ID: 77-4.24

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 10/31/77

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: International Trade Group of Ohio, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of October 14, 1977, to Don Williamson of our Ohio regional office.

You enclosed information on an automatic warning flasher lamp that is designed for installation on the parcel shelf inside the rear window of automobiles. You asked whether such a device would be legal on U.S. cars or U.S. highways, and "what steps might be required to obtain an endorsement for the generic device from the N.H.T.S.A."

The unit appears to be designed for sale as a motor vehicle accessory in the aftermarket. There are no Federal prohibitions against the sale of the warning device or its installation in motor vehicles. Whether it is legal to use such a device however is a question to be answered under the laws of the jurisdiction where the motor vehicle in which it is installed is registered and/or operated.

The NHTSA does not issue approvals or endorsements of propriety safety devices.

Yours Truly,

INTERNATIONAL TRADE GROUP OF OHIO, INC.

October 14, 1977

Don Williamson National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

At the suggestion of John Pichler of the Ohio Highway Safety Department I am writing to you for some assistance.

Now, before reading further, look at the two enclosures with this letter. I came across the unit at the recent IAA show in Frankfurt, Germany. It is an emergency warning light for vehicles. It turns on automatically under impact or it can be switched on in case of emergency from a dash-mounted switch.

I am interested in some expert advice in two areas.

1. Would such a device be considered legal on U.S. cars on U.S. highways? While the current color is amber, it can be easily made any color that would be legal.

2. What steps might be required to obtain an endorsement for the generic device from the N.H.T.S.A.?

If necessary I can certainly come to Chicago to show you a unit and discuss its operation and use in more detail.

James E. Reider President

(Graphics omitted)

(Graphics Omitted)

A B L THE AMBER WARNING LIGHT

ABL - everyone's amber warning

ABL - the automatic warning flasher has a dual safety function:

1. ABL switches on automatically without any human intervention immediately on a traffic accident.

2. You can switch the ABL on by hand in hazardous situations and to secure a stationary vehicle.

The ABL therefore secures both life and vehicle.

In case of an accident, this panoramic amber flasher will warn anything from 5 to 10 cars following. By fitting the light to the rear right in front of the rear window, i.e. inside the car, you protect your ABL warning system against dirt and guarantee it the most effective position for rapid and effective visibility in an emergency. In particular, these advantages of the ABL supplement the statutory flasher system.

A further advantage is that you can switch the ABL on immediately if you break-down, run out of petrol or have to stop for other reasons and need not first leave the car to fetch a warning triangle or a lamp often equipped with empty batteries - from the boot. A further safety factor in your life - just think of the hazardous conditions on the motorway.

The ABL is connected up to the car battery (12 volts). Home fitting is no problem to the expert handy man.

The ABL has been registered by the Federal Road Traffic Office at Flensburg and granted type certificate 8502.

Please note:

the ABL secures your life and vehicle!

KONIG Instrument Engineering

ID: milazzo1.ztv

Mr. Bryan Milazzo
100 Page Road
Bow, NH 03304

Dear Mr. Milazzo:

This is in reply to your e-mails of January 20 and 27, 2000, to Taylor Vinson of this Office. Your second e-mail withdraws the request for confidentiality that you made in your first communication. Your letter seeks clarification of the status of Ameritech of Ridgefield, CT.

Your first question is based upon an article you read in the December 1997 issue of Road and Track magazine which purportedly listed Ameritech as a manufacturer of certain McLaren F1 vehicles. You ask whether Ameritech is "a manufacturer of this vehicle," as defined under NHTSA regulations.

Under our basic vehicle safety statute, 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301 - Motor Vehicle Safety, "manufacturer" is defined as "a person (A) manufacturing or assembling motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment; or (B) importing motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment for resale." 49 U.S.C. 30102(a)(5). At the time of the December 1997 article, Ameritech had imported several McLaren F-1 vehicles for resale. (We have been advised that these vehicles had been completely assembled in Europe, but not certified for sale in the United States.) Therefore, McLaren was the "manufacturer" of these vehicles within the meaning of section 30102(a)(5)(A) and Ameritech was the "manufacturer" of these vehicles within the meaning of section 30102(a)(5)(B).

You ask whether Ameritech is "a manufacturer of any other automobiles or vehicles listed with NHTSA." We have no information that Ameritech has assembled any other vehicles, but we believe that it has imported other vehicles for resale.

