ID: nht87-2.73

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/20/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Karl-Heinz Faber

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Karl-Heinz Faber Vice President Product Compliance and Service Mercedes-Benz of North America, Inc. P.O. Box 350 Montvale, NJ 07645

Dear Mr. Faber:

Thank you for your letter of April 16, 1987, concerning the requirements of Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection. In particular, you asked for an interpretation of the requirements of @4.5.1 of the standard. I hope that the following discussion an swers your question.

@4.5.1 of Standard No. 208 provides that each vehicle with a crash deployed occupant protection system must have a label setting out a manufacturer's recommended schedule for the maintenance or replacement needed to keep the performance of the occupant p rotection system at the level required by the standard. @4.5.1 further provides that "the label shall be permanently affixed to the vehicle within the passenger compartment." You explained that at the present time, you placed the label for your air bag s ystem on the glove box door. You further explained that you placed all other important safety-related information, such as the certification label and tire information placard, on the latch post for the driver's door.

You stated that you want to relocate the air bag label from the glove box door to the latch post on the driver's side. You explained that one of the benefits of the new location is that it will establish a common location for the operator to quickly find important information. You said that the new location should remind vehicle operators of the replacement schedule since the tire pressure placard, which is routinely reviewed by the vehicle operator, is in the same location. Finally, you noted that deal ership service personnel will be alerted to the replacement schedule since "it is common practice for Service Writers to copy down the VIN from the certification label on the driver door latch post."

NHTSA agrees that a label placed on the driver's latch post would meet the requirements of @4. S. 1. The purpose of the location requirement is to place the replacement and maintenance schedule in a location that can be easily observed by the vehicle own er. Thus, the standard requires the label to be within the occupant compartment of the vehicle. The agency considers a label placed on thy latch post, which is inside the exterior surface of the vehicle and in a part of the physical structure that consti tutes occupant compartment, as meeting the location requirement. As you pointed out in your letter, the latch post is already used as a location for other important safety-related information about the vehicle.

If you have any further questions on this standard or need additional information, please let me know.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

April 16, 1987

Ms. Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street N.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Subject: Request for Interpretation Concerning FMVSS-208 Dear Ms. Jones:

Mercedes-Benz of North America, Inc. requests an interpretation of FMVSS-208 "Occupant Crash Protection in Passenger Cars, Multipurpose Passenger Vehicles, Trucks, and Buses". Paragraph @4.5.1 Labeling and Driver's Manual Information provides that, "The (crash deployed occupant protection system maintenance or replacement) label shall be permanently affixed to the vehicle within the passenger compartment ..." (emphasis added)

Our request for interpretation concerns the phrase "within the passenger compartment". Currently, our replacement label for the airbag system is contained on the glove box door. At the same time, all other critical vehicle information, such as the "certi fication label" and "tire information placard", are placed on the driver door latch post.

We intend to relocate our airbag replacement label specified by FMVSS-208 to the same driver door latch post area from the glove box door. This relocation will result in:

1. A common location established on the vehicle for the operator to more quickly find important information.

2. Vehicle operators being more often reminded to take notice of the replacement label since the tire pressure placard is also in this location and routinely reviewed.

Ms. Erika Jones page 2 Request for Interpretation Concerning FMVSS-208

3. Dealership service personnel will be more quickly alerted to vehicles at or near their replacement date since it is common practice for Service Writers to copy down the VIN from the certification label on the driver door latch post.

We regard the driver door latch post area where the label will be placed as within the confines of the passenger compartment as required by the regulation. The label will be placed on the passenger compartment side of the outer door seal.

We would appreciate your confirmation of our location interpretation and thank you in advance for your response.

Sincerely,

ID: nht90-3.2

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: June 28, 1990

FROM: Satoshi Nishibori -- Vice President, Industry-Government Affairs, Nissan Research & Development, Inc.; Signature by Kazuo Iwasaki

TO: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to drawing (graphics omitted); Also attached to letter dated 9-18-90 from P.J. Rice to S. Nishibori (A36; Std. 101)

TEXT:

This letter is to request NHTSA's interpretation of how the requirements of FMVSS 101 (Controls and Displays) would apply to two vehicle systems that Nissan is considering using. These systems are described below.

I. Car Phone

Nissan is considering offering a car phone for use in certain of its passenger cars. The car phone would be installed in the vehicle's console, in the lower, forward portion of the driver's field of vision. The car phone would have five visual displays, each of which is bright enough to be seen under all ambient lighting conditions. The illumination for these displays is not variable and the system may not be turned off while the vehicle ignition switch is in the "ON" position.

The first display shows the number that is being dialed (see Figure) through an LED. This display is illuminated whether or not the telephone is in use, and the number being dialed is shown during the time that the phone is in use.

The second display illuminates the push buttons for dialing numbers. This display is illuminated when the first button is pushed when dialing a number, and the display remains illuminated for a period of ten seconds.

Finally, the system uses three LED indicators. The first indicator (IU) is illuminated when the phone is "in use." The second indicator (NS) is illuminated when the system is outside an area where cellular phone service is available (i.e., "no service" ), as determined by the failure of the system's "roaming" function to lock on an available phone line. The third indicator (RM) is illuminated when this "roaming" function is operating, when outside the system's local operating area.

