entry, post bond, and submit conformance documentation to DOT. After DOT and EPA have released the vehicle, it is delivered to its owner.

You have requested that L/Pe "be allowed to submit conformity packets to your agency prior to the submission of the consumption entry package, i.e., upon submission of the FTZ entry [transportation of the vehicle into the Zone], so that it may enter the vehicle as 'conforming.'" Under this plan, the current method of operation would remain much the same, except that L/Pe would prepare an HS-7 Declaration Form at the time the vehicle is transported into the Zone. This Form would be submitted to DOT along with a conformity package, for review and release, if appropriate. Then, when the actual consumption entry is filed, the vehicle would be entered as "conforming" merchandise. The purpose of this request "is to eliminate the costs associated with posti ng a special bond purely for DOT purposes", and to speed "up the process of importation, thus reducing the costs associated with storage." As you state, "What L/Pe proposes is that it be allowed to close out the obligation while the vehicle is still in t he custody of the Customs Service."

In substantiation of your request, you have called our attention to certain provisions of 19 CFR Part 146 Foreign Trade Zones, specifically section 146.2 outlining the obligations of Customs' supervision, section 146.10 providing for examination of merch andise necessary to facilitate the proper administration of any law that Customs is authorized to enforce, and section 146.31 stating that admission of merchandise into a Zone is subject to the regulations of the Federal agency concerned.

Under the facts as stated in your letter, we have concluded that your clients must provide a DOT bond under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.), as amended by the Imported Vehicle Safety Compliance Act of 19 88 (P. L. 100-562), but that there is no legal reason why its obligations to DOT may not be satisfied before the conformed vehicle enters the customs territory of the United States.

As we understand it, the Foreign Trade Zone Act of 1934 (19 U.S.C. 81a et seq.) is intended to establish areas into which merchandise may be imported temporarily, "without being subject to the customs laws of the United States", before being sent "into c ustoms territory of the United States" (section 81c(a)). A Zone therefore is a legal fiction established solely for the administration of customs laws. Section 2(a) of the 1988 Act repealed the authority of the Customs Service over the importation of v ehicles subject to the 1966 Act. Accordingly, the new regulation governing the importation of nonconforming motor vehicles on and after January 31, 1990, 49 CFR Part 591, is not a "customs law" (unlike the existing regulation which is a joint regulation with DOT that specifically applies to importation into the customs territory of the United States (19 CFR 12.80(b)).

In pertinent part, section 108(a)(1)(A) of the 1966 Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(10)(A)) prohibits the importation "into the United States" of nonconforming vehicles. Although a Zone is not generally considered customs territory, in this instance they are bot h within the United States, and an arrangement which defines the "United States" as comprising both customs territory and foreign trade zones has been upheld as valid (Klockner, Inc., v. United States (1984) 8 CIT 3, 590 F. Supp. 1266). Under section 10 8(c) (1) of the 1966 Act, as amended (15 U.S.C. 1397(c)(1)), a nonconforming vehicle "shall be refused entry into the United States" unless "an appropriate bond" has been furnished to ensure that the vehicle will be brought into conformity within a reaso nable time after such importation."

Therefore, because 49 CFR Part 591 is not a "customs law", any distinction between a Zone and customs territory is legally irrelevant for purposes of the 1966 Act. Further, because both a Zone and the customs territory are physically within the boundari es of the United States, an importation of a nonconforming vehicle into either a Zone or the customs territory requires an accompanying DOT conformance bond.

Nevertheless, the 1988 Act does not impose any restrictions upon either DOT or your clients that prohibits them from entering conformed vehicles into customs territory. However, we see the procedure a bit differently than the one you discussed. The HS- 7 Form and its accompanying bond must be completed not later than the admission of the vehicle into the Zone. Customs retains its role of sending these documents to DOT. When conformance work is completed, L/Pe provides certification to DOT. Because o f the current low volume of nonconforming imports, we anticipate that our review will be completed within two weeks of receipt of the certification. If the certification is acceptable, the bond is released, and L/Pe may then enter the vehicle as no long er subject to DOT conformance regulations (or, as you express it, "conforming merchandise"). Thus, L/Pe will be able to close out its obligation while the vehicle remains in the custody of Customs, even though it is not freed from the bond requirement.

