ID: nht94-1.62

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: February 17, 1994

FROM: Karl-Heinz Ziwica -- General Manager, Environmental Engineering, BMW of North America, Inc.

TO: Barbara A. Gray, Office of Market Incentives, NHTSA, U.S. Department of Transportation

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 8/9/94 from Barry Felrice to Karl-Heinz Ziwica (Part 543)

TEXT: Dear Ms. Gray:

This letter is to inform the agency that beginning with the 1995 model year, BMW will be utilizing the 7-carline parts marking exemption granted by the NHTSA on October 9, 1986 (51 CFR 3633). As was explained to you by Mr. James C. Patterson of my staff on February 7, 1994, there have been three updates to the anti-theft device previously approved on the 7-carline. Accordingly, BMW requests that the NHTSA determine these updates constitute de minimus changes to the 7-carline's anti-theft device.

The following paragraphs describes the updates:

1. The remote device has become an integral component within the vehicle key and is the actuator for the alarm system. This change is identical to the change that BMW made on the 8-carline anti-theft device, which NHTSA has already determined to be de m inimus (NHTSA letter from Mr. Barry Felrice to K.-H. Ziwica dated 10/04/93).

2. The monitoring circuits for radio theft and glove box entry, now, monitor glass breakage to further ensure the security of the entire occupant compartment, rather than, the individual components. All other monitoring (e.g. doors, hood, trunk, etc.) h as remained as when the device was previously approved.

3. The anti-theft device's siren has been changed to a 112db siren.

If further information is needed or you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact Mr. Patterson on (201) 573-2041.

ID: aiam2930

Dear Mr. Ratz: This is in reply to your letter of December 8, 1978, asking whether th front and rear clearance lamps on your Model 870 Urban transit coach comply with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.; The front clearance lamps on the Model 870 are combined with the tur signal lamps, side marker lamps, and side reflex reflectors. The units are located 'on line with and just outboard of each rectangular headlamp,' with lens center 32 inches above the road surface, at a point that appears to be at the vehicle's overall width. The rear clearance lamps are combined with the stop lamps and rear side marker lamps, their horizontal center lines 64 inches above the road surface, at approximately the vehicle's overall width. Front and rear identification lamps are mounted at the top of the vehicle.; The general rule expressed by Table II of Standard No. 108 is tha clearance lamps must be mounted 'to indicate the overall width of the vehicle ... and as near the top thereof as practicable.' But a partial exception is provided by S4.3.1.4.: When the rear identification lamps are mounted at the extreme height of the vehicle, rear clearance lamps need not meet the requirement of Table II that they be located as close as practicable to the top of the vehicle.'; This means that the mid-body location of the rear clearance lamp i acceptable since the rear identification lamps are at the extreme height of the vehicle. But the exception does not extend to the front clearance lamps. While Standard No. 108 allows the manufacturer to determine what location is 'as close as practicable to the top of the vehicle', there will be instances when the overall width of the vehicle will not be indicated by the highest location. In such instances the best location will be the one that most closely approximates the intent behind the requirement - to indicate the overall width.; Specifically with reference to the Model 870, it appears to us that th close proximity of the combination lamp to the headlamp may result in the effectiveness of the clearance lamp being impaired by the brightness of the headlamp, and that the most practicable location sufficiently indicating the overall width of the vehicle, would be at the outer edges of the body directly below the windshield.; Sincerely, Joseph J. Levin, Jr., Chief Counsel

