ID: 14305a.mls

Mr. Frank Johnson
Executive Vice President
Nichirin Co., Ltd.
139 Copernicus Blvd.
Brantford, Ontario
N3P 1N4

Dear Mr. Johnson:

This responds to your letter to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), Office of Crash Avoidance Standards, asking about Standard No. 106, Brake hoses, for vacuum brake hoses. Your letter was referred to my office for reply. I apologize for the delay in the agency's response.

According to your letter, your company is a wholly owned subsidiary of Nichirin Co. Ltd. Japan. Your company manufactures and sells vacuum brake hoses and assemblies to vehicle manufacturers, including Honda.

You state that the "current registered trademark" (which we understand to be the manufacturer's designation required by S9.1 of Standard 106) that is imprinted on one brake hose end fitting is "NNI." The hose is marked "NCRN," which is the designation registered with NHTSA for your parent company. You are currently supplying vacuum brake hoses to Honda that are manufactured in Japan with the NCRN designation. In the future, you plan to have the bulk hose "licensed to a USA based hose manufacturer who [you] will buy it from, assemble valves, clips, etc. and supply it to Honda."

You first ask whether you need to register a designation for vacuum brake hose assemblies under S9.1.3 of Standard 106, even though you have "NNI" registered for hydraulic brake hose assemblies. The answer is no. Because you already are registered for hydraulic brake hose assemblies, you do not need to register again with NHTSA. The purpose of registering your designation with the agency is to help us identify you in case of a recall resulting from a safety-related defect or a noncompliance. Please note that we have examined a sample product you submitted which does not appear to be a "brake hose assembly" as defined in Standard No. 106 because it has clamps only, and no end fittings. Therefore, it is not required to be labeled in accordance with S9.1.3 of Standard No. 106.

You then ask whether you or the licensee would be considered the manufacturer of the hose for purposes of registering the manufacturer's designation. You note that the hose is to be manufactured under license to your material and manufacturing specifications. I have enclosed a May 12, 1994 letter to Russell Performance Products which addresses the same issue. As the agency explained in that interpretation, only the licensee's designation is required to be marked, since the licensee is the entity that will actually manufacture the brake hose. Such a designation will identify the licensee as the manufacturer of the brake hose in the event of a possible defect or noncompliance with the hose.

Please note that HBD Industries (HBD), the proposed licensee, has not registered a designation with the agency. Therefore, HBD should file its planned designation with NHTSA's Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance.

I have also enclosed copies of two procedural requirements you must satisfy in order to sell your products in this country. The first requirement is NHTSA's regulation for manufacturer identification (49 CFR Part 566). This regulation requires a manufacturer of equipment to which an FMVSS applies (e.g., brake hoses) to submit its name, address, and a brief description of the items of equipment it manufacturers to NHTSA within 30 days after it first imports its products into the United States.

The second requirement is NHTSA's regulation for designations of agents (49 CFR Part 551, Procedural Rules, Subpart D). The regulation requires all manufacturers headquartered outside of the United States to designate a permanent resident of the United States as the manufacturer's agent for service of all process, notices, orders and decisions. This designation should be mailed to me at the following address: Chief Counsel, Room 5219, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh St., S.W., Washington, D.C., 20590. The designation must include the following information:

1. A certification that the designation of agent is valid in form and binding on 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 address of the manufacturer;
3. Marks, trade names, or other designations of origin of any of the manufacturer's products which do not bear its name;
4. A statement that the designation shall remain in effect until withdrawn or replaced by the manufacturer;
5. A declaration of acceptance duly signed by the agency appointed, which may be an individual, a firm or a United States corporation; and,
6. The full legal name and address of the designated agent.
7. In addition, the designation must be signed by a person with authority to appoint the agent. The signer's name and title should be clearly indicated beneath his or her signature.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have further questions, please contact Mr. Marvin Shaw of this office at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
Enclosure
ref:106
d:5/6/97

ID: 1982-1.6

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 01/20/82

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Hon. Phil Sharp - H.O.R.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your recent letter requesting information on behalf of your constituent, Mr. Mark Lecher. Mr. Lecher is under the impression that there is some new law "banning cars with dark-tinted windows." He is particularly concerned that he will have to replace the windows on his Datson pickup.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration issues safety standards and regulations governing the manufacture of new motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. There is a safety standard which specifies performance and location requirements for glazing materials used on motor vehicles (Standard No. 205). However, the requirements of this standard as they relate to tinting have not changed in years. The standard currently requires the windshield and front side windows in cars and trucks (i.e., windows necessary for driving visibility) to have a luminous transmittance of at least 70 percent. Other windows may be tinted as darkly as the manufacturer wishes. If the windows in Mr. Lecher's pickup were factory-installed, they are presumably in compliance with Standard No. 205. Therefore, Mr. Lecher should not worry about having to alter his windows. There is no new Federal law or regulation, nor any proposed rule, to change the requirements of Standard No. 205 in this regard.

