ID: 1983-3.26

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 11/22/83

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Mr. John R. Hughes -- Vice President, The Kansas City Southern Railway Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Dear Mr. Hughes:

This is in reply to your letter of October 13, 1983, furnishing the information I suggested in my letter of August 15 to Mr. Snyder.

As you know, I wrote Mr. Stalder of Carland on February 8, that the rail inspection vehicle you wish to purchase, is a "motor vehicle" as defined by the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, because it was not manufactured exclusively for use on rails, and, in our experience, would spend some portion of its life on the public roads. In reply, Mr. Snyder raised the possibility that any off-track utilization by Kansas City Southern would be on its private roads, and I asked for clarification of that point. You have now indicated that this Mercedes but with railroad track conversion will indeed spend 30% of its time on the public roads.

We therefore affirm our interpretation of February 8, that this vehicle is a "motor vehicle" which must meet applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards, even if Kansas City Southern purchases only one of them, and intends to scrap it at the end of its operating life.

Sincerely,

Original signed by Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel

October 13, 1983

Mr. Frank Berndt Chief Counsel 400 Seventh Street SW Washington, DC 20024

In re: Swil Weg Vehicle Utilization and Disposition

Dear Mr. Berndt:

This is to clarify the use of the Zwel Weg/Mercedes vans being considered for purchase by Carland, Inc. for lease to The Kansas City Southern Railway Company. The vans will primarily be used in track inspection and transportation of maintenance of any personnel. The value of these vehicles is that they can be easily and economically utilized on the existing rail facilities. The vehicles would be used on public roads to transport personnel to and from public facilities (motels, restaurants, etc.) within their area of operations. It is estimated that the off track on (public) road utilization will be approximately 30%.

At present, The Kansas City Southern Railway Company is not utilizing any of these vehicles and there are no definite commitments for purchase by Carland, with the exception of the vehicle presently in the country--provided that this vehicle can be brought into conformity. When this is achieved, it is currently anticipated that an additional unit will be purchased for use by The Kansas City Southern Railway Company at its Shreveport, Louisiana facility. Future purchases will be contingent upon the success of these vehicles, subsequent prices and the needs of the railroad.

The vehicles will be used as long as is possible. When they are no longer economically operable (whether due to damage, or due to the vehicles becoming uneconomical to repair or maintain), they will be scrapped. The modifications which have been added to these vehicles to which the rail system is attached are permanently affixed by welding and are not transferable to another vehicle.

The conversion unit can, in any event, only be properly fitted by the Zwel Meg Company machinists. The Conversion unit, although accessible for servicing and maintenance, is not readily removable. The unit cannot be fitted to another vehicle without factory personnel and, in any event, the warranties would then become null and void.

The purchase price for the vehicle, as equipped, is approximately $40,000, which makes removal of the conversion unit and operating the vehicle as a road vehicle not only impractical, but also excessively expensive.

The Kansas City Southern Railway Company is particularly interested in this vehicle because there is no comparable machine made in the United States. The presently available vehicles all have what Kansas City Southern considers to be serious limitations and problems which have rendered them less than satisfactory in their use experience.

We appreciate your reconsideration of this matter.

Sincerely yours, Original signed by John H. Hughes

ID: 1983-3.32

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/12/83

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Nissan Research & Development, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

DEC 12 1983

NOA-30 Mr. Shizuo Suzuki Nissan Research & Development, Inc. 1919 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Suite 707 P.O. Box 57105 Washington, D.C. 20037

Dear Mr. Suzuki:

This responds to your letter of September 22, 1983, regarding the applicability of Safety Standard No. 201, Occupant Protection in Interior Impact, to a power window switch separated from and located in front of a conventional armrest. Additionally, you ask for clarification of the definition of an "armrest" under paragraph S3.5 of the standard.

Upon review of your sketches of the power window switch and conventional armrest, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has determined that this switch does not come within the scope of the meaning of the term "armrest." The design and location of the conventional armrest would apparently preclude uyse of the structure housing the switch as an armrest. Therefore, the power window switch is not subject to the requirements of S3.5 of Standard No. 201.