Your next question is whether Ameritech maintains "any facilities for testing their vehicles for NHTSA and DOT FMVSS standards." We have never asked Ameritech, and it has never informed us, whether it maintains "any facilities for testing [its] vehicles for NHTSA and DOT FMVSS standards."

Your fourth question is whether we can supply "any applications of other information specifying that Ameritech meets the definition of manufacturer as referred to under any section of CFR 49."

Enclosed is a copy of a statement that Ameritech filed with us in 1996 pursuant to 49 CFR Part 566, Manufacturer Identification.

You next ask whether "Ameritech McLaren F1 vehicles carry an Ameritech vehicle identification number (VIN) or a McLaren VIN." Enclosed is a VIN "Decipher Information" statement that Ameritech filed, indicating that those vehicles it imported import for resale would carry Ameritech VINs. We do not know whether any of the vehicles also carried McLaren VINs.

You express an opinion that "any company or individual would qualify as a manufacturer for the sake of importing a motor vehicle," and ask "what is preventing me from calling myself a manufacturer and importing any number of cars not meeting FMVSS. Please explain how Ameritech qualifies under NHTSA/DOT and I would not."

You may import "any number of cars not meeting FMVSS" provided you are a registered importer (see 49 CFR Part 592) and we have deemed the cars capable of being modified to comply with the FMVSS (49 CFR Part 593). As a registered importer importing vehicles for resale, you would be a statutory manufacturer of these vehicles, as discussed above. Your principal obligation would be to certify to us that you had modified the vehicles to comply with the FMVSS, and to attach a certification label to the vehicles.

We recognize that Ameritech did not follow this procedure. Although it certified compliance of the McLaren vehicles after modifying them, it was not a registered importer, and the vehicles had not been found to be capable of being modified to comply with the FMVSSs. We did not know in advance that Ameritech was acting in this way. When we did become aware of Ameritech's actions, we informed Ameritech that it was unacceptable, and Ameritech ceased such importations.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
Enclosure
ref:571
d.2/22/00

ID: nht91-4.28

DATE: June 25, 1991

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Takashi Odaira -- Chief Representative, Emission & Safety, Isuzu Technical Center of America, Inc.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 4-29-91 from Takashi Odaira to P.J. Rice (OCC 5987)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter requesting an interpretation on whether the Isuzu 2-door Coupe is subject to the rear seat requirements set forth in the final rule on Standard No. 214, Side Door Strength, published on October 30, 1990 (55 FR 45722). As noted by your letter, the rear seat requirements do not apply to passenger cars which have rear seating areas that are so small that the SID dummy cannot be accommodated according to the specified positioning procedures. The issues raised by your letter are addressed 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 vehicles or equipment meet applicable standards. The following provides our opinion based on the facts provided in your letter.

Your letter describes the positioning of the SID as follows:

In this vehicle, when the SID dummy is seated at the rear outboard passenger position according to the specified positioning procedures, the dummy's head comes into contact with the roof and backlight glass which have steep slopes. To avoid the interference, in our test, the head was tilted forward as much as possible and, in addition, the upper torso was also tilted forward, away from the seat back. Only in this way, could we accommodate the dummy in the seating area without changing the orientation of the thorax midsagittal plane, or affecting the H-point.

You noted, however, that "(t)his condition . . . obviously does not meet the positioning procedure of paragraphs S7.1.3(a) and (b), which provides, 'The upper torso of the test dummy rests against the seat back.'" You stated that it is therefore your interpretation that the vehicle cannot accommodate the SID dummy and that the rear seat requirements are not applicable to it. You requested our views regarding your understanding.

In the preamble to the October 1990 final rule, NHTSA noted that, for some vehicles where the roof has a steep rear slope, the SID head can be tilted so as to accommodate the test dummy without changing the specified orientation of the thorax midsagittal plane or affecting the H-point (two of the specifications in the S7 positioning procedure). The agency also noted that there are some cars with rear seating areas that are so small that the SID dummy cannot be accommodated according to the specified

positioning procedures, even if the head is adjusted fore-aft.

Section S3 of Standard No. 214 provides that the rear seat requirements do not apply to "passenger cars which have rear seating areas that are so small that the (SID) dummies cannot be accommodated according to the positioning procedure specified in S7." Thus, if any aspect of the positioning procedure, including the specification that the upper torso rests against the seat back, cannot be met, the vehicle is not required to meet the rear seat requirements of Standard No. 214.