ID: aiam0455

Dear Mr. Westphal: In response to your letter of September 15, 1971, requesting ou interpretation of certain motor vehicle safety standards and regulations:; >>>1. Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208, 'Occupant Cras Protection,' as amended at 36 F.R. 4600 (March 10. 1971). If trucks over 10,000 pounds GVWR are equipped with a seat belt system as in paragraph S4.3.2, the vehicles need not meet the requirements of paragraphs S5 and S6, which apply only when the complete passive protection system option of paragraph S4.3.1 is adopted. Of course, the seat belt system must conform to the seat belt assembly requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 209, 'Seat Belt Assemblies.'; 2. Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 206, 'Door Locks and Doo Retention Components.' Your interpretation of the standard's coverage is correct: there are no requirements in the standard for the installation of the latches and hinges.; 3. Part 573, 'Defect Reports,' 36 F.R. 3064 (February 17, 1971). Th National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act and our regulations do not require manufacturers to repair defective motor vehicles. Manufacturers are therefore free to make whatever arrangements for repair of defects they wish. Of course, we hope that in making such arrangements the manufacturers will assume the responsibility of assuring that the repairs are made properly.<<<; Sincerely, Lawrence R. Schneider, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam3419

Dear Mr. Ardent: This responds to your recent letter asking whether the packaging sea of a brake fluid container you intend to market would comply with Safety Standard No. 116.; Safety Standard No. 116, *Brake Fluids* (49 CFR 571.116), specifie performance and labeling requirements for motor vehicle brake fluids and their containers. Paragraph S5.2.1 of that standard sets forth specific requirements for container sealing of brake fluid packages:; >>>Each brake fluid or hydraulic system mineral oil container with capacity of 6 fluid ounces or more shall be provided with a resealable closure that has an inner seal impervious to the packaged brake fluid. The container closure shall include a tamper-proof feature that will either be destroyed or substantially altered when the container closure is initially opened.<<<; The tamper-proof feature on your proposed brake fluid package consist basically of a simple piece of adhesive that is connected between the container cap and the container cylinder. This piece of adhesive is torn in half when the cap is removed from the container, and it appears that the adhesive could not be removed from the container intact. Therefore, strictly speaking, the adhesive feature meets the requirements of S5.2.1 that the tamper-proof feature 'either be destroyed or substantially altered when the container closure is initially opened.' There may be some question whether the adhesive feature is actually tamper-proof, however, since the adhesive could be totally removed from the container without leaving any indication. Nevertheless, since the standard does not define the term 'tamper-proof,' we would have to say that your adhesive seal complies with the requirements of Safety Standard No. 116.; We believe that you should make an effort to improve the design of thi tamper-proof feature, even though it might meet the 'letter of the law' as far as Safety Standard No. 116 is concerned. For example, the adhesive seal should be more difficult to remove, or it should bear some legend indicating that the package has been opened if the seal is broken. We hope that you will voluntarily make these design improvements.; I would like to point out that this letter only represents the agency' opinion based on the information supplied in your letter. The agency does not grant prior approval of the design of motor vehicles or equipment. It is up to the manufacturer to make the final determination whether its vehicles or equipment are in compliance with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards, and to certify that compliance.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel

ID: nht88-1.60

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/01/88

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Telex Communications, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Bill Hunt, Project Engineer Telex Communications, Inc. 8601 Northeast Highway 6 Lincoln, NE 68505

Dear Mr. Hunt:

This letter responds to your inquiry of November 3, 1987, in which you enclosed a diagram to show the relationship between your company, Telex Communications, Inc. (Telex or your company), and a Telex customer you designated as Company XYZ (or your custo mer). As I understand your diagram, Telex manufactures a trailer which it sells to Company XYZ. Company XYZ then delivers the trailer to its subcontractors, Companies ABC and DEF, who install items such as generators and communications equipment. Your l etter suggests that you are uncertain about your company's certification responsibility. It is your company's position that as an incomplete vehicle manufacturer, you should provide the document specified in 49 CFR @568.4(a). On the other hand, your cust omer asserts that as the incomplete vehicle manufacturer, Telex must assume legal responsibility for the incomplete vehicle under 49 CFR @568.7(a), and certify the vehicle's compliance under Part 567. On a number of occasions, you spoke with Joan Tilghma n of my staff on the matters raised in your letter.