In support of your contention that S3.5 does not apply to the power window switch, you refer to an oral interpretation of 1976 concerning assist straps and armrests. Please note that this agency is not bound by any oral interpretations as to the requirements of Federal safety standards. Although agreeing with Nissan's conclusion that Standard No. 201 is not applicable to the diagrammed power window switch, this agency did not base its determination on the stated oral interpretation of 1976.

Further, you ask for a clarification of the definition of an "armrest." The term "armrest" is not defined under Standard No. 201. The basic meaning of "armrest" in Webster's New Third International Dictionary is "a support for the arm." To define this term further would only serve to limit this agency's ability to respond adequately under Standard No. 201 to future innovations.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

NISSAN RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT, INC. Washington, DC 20037 September 22, 1983 Ref: W-024-S Mr. Frank Berndt Chief Counsel Room 5219 National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Mr. Berndt:

I am writing on behalf of Nissan Motor Co., Ltd. to request an interpretation concerning the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 201 "Occupant Protection in Interior Impact" (49 CFR Part 571).

Nissan's question is whether or not the requirements of S 3.5 question of MVSS 201 are applicable to the power window switch which is located in front of a conventional arm rest as shown below:

"INSERT"

Furthermore, it would be most helpful if you could clarify the definition of an "Arm Rest."

The Engineering Staff of Nissan think that the power window switch does not need to meet the requirements of MVSS 201 for the following reasons:

* The power window switch cannot be used as a conventional arm rest. Moreover, there is a conventional arm rest.

* When Nissan Motor Co., Ltd. asked for an oral interpretation in 1976, concerning whether the assist strap shown below had to meet the requirements of MVSS 201, NHTSA replied as follows:

* If the assist strap is integrated with the arm rest, the assist strap must meet the requirements of S 3.5 of MVSS 201.

* However, if the assist strap is separated from the arm rest, and even if both parts are combined when installed on a door, that assist strap does not need to meet the requirements of S 3.5 of MVSS 201.

"INSERT"

Thank you for your prompt reply in interpreting this matter for me.

Very truly yours,

Shizuo Suzuki Washington Representative Safety

SS:kms

cc: Mr. Steve Oesch Chief Counsel Office

ID: nht79-2.11

DATE: 01/17/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; J. J. Levin, Jr.; NHTSA

TO: J. R. Randolph

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your December 28, 1978, letter concerning an auxiliary fuel tank installed by the dealer on a 1978 Ford van that you purchased. You are concerned that the auxiliary tank represents a safety hazard due to the location of the tank's filler cap in the left rear wheel-well.

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 301-75, Fuel System Integrity, specifies performance requirements for fuel systems on motor vehicles. Although the standard applies to completed vehicles rather than to fuel tanks or other fuel system components, your dealer had to assure that your van complied with the standard. A person who mounts an auxiliary fuel tank on a new motor vehicle before the vehicle's first purchase in good faith for purposes other than resale is a vehicle alterer under National Highway Traffic Safety Administration regulations. That person is required by 49 CFR 567.7 to affix a label to the vehicle stating that, as altered, the vehicle conforms to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards -- including Safety Standard No. 301-75. Therefore, there should be an "alterer" label on your van in addition to the certification label placed on the vehicle by the original manufacturer.

Even if the vehicle complies with Safety Standard No. 301-75, the location and design of the auxiliary fuel tank could constitute a safety-related defect for which the manufacturer would also be responsible. I am, therefore, forwarding a copy of your letter to the agency's Office of Defects Investigation. That office will examine this situation and may be in touch with you at a later date.

Thank you for your letter and for bringing this matter to our attention.

SINCERELY,

December 28, 1978

Chief Counsel Office of the Administrator National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Sir:

I am writing this letter to inform you of what appears to me to be a definite safety hazard and requesting of you an interpretation of the regulations which authorize either a direct intervention or the issuance of a consumer advisory. This letter is a result of a discussion with, and at the suggestion of, Mr. C. G. Keiper of your Denver office.