With regard to whether the Isuzu 2-door Coupe is subject to Standard No. 214's rear seat requirements, NHTSA cannot make a determination that the rear seat requirements do not apply to a vehicle based solely on a description and photographs of that test procedure. If the agency should conduct a compliance test for the vehicle, it would attempt to position the SID dummies in the rear seat according to the specified seating procedure. If NHTSA were unable to position SID dummies in the rear of the vehicle according to the specified procedure, it would conclude that the rear seat requirements do not apply to that particular vehicle.

I hope you find this information helpful. If you have further questions, please contact Mary Versailles of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

ID: aiam5356

"Dear Mr. Ozols: This responds to your February 8, 1994, letter askin about how this agency's regulations might apply to your product, the Serv-o-tray. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our regulations. It appears from the enclosed technical description and photograph that the Serve-o-tray is a folding adjustable table designed to mount between the driver and passenger seats of a vehicle, and hold food, drinks, etc. As depicted, the Serv-o-tray is secured to the center console with an adhesive pad. The table is mounted on a swiveling, articulated, lockable arm that is composed of two horizontal and two vertical tubular support members. The Serv-o-tray is made of injection molded plastic and is capable of supporting up to 20 pounds, including a laptop computer. You explain that your product is intended to be used while the vehicle is stationary or moving. By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS's) for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. Section 102(4) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the 'Safety Act') defines, in relevant part, the term 'motor vehicle equipment' as: any system, part, or component of a motor vehicle as originally manufactured or any similar part or component manufactured or sold for replacement or improvement of such system, part, or component or as any accessory, or addition to the motor vehicle ... (emphasis added). In determining whether an item of equipment is considered an accessory, NHTSA applies two criteria. The first criterion is whether a substantial portion of the expected use of the item is related to the operation or maintenance of motor vehicles. We determine a product's expected use by considering product advertising, product labeling, and the type of store that retails the product, as well as available information about the actual use of the product. The second criterion is whether the product is intended to be used principally by ordinary users of motor vehicles. If the product satisfies both criteria, then the product is considered to be an 'accessory' and thus is subject to the provisions of the Safety Act. Applying these criteria to the Serv-o-tray, it appears that this product would be an accessory and thus an item of motor vehicle equipment. Based on our understanding of the product, it appears that a substantial portion of the expected use of the Serv-o-tray relates to motor vehicle operation, by allowing the occupants to eat while operating the car. Also, it appears that the product would typically be used by ordinary users of motor vehicles. While the Serv-o-tray is an item of motor vehicle equipment, NHTSA has not issued any standards for such a device. Nevertheless, there are other Federal laws that indirectly affect the manufacture and sale of your product. You as the product's manufacturer are subject to the requirements in sections 151-159 of the Safety Act concerning the recall and remedy of products with defects related to motor vehicle safety. In the event that you or NHTSA determines that the product contains a safety related defect, you would be responsible for notifying purchasers of the defective equipment and remedying the problem free of charge. This agency is very concerned about the safety implications of the Serv-o-tray, especially if it is swiveled in front of the occupants in an air bag-equipped vehicle. Under the provisions of FMVSS No. 208, 'Occupant Crash Protection,' all new cars and trucks must be equipped with a driver side and passenger side air bag by September 1, 1998. Manufacturers are already producing ever increasing numbers of air bag-equipped cars and trucks. The enclosed document entitled 'Sudden Impact' describes the speed with which an air bag deploys. Should the Serv-o-tray be installed in an air bag-equipped vehicle, the occupants could be at risk of injury or death from the interaction of the deploying air bag and the Serv-o-tray or its contents. To protect the occupant, this agency will require that every new vehicle with an air bag be provided with a caution label that states, among other things, 'TO AVOID SERIOUS INJURY . . . Do not place any objects over the air bag or between the air bag and yourself.' As you can see, the installation of a Serv-o-tray could be contrary to this warning. There are other potential safety problems associated with the Serv-o-tray. Even without being propelled by an air bag, the Serv-o-tray or its contents could impact the occupant's head, abdomen or lower extremities during a collision. It also seems possible that the Serv-o-tray could interfere with the driver's use of the vehicle's transmission shift lever in an emergency situation. We ask that you consider these and all possible safety impacts of the Serv-o-tray. If the Serv-o-tray were installed by a vehicle manufacturer as original equipment, the vehicle manufacturer would have to certify that the vehicle, with the Serv-o-tray installed, complies with all FMVSS's. Among the FMVSS's that might be affected by the Serv-o-tray installation are Standard No. 201, 'Occupant Protection in Interior Impact' (copy enclosed), and Standard No. 208. A commercial business that installs the Serv-o-tray would also be subject to provisions of the Safety Act that affect modifications of new or used vehicles. Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)) 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 ... in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard. This means that a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business must not install your product if the Serv-o-tray renders inoperative the vehicle's compliance with the FMVSS's. For instance, installing the Serv- o-tray in front of the driver or passenger could degrade the performance of an air bag or the seat belts in the vehicle. Any violation of this 'render inoperative' prohibition would subject the violator to a potential civil penalty of up to $1,000 for each violation. Please note also that the render inoperative prohibition does not apply to modifications that vehicle owners make to their own vehicles. Thus, Federal law would not apply in situations where individual vehicle owners install the Serv-o-tray in their own vehicles, even if the installation were to result in the vehicle no longer complying with the safety standards. However, NHTSA encourages vehicle owners not to degrade any safety device or system installed in their vehicles. In addition, individual States have the authority to regulate modifications that individual vehicle owners may make to their vehicles, so you might wish to consult State regulations to see whether your product would be permitted. I hope this information is helpful. I have enclosed a fact sheet entitled 'Information for New Manufacturers of Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Equipment.' If you have any further questions about NHTSA's safety standards, please feel free to contact us at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely John Womack Acting Chief Counsel Enclosure";

