ID: aiam3264

Dear Mr. Forrester: This responds to your March 17, 1980, letter asking for a interpretation of the certification label requirements as they apply to a manufacturer who performs some manufacturing operation on a stripped chassis. You indicated in your letter that the stripped chassis is not a chassis-cab and, therefore, does not have a certification label. You further stated that the second manufacturer's modification of the stripped chassis do (sic) not convert it to a chassis-cab.; The chassis certification label requirements of Part 567 *Certification*, and Part 568, *Vehicles Manufactured in Two or More Stages*, apply only to chassis-cabs as that term is defined in Part 567. Since the incomplete vehicle to which you refer is not a chassis-cab at either of the first two stages of its manufacture, it is not required to be labeled. The second manufacturer is required to amend the incomplete vehicle document where necessary to show the effects of its changes to the incomplete vehicle.; Your second question poses a similar hypothetical, except that th second manufacturer completes the incomplete vehicle to the point where it is a chassis-cab. In this instance, the second manufacturer is required to attach the chassis-cab certification label. Also, all necessary amendments must be made in the incomplete vehicle document.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam0013

"Dear Mr. Rooks: This responds to your letter of March 27, 199 concerning the applicability of various motor vehicle safety standards to the repair or replacement of damaged motor vehicle windshields. You enclosed a copy of the 'Legal Advisory' column from the November 1986 issue of Glass magazine. That column stated that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration ('NHTSA') advised the National Glass Association that 'federal windshield safety standards are not applicable to replacement windshield installations once vehicles have left their new car dealers' lots.' The column went on to state that 'no kind or amount of work on a damaged windshield renders it inoperable in violation of federal law.' Your letter asked whether NHTSA currently adheres to the above position with regard to two Federal motor vehicle safety standards: Standard No. 212, Windshield Mounting, and Standard No. 216, Roof Crush Resistance. In a subsequent telephone conversation with John Rigby of this office, you asked the agency also to address the applicability of these principles to Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials. I am pleased to have the opportunity to discuss these issues. Section 108(a)(1)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 ('Act'), 15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(1)(A), provides that no person may manufacture for sale, sell, introduce into interstate commerce or import any motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment that does not conform with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. However, pursuant to section 108(b)(1) of the Act, 15 U.S.C. 1397(b)(1), that prohibition does not apply 'after the first purchase of the vehicle or equipment in good faith for purposes other than resale.' On the other hand, section 108(a)(2) of the Act, 15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2), provides 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 vehicleequipment in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard . . . .' With respect to Standards 212 and 216, which impose requirements applicable to completed motor vehicles, a manufacturer is not required to assure that the vehicles it manufactures remain in compliance after they have been sold for purposes other than resale. Moreover, a repair business that replaced a windshield that was previously damaged could not violate the 'render inoperative' provision of the Act, regardless of what sealant was used. As NHTSA stated in a September 3, l98l letter to the National Glass Dealers Association, even if it were somehow determined that the repaired vehicle did not satisfy the requirements of Standard No. 212 or No. 216, there would be no violation of the 'render inoperative' provision of the Act. This is because the object or event that damaged the windshield in the first place had already rendered the windshield 'inoperative' with respect to these standards. See also an October 5, 1983 letter to Anthony M. Peterson of Lansing Auto Glass Company. However, if for some reason a repair business were to replace a windshield that was not previously damaged, it could be held liable under section 108(a)(2) if it knew that its action caused the vehicle to no longer comply with either standard. I would also like to deal with a relatively unlikely scenario. If a windshield needs to be repaired or replaced prior to the first sale to a consumer (e.g., due to breakage while en route from the manufacturer's factory to the dealer's showroom), the seller is required by section 108(a)(1)(A) to assure that the vehicle is brought into compliance with all applicable standards. The situation is somewhat different with respect to Standard No. 205, which establishes, inter alia, strength and light transmittance performance requirements that must be met by glazing materials used in motor vehicles. Not only must the glazing in new vehicles meet this standard, replacement glass must also comply. Thus, any person who installs motor vehicle glazing that is not certified as being in compliance with Standard No. 205 would violate section 108(a)(1)(A), regardless of whether the vehicle is new. This would be because the installer would be selling or otherwise introducing into interstate commerce an item of motor vehicle equipment (i.e., the glazing) that did not comply with an applicable safety standard. We have stated this interpretation in previous letters (most recently in our letter of March 14, 1991 to Loren Thompson). Finally, you asked in your letter 'whether these positions have yet been tested in court.' We are not aware of any litigation in which any of the interpretation letters cited above have been considered. I hope that this information is useful. If you have any further questions, please contact John Rigby of this office at 366-2992. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel";