It is our understanding that this phone system would comply with FMVSS 101 requirements if the five information displays are considered to be "telltales." The term "telltale" is defined in section 4 of FMVSS 101 as "a display that indicates the actuatio n of a device, a correct or defective functioning or condition, or a failure to function." Since the displays used in the phone system indicate operation of various functions of the phone system, the displays may meet the definition of "telltale" in sec tion 4 of the standard. If so, the system would appear to be consistent with the requirement for telltales in section 5.3.4(a) of FMVSS 101, since the illumination of the displays is bright enough to be visible under all ambient lighting conditions. On the other hand, the system would not appear to meet the requirements of section 5.3.5 of the standard

if the displays are considered to be other "sources of illumination," since the displays do not have variable illumination, are brighter than "barely discernible" in night conditions, and may not be turned off without shutting off the vehicle.

Please inform us whether the displays used in this car phone system are "telltales" or other "sources of illumination," and whether the system is consistent with the requirements of FMVSS 101.

II. Air-conditioning Indicator Light

In certain vehicles, Nissan uses an indicator light that is illuminated whenever the air-conditioning system operating switch and the ignition switch are in the "ON" position. When the air conditioner or the ignition switch is turned "OFF," the indicato r light is extinguished.

Nissan believes that the air conditioner indicator qualifies as a "telltale," since it indicates the "actuation of a device." If the air conditioner indicator display is considered to be a "telltale," it would appear to meet the requirements of section 5.3.4, since the display is bright enough to be visible in all ambient lighting conditions.

On the other hand, this display would appear to be comparable to the radio display that is described in NHTSA's January 7, 1988, letter to Isuzu. In that letter, the Agency concluded that the illuminated radio display is considered to be one of the other "sources of illumination" in section 5.3.5 of FMVSS 101. Since the radio display can be turned off by turning off the radio, NHTSA considered it to be consistent with section 5.3.5(3). In the same manner, the air conditioner indicator display can be tu rned off by shutting off the air conditioner system. The radio display referred to in the Isuzu interpretation would also seem to meet the "telltale" definition, although the radio display serves the function of aiding tuning of the radio in addition to indicating whether the device is operating.

Please inform us as to whether the proposed air conditioner lighting display is considered to be a "telltale" or an "other source of illumination" under section 5.3.5 of the standard, and whether the display would be consistent with applicable requiremen ts.

If you require further clarification regarding the proposed Nissan systems, please contact Mr. Kazuo Iwasaki of my staff at 202/466-5284.

(Drawing attached).

ID: 23667.drn

Mr. Mike J. Gower
Trico Products (Europe) Ltd.
High Street North
Dunstable
Beds. LU6 1UZ
United Kingdom

Dear Mr. Gower:

This responds to your request for an interpretation of the correct "seating reference point" to use for a designated seating position when applying Standard No. 104, Windshield wiping and washing systems, to passenger cars. You ask whether the seating reference point is "that point which is in the rearmost position of the total seat travel and if the total seat movement envelope is trapezoidal in side view . . ., that this required point would also be the lowest?"

Until April 8, 1993, the rearmost position of the driver's seat was required to be used for the determination of wiped areas A, B, and C in Standard No. 104. However, as explained below, this was changed by a 1993 final rule (44 FR 13021).

S4.1.2 of Standard No. 104 specifies the area of the windshield that must be wiped by the vehicle's windshield wiping system. Paragraph S4.1.2.1 of the standard refers to SAE Recommended Practice J903a, May 1966, Passenger Car Windshield Wiper Systems. SAE J903a, paragraph 2.4(a), states that the wiped area on the windshield glazing surface is "defined and qualified" by the driver's seat in the rearmost position. It also states, "see Figure 1," which identifies "manikin H point with seat in rearmost position." Nonetheless, a March 9, 1993 final rule (copy enclosed), amended S3 of Standard No. 104 to substitute the term "seating reference point" for the term "manikin H point with seat in rearmost position." Specifically, S3 was amended to state: "The term seating reference point is substituted for the terms manikin H point with seat in the rearmost position and H point wherever any of these terms appear in any SAE Standard or SAE Recommended Practice referred to in this standard." Therefore, the term "seating reference point" replaces "manikin H point with seat in rearmost position" in Figure 1 of SAE J903a.

Definitions for terms used in the Federal motor vehicle safety standards (one of which is Standard No. 104) are at 49 CFR 571.3, Definitions. "Seating reference point" (SgRP) is defined as:

the unique design H-point, as defined in SAE J1100 (June 1984), which

(a) Establishes the rearmost normal design driving or riding position of each designated seating position, which includes consideration of all modes of adjustment, horizontal, vertical, and tilt, in a vehicle;

(b) Has X, Y and Z coordinates, as defined in SAE J1100 (June 1984), established relative to the designed vehicle structure;

(c) Simulates the position of the pivot center of the human torso and thigh; and

(d) Is the reference point employed to position the two-dimensional drafting template with the 95^th percentile leg described in SAE J826 (May 1987), or, if the drafting template with the 95^th percentile leg cannot be positioned in the seating position, is located with the seat in its most rearward adjustment position.