As a final comment on the time factor, we intend to require complete documentation only for the initial make, model, and model year (assuming that the initial submission is acceptable). Although L/Pe must keep verification records on each vehicle it con forms, certifications subsequent to an initial submission need not be accompanied by documents, and could be transmitted by FAX. As we see it, these simple certifications would not require extensive review, improving our ability to respond in a more tim ely manner.

ID: nht94-4.56

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: October 21, 1994

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

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

TITLE: NONE

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ID: nht94-1.17

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: January 11, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Richard J. Dessert -- Proprietor, Sun Cycle Company

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 5/28/93 from Richard J. Dessert to NHTSA Administrator (OCC-8731) and letter dated 5/7/93 from John W. Schumann

TEXT:

This responds to your petition of May 28, 1993, to the Administrator for a temporary exemption for low emission motor vehicles that you would like to produce. These vehicles would be purchased by the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power (LADWP). T he response deadline for LADWP's Request for Proposal (RFP) was June 1, 1993. You have informed us that

"As part of LADWP requirements for successful bidders, evidence of progress towards obtaining Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards certification may be provided through demonstration that an application was made with NHTSA for a temporary exemption fro m Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards."

Because this matter affects LADWP as well as Sun Cycle Company, we are sending a copy of this response to the designated LADWP contact, Jeffrey S. Silverstone.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) did not receive your petition until June 8, and therefore had no chance to advise you with respect to it before the RFP deadline of June 1. We must inform you that the petition does not meet our procedural requirements and is not accepted for processing and action.

There are several areas in which the petition is deficient. Most importantly, it appears to be a request for a blanket exemption from compliance with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. While the applicable law and regulation do not f orbid this, you should know that the Administrator has never entertained a petition of this breadth and in all probability would never grant one. An applicant for a low-emission vehicle exemption must provide sufficient information upon which the Admini strator may find that an exemption would not unduly degrade the safety of the motor vehicle, and that the exemption is consistent with the public interest and the objectives of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. We do not believe that th e Administrator could make the requisite findings to support a blanket exemption. It is NHTSA's policy to encourage manufacturers to manufacture conforming vehicles to the extent possible, and to narrow the scope of their requests for exemption. Low-emi ssion vehicle petitions generally cover four to 14 standards.

As part of your argument, you must set forth each individual standard from which you request exemption, and provide a detailed description of how your vehicle differs from a conforming one. You must also provide reasons why an exemption from each standa rd for which request is made would not unduly degrade the safety of the vehicle, something more than the general

statement you have made that the first prototypes will "substantially comply with all the safety standards.: Finally, you must present your views why an exemption is in the public interest and consistent with the objectives of the Safety Act. When we h ave received a petition from you that fulfills these requirements, we shall be pleased to accept it for consideration and public comment. As the vehicle you intend to manufacture is completely unknown to NHTSA, your new petition should also contain phot ographs or descriptive literature illustrating it.

Our closing comment is that you or the LADWP may be unclear about vehicle certification. A manufacturer does not "obtain" certification from NHTSA. The Safety Act establishes a self-certification scheme under which the manufacturer certifies its vehicle s after satisfying itself that it conforms to the standards, aside from those from which it may have been exempted. It does not have to have permission from NHTSA to do so. You intend to test the vehicles, and such testing could provide substantiation for your certification of compliance, or, alternatively, substantiation to NHTSA that an exemption would not unduly degrade the vehicle's safety.

If you have any questions about this matter, you may refer them to Taylor Vinson of this Office (202) 366-5263).