On the diagram enclosed with your letter, you state that the trailers Telex delivered to Company XYZ are equipped with "running gear, brakes, lights, etc." Telex assigns a VIN, gross axle weight rating, and a gross vehicle weight rating to each railer it delivers to Company XYZ. You are concerned because two contractors with whom you have no relationship add equipment to the trailer after you deliver it to your customer.

First, having reviewed the drawing of the trailer and the narrative information in your letter it is not clear to me whether your trailers are, in fact, incomplete vehicles. You may wish to provide me with information that more completely describes your trailer so that I may give a more definitive answer to your question. A photograph showing the trailer as it is delivered to Company XYZ would be helpful. However, I shall be as responsive as I can be given the information you supplied in your letter.

If the trailers are incomplete vehicles, then Part 568 would not compel your company to certify the trailers' compliance with all applicable Federal safety standards. Under @568.7, Telex may elect to assume legal responsibility for all the certification duties and liabilities imposed on a manufacturer under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, and affix the certification label as specified in @567.5(e). But if Telex decides against assuming certification responsibility, then it must supply the incomplete vehicle document specified in @568.4.

If the trailers are completed vehicles which are converted to a different use by Company XYZ through its subcontractors, you must certify them irrespective of whether your customer contracts to have other equipment added to the vehicles after delivery. T he fact that your customer contracts to have a generator and communications equipment added does not mean that the vehicle requires further manufacturing operations to perform its intended function. The determination of whether a vehicle requires further manufacturing operations to perform its intended functions is not a subjective inquiry into what use the particular person to whom the vehicle is delivered intends to make of the vehicle. In previous interpretations, we have explained that the question is whether the particular vehicle type (e.g., trailer, van) requires further manufacturing operations to perform the customary functions that an ordinary purchaser would expect of this vehicle type.

For example, a van that is delivered to a dealer ready for road use is a completed vehicle, even if the dealer intends to send it to a van converter to have different equipment (seats, refrigerators, etc.) installed before selling the van to a retail cus tomer. Similarly, the trailer your company delivers to Company XYZ is a completed vehicle if it needs no further manufacturing operations to perform the functions an ordinary purchaser would expect of a trailer.

Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Vehicle Safety Act), a complete vehicle manufacturer's certification responsibilities apply up to the vehicle's first purchase in good faith for purposes other than resale. It appears from your let ter that Company XYZ purchases your trailers for purposes other than resale, and that after its purchase, Company XYZ subcontracts with two other companies to add a generator and communications equipment to the trailers. If my assumptions are correct, th en the two subcontracting companies have no certification responsibilities under the Vehicle Safety Act, because they are modifying vehicles after their first purchase in good faith for purposes other than resale.

The only limitations on the modifications those subcontractors can make to the trailers is set out in S108(a) (2) (A) of the Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a) (2)(A)). That section states that:

No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or in part, any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an ap plicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard...

If Company XYZ's subcontractors are "manufacturers," "distributors," "dealers," or "motor vehicle repair businesses" within the meaning of @108 (a) (2) (A), they may not remove, disconnect, or degrade the performance of safety equipment or designs that T elex installed in the trailers in compliance with an applicable Federal safety standard.

I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any further questions on this subject, or wish to provide additional information about the particular relationships that here the subject of this letter, please feel free to contact Ms. Tilghman at th is address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

November 3, 1987

Chief Counsel - NHTSA 400 7th Street S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Attention: Ms. Erika Z. Jones

Dear Ms. Jones:

I am writing to you concerning the interpretation of CFR 567 and 568 regarding ultimate responsibility for DOT certification.

I have spoken with Joan Tilghman concerning this. She suggested I write to you explaining the circumstances. Please review the enclosed information. I will call soon to discuss this further. Thank you.

Sincerely,

TELEX COMMUNICATIONS, INC. Hy-Gain Division

Bill Hunt Project Engineer

TELEX COMMUNICATIONS,INC.