On September 7, 1978, I purchased a new 1978 Ford Econoline 150 van from Lakewood Ford, Incorporated. I requested that an auxiliary gas tank be installed and the dealer included the installation on my purchase agreement. Upon delivery to me, I found that the filler cap for the auxiliary gas tank was located in the left rear wheel well. My concerns were responded to by statements which varied from "all after-market auxiliary gas tank installations are the same", to "it meets Federal criteria for a side impact crash".

I subsequently learned that a local dealer, other than Lakewood Ford, had installed the tank according to the manufacturer's directions. The tank is manufactured by ARA.

My concerns are twofold. First, the wheel well is one of the filthiest places on a van, and no reasonable person can keep dirt from entering the auxiliary tank. I have already experienced an engine failure which resulted from dirt in the auxiliary tank; fortunately, the breakdown occurred in the city and only consituted an annoyance. A similar breakdown in the Colorado Rockies, or anywhere else outside a metropolitian area, could conceivably result in explosion and possibly death.

My second concern is that if I were to use tire chains the one on the left rear tire could break, strike the filler cap and cause a fire or explosion.

In either event I am unable to use the product for its intended purpose except in a sterile environment -- normal driving is impossible using this tank except for careless and unthinking persons.

I have brought this matter to the attention of the dealership's president. As of this date, the dealer has not clearly indicated its willingness to either modify the installation to eliminate the hazards or to remove the tank and refund my money.

I will appreciate your consideration in this matter both for my own peace of mind and for the safety of myself and the many people who had the same installation without prior knowledge of the placement of the gas filler cap.

James R. Randolph

cc: JESS B. CARROWAY - LAKEWOOD FORD, INC.; C. G. KEIPER NHTSA, DENVER

ID: nht79-2.43

DATE: 12/28/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Mack Trucks, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Thank you for your letter of November 21, 1979, pointing out discrepancies in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 as published in the Code of Federal Regulations and as published in "Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard and Regulations."

You are correct that the version of S4.1.5 appearing in "Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards and Regulations" erroneously incorporates the paragraph of the Federal Register amendment notice finding that good cause had been shown for an immediate effective date. The error does not appear, however, in the official version of Standard No. 108 which appears in the Code of Federal Regulations.

The footnote reference to "S4.4.2" and the reference to "S3.1" in the interpretation do appear, however, in the Code of Federal Regulations. Originally, there was a paragraph S4.4.2 prescribing the testing sequence of combination turn signal and hazard warning signal flashers, referenced by footnotes in Tables I and III. As you may recall, there was a Standard No. 108a scheduled to become effective on January 1, 1973, which omitted S4.4.2 with its footnote reference, and added detailed performance and testing requirements for flashers under a new paragraph, S4.6. When Standard No. 108a was revoked, S4.4.2 was never reinstated as a requirement, though the footnote references to it still appear in Tables I and III as you have noticed.

With respect to the reference to "S3.1" appearing in Note 2 to Standard No. 108 in the Code of Federal Regulations, this is the S3 which appeared in the December 16, 1967, version of

Standard No. 108 cited by the Note. When Standard No. 108 was amended effective January 1, 1972, S3.1 became S4.1. Thus, the continued reference to S3.1, though confusing, is correct in its context.

Your final comment is that the amendments to Tables I and III, affecting headlamps, as published on July 27, 1978, have not been picked up by the agency's publication "Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards and Regulations." You are correct. We hope that recent steps taken by this agency will end the problems that have been experienced with this publication. However, I must emphasize that the only legal version of Standard No. 108 is that appearing in the Code of Federal Regulations, currently revised as of October 1, 1978, plus amendments and corrections published in the Federal Register since that date.

We appreciate your calling these mistakes to our attention. Sincerely,

ATTACH.

November 21, 1979

F. Berndt, Chief Counsel -- National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Mr. Berndt:

Subject: Discrepancies in Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment, as published in the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards and Regulations

Upon recent review of Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment, we have found a few discrepancies between the Standard as published in the Federal Register and as published in the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards and Regulations compilation.