ID: aiam4137

Dear Mr. Chien: This responds to your letter seeking information about our requirement applicable to 'hub covers and wheel covers'. The only applicable requirement for those items is set forth in Standard No. 211, *Wheel Nuts, Wheel Discs, and Hub Caps* (49 CFR S571.211, copy enclosed). That standard specifies that wheel nuts, hub caps, and wheel discs for use on passenger cars and multipurpose passenger vehicles shall *not* incorporate winged projections. Hub covers and wheel covers that you manufacture for use on vehicles other than passenger cars and multipurpose passenger vehicles are not subject to any standards issued by this agency.; However, as a manufacturer of hub caps and wheel covers, you incu statutory responsibilities under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 *et seq*., 'the Safety Act'), even for those hub caps and wheel covers not subject to Standard No. 211. If either your company or this agency determines that some of your wheel covers subject to Standard No. 211 do not comply with that standard *or* determines that any of your wheel covers contain a defect related to motor vehicle safety, you would be required to notify your distributors, dealers, and purchasers of the noncompliance or defect and remedy the noncompliance or defect. In the case of wheel covers, section 154(a)(2)(B) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1414(a)(2)(B)) requires that, if there is a determination of a noncompliance or defect, the manufacturer must notify distributors, dealers, and purchasers of the noncompliance or defect and must either:; >>>1. repair the wheel cover so that the defect or noncompliance i removed, or; 2. replace the wheel cover with an identical or reasonably equivalen wheel cover that does not have a defect or noncompliance.<<<; Whichever of these options is chosen, the manufacturer of the whee covers must bear the full expense of the recall campaign and cannot charge the purchaser for the remedy if the wheel cover was first purchased less than 8 years before the notification campaign began.; We have several regulations relating to defect and noncomplianc notification and remedy campaigns. Those regulations are identified in the enclosed information sheet for new manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment. That sheet also gives you a broad overview of our statutory and regulatory requirements applicable to manufacturers.; You also asked about obtaining necessary 'approvals' before sellin these products in the United States. For those items subject to Standard No. 211, NHTSA does not use a certification process similar to the European countries, in which the manufacturer delivers the products to be certified to a governmental entity and that entity tests the products to determine if they can be certified as complying with the applicable standards. Instead, in the United States the manufacturer of the product must certify that its products comply with all applicable safety standards. The manufacturer's certification need not be based on actual tests, the only requirement is that the manufacturer exercise due care in making the certification. Once you have determined that your wheel covers comply with Standard No. 211, section 114 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1403) requires you to furnish to each of your distributors and dealers at the time of delivery of the wheel covers a certification that those wheel covers conform to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. That section further provides that your certification 'may be in the form of a label or tag on such item or on the outside of a container in which such item is delivered.'; You also asked how you apply for the approval of the SAE, AAMVA, an CHP. The Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) is a private group that issues recommended practices for the design and performance of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. You are not required by the Vehicle Safety Act to obtain the approval of SAE prior to marketing your products in the United States.; You may obtain information about the SAE standards by contacting tha group at the following address: Society of Automotive Engineers, Inc., 400 Commonwealth Drive, Warrendale, PA 15096, USA. The group may be contacted by telephone at (412) 776-4841.; Various States may also have requirements concerning wheel covers However, section 103(d) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1392(d)) provides that '(w)henever a Federal motor vehicle safety standard established under this