The "Seating reference point" is not necessarily determined with the driver seat in its rearmost adjustment position. Instead, the SgRP may be located where the SAE J826 two-dimensional drafting template using a leg segment representative of a 95^th percentile adult male is positioned. If a seat is provided with adjustment positions to accommodate persons larger than the 95^th percentile adult male, any such adjustment positions would not affect the location of the SgRP. On the other hand, if the drafting template with the 95^th percentile leg could not be positioned in the seat because its rearmost adjustment is too far forward, the SgRP must be located with the seat in its most rearward adjustment position.

You could continue to use the rearmost position of the driver's seat in determining the wiped areas in Standard No. 104, although those areas may be slightly greater than if you used the seating reference point as interpreted above. This conservative approach could provide a margin of compliance to ensure that all vehicles produced will meet the Standard's requirements.

You also asked whether the seating reference point was determined with the seat in its lowest adjustment point. SAE Jll00, June 1984, Motor Vehicle Dimensions (referenced above), paragraph 2.1, explains adjustments of the front seat position other than its rearmost normal driving position. It states that all other adjustable features, such as an adjustable steering wheel, and adjustable seat height, etc., shall be positioned in their normal driving position as specified by the manufacturer. Although a motor vehicle manufacturer may specify any seat height that would also be consistent with the fore-aft procedure for the seating reference point described above, you could use a variety of positions (full up, mid, full down, etc.) to determine the worst case (largest areas) for an additional margin of compliance.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please contact Ms. Dorothy Nakama this address or at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosure
ref:104#571
d.1/9/02

ID: 86-3.25

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 05/16/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Earl J. Ogletree; John Gaski -- Harley Products Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Earl J. Ogletree Mr. John Gaski Harley Products Inc. 904 S Prospect Avenue Park Ridge, IL 60068 Dear Mr. Ogletree and Mr. Gaski: Thank you for your letter of March 28, 1986, asking how our regulations would affect a product you intend to manufacture both as an aftermarket item of motor vehicle equipment and as an item of original equipment on some vehicles imported into this country. You described the product as a sun visor that clips onto a vehicle's regular visor. You further explained that the sun visor has an extension arm that allows the visor to be moved to filter out the sun coming in through the window to the left of the driver, or moved below the original equipment visor or between the two original equipment visors. I hope the following discussion explains how our regulations affect your proposed visor.

Some background information on how Federal motor vehicle safety laws and regulations affect your product may be helpful. Our agency is authorized, under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and certain items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA, however, does not approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, nor do we endorse any commercial products. Instead, the Vehicle Safety Act establishes a "self-certification" process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards. The agency periodically tests vehicles and equipment items for compliance with the standards, and also investigates alleged safety-related defects. As explained below, installation of your proposed sun visor in new and used vehicles would be affected by our regulations. In addition, any manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment is subject to the requirements of the Vehicle Safety Act concerning the recall and remedy of products with noncompliances or defects related to motor vehicle safety.

We have issued Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials, which specifies performance and location requirements for glazing used in vehicles. These requirements include specifications for minimum levels of light transmittance (708 in areas requisite for driving visibility, which includes all windows in passenger cars).

No manufacturer or dealer is permitted to install solar films and other sun screen devices, such as the sun visors described in your letter, in new vehicles without certifying that the vehicle continues to be in compliance with the light transmittance and other requirements of the standard.

After a vehicle is first sold to a consumer, modifications to a vehicle are affected by section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Vehicle Safety Act. That section prohibits commercial businesses from tampering with safety equipment installed on a vehicle in compliance with our standards. Thus, no dealer, manufacturer, repair business or distributor can install a sun screen device for the owner of the vehicle, if the device would cause the window not to meet the requirements of Standard No 205. Violation of section 108(a)(2)(A) can result in Federal civil penalties of up to $1,000 for each violation.

Section 108(a)(2)(A) does not affect vehicle owners, who may themselves alter their vehicles as they please, so long as they adhere to all State requirements. Under Federal law, the owner may install sun screening devices regardless of whether the installation adversely affects the light transmittance. However, the agency encourages vehicle owners not to install devices which could impair their vision and thus adversely affect safety. Individual States govern the operational use of vehicles by their owners and therefore it is within the authority of the States to preclude owners from using sun screens in their vehicles.

If you need further information, please let me know.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

LEGAL COUNSEL NHTSB U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION ROOM 5219 400 7TH STREET S.W. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20590

DEAR SIR/MS:

I AM REQUESTING A RULING OR INFORMATION ON THE U.S. GOVERNMENTS POSITION ON THE LEGALITY OF MANUFACTURING AND SELLING A NEW TYPE OF SUN VISOR* FOR USE ON AUTOMOBILES IN THE AFTER SALE MARKET IN THE U.S. ALSO WE ARE PLANNING TO INCORPORATE THE NEW SUN VISOR AS ORIGINAL EQUIPMENT ON AUTOMOBILES MANUFACTURED IN KOREA WHICH WILL BE SOLD IN THE U.S. SOLD.

* THE NEW SUN VISOR CLIPS ONTO THE AUTOMOBILES' REGULAR VISOR. WHAT MAKES THE NEW SUN VISOR DIFFERENT IS THAT THE TINTED SUN VISOR CAN BE MOVED TO FILTER OUT THE SUN VIA AN EXTENSION ARM THAT HOLDS THE TINTED SUN VISOR WITHOUT MOVING THE REGULAR OR ORIGINAL EQUIPMENT VISOR. WITH THE NEW SUN VISOR ONE CAN FILTER OUT THE SUN AT THE LEFT SIDE DOOR WINDOW, BELOW THE ORIGINAL EQUIPMENT VISOR AND BETWEEN THE TWO ORIGINAL EQUIPMENT VISORS.