ID: aiam2860

Dear Mr. Gerth: This responds to your recent question whether Mercedes may use dynamic test to evaluate seat structure integrity instead of the static test specified in the testing procedures of Safety Standard No. 207.; The answer to your question is yes. A manufacturer is permitted to us whatever test procedures or methods of evaluation he chooses to assure its vehicles are in compliance with Federal motor vehicle safety standards. The legal requirement under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1391, *et seq*.) is that the manufacturer exercise *due care* to determine that his vehicles will be in compliance with all applicable standards when tested by the agency in accordance with the test procedures specified in those standards.; Therefore, you may use a dynamic test method to determine the integrit of your vehicle seats if this constitutes the exercise of due care to assure the seats meet the performance requirements specified in Standard No. 207. Of course, it cannot be determined whether a manufacturer in fact exercised due care in advance of the actual events leading to the certification of compliance. Likewise, the agency will not approve a manufacturer's method of testing in advance of certification.; Please contact me if you have any further questions. Sincerely, Joseph J. Levin, Jr., Chief Counsel

ID: nht76-5.3

DATE: 04/12/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; S. P. Wood for F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Masoaka-Ishikawa and Associates, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your February 24, 1976, request for affirmation that a particular Takata Kojyo test procedure for applying force to a continuous loop Type 2 belt system "meet[s] the requirements set forth in Standard 209, Seat Belt Assemblies."

Section S4.4 of Standard No. 209 sets forth the requirements of the standard for assembly performance. Section S5.3(b) sets forth test methods that would be used in a determination of whether a Type 2 seat belt assembly conforms to the requirements of S4.4. Takata Kojyo's obligation as a manufacturer is to ensure that its certification of compliance is not false or misleading in a material respect, and that it has exercised due care in manufacturing to conform to Standard No. 209 (15 U.S.C. @ 1397(b)(2)). A manufacturer is not required to follow specifically the test procedures of the standards, but to ascertain, in the exercise of due care, that its product will conform to the standard's requirements when it is tested by the stated methods.

From your description, you have modified the existing procedures by use of a clamp to ensure that all force is applied to the lower torso webbing and hardware or, alternatively, to the upper torso webbing and hardware. While it appears that the comtemplated test procedure may evidence the exercise of due care to certify compliance with S4.4, the NHTSA cannot approve a manufacturer's test procedure as the basis of due care in advance of the actual events that underlie certification. It is the manufacturer's responsibility to utilize sound engineering judgement in the exercise of due care.

MASOKA-ISHIKAWA AND ASSOCIATES, INC.

February 24, 1976

Dr. James B. Gregory Administrator National Highway Traffic Safety Administration U.S. Department of Transportation

On behalf of Takata Kojyo Co., Ltd., a manufacturer of seat belt assemblies whose products are used in automobiles marketed in the United States, we seek affirmation from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration that the testing procedures for "continuous-loop" seat belt assemblies as shown in the attached illustrations meet the requirements set forth in Standard 209, Seat Belt Assemblies.

The proposed Takata Kojyo test procedures as shown in Figures 3 and 4 are specifically designed for Takata Kojyo's newly developed energy-absorbing/conventional webbing, continuous-loop seat belt assembly.

Figure 1 shows Takata Kojyo's continuous-loop seat belt assembly. Figure 2 illustrates the manner in which Takata Kojyo's combination energy-absorbing/conventional seat belt webbing is manufactured in an unique continuous weaving process. The continuously type webbing for the lap portion and the energy-absorbing webbing for the upper torso portion in an especially advanced continuous-loop seat belt assembly which provides markedly improved occupant protection.

Takata Kojyo Co., Ltd., No. 10 Mori Building, 28 Sakuragawa-cho, Nishikubo, Shiba, Minato-Ku, Tokyo, Japan, is a privately held Japanese corporation engaged in the manufacture of seat belt assemblies. Takata Kojyo does not directly market its automotive safety products in the United States. Its products are sold to manufacturers whose automobiles are sold in the United States. Japanese automobiles which use Takata Kojyo seat belt assemblies include, but are not limited to, Toyota, Datsun, Mazda, Dodge Colt and Honda. Takata Kojyo is the largest supplier of seat belt webbing in Japan, accounting for the more than 80 per cent of the market.

We respectfully request your prompt reply to our inquiry as to whether the test procedures shown in the attached illustrations fulfill the requirements of Standard 209.

T. Albert Yamada

CC: S. ISHIKAWA

Fig. 3 Proposed test method. Takata Kojyo Type II Bedt System (Continuous Loop)

Fig. 4 Proposed test method. Takata Kojyo Type II Seat Belt (Continuous Loop)

(Graphics omitted)

Fig. 1 Takata Kojyo Continous Loop Seat Belt Assembly

Fig. 2 Takata Kojyo Energy-absorbing webbing. Manufactured in a continuous weaving process.