title is in effect, no State or political subdivision of a State shall have any authority to establish, or to continue in effect, with respect to any motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment, any safety standard applicable to the same aspect of performance of such vehicle or item of equipment which is not identical to the Federal standard. Nothing in this section shall be construed as preventing any State from enforcing any safety standard which is identical to a Federal safety standard.' Thus, any non-identical State safety standard covering the same aspect of performance as Standard No. 211 would be preempted by the provisions of the Safety Act, making it legally unenforceable.; States do have authority to enforce identical standards related to th same aspect of performance as Standard No. 211, and some may exercise that authority. To learn more about this issue, you should contact the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 1201 Connecticut Avenue, N.W., Suite 910, Washington, D.C. 20036, USA. Their telephone number is (202) 296-1955. The Department of California Highway Patrol may be contacted at the following address: Enforcement Services Division, P.O. Box 898, Sacramento, CA 95804, USA. Their telephone number is (916) 445-1865.; For your information, I am enclosing copies of two procedural rule that apply to all parties subject to the standards and regulations of this agency. The first is 49 CFR Part 566, *Manufacturer Identification*. This requires each manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment subject to one of our safety standards to submit its name, address, and a brief description of the items of motor vehicle equipment it manufactures to this agency within 30 days of the date the motor vehicle equipment is imported into the United States.; The other regulation is 49 CFR Part 551, *Procedural Rules*. Thi regulation requires all manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment headquartered outside of the United States to designate a permanent resident of the United States as the manufacturer's agent for service of process in this county. Part 551 specifies that the designation of agent must contain the following six items of information:; 1. A certification that the designation is valid in form and binding o the manufacturer under the laws, corporate by-laws, or other requirements governing the making of the designation at the time and place where it is made,; 2. The full legal name, principal place of business and mailing addres of the manufacturer,; 3. Marks, trade names, or other designation of origin of any of th manufacturer's products which do not bear its name,; 4. A statement that the designation shall remain in effect unti withdrawn or replaced by the manufacturer.; 5. A declaration of acceptance duly signed by the agent appointed which may be an individual, a firm or a U.S. corporation, and; 6. The full legal name and address of the designated agent. This designation must be received by this agency before your whee covers are imported into the United States.; If you need further information or a clarification of our regulations please feel free to contact me.; Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel

ID: 86-3.48

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/12/86 EST

FROM: JAGUAR CARS INC

TO: GRAY MARKET JAGUAR VEHICLE OWNERS

TITLE: RECALL LETTER TO GRAY MARKET VEHICLE OWNERS

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 07/15/86 TO JAMES J DABROWSKI FROM ERIKA Z. JONES, REDBOOK A29 (4); LETTER DATED 06/12/86, TO ERIKA Z. JONES FROM J. DABROWSKI, OCC - 0838

TEXT: This is to advise you that your (year, model, VIN or vehicle identification - whatever information is available) is included in a range of vehicles which the manufacturer has determined contain a defect which relates to motor vehicle safety. Specifically, there exists a potential for fuel leakage in the vehicle's engine compartment which, in the presence of an ignition source, could result in an engine compartment fire or the destruction of the vehicle's ignition distributor cap. This could, in turn, result in personal injury. This condition can be rectified by the installation of a new fuel rail assembly and a modified ignition system.

Since you vehicle was not manufactured to meet United States safety and emission control standards, it may be necessary to make special arrangements in order to have this recall repair performed on your vehicle.

Please contact the Zone Service Department (listed below) closest to you for further information.