Mr. Lecher might be referring to a State law or regulation. We understand that some states are considering prohibitions against the use of dark tinting films which can be applied to existing vehicle windows. Such State laws would not require Mr. Lecher to alter the windows on his pickup, however, if the windows are the original glazing installed by the manufacturer in compliance with the Federal standard. This is because Section 103(d) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, as amended 1974 (15 U.S.C. 1392, et seq.) pre-empts any State law which is applicable to the same aspect of performance as a Federal safety standard.

Standard No. 205 would pre-empt any State law which attempted to specify the amount of tinting that a piece of new motor vehicle glazing could have. Standard No. 205 would not pre-empt a State law which prohibits the applications of films or decals on existing glazing, however, since Standard 205 does not apply to the use of glazing after it has been purchased by a consumer. I suggest that Mr. Lecher contact his State Department of Motor Vehicles to find out about any activity in this area.

I am enclosing a copy of the Vehicle Safety Act for Mr. Lecher's information.

Sincerely,

2 Enclosures; Constituent's Correspondence; Vehicle Safety Act

ATTACH.

Congress of the United States

House of Representatives

December 7, 1981

Joe LaSalla -- National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Department of Transportation

Dear Mr. Lafalla:

I was recently contacted by a constituent, Mr. Mark Lecher, who is concerned about a ban on the use of tinted glass in trucks.

I am enclosing a copy of the letter that I received from Mr. Lecher. I would appreciate an explanation of any action your agency has taken or information of which you are aware in any other agency which would result in the banning of the use of tinted glass.

Your assistance in complying with this request will be appreciated.

Sincerely,

Phil Sharp -- Member of Congress

Enclosure

NOVEMBER 22, 1981

Dear Congressman Shop,

My name is Mark Lecher, originally from Fort Wayne, Indiana.

Now I'm living in the Bargersville area, South of Indianapolis. I work as a Cabinet maker, earning $ 5.00 per hour.

I don't feel the Social-Security problem will have much hope of helping me, by my time of retirement. I'm 28 years old now. All a person hears about is how the government is running out of money.

This company I work for has no retirement pension plan. So, if Social Security runs out, I'll only wonder, where did all that money go that I put into it for my own future.

There are alot of people who feel that way.

But it seems helpless to worry about.

Also in this letter, mainly why I wrote, is about this new law banning cars with dark - tinted windows. (Excluding windshields)

Last year I bought a new Datson pickup truck, great gas mileage.

When I bought it it had dark-tinted side windows, and back window. Now I hear they're going to (Illegible Word) the dark-tint. If I have to remove this tint it will ruin my window. The substance is not made to come off. And there is no way I could afford to buy new clean windows.

So if you can, please, stop that Bill! and good luci- with the Social Security System.

Sincerely, Mark E. Lecher

ID: 1982-2.32

DATE: 08/06/82

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Thomas Built Buses Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

August 6, 1982

Mr. James Tydings Specifications Engineer Thomas Built Buses Inc. 1408 Courtesy Road P.O. Box 2450 High Point, NC 27261

Dear Mr. Tydings:

This responds to your June 28, 1982, letter asking several questions about the remanufacture of school buses using old chassis and new bodies.

In general, the use of a new body on an old chassis does not constitute the manufacture of a new motor vehicle. Accordingly, your responsibility as the individual making this modification would simply be to make sure that you do not render inoperative the compliance of the pre-existing vehicle with any of the safety standards with which it complied when it was manufactured and with which it complies at the time of your modifications, i.e., the new body (and the chassis) would have to comply with the same standards with which the old body complied (15 U.S.C. 1397).

In your first hypothetical, you would use a pre-April 1, 1977 chassis. In this case the body that you would use would not have to comply with the school bus safety standards that became effective on that date. Seat spacing could be determined by the customer.

Secondly, you would use a post-April 1, 1977 chassis. In this case the vehicle would be required to continue to comply with those standards applicable to it at the time of its manufacture, which includes the school bus safety standards. Seat spacing would be limited in accordance with Standard No. 222.

Your third and fourth hypotheticals are the same as the two noted above except that the buses involved are not school buses. Once again, the general rule prevails that the buses need not comply with new motor vehicle safety standards, but simply must not have their previous compliance with standards rendered inoperative by you.

Finally, as you indicated in your letter, you should transfer the certification label from the old vehicle to the modified vehicle if you are replacing the vehicle's body.

Sincerely,

Original Signed By

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

June 28, 1982

Mr. Roger Tilton, Office of Chief Counsel U.S. Department of Transportation 400 S.W 7th Street Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Mr. Tilton,

Pursuant to our recent phone conversation regarding the mounting of new bus bodies upon old chassis, I would appreciate your counsel on this matter.