The Federal Register of June 15, 1978, amended Section S4.1.5. There was a paragraph printed after Section S4.1.5 which we believe was not intended to be part of the Standard; however, the compilation has this paragraph included as part of the Standard. Are we correct in assuming that this paragraph is not part of the Standard?

The Federal Register of July 27, 1978, amended the Table I headlamp requirements. The compilation does not reflect this amendment.

Table I of the compilation is footnoted to "See S4.4.2"; however, there is no Section S4.4.2 in the compilation. The reprinted Standard in the Federal Register of August 23, 1976, also has the same mistake. What is the correct footnote?

The second paragraph under "Interpretation", following Section S5.2, in both the compilation and the Federal Register of August 23, 1976, refers to paragraph S3.1; however, there is no such paragraph in either document. What is the correct reference?

We trust that you will have these areas reviewed and advise us of your findings. We have attached the appropriate pages from the compilation and the Federal Register for your reference.

Very truly yours, MACK TRUCKS, INC.;

Thomas F. Brown -- Executive Engineer-Vehicle Regulations and Standards

Attach.

ID: nht79-3.7

DATE: 08/27/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Shaeen, Lumberg, Callaghan and Berke

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to the questions you raised with Ms. Debra Weiner of my office in a telephone conversion of July 9, 1979. Specifically, you asked whether there are any current or proposal regulations applicable to customizers who install plastic auxiliary diesel fuel tanks in Mercedes automobiles. You noted these vehicles would typically be purchased from a dealer and then brought to the customizer for installation of the auxiliary tank.

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, as amended 1974 (the Act), authorizes the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to issue Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards applicable to motor vehicles and to equipment for installation in vehicles. Safety Standard No. 301-75, Fuel System Integrity (49 CFR 571.301-75), specifies performance requirements for vehicles, including passenger cars, which use fuel with a boiling point above 32 degrees F. (This includes both gasoline and diesel fuel). Under the standard's requirements, no part of a vehicle's entire fuel system can have fuel spillage beyond certain specified amounts during barrier crash tests. Specific performance requirements for individual components of the fuel system, such as the fuel tank, are not currently included in the standard. With the advent of high density polyethlene (plastic) fuel tanks, however, the current "system" performance requirements night not be sufficient to ensure the integrity of vehicle fuel systems. For this reason, the agency recently published an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking concerning the advisability of establishing performance standards for plastic tanks (44 FR 33441, June 11, 1979 copy enclosed).

Under section 108 of the Act, new motor vehicles must comply with Federal safety standards prior to their first purchase in good faith for purposes other than resale. That purchase is completed when the vehicle is delivered to the ultimate consumer. Thus, the extent to which a customizer must ensure that his installation of an auxiliary tank complies with Safety Standard No. 301-75 depends upon whether the tank is installed before or after this delivery.

A customizer who installs an auxiliary fuel tank prior to the vehicle's first purchase would be a vehicle "alterer". Under the provisions of 49 CFR 567.7, he would be required to place an additional label on the vehicle specifying that, as altered, the vehicle continues to be in compliance with all applicable safety standards, including Standard No. 301-75. Additionally, the alterer would be responsible for any safety related defects arising from the installation of the auxiliary tank and would be required under section 151 of the Act to provide notice of and remedy for the defective installation.

If a customerizer installs an auxiliary tank in a vehicle after its delivery to the first purchaser he could be subject to section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Act. That section provides that: 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. . . .

A person or entity found to have violated this section would be liable for a civil penalty of up to $ 1,000 for each violation. (Section 109 of the Act).

If a person subject to section 108(a)(2)(A) adds an auxiliary gasoline tank to a vehicle manufactured in accordance with Safety Standard No. 301-75, and in the process knowingly reduces the performance of the fuel system originally installed in the motor vehicle, he or she has violated section 108(a)(2)(A). (H.R. No. 1191, 93d Cong., 2d Sess. 34 (1974). Such reduction of performance could occur, for example, if gasoline from the original system (a fuel system includes the filler pipe, tank gasoline lines, fuel pump, carburetor, and engine) could be leaked through a rupture in the the auxiliary tank and fuel lines, and if the design materials, construction, installation or location of the auxiliary tank and fuel lines made them more susceptible to rupture than the original fuel system.