Very truly yours,

R E L E A S E

This Release containe herein is made with respect to the following facts:

WHEREAS, , is the purchaser and registered owner of a 19 Jaguar 12 cylinder vehicle, VIN (the "Vehicle"); and

WHEREAS, the Vehicle was not manufactured to comply with United States safety and environmental standards and was not imported into the United States by Jaguar Cars Inc. ("Jaguar"); and

WHEREAS, Jaguar has arranged through to install, at no cost to me, a 12 cylinder fuel rail kit (the "fuel rail kit") in accordance with safety recall D291; and

WHEREAS, neither Jaguar nor has attempted to repair or modify the Vehicle to comply with United States safety or environmental standards; and

WHEREAS, neither Jaguar, , nor any representative or agent of either has made any representation(s) whatsoever that the Vehicle, as repaired, complies with the aforesaid safety or environmental standards; NOW, THEREFORE, I, , in consideration of certain repairs and other work performed on the Vehicle, including but not limited to installation of the fuel rail kit and other good and valuable consideration, receipt whereof is hereby acknowledged, release and discharge and by these presents to for myself, my heirs, executors, administrators and assigns, release, acquit and forever discharge RELEASEES, Jaguar Cars Inc. and , and all their past, present and future associated companies and any and

all other persons, firms and corporations, of and from any and all actions, causes of action, claims or demands for damages, costs, loss of use, loss of services, expenses, compensation, consequential damage or any other thing whatsoever on account of or in any way arising out of any and all known or unknown claims arising from the installation of the fuel rail kit or other repair, by or at the direction of Jaguar, of the Vehicle purchased by me from on or about the day of 198

No promise or inducement which is not herein expressly stated has been made to me, and, in executing this Release, I do not rely on any other statement or representation made by any person, firm or corporation hereby released, or any agent or any other person representing them or any of them.

This document contains the ENTIRE AGREEMENT between the parties hereto and the terms of this agreement may not be changed orally.

I further state that I have carefully read the foregoing Release and know the contents thereof, and I sign the same being of lawful age, as my own free act.

Sworn to before me this

day of 198

Notary Public

ID: nht81-3.35

DATE: 11/10/81

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Taiyo Trading USA Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your letter of June 17, 1981, asking about the applicability of Federal motor vehicle safety standards to a manually operated door opener that you are considering importing. The door opener is designed for passenger cars and taxis and allows the driver to open the rear door by shifting a lever located by the driver's side.

By way of background information, the agency does not give approvals of vehicles or equipment. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act places the responsibility on the manufacturer to ensure that its vehicles or equipment comply with applicable requirements. A manufacturer then certifies that its vehicles or equipment comply with all applicable standards. We note that the term "manufacturer" is defined by section 102(5) of the Act to mean "any person engaged in the manufacturing or assembling of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, including any person importing or motor vehicle equipment, including any person importing motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment for resale." [Emphasis added.]

The agency does not have any regulations covering manually operated door openers. However, installation of such a device may affect a vehicle's compliance with other safety standards. If any standard would be affected, it would probably be Safety Standard No. 206, Door Locks and Door Retention Components. For your convenience, we have enclosed a copy of that standard, which includes performance requirements for a vehicle's latch and striker assembly, door hinges, and door locks. However, based on the limited drawings included with your letter, it is not possible for us to determine whether a vehicle's compliance with that standard would be affected. We suggest that you carefully examine the requirements of Standard No. 206 to make that determination.

If your device is added to a new motor vehicle prior to its first sale, the person who modifies the vehicle would be an alterer of a previously certified motor vehicle and would be required to certify that, as altered, the vehicle continues to comply with all of the safety standards affected by the alteration. You will find the specific certification requirements for alterers at 49 CFR Part 567.7, Certification. On the other hand, you as the manufacturer of the device would have no certification requirements, because we have no safety standards applicable to your equipment. However, an alterer would probably require information from you in order to make the necessary certification.

If your device is installed on a used vehicle by a business such as a garage, the installer would not be required to attach a certification label. However, it would have to make sure that it did not knowingly render inoperative the compliance of the vehicle with any safety standard. This is required by section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, which states in relevant part: No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or part, any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard.

Please feel free to contact us if you have any further questions. You may also wish to check with state and local authorities to determine whether the use of your device is affected by their regulations.

ENC.

June 17, 1981

Chief Council DOT-NHTSA

Dear sir:

We wish to import the enclosed diagramed zerox copied manually operated door opener from Japan to the United States markets.