PLEASE ADVISE US AS TO WHETHER OR NOT THIS IS A FEDERAL ISSUE OR PROBLEM.

SINCERELY, EARL J. OGLETREE AND JOHN GASKI

ID: 86-4.10

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/09/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Rolf Seiferheld

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Service & Technical Bitter Automobile of America, Inc. 401 Willowbrook Lane West Chester, PA 19380

Dear Mr. Seiferheld:

This responds to your letter asking about 49 CFR Part 581, Bumper Standard. We apologize for the delay in our response. You stated that you are considering integrating fog-taillight assemblies in the rear bumper of a car and asked about relevant requirements. You noted in your letter that section S4.1.3 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 (49 CFR 571.108) states that "(n)o additional lamp, reflective device, or other motor vehicle equipment shall be installed that impairs the effectiveness of lighting equipment required by this standard." You stated that this paragraph seems to be relevant but that it is unclear to you.

Both Part 581, Bumper Standard, and Safety Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices( and Associated Equipment, are relevant to the location of fog-taillamp assemblies in the rear bumper. Fog lamps are lighting devices that are not covered by Standard No. 108. Therefore, two questions must be asked: are they permissible, and if so, may they be combined with items of lighting equipment required by Standard No. 108. Under section S4.1.3, quoted above, fog lamps are permissible provided that they do not impair the effectiveness of the lighting equipment that the standard requires. In this instance, the question cannot be answered without reference to whether its combination with the taillamp is permitted, for from the photo and drawing submitted, both appear combined in a single housing incorporating, we assume, one filament for each function. Both lamps are "position lamps", indicating the presence of the vehicle in the roadway ahead to a driver who is following behind. The fog lamp is intended to be activated under extreme conditions of reduced visibility, and hence, would appear to increase the effectiveness of the taillamp rather than impair it. Section S4.4 of Standard No. 108 prohibits combining taillamps only with clearance lamps (not required lighting equipment for passenger cars), and thus combining the taillamp and fog lamp functions are permissible. Section S4.3.1.1 of the standard specifies, among other things, that no part of the vehicle may prevent a taillamp from meeting its photometric output at specified test points. Further, a taillamp located in the bumper must also meet the visibility requirements of SAE Standard J585e Tail Lamps (Rear Position Lamps), September 1977, incorporated by reference in Standard No. 108. Pursuant to Paragraph 4 of J585e taillamps must be visible through a horizontal angle from 45 degrees to the left to 15 degrees to the right; to be considered visible, the lamp must provide an unobstructed projected illuminated area of outer lens surface (excluding reflex), not less than 2 square inches measured at 45 degrees to the longitudinal axis of the vehicle.

Finally, Part 581 Bumper Standard specifies requirements for the impact resistance of vehicles in low speed front and rear collisions. Vehicles must be capable of meeting certain damage criteria, following specified test impacts. Among other things, lamps must be free of cracks and comply with applicable visibility requirements of section S4.3.1.1 of Standard No. 108 following the impacts.

I hope this information is helpful.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

November 18, 1985

Chief Counsel Jeff Miller National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 7th St., Southwest NASSIF Bld., Rm. #5219 Washington, D.C. 20590

RE: CFR 49, PART 581 BUMPER STANDARD

Dear Mr. Miller:

This is an Informal inquiry concerning the above referenced subject. Bitter Automobile of America, Inc. is the national importer of the Bitter SC automobile.

This Inquiry is in regard to the configuration of the rear bumper assembly of our automobile. In the past we have had a full face bumper bar without any light assemblies incorporated. However, I have been asked by Bitter K.G. GmbH Engineering staff what the regulations are of incorporating fog-taillight assemblies in the bumper; e.g. integrated into the rear bumper (see attached photograph and drawing). In consulting the Motor Vehicle Standard, No. 108, Part 571; S 108-7 , S 4.1.3, it states:

"No additional lamp reflective device or other motor vehicle equipment shall be installed that impairs the effectiveness of lighting equipment required by this standard."

This paragraph seems to relate to what we are contemplating, but is not clear to me. I kindly ask if the above could be feasible to change to a new style bumper.

I hope to hear from you soon and thank you for your time.

Sincerely,

Rolf Seiferheld Service & Technical

Enclosures

RS/red

ID: 86-5.23

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 09/22/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Mr. T.E. McConnell

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. T. E. McConnell Prince Lionheart 2301 Cape Cod Way Santa Ana, CA 92703

Dear Mr. McConnell:

Thank you for your letter of July 31, 1986, inquiring about the Federal safety standards that apply to roll-up window shades designed to be attached to a vehicle's window by suction cups. The following discussion explains how our safety standards apply to your products.

Some background information on how Federal Motor Vehicle Safety laws and regulations affect your product may be helpful. Our agency is authorized, under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and certain items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA, however, does not approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, nor do we endorse any commercial products. Instead the Vehicle Safety Act establishes a "self-certification" process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards The agency periodically tests vehicles and equipment items for compliance with the standards, and also investigates other alleged safety-related defects. As explained below, installation of products in new and used vehicles would be affected by our regulations. In addition, any manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment is subject to the requirements of the Vehicle Safety Act concerning the recall and remedy of products with noncompliances or defects related to motor vehicle safety.