Please note that a customizer would be considered a "motor vehicle repair business" since he modifies motor vehicles for compensation.

I hope that you will find this response helpful.

ID: nht81-2.7

DATE: 03/20/81

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: W. Roger Fry, Esq.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

NOA-30

W. Roger Fry, Esq. Rendigs, Fry, Kiely & Dennis 900 Central Trust Bank Tower Fourth & Vine Streets Cincinnati, Ohio 45202

Dear Mr. Fry:

This responds to your January 23, 1981, letter concerning tires used with multipiece rims. Specifically, you asked if this Department has considered whether tires should have a warning concerning use with mismatched multipiece rim assemblies.

We have not considered this question, nor have our studies of multipiece rim explosions considered the tires involved. The agency has determined through its investigations that mismatched multipiece rim assemblies are dangerous. These mismatched assemblies are highly prone to explosive separation, regardless of the nature of the tire mounted on them. Accordingly, our efforts have been directed toward labeling requirements for rim components (see the enclosed copy of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 120) in an effort to reduce the incidence of mismatched multipiece rim assemblies. There are no labeling requirements for tires which specifically warn against use with mismatched multi-piece rim assemblies.

Per your request, I have enclosed a copy of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 119, New Pneumatic Tires for Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars (99 CFR S 571.119). Section S6.5 of this standard specifies the marking requirements for these tires. This standard took effect on March 1, 1975, and the enclosed copy represents the requirements which were applicable from that date to December 31, 1975.

This regulation does somewhat restrict the markings a manufacturer may put on the sidewall of its tires. For instance, the manufacturer cannot list more than one size designation (S6.5(c)) or more than one maximum load rating for single and dual loads (S6.5(d)). However, a manufacturer is free to include safety information in addition to that specified in section S6.5. Thus, a manufacturer might choose to print on the sidewall of its tires that the tires should only be used with a specified rim size or type. Such an additional warning need not be approved by this agency. In fact, this agency does not offer advance approval that a tire's markings comply with the requirements of Standard 119. It is the manufacturer's responsibility to determine that its tires are in compliance with applicable safety standards and to certify that compliance.

If you have any further questions or need further information on this matter, please feel free to contact Mr. Stephen Kratzke of my staff at (202) 426-2992.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

Enclosures

January 23, 1981

United States Dept. of Transporation National Highway Safety Administration Washington, D.C. 20591

Gentlemen:

I am involved in a matter in which I represent the manufacturer of a truck tire which was on a vehicle when a multi-piece rim suddenly came off and critically injured someone in the immediate vicinity of the tire and rim. The rim had been assembled, in some manner with incompatible parts from different manufacturers, which parts combined both two-piece and three-piece rim assembly parts.

My question of you surrounds the tire itself. Has the Department addressed the question of whether or not the tires shou1d have any kind of warning regarding use with either mismatched multi-piece rim assemblies, or multi-piece rim assemblies generally?

I would be very interested in seeing your regulations and requirements governing data which is to be legible on the tire itself, auch as tire size, maximum air pressure and identifying marks. Could you send me your regulations which we in force in 1975?

Do your regulations restrict the printing on tires to the specific items covered in your regulations, or is a tire manufacturer free to add and delete other messages?

Must "other messages" be approved by you?

Have your studies of injuries with multi-piece rim assemblies included consideration of the tires themselves? If so, to what extent?

Thank you very much for any help you are ab1e to give me on this.

Very truly yours,

RENDIGS, FRY, KIELY & DENNIS

W. Roger Fry

WRF:rst

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: nht81-3.8

DATE: 08/17/81

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

TO: Antonio Cano - Sales Representative

COPYEE: F. BRENDT -- NHTSA; SIGNATURE BY STEVE WOOD

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your question, raised during a meeting with Carl Clark, Vernon Bloom, Harry Thompson and Edward Glancy, whether any Federal motor vehicle safety standard precludes the importation or sale of your anti-theft device called "Hyperblock." The device works by preventing release of the brakes. Installation of the device requires cutting into a vehicle's braking system.