The door opener is installed on the driver's side. The door opener is independently installed and is not operated by a motor, hydraulic units, nor attached to the engine of the car. All operation is operated and controlled manually. It is highly recommended for passenger cars and taxis, where the driver does not have to get out of the cars each time to open the door.

Before proceeding with the importation of the item to the United States, we are anxious to gather and learn all the regulations and involvements, we may face. We will gladly submit a sample, for your inspection.

We certainly will appreciate it very much, if you will forward us all the necessary application forms and informations.

Thanking you in advance for your time and consideration you have afforded us. We will be looking forward to your early response.

T. FUMIMA, PRESIDENT TAIYO TRADING USA INC.

Enclosure Omitted.

ID: nht90-2.35

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: April 27, 1990

FROM: Kent D. Smith

TO: Stephen P. Wood -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 9-10-90 from P.J. Rice to K.D. Smith (A36; Std. 108); Also attached to Federal Register, 49 CFR Ch. V (10-1-89 Edition), pages 137, 138, 139, and 140 (text omitted)

TEXT:

I appreciated your response to my letter (locater number #4387). In my initial letter to you I described a device that could be used to inform following vehicles that their headlights were blinding you and that they needed to put them on low beam. This device consisted of a button that would activate the backup lights momentarily and would send the same message to the following driver as blinking the headlights up and down does to inform oncoming cars that they needed to dim their lights.

At the present time there are three methods that people use to inform following vehicles that their high beam in your rear view mirrors are making it difficult for you to drive. Some try taping their brakelights. This method is not effective because it is more universally accepted to mean that the following driver is tailgating. Another method which was pointed out in the cartoon that you sent me was that you slow down, let the offending driver pass and then put your lights on high and give him a tast e of his own medicine. This may make you feel better but it doesn't take care of the problem when it is happening. The most extreme method, but the one that gets the message across better than the other two, is what many truck drivers have done and in some cases people in private vehicles. In the case of truckers some have attached a spot light to their side mirror and when the following vehicle doesn't dim his lights he gives him a blast in the eyes with the spot light. The message is clear but it' s a dangerous way of putting the point across because of it's blinding effect on the driver of the following vehicle.

I realize that my device need not be a mandated part of newly manufactured cars but I believe that it has a place as an option for new cars as well as an after market item. There was some concern on your part that this device "might" impair the effectiv eness of the lighting equipment that Standard No. 108 allows. Over the past number of years there have been several new devices added to the rear lighting system that have been an enhancement and not an impairment. Three of them that I have in mind are the turn signal, the four way emergency lights, and the brake light that is placed in the rear view window. I suppose that at the beginning there was some question as to what they meant but it didn't take the public long to understand the message they were trying to convey. I believe that the public would be equally as fast understanding the message that the "rear high beam awareness light" was trying to convey.

A Federal Standard, SAE J593e 4.2, states that "Backup lamps shall not be lighted when the vehicle is in forward motion". I believe that the intent of this law is to force people to repair their backup light system when the lights are stuck in an on pos ition. With my safety device the backup

lights would go on and off in a matter of a second or two so it would seem to me that the spirit of this law would not be violated. I feel that this would be a safe way of eliminating an annoying problem (high beams in your rear view mirrors) that up to now has not been resolved.

What steps would have to be taken in regards to this SAE Standard that would permit me to test market this product? In your legal opinion would I be in violation of any Federal Law by manufacturing and selling this device?

I again thank you for your time and patience and look forward to hearing from you in the near future.

Please send your reply to: Kent D. Smith 12249 S. 1565 E. Draper Utah 84020

P.S. To save you the time of looking it up I'm enclosing my previous letter sent to your office Jan. 26, 1990. (Locater # 4387)

ID: nht87-3.8

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 10/06/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Ms. Deborah L. Brown

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Ms. Deborah L. Brown Office Manager Callaway Engineering 3 High Street Old Lyme, CT 06371

Dear Ms. Brown:

This responds to your letter seeking confirmation of your understanding of Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, as it relates to convertibles. You asked that we verify your understanding in two specific areas. These were:

1. NHTSA has decided to exempt convertibles from the automatic restraint requirements set forth in Standard No. 208 for passenger cars during the phase-in period (September 1, 1986 to August 31, 1989).