You expressed some surprise that requests are being received for new bodies on old chassis which is the reverse of the usual procedure of a new chassis under an old body. Your office in the past has ruled in those cases that the body must meet the safety regulation level of the chassis.

It is the feeling here that the present economic conditions of essential tight money makes this new combination feasible.

Since I could not find any references in the certification part of the regulations to serve as a guide prompted my phone call to you.

Following is a list of questions which will illustrate some combinations of various situations that may arise in the mounting of the new body.

NOTE: All chassis to be reconditioned. All chassis originally certified as school buses.

1. Conditions: Chassis - Pre-April 1, 1977 Body - 1982 - Make of body not the same as the original body.

Seats - Pre-1977 Seats - Spacing to be customer option.

2. Chassis - Post April 1, 1977 Body - 1982 Seats - Seats to be of certifiable of the year of the chassis.

Other Federal Regulations - Equal to or exceeding the Federal Regulations of the year of the chassis.

Bus Use - A school bus.

3. Same as No. 1, except: Body would be a non-school bus body.

Bus Use - Only as non-school bus.

4. Same as No. 2, except: Body would be a non-school bus body.

Bus Use - Only as non-school bus.

Per our conversation, the original certification is to be installed in the new body in the approved location.

We trust that the example conditions outlined are in accordance with the Federal Safety Standard.

Should you have any questions, relative to the above, kindly contact the writer.

Sincerely,

THOMAS BUILT BUSES, INC.

James Tydings, Specifications Engineer

JT/jf

ID: 1983-3.10

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 10/05/83

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Lansing Auto Glass Co. -- Anthony M. Peterson

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Dear Mr. Peterson:

This responds to your letter concerning the application of the render inoperative provisions of section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act to the replacement of vehicle windshields by motor vehicle repair businesses.

As explained in my letter of September 3, 1981, to Mr. Stanley, the agency does not consider fixing a damaged windshield to constitute a rendering inoperative of the windshield with respect to Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials. That letter did caution that if a repair shop, in the course of fixing a damaged windshield, renders another part of the vehicle or element of design inoperative with respect to another applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard, then the repair shop would violate section 108(a)(2)(A).

You specifically asked whether in replacing a windshield a repair shop must use the same method (e.g., setting the glass with urethane) the original equipment manufacturer used to maintain the integrity of the installation. The agency does not consider the replacement of a damaged windshield to constitute a rendering inoperative with respect to Standard No. 212, Windshield Mounting, which establishes windshield retention requirements for new vehicles, regardless of the method used to maintain the integrity of the windshield.

Although section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Act would not apply to the replacement of a damaged windshield, product liability concerns dictate that a repair shop ensure that the replace- ment windshield is mounted securely. Mounting the windshield with the same method used by the vehicle manufacturer presum- ably would ensure that the replacement windshield had the same integrity as the original windshield installation.

You also asked about the effect of section 108(a)(2)(A) on a repair shop that replaces a windshield for a dealer who will resell the vehicle and a replacement of a windshield for an insurance company for one of its policyholders. Assuming that the repair shop is replacing a damaged windshield, section 108(a)(2)(A) would not apply.

I hope this discussion is of assistance to you. If you have any further questions please contact Stephen Oesch of my staff (202-426-1834).

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

Lansing Auto Glass Co.

U.S. Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Admin. 400 Seventh St. S.W. Washington D.C. 20590

Att. Mr. Frank Berndt. Chief Council

Dear Mr. Berndt:

I am in receipt of a copy of a letter you addressed to Mr.Robert W. Stanley, then Executive Vice President of the National Glass Dealers Assoc, in Sept. of 1981. It concerned the legal use of repairing damaged windshield with plasticizers or epoxy mixtures covered by the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act as amended in 1974, Safety Standard No. 205 which established performance requirements for automotive glazing.

My question deals with the replacement of the windshield rather than the repair of it. You state that Section 108 (a)(2)(A) of the Act prohibits various concerns, but in our interest more specifically, motor vehicle repair businesses from knowingly rendering inoperative 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 Standard. You also take me aware that the person repairing a damaged windshield does not render it inoperative as that was done by whatever did the original damage but that should he damage or change something else on the vehicle while make a repair he could violate the act.

I suppose that the methods used by the manufacturer of the automobile in installing the original windshield is covered and established in Safety Standard No. 205. If this is the case I would also suppose that any person who replaces broken windshield by removing the original one from the vehicle and installing a new one in its place would be required to use the same method as the original equipment manafacturer used so as to retain the integrity of the installation and meet the requirements dictated by Standard No. 205. This is to say that if the original glass was set with urethane then the replacement glass must be set with urethane. Is this indeed the case?