(Graphics omitted)

ID: aiam3311

Dear Ms. Zinn: This responds to your recent letter asking whether an assembler o automotive seating would be responsible for defects in the metal frames used in the seats. Apparently, you purchase metal frames from a supplier and then pad and cover them as vehicle seats.; The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration issues safet standards and regulations governing the manufacture of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment pursuant to authority of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, as amended 1974 (15 U.S.C. 1381, *et seq.*.). There are two safety standards directly applicable to vehicle seating, Standard No. 207, *Seating Systems*, and Standard No. 302, *Flammability of Interior Materials*. However, both of these standards apply only to completed vehicles and are, therefore, the responsibility of the vehicle manufacturer, not a supplier such as your company.; In addition to the Federal safety standards, manufacturers of moto vehicles and motor vehicle equipment are responsible for any defects in their products which affect motor vehicle safety. Under 49, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 579.5, the vehicle manufacturer is responsible for any safety-related defect determined to exist in the vehicle or in any item of original equipment, including the original seats. Each manufacturer of an item of replacement equipment is responsible for any safety-related defect in that equipment. Therefore, if you are selling your seats to a vehicle manufacturer, that manufacturer would be responsible for the seats. If, however, you are selling the seats as aftermarket equipment, you would be responsible for their safety. This means you would have to recall the equipment and remedy free of charge any defect relating to motor vehicle safety. If the defect resulted from faulty frames, you could still be held responsible for the seat under Federal law, since you would be considered the manufacturer. You will have to contact a private attorney to determine whether you would then have a right of action against the manufacturer of the seat frames.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel

ID: nht69-1.8

DATE: 02/03/69

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Charles A. Baker; NHTSA

TO: Utility Body Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Thank you for your letter of January 8, 1969, to Mr. Andrew K. Ness, National Highway Safety Bureau, concerning your request for an interpretation relative to the mounting of clearance lamps.

It is required by Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 that clearance lamps be mounted as near as practicable to the upper right and left extreme edges of the vehicle. Lamps mounted at the right and left extreme edges of the widest part of the body panel shown in your sketch would meet the requirements. The mounting height of these lamps should be as high as practicable without causing objectionable glare in the rearview mirror. Retention of cab mounted clearance lamps is optional.

With respect to the requirements of Standard No. 108, I must point out that this Bureau does not issue approval on items of lighting equipment or on vehicle designs incorporating this equipment. Therefore, comments of this Bureau are for information purposes only and in no way relieve any vehicle manufacturer from his responsibility for certifying that the assembled vehicle meets the requirements of Standard No. 108.

ID: nht89-1.7

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 01/25/89

FROM: GARRY O. MCCABE

TO: MIKE TRENTACOSTE -- DIRECTOR -- OFFICE OF MOTOR CARRIER STANDARDS HCA -- 10

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 06/19/89 FROM STEPHEN P. WOOD -- NHTSA TO GARRY O. MCCABE; REDBOOK A33(2); STANDARD 301 LETTER DATED 06/06/89 FROM MICHAEL F. TRENTACOSTE TO STEPHEN P. WOOD -- NHTSA, REQUEST FOR INTERPRETATION OF FHWA AND NHTSA REGULAT IONS

TEXT: Dear Mr. Trentacoste:

The Wiggins Connectors Division of IMO Delaval is working with the Automation R&D Group of United Parcel Service to develop a rapid fueling system for their truck fleet.

The concept is to retrofit the existing fuel tanks to accommodate a dry break quick disconnect fitting. The mating half of this fitting is attached to a standard dispensing nozzle. The vacuum sensing line runs coaxilly through the entire assembly.

At this point it is agreed that we should proceed with a test installation at a small UPS distribution center. The question that arises is what do we need in the way of approvals or sanctions to run a testing program.

We realize that later once the design has been groomed and before it is marketed formal testing and approval is required.

I have discussed this situation briefly with Bob Hagen and as suggested I am enclosing some system drawings of what we are proposing.

After you have had an opportunity to review this information I would appreciate your advice as to what steps should be taken to proceed.

Sincerely,

ID: nht95-1.31

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: January 17, 1995

FROM: Randall B. Clark -- A Concerned Citizen

TO: Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 2/16/95 LETTER FROM PHILIP R. RECHT TO RANDALL B. CLARK (A43; STD. 108; VSA 30122(6)

TEXT: I respectfully request clarification on the following paragraphs S5.1.1.27(a), Table III & Table IV, located in the "Code of Federal Regulations".

I contend the required Motor Vehicle Lighting Equipment requirements are the minimum requirements ONLY and do not state that this is the maximum stop lamps allowed on the back of any automobile.