This statement is correct. In a final rule published October 17, 1986 (51 FR 37028: copy enclosed), the agency announced its decision to exempt convertibles from the automatic restraint requirements for passenger cars during the phase-in period. In a sub sequent notice terminating further rulemaking on this subject, the agency announced its decision to retain the automatic restraint requirements for convertibles manufactured on or after the first day after the end of the phase-in period, i.e., September 1, 1989 (52 FR 10122, March 30, 1987; copy enclosed). Thus, convertibles manufactured on or after that date will be subject to the same requirements as all other passenger cars.

You also asked about the exact requirements for restraints in convertibles. Prior to September 1, 1989, convertibles must comply with the requirements of section @4.1.2.3.2 of Standard No. 208. However, convertible manufacturers may, at their option, cho ose to certify that convertibles manufactured before September 1, 1989, comply with the automatic restraint requirements set forth in section @4.1.2.1 of Standard No. 208. After September 1, 1989, Standard No. 208 draws no distinction between convertible s and other passenger cars. Section @4.1.4 of Standard No. 208 provides that all passenger cars, including convertibles, manufactured on or after September 1, 1989 shall comply with the automatic restraint requirements of @4.1.2.1, unless section @4.1.1 is rescinded pursuant to @4.1.5.

2. A manufacturer does not have to count convertibles as part of its passenger car production volume when determining its annual production during the phase-in period.

This statement is also correct. The October 17, 1986 amended Standard No. 208 and 49 CFR Part 585, Automatic Restraint Phase-In Reporting, to explicitly provide that manufacturers may exclude their production of convertibles that do not comply with the a utomatic restraint requirements of @4.1.2.1 of Standard No. 208 from the calculation and reporting of annual production during the phase-in period.

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

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Enclosures

July 6, 1987

Passive Restrains Department of Transportation 400 7th St. SW Washington, DC 20590

Subject:

Passive Restraints - Verification of Legislation

Re: Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 49 CFR Parts 571 and 585 (Docket No 74-14; Notice 47)

Occupant Crash Protection and Automatic Restraint Phase-In Reporting.

Federal Register/Vol 51, No 201/Friday October 17, 1986. Would you kindly verify the following in writing for our records: 1. NHTSA has decided to adopt a exemption from the automatic restraint requirement for convertibles. The exemption to apply during the phase-in period.

2. A manufacturer does not have to count convertibles as part of its passenger car production volume when it is calculating its phase-in requirements.

Also, please include the exact requirements regarding restraints for convertibles, i.e. type of system required ad when the system is required.

Thank you in advance for your help.

Sincerely yours,

Deborah L. Brown Office Manager

ID: nht68-4.7

DATE: 09/02/68

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; C. D. Ferguson; NHTSA

TO: General Supply and Equipment Company, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Thank you for your letter of August 7, 1969, to the Federal Highway Administration, concerning head restraints on your 1969 Lincoln Continental Sedan.

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 202: Head Restraints Passenger Cars, specifies that a head restraint must be provided at each outboard front seating position on cars manufactured on or after January 1, 1969. This standard does not prohibit an individual from modifying or removing the head restraints once he purchases the car. However, a particular state may have inspection laws which prohibit such actions. I suggest you check the matter with your state inspection authorities.

Our Highway Safety Program Standards, copy enclosed, set minimum performance requirements for state inspection programs. Each state is free to establish its own program which meets or exceeds the Federal guidelines. The fact that our Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard requires head restraints to be installed on all new passenger cars is evidence of our belief in the level of safety provided by these devices in rear collisions. We would strongly endorse a state inspection program which supported this and our other standards. I am enclosing a booklet which describes all of our motor vehicle standards.

Regarding your particular case, we agree that good visibility is necessary for the safe operation of an automobile. However, properly designed head restraints should not significantly restrict visibility. The injury-reducing benefit far outweights the slight loss of visibility which may occur in certain passenger cars. See(Illegible Word) to the head restraint standard enclosed.

As a practical matter, I would not recommend removal of your head restricts. Aside from the level of rear collision protestion which they provide, their removal may mean that their support structure within the seat back is exposed and this may present a hazard to any rear seat occupants who may hit their heads on the front seat back in a forward collision.

I would suggests the alternative of an additional rear view mirror on the right side of your vehicle to provide increased rear visibility.

Your interest in our progress is appreciated.