If this is so what effect does the law have on the replacement of a windshield for a deal" who will resell the vehicle and on the replacement of a windshield for an an insurance company for one of their individual clients? In the latter case the vehicle may not be resold for several months or even years but the repairs, if not done properly would render the automobile inoperative or better said the windshield inoperative.

I will sincerely appreciate your answer to these questions and any clarification of the law you can extend me.

Anthony M. Peterson.

ID: 1983-3.18

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 11/03/83

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Steve Lampeas

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Steve Lampeas: 117 Aldershot Lane Manhasset, New York 11030

Dear Mr. Lampeas:

This is in reply to your letter of October 13, 1983, concerning the legality under Federal laws of your patented device, the "Trunk Truck." It appears from the material you enclosed that the device extends in twin booms from the rear of the car, and that a stop lamp or taillamp is mounted at the end of each boom (you refer to it as a "natural extension" of these lamps).

Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, no person (except the vehicle owner) may modify a vehicle so that equipment that is on the vehicle pursuant to a Federal motor vehicle safety standard is "rendered inoperative in whole or in part." Therefore, you must assure yourself that all requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 continue to be met with respect to rear lighting. This would include not only the lamps at the end of the booms, but those remaining on the car. In addition to stop lamps and taillamps, rear lighting includes, turn signal lamps, back up lamps, and license plate lamps. As on other load-bearing vehicles, such as boat trailers, these lamps should continue to be visible even with a load installed.

You should also ask the States whether such a device is legal. States have jurisdiction over the use of motor vehicles within their borders.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

October 13, 1983

Mr.Frank Berndt Chief Council of National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 7th Street South West Washington D.C. 20590

RE: Trunk Truck

Dear Mr. Frank Berndt:

As per my telephone conversation today with Roger Fairchild, I am enclosing in this letter and sending to you a description and illustration of the Trunk Truck, which is a new patented devise that I have invented.

Before I go into production of this item I want to check with your legal department to be sure that there are no laws that the federal level that my be violated or any safety test that may be required, when this item is attached to a motor vehicle and is in use.

I believe your office has jurisdiction in this matter and would very much appreciate an early opinion and response.

Sincerely,

Steve Lampeas

TRUNK TRUCK

Need to move something quickly? It can be done with a Trunk Truck.

With this new patented device, you can transform your family car in minutes into a van, truck, or trailer and after you have moved your items you can change it back to your family car.

The Trunk truck is a telescoping, self adjusting, precision designed, light weight, high tensile aluminum alloy device, ready for instant use. It is a natural extension of the tail lights and breaking lights of your car. It is road worthy, stable and safe to use.

The Trunk Truck is an inexpensive way to move almost anything. It can be used by merchants, campers, outdoor vendors, house owners, and many others.

This patented device is highly versatile, proving stretch space not thought possible before, to take and carry a variety of items for the occasional or frequent moving job you map have.

The Trunk Truck will free the active man, from the dependency of a second car, van, truck, or trailer.

There will be no further need for additional garage space, license plates, insurances or inspection stickers and registration fees.

Its user are limitless. For example: Taxi Cab Fleet owners can use the Trunk Truck as the start of a new line of moving services.

With a medium sized car, you can expect to have a loading area of 30 square feet, a loading volume of 90 cubic ft. and an approximate weight load of 600 lbs.

The Trunk Truck can be installed easily and at a moderate price in your foreign or domestic car, out of the way inside your trunk.

For further information on the Trunk Truck, contact Lampeas Assoc. at 117 Aldershot Lane Manhasset L.I. N.Y. 11030

Trunk Truck Transform your car into a Van, Truck or Trailer in minutes

* Graph Inserted Here

ID: 1983-1.6

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 01/20/83

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Western Waste Industries

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

NOA-30

Mr. Kosti Shirvanian President and Chairman of the Board Western Waste Industries P.O. Box 214 Gardena, California 90247

Dear Mr. Shirvanian:

This is in reply to your letter of December 22, 1982, informing us that the California Highway Patrol has advised one of your divisions to remove certain tires from service for failure to "display the Department of Transportation's symbol on both sidewalls in violation of the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 119 effective March 1, 1975." You have also stated that the tires are acceptable in all other respects.

Paragraph S6.5(a), requiring use of the DOT symbol on tires covered by the standard specifically states, "This symbol may be used on only one sidewall." Therefore, the tires in question would not fail to comply with Standard No. 119 by having the DOT symbol on only one of the two sidewalls.

It there should, in fact, be other items of information missing from the tires which render them technically non-compliant with the standard, we would be pleased to advise you further.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

cc: Ms. Susan Williams Bracy, Williams & Co.