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 motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment for resale." [Emphasis added.]

The agency does not have any regulations covering anti-theft devices that work by preventing release of the brakes. However, since installation of Hyperblock requires cutting into a vehicle's braking system, it may affect a vehicle's compliance with other safety standards.

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. In the case of Hyperblock, this would include Safety Standard No. 105, Hydraulic Brake Systems (49 CFR 571.105). 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 Hyperblock 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. . .

You indicated at the aforementioned meeting that installation of Hyperblock does not affect a vehicle's braking performance. You also indicated that Hyperblock maintains the integrity of a vehicle's split system. In addition to requirements in those areas, Standard No. 105 establishes brake system integrity requirements, requiring that a braking system be able to withstand a series of spike stops. You may wish to consider testing Hyperblock as to whether it affects a vehicle's compliance with the spike stop test requirements, if you have not done so already. We suggest that you carefully examine all of Standard No. 105's requirements to determine the degree to which installation of your device affects compliance with the standard.

While we do not have any opinion as to the safety of your particular device, we do have a general concern about the safety of anti-theft devices which work by preventing release of the brakes. We note that some manufacturers state in their service manuals that hydraulic brake locking devices should not be used on their vehicles.

Should a safety-related defect be discovered in your device, whether by the agency or yourself, you as the manufacturer would be required under sections 151 et seq. of the Act to notify vehicle owners, purchasers, and dealers and provide a remedy for the defect.

Finally, in addition to the provisions of Federal law discussed above, there is a possibility of liability in tort should your device prove to be unsafe in operation. You may wish to consult a local lawyer concerning liability in tort.

ID: nht87-1.20

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 01/15/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Adam A. Jorgensen

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Adam A. Jorgensen Consultant to Advance Products and Training Company 915 Middle River Drive, Suite 415 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33304

Dear Mr. Jorgensen:

This is in response to your letter of November 4, 1986, to this Office on behalf of your client, Advanced Products and Trading Company.

Your client wishes to develop a device "to be placed in the rear window of a motor vehicle." It consists of four lighted letters, arranged to spell the word "STOP." When the brake pedal is depressed, or the hazard warning signal flashers are on, the lett ers are lit, in sequence rather than simultaneously. This cycle is repeated as long as the brake is activated, or the hazard warning signals are activated. You have asked if the device is legal, and if so, whether there are any limitations on its use of sale as a product for the automotive market.

There are two relevant automotive markets, one for original equipment, and one for aftermarket equipment. Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment specifies requirements for original motor vehicle lighting equipment and equipment manufactured to replace original lighting equipment. Because there is a Federal requirement that a passenger car manufactured on or after September 1, 1985, be equipped with a center highmounted stop lamp, which is genera lly placed in the rear window area, a replacement lamp must meet the original equipment specifications of Standard No. 108. As Standard No. 108 makes no provision for sequential flashing of letters in the third stop lamp, your client's lamp does not conf orm to original equipment specifications , and therefore could not be legally sold as an intended replacement for third stop lamps on vehicles manufactured on or after September 1, 1985. Further, any person other than the vehicle owner who removed an ori ginal equipment lamp and installed your client's device could be in violation of a prohibition of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act against rendering safety equipment inoperative.

We assume that your client intends his device for the aftermarket, for installation on vehicles which were not originally equipped with the third stop lamp. Standard No. 108 does not cover this type of aftermarket equipment, and its legality would be det ermined under the laws of any State in which it would be sold or used.

If you have further questions we would be pleased to consider them.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 407 Street S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Attn: Office of Chief Counsel

Dear Sir/Madam:

Would you kindly advise me on a traffic-related highway safety question, that is important for one of my clients, Advanced Products and Trading Company.

The client is pursuing as a business venture to develop a special brake-warning signal to be placed in the rear window of a motor vehicle. The special brake warning signal consists of four red lighted letters "S","T","O","P", arranged as the word "STOP". The letters are connected to a small light-flashing control unit that operates such that, when the brake pedal is activated, and/or the warning flashers are on, the lighted letters are turned on one at the time in the following rapid sequence of steps: Step 1, "S"; Step 2,"ST";Step 3 "STO"; and Step 4, "STOP"; after which the sequence is repeated again and again as long as the brake remains activated. The signal is intended to be seen clearly visible from the rear of the vehicle.