We have issued Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials, which specifies performance and location requirements for glazing used in vehicles. These requirements include specifications for minimum levels of light transmittance (70% in areas requisite for driving visibility, which includes all windows in passenger cars).

No manufacturer or dealer is permitted to install solar films and other sun screen devices, such as the ones described in your letter, in new vehicles without certifying that the vehicle continues to be in compliance with the light transmittance and other requirements of the standard.

After a vehicle is first sold to a consumer, modifications to a vehicle are affected by section 108(a) (2) (n) of the Vehicle Safety Act. That section prohibits commercial businesses from tampering with safety equipment installed on a vehicle in compliance with our standards. Thus, no dealer, manufacturer, repair business or distributor can install a sun screen device for the owner of the vehicle, if the device would cause the window not to meet the requirements of Standard No. 205. Violation of section 108(h) (2) (A) can result in Federal civil penalties of up to $1,000 for each violation.

Section 108 (6)( 2) (A) does not affect vehicle owners who may themselves alter their vehicles as they please, so long as they adhere to all State requirements. Under Federal law, the owner may install sun screening devices regardless of whether the installation adversely affects the light transmittance. The agency, however, urges vehicle owners not to take actions that would degrade the performance of required safety features. Individual States govern the operational use of vehicles by their owners and therefore it is within the authority of the States top preclude owners from using sun screens in their vehicles.

I am returning, under separate cover, the two samples of your product you provided the agency. If you need further information, please let me know.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

July 31, 1986

Office of Chief Counsel NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION U.S. Department of Transportation 400 Seventh Street S.W. Washington. D.C. 20590

Dear Sir:

Mr. Ralph Hitchcock of the NHTSA Rule Making Office referred me to the Office of Chief Counsel in my effort to obtain a determination that PRINCE LIONHEART'S BABYBRELLAtm and sUNBRELLAtm roll-up automobile window shades are in compliance with all State and Federal laws regarding window coverings.

I am enclosing a sample BABYBRELLAtm and a packaged sUNBRELLA for your reference. The package for the BABYBRELLAtm is identical to that of the sUNBRELLAtm except for the name and logo.

Please note that the shade, itself, does not come in contact with the window's surface and it's roll-up feature allows it to be easily raised for driving at night or on cloudy days. We have found these items to be extremely useful in protecting a car's occupants from sun, heat and glare while providing a safe alternative to sheets and towels which many people use to protect themselves and their children from the sun.

I will appreciate your prompt response to this request and please feel free to call the undersigned should any questions arise.

Very truly yours,

T.E. McConnell PRINCE LIONHEART

TEM/pd encl.

ID: 2847o

AIR MAIL

Dipl.-Ing. F. Vapenicek Chief of Machinery Plant Nova Hut Klementa Gottwalda n. p., 707 02 Ostrava 7 CZECHOSLOVAKIA

Dear Mr. Vapenicek:

This responds to your letter concerning Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. l20, Tire Selection and Rims for Motor Vehicles Other than Passenger Cars. You stated that the dimensions of your rims comply with dimensional specifications of the European Tyre and Rim Technical Organisation. You asked whether disc wheels provided with certain information can be regarded as complying with the requirements of U.S. standards. Your question is responded to below.

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

You provided the following example of your disc wheel marking on the attachment face of the disc:

(b) 8,0-20

(c) DOT-E

(d) symbol of the manufacturer

(e) 6 87

You stated that the information listed in (b) and (d) also appears on every part of your multipiece rim and that height and depth of the marking meets the requirements of S5.2 of Standard No. l20. Section S5.2 states:

. . . each rim or, at the option of the manufacturer in the case of a singlepiece wheel, wheel disc shall be marked with the information listed in paragraphs (a) through (e) of this paragraph . . . . The information listed in paragraphs (a) through (c) of this paragraph shall appear on the weather side. In the case of rims of multipiece construction, the information listed in paragraphs (a) through (e) of this paragraph shall appear on the rim base and the information listed in paragraphs (b) and (d) of this paragraph shall also appear on each other part of the rim.

Your letter indicates that you plan to place your disc wheel marking "on the attachment face of disc." While it is not clear what you mean by the term attachment face of disc, I would like to note several requirements specified by section S5.2 for marking location. First, the marking must be placed on the rim, except that for singlepiece wheels manufacturers have the option of placing the marking on the wheel disc. Thus, assuming that your rim is a multipiece rim, the marking must be placed on the rim rather than the disc. Second, the information listed in paragraphs (a) through (c) must be placed on the weather side. Section S4 provides a definition for the "weather side" of a rim. Third, for multipiece rims, the information listed in paragraphs (a) through (e) must appear on the rim base, and the information listed in paragraphs (b) and (d) must also appear on each other part of the rim. Section S4 provides a definition for "rim base."