Suite 304 1000 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20036

December 22, 1982

Frank A. Berndt, Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic & Safety Administration 400 - 7th Street, S.W. Room 5219 Washington, D.C. 20590

Re: Pneumont Tire - Federal Marketing Problem

Dear Mr. Berndt:

It is my understanding that Susan Williams has spoken to you about the problem that I am having in California in regard to the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 119. A division of Western Waste Industries, Western Bandag, purchased over 100 Pneumont tires from Interstate Tire Warehouse in Denver, Colorado. These tires were then subsequently sold to Associated Bus Company in Los Angeles. During certification procedures, the Highway Patrol informed Associated Bus that the tires failed to display the Department of Transportation's symbol on both sidewalls in violation of the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 119 effective March 1, 1975. The Highway Patrol enforcement officer, Mr. David English (213/736-2996) advised Associated Bus and my office that although this Act had been passed March 1, 1975, it was not placed in an information bulletin by the California Highway Patrol Enforcement Services Division until January 27, 1982.

As a result of Mr. English's findings, he has advised Associated Bus Company to remove all of the tires from their fleet which fleet services Los Angeles Unified School District. Mr. English and the Highway Patrol officers who inspected the tires have indicated that there is nothing wrong with the tires themselves except for the fact that they fail to have the DOT symbol displayed on one of the two sidewalls. Specifically, the tires are Pneumont Tires, I.D. #K52LGB2R191 tube-type with no regrooving information. They are rayon tires with a 110 pound weight, 14-ply rated, single-axle, with a maximum load of 6,610 pounds. The air pressure set forth for acceptable driving is 100. The dual weight limitation is 5,950 pounds. Moreover, the DOT symbol is found on each tire on one side of the sidewall.

As the purchaser of the tires, my company is in a position of now having to face the wrath of subsequent purchasers of these tires who are being advised by the California Highway Patrol that these tires are illegal.

We are requesting from your offices a letter addressed to the Department of California Highway Patrol, Enforcement Services Division, with a copy forwarded to Mr. David English of the Los Angeles Highway Patrol office, directing that these specific tires remain in service.

The company feels that given the seven-year lapse between the time the safety standard was effective and the time that the California Highway Patrol advised their offices of the Law, this is a situation over which we as consumers had no control. Moreover, it appears that the Customs Department of the United States failed to enforce this standard and allowed these tires into the country illegally. We are hopeful that this situation can be rectified so that our company is not subject to lawsuits from our purchasers.

Your cooperation in attempting to resolve this situation is greatly appreciated. If we need to provide you any further information, we will be at your service. Thank you again for your time.

Very truly yours,

WESTERN WASTE INDUSTRIES

KOSTI SHIRVANIAN, President and Chairman of the Board

KS/ses

cc: Susan Williams

ID: 1984-2.49

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/07/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Dr. Eugenio Alzati -- General Director, Ferrari S.p.A.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Dr. Eng. Eugenic Alzati General Director Ferrari S.p.A. 41100 Moodena Viale Trento Triesta, 31 ITALY

This responds to your letter to Mr. Steed, the Administrator of this agency, asking that Ferrari be allowed to petition for a low volume exemption from the generally applicable passenger automobile fuel economy standards. Ferrari had filed a petition asking such a request for its 1978 model year vehicles, but was ruled ineligible for a low volume exemption because Ferrari was controlled by Fiat, S.p.A. Now that Fiat has stopped importing vehicles into the US, you stated your belief that Ferrari is in the same position as Naserati, which has been ruled eligible to apply for low volume exemption. I need some further information to determine if Ferrari should be considered eligible to film a petition for a low volume exemption.

By way of background, section 502(c) of the Motor Vehicle information and Cost Savings Act (the Act) (15 U.S.C. (2002)(c) provides:

On application of a manufacturer who manufactured (whether or not in the US) fewer than 10,000 passenger automobiles in the second model year proceding the model year for which the application is made, the Secretary may, by rule exempt such manufacturer from (the generally applicable fuel economy standards).

To determine whether Ferrari manufactures fewer that 10,000 passenger automobiles, it is necessary to interpret and apply sections 501(9) and 503(c) of the Act. Section 501(9) specifies: the term "manufacturer" (sic) (except for purposes of section 502(c)) means to produce or assemble in the customs territory of the US, or to import." Section 503(c) reads as follows:

(c) Any reference in this part to automobiles manufactured by a manufacturer shall be deemed-- (1) to include all automobiles manufactured by persons who control, are controlled by, or are under common control with, such manufacturer; and (2) to exclude all automobiles manufactured (within the meaning of paragraph (1) during a model year by such manufacturer which are exported prior to the expiration of 30 days following the end of such school year.