In other words, my automobile has the normal two stop lamps and has a spoiler with a stop lamp built into it. The car also has a stop lamp mounted inside the back window which is not currently hooked up due to the fact that "Subaru of America" thinks the procedure is against the law. They have cited the above paragraphs & Tables as their authority.

I would appreciate a specific explanation from the "EXPERTS" stating that an automobile with four stop lamps is perfectly legal in the United States.

Thank you for your dedicated efforts on my behalf to clarify the correct point of view on Motor Vehicle Lighting Equipment.

P. S. I have enclosed the specific paragraphs & Tables discussed in my letter.

(ENCLOSURE OMITTED)

ID: nht79-1.13

DATE: 03/22/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Yamaha Motor Corporation USA

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

MAR 22 1979 NOA-30

Mr. Michael J. Schmitt Counsel, Engineering Division Yamaha Motor Corporation USA P.O. Box 6620 Buena Park, California 90622

Dear Mr. Schmitt:

This is in reply to your letter of February 22, 1979, with respect to Yamaha's plan to equip its motorcycles with a hazard warning signal system.

You have cited S4.5.5 of Standard No. 108 which requires that the hazard warning signal "operate independently of the ignition or equivalent switch". Because of the ease with which such a switch can be operated on an open vehicle such as a motorcycle by a person other than the vehicle operator, you would like to integrate the warning system with the ignition switch, so that it will flash when the ignition is in the "on" or "off" position, but not the "off-lock" position unless the key is inserted.

As you noted, the Standard does not require that a motorcycle be equipped with a hazard warning system. Should you voluntarily install the system on a motorcycle, there is no legal requirement that it conform to the requirements specified in Standard No. 108. Because of this, although we appreciate your wish to meet the requirements of the standard, we offer no opinion on your system and are willing to defer to your judgment in this matter.

We are confident that Yamaha would not install such a system without insuring that the charging system has an adequate capacity, otherwise, the turn signal system might be viewed as "additional ... motor vehicle equipment ... that impairs the effectiveness" of required lighting equipment, within the prohibition of S4.1.3.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Acting Chief Counsel

February 22, 1979

Mr. Joseph J. Levin Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Mr. Levin:

The purpose of this correspondence is to gain a regulatory interpretation from your office relative to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 108. Yamaha is exploring the possibility of voluntarily incorporating a hazard warning system for motorcycle application. Hazard warning systems are not required on motorcycles pursuant to FMVSS 108.

FMVSS 108 S4.5.5 requires that the hazard warning signal operating unit "operate independently of the ignition or equivalent switch". It is feared that because a motorcycle is not enclosed and that control access cannot be precluded by locking, such as with other vehicles, passerbys may intentionally activate the system. This mischief will discharge the battery and cause unneeded attention which may be adverse to safety.

We would like to inquire as to the permissibility of the following concept. The vehicle will have a three position ignition switch (On, Off, Off-Lock). The hazard warning system will be capable of activation in the On and Off position. The hazard warning system will not operate in the Off-Lock position unless the key is inserted. The steering column is also locked when in this position.

Although such hazard warning devices are not required, we are reluctant to incorporate a system which does not comply with standards applicable to other vehicle types. We believe that motorcycles need such a switch system to preclude unauthorized activation. It is submitted that S4.5.5 is a viable requirement so other vehicle owners can activate the flashers and lock and leave the vehicle. A motorcycle operator under our proposed concept could leave the switch in "Off" position, remove the key, and activate the flasher.

We believe that our concept fulfills the intent underlying S4.5.5. We respectfully solicit your concurrence in this matter.

Thank you for your consideration in this matter.

Sincerely,

Michael J. Schmitt Counsel Engineering Division

MJS:kc

ID: nht93-8.32

DATE: November 29, 1993

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Leo Chung -- Operational Services, Genstar Container Corporation

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 11/3/93 from Leo Chung to Taylor Vinson (OCC-9311)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of November 3, 1993, to Mr. Vinson of this Office, with respect to calculation of the application of conspicuity treatment to container chassis trailers.

The length of the gooseneck is included in determining the overall length of the trailer for purposes of calculating the half length that must be covered by the conspicuity treatment (which, of course, would be greater than half the length behind the gooseneck). For example, let us say that the overall length of the trailer is 40 feet, including an 8-foot gooseneck. The amount of the side to be covered is not less than 20 feet. The area to be covered is the 32 feet between the rear bolster to the point immediately behind the gooseneck's terminus. Thus, at least 20 feet of this 32-foot length must be covered in order to comply with Standard No. 108.

There is nothing in Standard No. 108 that precludes the application of retroreflective sheeting to the gooseneck. Indeed, some manufacturers may wish to do so to provide conspicuity of the trailer side when the trailer is traveling without its cargo. However, any conspicuity treatment on a gooseneck is not counted in determining whether at least half the trailer side is covered.

I hope that this clarifies the matter for you.