Your sample disc wheel marking links by a hyphen the symbol "DOT" required by S5.2(c) and the designation "E" required by S5.2(a). The symbol DOT constitutes a certification by the manufacturer of the rim that the rim complies with all applicable motor vehicle safety standards, while the designation E indicates the source of the rim's published nominal dimensions, i.e., in your case, the European Tyre and Rim Technical Organisation. While NHTSA expects the information provided in paragraphs (a), (b), and (c) to be grouped together, we do not recommend linking "DOT" and "E" by a hyphen. These symbols provide two different types of information, and the inclusion of a hyphen could cause confusion.

The information required by S5.2(b) is "(t)he rim size designation, and in the case of multipiece rims, the rim type designation. For example: 20 x 5.50, or 20 x 5.5." Your sample disc wheel marking is 8,0-20. I note first that the rim size designation (defined in S4 as "rim diameter and width") should use the symbol "x" between the width and diameter, as indicated by S5.2(b)'s example. Moreover, for multipiece rims, S5.2(b) requires both the rim size designation and the rim type designation. S4 defines the term "rim type designation" as "the industry or manufacturer's designation for a rim by style or code." If your disc wheel is a multipiece rim, the disc wheel marking should include the rim type designation.

S5.2(c) requires a designation that identifies the manufacturer of the rim by name, trademark, or symbol. Your letter indicates that you plan to use a symbol. I note that, as discussed in an interpretation letter dated February l7, l986 (copy enclosed), 49 CFR Part 55l requires rim manufacturers to designate a permanent resident of the United States as the manufacturer's agent for service of process in this country. Among other things, the designation of agent must contain information concerning marks, trade names, or other designations of origin of any of the manufacturer's wheels and rims that do not bear its name.

The information in your sample disc wheel marking under (e) is consistent with one of the examples provided in S5.2(e) to indicate the month and year of manufacturer.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

ref:120 d.4/13/88

ID: 2864yy

Ms Anne Lombardi
Acting Director
Office of Passenger
Enforcement and Facilitation
Department of the Treasury
U.S. Customs Service
Washington, D.C. 20229

Dear Ms. Lombardi:

This is in reply to your letter of February 14, l99l, asking for an opinion on kit cars.

Specifically, military and DOD civilian employees stationed on the Philippines

"frequently purchase automobiles which are composites of old chassis and engines, of U.S. manufacture, and new bodies and interiors, fabricated and attached to the chassis by local Filipino car shops. Normally, the chassis and engines were not taken abroad by the importers, but were purchased in the Philippines from other sources. In most cases the chassis are said to have been manufactured prior to January 1, l969."

You have asked which DOT regulations apply to these automobiles, those applicable to the year the chassis was manufactured, or those applicable to the year the body was attached.

This is a question of first impression with us. Under the opinions of this Office relating to the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, if a person meeting the definition of a "manufacturer", "distributor", "dealer", or "motor vehicle repair business" removes a body from the chassis of a motor vehicle and installs a new one, the resulting vehicle must continue to meet the Federal motor vehicle safety standards that were in effect at the time that the vehicle was originally manufactured. If a person other than the above installs the new body, the vehicle is simply a used vehicle to which no Federal motor vehicle safety standards are applicable (but which must meet State standards for vehicle registration). However, these interpretations apply only to modifications that occur within a "State" as defined by the Act. The Philippines is not included in the definition of "State."

Where such modifications have occurred outside a "State", and the modified vehicle is offered for importation into the United States, the vehicle is treated under the importation regulations (49 CFR Part 591) as a used vehicle which must be brought into conformity with Federal safety and bumper standards in effect at the time of its manufacture. We regard the date of manufacture of the original vehicle (i.e., chassis) as the appropriate date, because it may not be feasible to conform the assemblage to vehicle standards in effect at the later date on which the body was manufactured. If the original vehicle were manufactured before January 1, l968 (the effective date of the original safety standards), then no Federal motor vehicle safety standards apply to the vehicle.

I must add an important caveat here. There are two types of Federal motor vehicle safety standards: those that apply to the vehicles as a whole (such as the so-called crash standards), and those that apply to individual equipment items. The equipment standards apply regardless of the date of manufacture of the vehicle. Thus, the tires, brake fluid, brake hoses, glazing, seat belt assemblies, and lamps and reflectors on any modified vehicle imported into the United States must meet the standards in effect at the time the items were manufactured, regardless of whether the modified vehicle must meet the Federal safety standards applicable to vehicles.

I must also add two other caveats. The Imported Vehicle Safety Act of l988, which has been implemented by 49 CFR Parts 591-594, forbids the importation of a vehicle not originally manufactured to conform to the Federal motor vehicle safety standards (e.g., this would apply to an assemblage of a new body placed upon a chassis manufactured on or after January 1, l968) unless this agency has determined that the vehicle is capable of modification to comply with all applicable safety standards. This determination is made pursuant to a petition submitted by a "Registered Importer," who will undertake to conform the vehicle if a favorable determination is made. The second caveat is that the owner can import the vehicle only if (s)he has a contract with a Registered Importer to perform conformance work.

However, there is a limited exception to the two caveats of the preceding paragraph. They do not apply to any vehicle that will be imported into the United States on or before October 31, l992, if its importer owned the vehicle (or had a contract to acquire it) before October 31, l988, was employed outside the United States at all times between those two dates, and had never before imported a nonconforming motor vehicle. Under this exception, the owner may import the vehicle without the necessity of a determination or the intervention of a Registered Importer. (S)he must then bring the vehicle into compliance with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety and bumper standards, and present evidence of conformance to this agency. Under any circumstances of importation of a noncomplying vehicle to be conformed, its owner must acquire a performance bond to ensure that the work is, in fact, completed.