As you noted in your letter, this agency has determined that Naserati is eligible to file a petition for a low volume exemption under section 502(c) of the Act, even though that company is under common control with Nuova Innocenti, S.p.A., which manufactures more than 10,000 passenger automobiles annually. This petition was allowed because NHTSA believes that the term "manufacture" in section 503(c) means to produce or assemble in the US, or to import into the US. Since none of the Nuova Innocenti automobiles are imported into the US, NHTSA concluded that only Naserati's worldwide production should be counted to determine whether that company was eligible for a low volume exemption.

Your situation is potentially similar to the Maserati situation, if the current importers of what formerly were the Fiat X1/9 and Spider 2000 were not found to be under the control of Fiat S.p.A. To make this determination, I will need answers to the following questions:

1. State whether Fiat S.p.A. owns any stock in either industrie Pininfarina S.p.A. or Carrozeria Bertone. If so, please state the extent of such holdings (both in number of shares and the percentage of total shares outstanding).

2. State whether the models which are sold in the US by Pininfarina and Bartone are sold in any other countries. If so, please state whether those models are marketed as Fiats, or whether they are marketed as Pininfarinas and Bartones.

3. State whether the components used by Pininfarina and Bartone when assembling these automobiles are manufactured by those companies or by another company. If any of the components are manufactured by Fiat S.p.A. or any of its subsidiaries, please identify and list each of these components.

4. Your letter had a Feb. 14 l983 letter from Fiat of North America to the Environmental Protection Agency attached thereto. On page 2 of that letter, the following sentence appears: "We would also like to advise you that we will officially be helping Industrie Pininfarine S.p.A. and Carrozeria Bertone in dealing with certification matters in accordance with instructions received from them and Fiat Auto S.p.A." Please detail any and all assistance Fiat of North America currently provides to Pininfarine and Bertone, what assistance was formerly provided, and when the official assistance was ended, if it has been ended.

5. Indicate whether Fiat currently provides any engineering, design, or servicing advice or assistance to Pininfarine and Bertone in connection with the 21/9 or Spider 2000 models. If so, indicate the motors and frequency of such assistance.

The agency will make a prompt determination of Ferrari's eligibility to file for an exemption under section 502(c) of the Act when we receive your answers to these questions. Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel

ID: 1984-3.37

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 11/08/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Lawrence F. Henneberger -- Arent, Fox, Kintner,Plotkin and Kahn

TEXT:

Mr. Lawrence F. Henneberger Arent, Fox, Kintner, Plotkin & Kahn Washigton Square 1050 Connecticut Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20036-5339

This responds to your letter of August 27, 1984, on behalf of your client, the Breed Corporation. You asked whether section S4.5.2 of Standard No . 208, Occupant Crash Protection, would apply to totally mechanical air bag restraint systems such as those to be produced by Breed. As explained below, the readiness indicator requirements do not apply to a totally mechanical system.

The readiness indicator requirement was first adopted by the agency in November 1970. The text of the rule provided, in applicable part, that "an occupant protection system that deploys in the event of a crash should have a monitoring system with a readiness indicator. The system components monitored shall include all electrical and compressed gases, if present." As you correctly pointed out, the agency explained in the problem to the November 1970 rule that it was particularly concerned about monitoring electrical circuitry and pressure vessels, two critical elements of then available crash-deployed system. The agency said that "although manufacturers are urged to provide monitoring for all system elements for which it is feasible, the specific requirements of the standard in this regard are that electrical circuitry and pressurized gases, if present, be monitored,...."

In response to petitions for reconsideration, the agency modified the readiness indicator requirement on October 1, 1971. Several petitioners argued that monitoring of pressure vessels and electrically actuated explosive release devices could impair the integrity or reliability of those devices. The agency deleted the specific reference to an electrical and compressed gas monitoring system so that manufacturers could "avoid designs that are prone to deterioration. . . ." The amendment did not, however, otherwise affect the coverage of the requirement and therefore a totally mechanical system does not have to have a monitoring system with a readiness indicator.

Sincerely,

Original Signed By

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

August 27, 1984

Frank A. Berndt, Esquire Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, S.W., Room 5219 Washington, D.C. 20590

Re: Request for Interpretation; Inapplicability of Readiness Indicator Provision of FMVSS 208 to Non-Electric Crash Protection System

Dear Mr. Berndt:

Our firm represents Breed Corporation, located in Lincoln Park, New Jersey, which anticipates the production and marketing of a mechanical, self-contained air bag module. Breed seeks a letter of interpretation from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration confirming that sub-section 54. 5.2 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 208, the "readiness indicator" provision, does not apply to totally mechanical airbag restraint systems such as those to be produced by Breed.

Regulatory Background

A readiness indicator requirement, as proposed by NHTSA, first appeared in an advance notice of proposed rule making for passive occupant restraint systems such as the air bag in July of 1969. Passive crash protection technology then and for a number of years thereafter suggested electrical, rather than mechanical, systems for this purpose.