My client has a patent application pending on this product and has invested a not insignificant amount of money on this invention.

The question is, is such a sign legal, and if so, are there any special limitations on its use or sale as a pro- duct for the automotive market?

The question may alternatively be asked as follows: If such a signal is prima facie, not legal, are there any conditions that might mitigate its introduction as a new product?

An early response to that inquiry would be very much appreciated.

Yours very truly,

Adam A. Jorgensen Consultant to Advance Products and Trading Company

ID: nht87-1.23

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 01/16/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Peter Cameron-Nott

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Peter Cameron-Nott 90 Horace Street Startford, CT 06497

Dear Mr. Cameron-Nott:

This is in reply to your letter of December 7, 1986, with respect to kit cars.

Your first question concerns a 1965 Jaguar that has been rebodied but carries its original mechanical components, title, and identification number. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act does not require conformance with the Federal motor vehi cle safety standards applicable to passenger cars if the passenger car to be imported into the United States was manufactured before January 1, 1968. However, certain of these standards cover vehicle components, and if the relevant components have been m anufactured on or after January 1, 1968, these components would be subject to the applicable Federal safety standard. These components include brake hoses, lighting equipment, tires, retreaded tires, glazing materials (most importantly, the windshield mu st be marked AS-1), seat belt assemblies, and wheel covers (which may not incorporate winged projections). Although the 1965 Jaguar would have a new body, by retaining its original mechanical components, title, and identification number, it would be cons idered a 1965 model and not subject to the Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to passenger cars. But if any of the equipment listed above has been manufactured after January 1, 1968, those items must comply in order to be imported into thi s country.

You have asked how the situation would differ were the rebodied Jaguar a 1972 model, the other facts being identical. We would consider this car " a 1972 model, and required to conform to all Federal motor vehicle safety standards that applied on the dat e of its original manufacture. Conformity could be achieved either before or after its importation into this country.

Your second question concerns "a kit car consisting of both new and used components i.e. new body/chassis and used mechanicals from various sources including Ford/Triumph and M.G." You have reported EPA's position that the year of the engine determines what standards are to be met, and you have asked if these are also DOT's requirements. The age of the engine is not the determining factor with us. Generally, the agency considers a kit car consisting of a new body and new chassis to be a new motor vehicle, and required to meet all Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to new passenger cars as of the date of its assembly, even if some of its mechanical components have been used previously . This means that such components must not prevent the assembled vehicle from meeting those standards.

If you have further questions we would be pleased to answer them.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Ms. Erika Jones Chief Counsel 12/7/86 N.H.T.S.A. 400 7th St S.W. Washington D.C. 20590

Dear Ms. Jones:

I recently spoke to Mr. John Donaldson at D.O.T and he recommended that I write to you concerning importation of rebodied and kit vehicles. There are some points upon which I would request further clarification.

I wish to import the following vehicles:

#1 1965 Jaguar that has been rebodied but still using original mechanical components. i.e. new body and original Jaguar mechanicals including suspension, steering, brakes, transmission etc.

The chassis carries the original 1965 Jaguar I.D. # and is titled accordingly i.e. 1965 Jaguar two seat convertible and 1965 I.D. #.

In addition what standards are applicable if the rebodied vehicle is for example a 1972 Jaguar and titled as such?

#2 A kit car consisting of both new and used components i.e. new body/chassis and used mechanicals from various sources including Ford/Triumph and M.G.

E.P.A. has informed me that in these cars the rebodied 65 jaguar is exempted because it was originally manufactured prior to 1968 but the 1972 Jaguar must be certified to 1972 standards. And for the kit car the year of the engine in the vehicle determine s what standards must be met. Are these also the requirements of D.O.T.?

Your clarification of these points would be greatly appreciated.

Sincerely Yours,

Peter Cameron-Nott