If you have any further questions, we shall be pleased to answer them.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

ref:VSA#59l d:3/ll/9l

ID: 77-1.37

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/04/77

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Jack Gromer -- Vice President, Timpte

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to Timpte's January 11, 1977, question whether NHTSA regulations prohibit sale and delivery of a trailer to the first purchaser equipped with two used tires in place of the eight tires that are specified for the vehicle and which would form the basis of certification under Part 567, Certification and the basis of compliance with Standard No. 120, Tire Selection and Rims for Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars.

As you are aware, Part 567 of regulations requires a statement by the vehicle manufacturer of the gross axle weight rating (GAWR) for each axle on any motor vehicle it manufactures (@ 567.4(g)(4)). The term "GAWR" is defined in @ 571.3 of our regulations as the value specified by the manufacturer as the load-carrying capacity of the axle system, measured at the tire-ground interfaces. This clearly means that the tires and wheels on an axle must be taken into account in assigning a GAWR value for certification purposes.

Standard No. 120 specifies that "each vehicle . . . shall be equipped with tires that meet [specified requirements]" (S5.1.1) but makes provision for the installation of used tires owned by the purchaser if the maximum load ratings of the tires on an axle system are at least equal to the GAWR assigned to the axle system by the vehicle manufacturer (S5.1.3). Section S5.1.3 reflects the agency's view that existing commercial practices for the delivery of vehicles with safe used tires has not created a significant safety problem to date.

In recognition of varying commercial practices for the delivery of vehicles, the agency has interpreted S5.1.1 of Standard No. 120 to prohibit the installation of tires that do not meet certain performance requirements, but not as a requirement that tires be fitted to every axle of a vehicle prior to certification and sale. A copy of this interpretation is enclosed for your information. The interpretation makes clear that, while the agency interprets Standard No. 120 (and by implication Part 567) to permit the assignment of a GAWR on the basis of tires listed on the certification plate, the assignment of an arbitrarily high (or low) GAWR for purposes such as avoiding a Federal motor vehicle safety standard could constitute a violation of law.

With regard to the practice you describe of delivering an empty new trailer to the purchaser on fewer tires that necessary to conform to the GAWR listed on the certification plate and the minimum requirements of S5.1.1 and S5.1.2 of Standard No. 120, the agency interprets its motor vehicle safety standard and @ 567.4(g)(4) to permit such a good faith delivery practice. In the event any pattern of avoidance of Federal requirements becomes apparent, however, the agency would reconsider this interpretation.

SINCERELY, TIMPTE, INC.

JANUARY 11, 1977

NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION OFFICE OF COMPLIANCE

AS MANUFACTURERS OF SEMI-TRAILERS, WE ARE CERTIFYING VIRTUALLY 100% OF OUR PRODUCTION TO ALL APPLICABLE STANDARDS CURRENTLY IN EFFECT. ONE PROBLEM DEVELOPS OCCASIONALLY AND WE WOULD LIKE TO HAVE AN INTERPRETATION ON THIS MATTER.

THE CONDITION IS ONE WHERE WE HAVE BUILT A SEMI-TRAILER FOR A PARTICULAR CUSTOMER AND THAT CUSTOMER CHOOSES TO FURNISH THE TIRES. IN OUR MANUFACTURE, WE WILL SPECIFY THE AXLE SUSPENSION AND OTHER COMPONENTS AS WELL AS INDICATING THE TIRE SIZE WHICH THE CUSTOMER WILL FURNISH. OCCASIONALLY, THE NEW TIRES ARE NOT SENT TO OUR MANUFACTURING FACILITY HERE, BUT RATHER, TIRES ARE INSTALLED BY THE CUSTOMER AT THE TIME HE TAKES THE TRAILER TO HIS OWN FACILITY. PICK UP OF THE TRAILER IS ACCOMPLISHED BY A DRIVER WITH A TRUCK TRACTOR BELONGING TO THE CUSTOMER AND HE MAY BRING WITH HIM ONLY TWO WHEELS AND TIRES WHICH ARE ON THE "RUN OUT" VARIETY. THEY REQUEST US TO INSTALL THESE ON THE VEHICLE AND CHAIN UP THE REAR AXLE OF THE TANDEM SO THAT THE DRIVER CAN THEN TAKE THE NEW TRAILER EQUIPPED WITH ONLY TWO WHEELS AND TIRES IN LIEU OF EIGHT BACK TO HIS FACILITY. NOW, OUR CERTIFICATION WOULD NORMALLY BE FOR THE FULL COMPLEMENT OF TIRES AND THE GAWR RATINGS AS WELL AS THE GVWR RATINGS WOULD BE STAMPED ON THE CERTIFICATION LABEL AS IF THE TRAILER WERE EQUIPPED WITH THE INTENDED RUBBER.