Indeed, in a final rule notice issued on November 3, 1970, Douglas Toms, the then Director of NHTSA' s predecessor agency, the National Highway Safety Bureau, observed:

"The proposed requirement for a readiness indicator for crash-deployed systems brought forth several questions as to which system elements were required to be monitored. Obviously any deployable system will have some qualities . . . that are not suitable for monitoring, and other aspects whose monitoring would be very difficult and costly. System monitoring of electrical circuitry and pressure vessels, two of the most critical elements where they exist, is, however, feasible with present technology. Therefore..., the specific requirements of the standard in this regard are that electrical circuitry and pressurized gases, if present, be monitored...." (35 Fed. Reg. 16928 (1970).)

The narrow application of subsection S4.5.2 was reconfirmed in an October 1971 rule making notice, in which the Safety Administration observed:

"To permit manufacturers to avoid designs that are prone to deterioration, the readiness indicator requirement has been amended by omitting specific reference to compressed gases and electrical circuits. " (36 Fed. Reg. 19254 (1971).)

Request for Interpretation

Breed Corporation respectfully submits that its completely mechanical air bag system, which consists of five basic components (knee bolster, steering column, nonpressurized, solid state gas generator, air bag and crash sensor), is not subject to the readiness indicator requirement of subsection S4. 5.2 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 208, 49 C.F.R. 571.208, which is intended to cover occupant protection systems with electrical circuitry and/or pressurized gases.

We request that the agency confirm, by letter of interpretation, our understanding of the city provision.

Sincerely,

Lawrence F. Henneberger cc: Thomas C. McGrath, Jr., Esquire John C. Culver, Esquire

ID: 15110bel.low

Mr. Robert E. Karoly
Director
AD-EX Agency
1847 Fourteenth Avenue
Vero Beach, FL 32960

Dear Mr. Karoly:

Thank you for your letter regarding your device, the Saflex Booster, which is designed to elevate a child above the vehicle seat. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) appreciates your interest in child passenger safety.

The objective of increasing safety for children is also a goal of the agency. The agency is deeply concerned about children, and about infants in rear-facing child safety seats who have been seriously injured or killed by deploying air bags. NHTSA recently issued a final rule which will allow manufacturers to quickly begin depowering air bags to reduce the injuries and fatalities from deploying air bags. A final rule also has been issued to require warning labels in all vehicles with air bags and on rear-facing child seats. These warning labels alert occupants about hazards associated with deploying air bags and also strongly recommend that parents put children in the rear seat, especially infants in a rear-facing child safety seat.

We believe that the message that children belong in the rear seat cannot be overemphasized, especially for infants in rear-facing child seats.

Your Saflex Booster is designed to elevate the child (sitting alone or in a child seat) to possibly reduce hazards of air bag deployment for some air bag designs. We are concerned that not enough is known about air bags and their effect on children to know whether the risk to children would be reduced by your product. Many air bag and child seat designs would need to be tested to evaluate these risks. Further, as explained below, elevating the child as the Saflex Booster does could expose the child to other potential risks of fatality or serious injury.

NHTSA has the authority under 49 U.S.C. 30101 et seq. ("the Safety Act"), to issue motor vehicle safety standards for vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. The agency has used this authority to issue Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 213, Child Restraint Systems ("Standard 213").

Standard No. 213 specifies requirements for child restraint systems used in motor vehicles and aircraft, to reduce the number of children killed or injured in motor vehicle crashes and in aircraft. The term "child restraint system" is defined in S4 of the standard as "any device except Type I or Type II seat belts, designed for use in a motor vehicle or aircraft to restrain, seat, or position children who weigh 50 pounds or less." As described in your letter, the Saflex Booster meets the child restraint system definition, since it is designed to seat a child in a motor vehicle. Under the Safety Act, each child restraint system that is sold in the United States must be certified as complying with Standard 213, including the Saflex Booster.

NHTSA does not approve or certify any vehicles or items of equipment. Instead, under the Safety Act, each manufacturer is responsible for "self-certifying" that its products meet all applicable safety standards. Accordingly, any person manufacturing your booster seat would have to certify that the seat complies with the requirements of Standard 213.

We are unable to determine whether a particular seat design would meet the requirements of the standard, short of testing the seat in an actual compliance proceeding. However, we would like to raise the following concerns about your booster seat design.

Your booster appears to be a "belt-positioning seat" under Standard 213. Belt-positioning seats are required by Standard 213 to be restrained against forward motion by the vehicle's lap/shoulder belt system. Your booster seat is held in place by a strap which goes around the vehicle's seat back and is supplied with the Saflex Booster. If your seat cannot meet Standard 213's requirements with only a lap/shoulder belt, it could not be certified as complying with the standard and thus may not be sold.