The parties:

Telex Communications - Trailer manufacturer Customer: Company XYZ

Company ABC - Generator Manufacturer & Installer Customer: Company XYZ

Company DEF - Radio Equipment Manufacturer & Installer Customer: Company XYZ

Company XYZ - Buyer of trailer & additional Installed equipment.

TELEX COMMUNICATIONS, INC., Lincoln, NE.

Manufactures a trailer with running gear, brakes, lights, VTN, etc. Total vehicle wt = 8000/9000#

Axle rating - 9000# ea., 18,000# total

Telex work is complete.

Telex' Customer, XYZ has permanent components added to trailer by two other sub contractors (after delivery from Telex). There are items such as generators (1) & communications equipment (2). Telex is aware of general nature and weight and location of added equipment. These factors have been used to determine trailer design. However, Telex does not have any contractual relationship with the other subcontractors. Telex does not install and is not responsible for the installation of the added equipment.

The problem: Certification of trailer.

Telex' position:

Telex is an incomplete vehicle manufacturer and should provide documentation as stipulated in CFR 568.4a.

XYZ's position:

Telex is an incomplete vehicle manufacturer that assumes legal responsibility as in CFR 568.7a. and is responsible for final vehicle certification per 567.5e.

ID: aiam1691

Dear Mr. Berry: This is in acknowledgment of your Defect Information Report, i accordance with the defect reporting regulation, Part 573.; The Defect Information Report involves: some trailers equipped wit Standard Forge axles which may have defective brake shoes.; The following National Highway Traffic Safety Administratio identification number has been assigned to the campaign *74-0224*. The first quarterly status report for this campaign is required to be submitted by February 5, 1975. Please refer to the above number in all future correspondence concerning this campaign.; The letter which you have sent to the owners of the subject vehicle does not meet the requirements of Part 577(49 CFR), the Defect Notification regulation. It is therefore necessary that you send a letter which conforms to Part 577 to those owners who have not yet had their vehicles corrected at this time or indicated their intention to do so. A copy of your revised letter should also be sent to this office.; A copy of Part 577 is enclosed. It might be helpful to point out tha Part 577.4(a) and (b) should be quoted exactly. In paragraph (b) the vehicle manufacturer determines that a defect exists in his vehicles even though a specific component may be the cause of the defect.; The reference to motor vehicle equipment in the regulation only applie to equipment campaigns where vehicles are not directly involved. Part 577.4(d) requires a statement that vehicle crash without prior warning may occur in cases where this statement is true. If you desire further information, please contact Messrs. W. Reinhart or James Murray of this office at (202) 426-2840.; Sincerely, Andrew G. Detrick, Acting Director, Office of Defect Investigation, Motor Vehicle Programs;

ID: nht91-4.46

DATE: July 11, 1991

FROM: Jack Garbo -- President/General Counsel, AVM Products, Inc.

TO: Mary Versailles -- NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 8-14-91 from Paul Jackson Rice to Jack Garbo (A38; Std. 208)

TEXT:

Per our recent telephone conversation, I am writing to get clarification on the issue of whether the three-point seatbelt is required in all middle and rear outboard seating positions in the multipurpose vehicles after September 1, 1991.

My understanding is that the revised FMVSS 208 pertains only to forward facing chairs and sofas, and specifically excludes rearward facing furniture.

My company manufactures a small sofa which is mounted on a quick release track system. This sofa faces rearward and is equipped with two lap seatbelts.

Please let me know if I am interpreting the language of the regulation properly.

Thank you very much for assistance in helping us with this question.

ID: 86-1.11

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 01/24/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: G. F. Kirchoff -- Special Project Manager, Morton Thiokol, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

G. F. Kirchoff Special Project Manager Morton Thiokol, Inc. 3350 Airport Road Ogden, UT 84405

Thank you for your letter of November 13, 1985, to Stephen Oesch of my staff asking how our standards would affect a diagnostic and sensor warning light for a self-contained airbag system you arc developing. You explained that the system would be mounted in the steering wheel and would have the diagnostic and sensor light located on the steering wheel horn pad.