BY COMPLYING WITH THE CUSTOMER'S REQUEST AND INSTALLING OLD TIRES AID FEWER TIRES THAN INTENDED FOR THE TRAILER AND ALLOWING HIM TO TAKE DELIVERY FROM OUR PREMISES, ARE WE MAKING OURSELVES LIBEL IN ANY WAY FOR NON-COMPLIANCE WITH THE CERTIFICATION REGULATIONS OR WHATEVER? UNDERSTAND PLEASE, THAT THIS WOULD BE DONE AT CUSTOMER REQUEST AND INSTRUCTION WITH HIS FULL INTENTION BEING TO EQUIP THE TRAILER WITH A FULL SET OF GOOD TIRES, POSSIBLY RECAPS, AT THE TIME THAT HE GETS IT TO HIS FACILITY.

CERTAINLY, WE DON'T WANT TO PUT OURSELVES IN A COMPROMISING POSITION AND IT WOULD NOT BE OUR INTENT TO DEVIATE OR BE IN NON-COMPLIANCE WITH ANY OF THE NHTSA REGULATIONS; AT THE SAME TIME WE WOULD LIKE TO ACCOMODATE OUR CUSTOMERS SO WE WOULD APPRECIATE AN OPINION FROM YOU REGARDING THIS TYPE OF CONDITION. IT IS AN INFREQUENT ONE; HOWEVER, WE HAVE BEEN CONFRONTED WITH THIS TYPE OF REQUEST.

JACK GROMER VICE PRESIDENT - ENGINEERING

ID: nht80-2.43

DATE: 06/02/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Brown Motors Volkswagen

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

ATTACHMT: 8/17/79 letter from Frank Berndt to Mike Champagne

TEXT:

Mr. Robert Slagle Parts Manager Brown Motors Volkswagen 5 West 18th Street at National City Boulevard National City, California 92050

Dear Mr. Slagle:

This responds to your recent letter requesting information concerning the Federal requirements that would be applicable to the manufacture and installation of auxiliary diesel fuel tanks in passenger cars. I am enclosing a copy of a letter of interpretation the agency issued last August which discusses the general implications of such installations under Federal law.

Your letter asked whether it will be necessary for you to crash test vehicles that have the auxiliary tanks installed. As indicated in the enclosed interpretation, if the tank is added to a new vehicle prior to its first purchase for purposes other than resale, the person making the alteration will have to certify that the vehicle continues to be in compliance with all Federal motor vehicle safety standards, including Standard No. 301-75. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act requires a manufacturer (including an alterer) to exercise due care to assure that a vehicle certifies is in fact in compliance with all safety standards (15 U.S.C. 1397). It is up to the manufacturer to determine how he will establish due care and, in this case, whether he will crash test a vehicle or use some other method to ensure the compliance of the vehicle. The test procedures in Safety Standard No. 301-75 are not obligatory, only the performance requirements. The test procedures do, however, state how the agency will test a vehicle to determine compliance.

In answer to your question number 4, I can state that it will not be necessary for you to crash test each vehicle which has a tank installed in order to establish due care. If by your question you meant one car of each car "model," once again, it is up to the manufacturer how he establishes due care.

In answer to your question number 3, the information contained in the enclosed interpretation includes discussions of all the Federal safety requirements that would be applicable to your company's activities. There may, of course, be other general Federal laws regarding the conducting of a business which would be pertinent. For example, Federal Trade Commission regulations regarding advertising could affect your activities. You are probably aware of these general regulations, however, since you are already an established business enterprise.

Regarding your final question, all vehicle manufacturers, both domestic and foreign, have performed crash tests to determine compliance with Safety Standard No. 301-75. Since your company is a Volkswagen dealership, I suggest you contact Volkswagen regarding its compliance testing program for Safety Standard No. 301-75.

If you have any further questions after reviewing this information, please contact Hugh Oates of my staff (202-426-2992).

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

Enclosure

[8/17/79 letter from Frank Berndt to Mike Champagne omitted]

April 24, 1980

Mr. Frank Berndt U.S. Department of Transportation National Hwy. Traffic Safety Adm. Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Mr. Berndt:

We are in the process of having auxiliary diesel fuel tanks made of aluminum for us by a company who makes many items, such as ducting, vents, water tanks, fuel tanks, etc. These tanks are for automobiles that use diesel fuel only, not gasoline. We make up a kit including all necessary parts and installation instructions for this to be installed in diesel driven vehicles only.

These auxiliary diesel fuel tank kits will be sold to automobile dealers for sale over the counter or may install in their own shop; also sold to repair shops, auto parts stores, etc, We will install these auxiliary tanks in our agency also.

Our tanks are constructed of 12 gauge non-corrosive aluminum-Heliarc welded and each tank is pressure tested. Some are made to fit in to the spare tire well and some fit in the trunk of the car. Each tank is secured by (4) four or more bolts thru specially welded brackets on each tank.

We are prepared to notify customers if necessary, should we find a defect, also should a leak occur, we will replace the tank.

I would appreciate a response to the questions listed below:

1. Will federal motor vehicle safety standard FMVSS No. 301-75 apply to our company's activities?

2. Will it be necessary for us to crash test a car?

3. Will any other federal law apply to our company's activity?

4. Will it be necessary for us to crash test each car we make diesel tanks for?

5. Can you furnish any information to us on manufacture's that performed crash tests as to federal standards FMVSS 301-75?

Our desire and intent is to build a safe auxiliary diesel fuel tank and maintain fuel system integrity.

I would appreciate any response to this letter and any suggestions you might have for this project.

Sincerely,

Robert Slagle Parts Manager