The second concern relates to the possibility that a child positioned on the Saflex Booster could be ejected under the lap belt portion of the seat belt assembly (feet first) in a crash. We raise this concern because the booster seat can elevate a child four to 12 inches off the vehicle seat. Crash forces could compress the booster, which could result in excessive slack in the vehicle belt system. Standard 213 requires booster seats to limit head and knee excursions of a restrained test dummy. If the Saflex Booster does not meet the excursion limits, it cannot be certified as complying with Standard 213.

We have enclosed a copy of Standard 213 for your information. We have also enclosed as an information sheet that briefly describes manufacturers' responsibilities under Federal law for manufacturing vehicles and items of equipment, such as the responsibility to ensure these products do not have any safety-related defects.

We strongly encourage the marketplace development of any system that can increase safety. While we are concerned that your device may not keep children from being injured by air bags and may not comply with FMVSS No. 213, we encourage your continued interest.

Sincerely,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
Enclosures
ref:213
d:6/2/97

ID: 1985-01.41

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/01/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Andrew P. Kallman -- Kallman Marketing

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

ATTACHMT: 10/28/88 letter from Erika Z. Jones to Andrew P. Kallman (A32; Std. 205; Std. 212); 2/8/88 letter from Andrew P. Kallman to Erika Z. Jones and Susan Schruth (ACC 1569)

TEXT:

Mr. Andrew P. Kallman Kallman Marketing 205 W. Saginaw Lansing, MI 48933 Dear Mr. Kallman:

This responds to your letter of January 14, 1985, concerning what regulations affect a process you intend to market for new and used cars. The process consists of grinding two parallel grooves into the lower portion of the windshield. The grooves are 2mm wide, 0.1-0.3mm deep, and are 2mm from each other. You stated that the purpose of the grooves is to improve the efficiency of the wipers and increase their life expectancy. The following discussions address the effect of our regulations on the process you described.

First, let me explain how our regulations apply to a new vehicle or to a new windshield sold as an item of replacement equipment. Our agency has issued Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials, which sets performance requirements for glazing materials used in new vehicles or sold as items of replacement equipment. I have enclosed a copy of the standard. If, before they are sold, the safety grooves are ground into either the windshield of a new vehicle or into a new windshield sold as an item of replacement of equipment, the person making the grooves would have to certify that the glazing continues to be in compliance with all of the requirements of Standard No. 205 for windshields. I note that the test results enclosed with your letter do not address whether the glazing would continue to comply with the requirements after it has had the safety grooves ground into it. In particular, we would urge you to determine whether the glazing would continue to comply with the requirements regarding impact and penetration resistance, optical deviation and visual distortion after the grooves have been ground into the windshield. Purchasers of a new vehicle may alter the vehicle as they please, so long as they adhere to all State requirements.

If the safety grooves are ground into the windshield of a used vehicle, then Section 108 (a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Safety Act may apply. That section provides that no manufacturer, distributor, dealer or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle in compliance with an applicable motor vehicle safety standard. Thus, none of those persons may knowingly grind the grooves into a vehicle's windshield if by so doing they would render inoperative the compliance of the vehicle's glazing with Standard No. 205. Violation of this section can result in Federal civil penalties up to $1,000 for each violation.

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

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

Enclosure

205 W. Saginaw Lansing, M 4d833 (517) 484-0699 TLX. 517360

January 14, 1985

Office of Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Administration 400 7th Street S.W. Washington D.C. 20590

Gentlemen:

Please find enclosed a brochure, technical results, and other testimonials on a new Product called "Turvaura" in Finnish, which being translated means "saftey grooves". Safety grooves consist of two Parallel grooves ground into the windshield on the lower part of the windshield. The grooves are 2 mm wide, 0.1-0.3 mm deep and at a distance of 2 mm from each other.

In the enclosed literature you will find the following points expanded upon:

1. The saftey grooves are an acknowledged Finnish invention (Pat. No. 50229).

2. The saftey grooves increase the efficiency of the wipers improving the wiping result and reducing glare.

3. The saftey grooves reduce the scratching effect of dirt particles on the windscreen and also reduce the amount of washing liquid used due to the increased efficiency of the wiper blades.

4. The saftey grooves increase the wiper blade life expectancy.

5. The saftey grooves do not weaken the strength of the windshield. (See also the enclosed report from the Technical Research Centre of Finland).

6. The saftey grooves need no maintenance and are permanently grooved into the windshield.

Our corporation has obtained from the producer in Finland the national marketing rights for all of the U.S. for both the new and aftermarket applicatlon of these grooves. We would appreciate a response from you regarding the process necessary to obtain approval or waiver in respect to any vehicle saftey standards applicable to this product.

In advance, thank you for your assistance.

Very truly yours,

Andrew P. Kallman Director [Enclosures Omitted)