Your warning light would be affected by Safety Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, S4.5.2 of the standard requires crash-deployed restraint systems, such as airbag systems, to have an indicator that monitors the readiness of the system, In addition, the indicator must be clearly visible from the driver's seat. Placing your diagnostic and sensor warning light in the center of the horn pad should ensure that it is visible to the driver.

If you have any further questions, please let me know. Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

13 November,1985 U200-FY86-060

Mr. Steve Oesch, NOA-32 U. S. Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D. C. 20590

Dear Mr. Oesch:

Subject: Diagnostic and Sensor Light in Horn Pad

Morton Thiokol, Inc. is presently developing a self-contained airbag system for the automobile driver. As such, this system is planned to have a warning light in the steering wheel horn pad. It is an electrical system with the sensor and diagnostics, and capacitor power supply located in the driver module. The warning light for the diagnostics is planned to be either red or green. It would also appear to be desirable from an occupant attention standpoint to locate it on the horn pad.

We wish to insure that the placement of the warning light is in compliance with all NHTSA regulatory requirements and would appreciate your review and position on this. Thank you very much.

Sincerely,

G. F. Kirchoff Special Project Manager

ID: nht73-1.48

DATE: 11/08/73

FROM: JOHN G. WOMACK FOR RICHARD B. DYSON

TO: American Safety Equipment Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of October 5, 1973, concerning your proposed use of a tension reliever device in a seat belt retractor. As we understand the concept of the tension reliever, it allows a small amount of slack to be introduced into the webbing by a mechanism roughly similar to that of a window shade. If the webbing is pulled smoothly back and forth, the retractor exerts a normal retractive force. If, however, the retraction is halted at a certain point, as when the belt comes to rest against an occupant's shoulder, the reliever engages and the occupant is relieved of the active pull of the retractor until he moves forward by an inch or two and disengages the reliever.

Your initial question is whether a reliever-equipped retractor will be considered to meet the retraction force requirements of S4.3(j) (6) of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 209. You state that it will meet the test so long as the procedures of S5.2(j) are strictly observed and no oscillations are introduced by the test apparatus. If the facts are as you state, it is our opinion that the retractor would meet. S4.3(j) (6).

Your other question, as clarified by telephone on November 1, 1973, is whether we have reservations about the concept of a tension reliever that would lead us to bar its use through amendment of Standard No. 209. Based on the information presently available, we have no such reservations.

ID: aiam2423

Dear Mr. McNiff: This is in response to your September 22, 1976, letter regarding th use of 'Solar Control Reflective Films' in motor vehicles. You asked several questions concerning the applicability of Federal requirements to the manufacture and sale of your 'Scotchtint' protective film.; I am enclosing a copy of a letter to Mr. Mark T. Lerche from thi agency that discussed the applicability of Federal requirements to his company's 'Madico' solar protective film. The discussion in that letter is equally applicable to 'Scotchtint' protective film and should answer your questions. The main point to be noted is that these protective films that are attached to glass are not 'glazing' themselves and, therefore, the requirements of Federal Safety Standard No. 205 are not applicable to the manufacture of the film. It is the responsibility of the manufacturer, dealer, or vehicle repair business that applies the film to ensure that glazing remains in compliance with the standard. Of course, if your company applies the film to any glazing you would fall in this same category.; It is laudable that your company is interested in ensuring that it film is not used in a manner that would be detrimental to the safety of the motoring public. Although it is not your responsibility to do so, a safety warning to your consumers that 'Scotchtint' should not be placed on vehicle glazing in 'areas requisite for driving visibility,' would be helpful.; We appreciate your interest in motor vehicle safety. Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel