ID: aiam4174

Dear Ms. Boriskie: Thank you for your letter of June 2, 1986, asking for approval of device you have invented which is designed to prevent children from inadvertently or intentionally opening the buckle of a safety belt. As you requested, the agency will not disclose the details of your proprietary product. Although we understand your concern that young children should not be able to easily get out of a safety belt, we have significant reservations about your product. I hope the following discussion explains those reservations and the effect of our regulations on your product.; Our agency has the authority to issue safety standards applicable t new motor vehicles and certain items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA, however, does not approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, nor do we endorse any commercial products. Instead the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act establishes a 'self-certification' process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet our safety standards. The agency periodically tests vehicles and equipment items for compliance with the standards, and also investigates other alleged safety-related defects.; Although we do not have any standards that directly apply to you product, we do have several statutory provisions that could affect it. Manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment such as your product are subject to the requirements in sections 151-159 of the Vehicle Safety Act concerning the recall and remedy of products with defects related to motor vehicle safety. The agency does not determine the existence of safety defects except in the context of a defect proceeding, and thus is unable to say whether your product might or might not contain such a defect. However, the agency has reservations about your product because of our concern that people be able to easily and quickly operate a safety belt in an emergency. As the agency said last year on the related topic of the force level necessary to operate buckles in child restraints:; >>>The agency's safety concerns over child restraint buckle forc release and size stem from the need for convenient buckling and unbuckling of a child and, in emergencies, to quickly remove the child from the restraint. This latter situation can occur in instances of post-crash fires, immersions, etc. A restraint that is difficult to disengage, due to the need for excessive buckle pressure or difficulty in operating the release mechanism because of a very small release button, can unnecessarily endanger the child in the restraint and the adult attempting to release the child. (50 FR 33722, August 21, 1985).<<<; Your product could significantly increase the difficulty of using th buckle release and thus hinder a person attempting to release the belt in an emergency.; In addition, use of your product can be affected by sectio 108(a)(2)(A) of the Vehicle Safety Act. That section prohibits commercial businesses from knowingly tampering with devices or elements of design installed in a vehicle in compliance with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. One requirement of Standard No. 209, *Seat Belt Assemblies*, is that the pushbutton release for a safety belt must have a minimum area for applying the release force. Installation of your device by a commercial business could be prohibited since it apparently would substantially reduce the minimum area available for applying the release force to the safety belt pushbutton. In addition, Standard No. 302, *Flammability of Interior Materials*, requires new safety belts to meet a flammability resistance requirement. Thus, although Standard No. 302 does not directly apply to aftermarket equipment, commercial businesses could not install your device if it would mean that the safety belt no longer met the flammability resistance requirements of Standard No. 302.; The prohibition of section 108(a)(2(A) (sic) does not apply t individual vehicle owners who may install or remove any items of motor vehicle equipment regardless of its effect on compliance with Federal motor vehicle safety standards. However, our policy is to encourage vehicle owners not to remove or otherwise tamper with vehicle safety equipment. Installation of your product by any person could be inconsistent with that policy.; I am returning, under separate cover, the samples of your device tha you sent the agency. If you have any further questions, please let me know.; Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel

ID: nht95-6.30

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: August 30, 1995

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: William Meurer -- President, Green Motorworks

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 8/9/95 LETTER FROM WILLIAM MEURER TO JOHN WOMACK

TEXT: Dear Mr. Meurer:

This is in reply to your letter of August 9, 1995, responding to mine of July 14. We note that you have withdrawn the application by PIVCO AS for temporary exemption from the automatic restraint requirements of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208, and have enclosed PIVCO AS's designation of you as its agent for service of process.

You have talked with Taylor Vinson of this office about your wish to import 12 City Bee electric vehicles manufactured by PIVCO AS, pursuant to 49 CFR 591.5(j). Although requests for permission to import a vehicle under section 591.5(j) are normally made to the Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, Mr. Vinson advised you to address your letter to this office because you seek a waiver from a restriction on such importations set out in 49 CFR 591.7(c).

49 U.S.C. 30112(a) prohibits, among other things, the importation of any motor vehicle that does not comply, and is not certified as complying, with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. However, section 30114 (formerly 15 U.S.C. 1397(j)) provides that the agency may exempt a nonconforming vehicle from section 30112(a) on terms that the agency "decides are necessary for research, investigation, demonstrations, training, or competitive racing events." Pursuant to 49 CFR 591.5(j), an importer such as Green Motorworks, which is not a manufacturer of a motor vehicle certified as meeting all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards, may import a nonconforming vehicle for the purposes enumerated in section 30114 if the importer has received written permission from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). We are construing your letter as a request pursuant to 49 CFR 591.5(j).

Under section 591.6(f)(1), such a request must contain "a full and complete statement identifying the vehicle . . . its make, model, model year or date of manufacture, VIN if a motor vehicle, and the specific purpose(s) of importation." The discussion of purpose must include a description of the use to be made of the vehicle, and, if use of the public roads is an integral part of the purpose for which the vehicle is imported, the statement shall request permission for use on the public roads, describing the use to which the vehicle shall be put, and the estimated period of time during which on-road use is necessary. Finally, the statement shall include the intended means of disposition (and disposition date) of the vehicle after completion of the purpose for which it was imported.

The Statement of Work that you enclosed indicates that the 12 noncomplying City Bees will be used in a Bay Area Station Car Demonstration Project that terminates September 15, 1997, the purpose of which is to determine the usefulness of electric cars for everyday short trips made by Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) patrons who commute to work (28 additional cars to be provided in 1996 are to comply fully with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards). The project is financed by the Bay Area Quality Management District, the Advance Projects Research Administration of the U.S. Department of Defense, Pacific Gas & Electric Company, California Energy Commission, and California Department of Transportation. You have stated that the cars will be exported or destroyed at the end of the demonstration project.

Your statement is sufficiently complete that we can grant conditional permission at this point; when you provide the Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance with the information that is lacking, that office will provide you with the final permission necessary to importation. Specifically, you have not provided the model year or date of manufacture of the City Bees that will be imported, nor their VINs.

Under paragraph 591.7(c), the importer must "at all times retain title to and possession of" vehicles imported pursuant to section 591.5(j)(2)(i), and "shall not lease" them. You seek a waiver of this restriction because you intend to lease the City Bees to BART for the duration of the demonstration project.

I find that, under the general authority of section 30114, the agency may provide Green Motorworks with a waiver from the limitation set out in paragraph 591.7(c). First of all, section 30114 imposes no limitations on the agency's exemption authority. It simply provides NHTSA with the discretion to permit the importation of noncomplying vehicles for certain purposes "on terms [NHTSA] decides are necessary." Second, the restriction on possession, control, and leasing set out in paragraph 591.7(c) is not required by statute. It arose from the agency's effort to forestall attempts at subterfuge by importers.

The Statement of Work makes clear that the data derived from research, investigations, and demonstrations utilizing the 12 City Bees is sought and supported by several Regional, Federal, and State governmental agencies and a public utility and that the proposed lease to BART will facilitate the project. Finally we note that the City Bees will apparently meet all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards with the exception of the automatic restraint requirements of Standard No. 208. Therefore, NHTSA believes that waiving paragraph 591.7(c) in this instance will be in the public interest.

If you have any further questions, you may again consult with Taylor Vinson on this matter at (202) 366-5263.

ID: nht95-4.8

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: August 30, 1995

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: William Meurer -- President, Green Motorworks

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 8/9/95 LETTER FROM WILLIAM MEURER TO JOHN WOMACK

TEXT: Dear Mr. Meurer:

This is in reply to your letter of August 9, 1995, responding to mine of July 14. We note that you have withdrawn the application by PIVCO AS for temporary exemption from the automatic restraint requirements of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208, and have enclosed PIVCO AS's designation of you as its agent for service of process.

You have talked with Taylor Vinson of this office about your wish to import 12 City Bee electric vehicles manufactured by PIVCO AS, pursuant to 49 CFR 591.5(j). Although requests for permission to import a vehicle under section 591.5(j) are normally mad e to the Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, Mr. Vinson advised you to address your letter to this office because you seek a waiver from a restriction on such importations set out in 49 CFR 591.7(c).

49 U.S.C. 30112(a) prohibits, among other things, the importation of any motor vehicle that does not comply, and is not certified as complying, with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. However, section 30114 (formerly 15 U.S.C. 1397(j )) provides that the agency may exempt a nonconforming vehicle from section 30112(a) on terms that the agency "decides are necessary for research, investigation, demonstrations, training, or competitive racing events." Pursuant to 49 CFR 591.5(j), an imp orter such as Green Motorworks, which is not a manufacturer of a motor vehicle certified as meeting all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards, may import a nonconforming vehicle for the purposes enumerated in section 30114 if the importer has received written permission from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). We are construing your letter as a request pursuant to 49 CFR 591.5(j).

Under section 591.6(f)(1), such a request must contain "a full and complete statement identifying the vehicle . . . its make, model, model year or date of manufacture, VIN if a motor vehicle, and the specific purpose(s) of importation." The discussion of purpose must include a description of the use to be made of the vehicle, and, if use of the public roads is an integral part of the purpose for which the vehicle is imported, the statement shall request permission for use on the public roads, describing the use to which the vehicle shall be put, and the estimated period of time during which on-road use is necessary. Finally, the statement shall include the intended means of disposition (and disposition date) of the vehicle after completion of the purp ose for which it was imported.

The Statement of Work that you enclosed indicates that the 12 noncomplying City Bees will be used in a Bay Area Station Car Demonstration Project that terminates September 15, 1997, the purpose of which is to determine the usefulness of electric cars for everyday short trips made by Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) patrons who commute to work (28 additional cars to be provided in 1996 are to comply fully with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards). The project is financed by the Bay Area Quality Mana gement District, the Advance Projects Research Administration of the U.S. Department of Defense, Pacific Gas & Electric Company, California Energy Commission, and California Department of Transportation. You have stated that the cars will be exported or destroyed at the end of the demonstration project.

Your statement is sufficiently complete that we can grant conditional permission at this point; when you provide the Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance with the information that is lacking, that office will provide you with the final permission necessar y to importation. Specifically, you have not provided the model year or date of manufacture of the City Bees that will be imported, nor their VINs.

Under paragraph 591.7(c), the importer must "at all times retain title to and possession of" vehicles imported pursuant to section 591.5(j)(2)(i), and "shall not lease" them. You seek a waiver of this restriction because you intend to lease the City Bee s to BART for the duration of the demonstration project.

I find that, under the general authority of section 30114, the agency may provide Green Motorworks with a waiver from the limitation set out in paragraph 591.7(c). First of all, section 30114 imposes no limitations on the agency's exemption authority. It simply provides NHTSA with the discretion to permit the importation of noncomplying vehicles for certain purposes "on terms [NHTSA] decides are necessary." Second, the restriction on possession, control, and leasing set out in paragraph 591.7(c) is no t required by statute. It arose from the agency's effort to forestall attempts at subterfuge by importers.

The Statement of Work makes clear that the data derived from research, investigations, and demonstrations utilizing the 12 City Bees is sought and supported by several Regional, Federal, and State governmental agencies and a public utility and that the p roposed lease to BART will facilitate the project. Finally we note that the City Bees will apparently meet all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards with the exception of the automatic restraint requirements of Standard No. 208. Therefore, N HTSA believes that waiving paragraph 591.7(c) in this instance will be in the public interest.

If you have any further questions, you may again consult with Taylor Vinson on this matter at (202) 366-5263.

ID: 1117

Mr. William Meurer
President
Green Motorworks
5228 Vineland Avenue
North Hollywood, CA 91601

Dear Mr. Meurer:

This is in reply to your letter of August 9, 1995, responding to mine of July 14. We note that you have withdrawn the application by PIVCO AS for temporary exemption from the automatic restraint requirements of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208, and have enclosed PIVCO AS's designation of you as its agent for service of process.

You have talked with Taylor Vinson of this office about your wish to import 12 City Bee electric vehicles manufactured by PIVCO AS, pursuant to 49 CFR 591.5(j). Although requests for permission to import a vehicle under section 591.5(j) are normally made to the Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, Mr. Vinson advised you to address your letter to this office because you seek a waiver from a restriction on such importations set out in 49 CFR 591.7(c).

49 U.S.C. 30112(a) prohibits, among other things, the importation of any motor vehicle that does not comply, and is not certified as complying, with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. However, section 30114 (formerly 15 U.S.C. 1397(j)) provides that the agency may exempt a nonconforming vehicle from section 30112(a) on terms that the agency "decides are necessary for research, investigation, demonstrations, training, or competitive racing events." Pursuant to 49 CFR 591.5(j), an importer such as Green Motorworks, which is not a manufacturer of a motor vehicle certified as meeting all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards, may import a nonconforming vehicle for the purposes enumerated in section 30114 if the importer has received written permission from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). We are construing your letter as a request pursuant to 49 CFR 591.5(j).

Under section 591.6(f)(1), such a request must contain "a full and complete statement identifying the vehicle . . . its make, model, model year or date of manufacture, VIN if a motor vehicle, and the specific purpose(s) of importation." The discussion of purpose must include a description of the use to be made of the vehicle, and, if use of the public roads is an integral part of the purpose for which the vehicle is imported, the statement shall request permission for use on the public roads, describing the use to which the vehicle shall be put, and the estimated period of time during which on-road use is necessary. Finally, the statement shall include the intended means of disposition (and disposition date) of the vehicle after completion of the purpose for which it was imported.

The Statement of Work that you enclosed indicates that the 12 noncomplying City Bees will be used in a Bay Area Station Car Demonstration Project that terminates September 15, 1997, the purpose of which is to determine the usefulness of electric cars for everyday short trips made by Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) patrons who commute to work (28 additional cars to be provided in 1996 are to comply fully with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards). The project is financed by the Bay Area Quality Management District, the Advance Projects Research Administration of the U.S. Department of Defense, Pacific Gas & Electric Company, California Energy Commission, and California Department of Transportation. You have stated that the cars will be exported or destroyed at the end of the demonstration project.

Your statement is sufficiently complete that we can grant conditional permission at this point; when you provide the Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance with the information that is lacking, that office will provide you with the final permission necessary to importation. Specifically, you have not provided the model year or date of manufacture of the City Bees that will be imported, nor their VINs.

Under paragraph 591.7(c), the importer must "at all times retain title to and possession of" vehicles imported pursuant to section 591.5(j)(2)(i), and "shall not lease" them. You seek a waiver of this restriction because you intend to lease the City Bees to BART for the duration of the demonstration project.

I find that, under the general authority of section 30114, the agency may provide Green Motorworks with a waiver from the limitation set out in paragraph 591.7(c). First of all, section 30114 imposes no limitations on the agency's exemption authority. It simply provides NHTSA with the discretion to permit the importation of noncomplying vehicles for certain purposes "on terms [NHTSA] decides are necessary." Second, the restriction on possession, control, and leasing set out in paragraph 591.7(c) is not required by statute. It arose from the agency's effort to forestall attempts at subterfuge by importers.

The Statement of Work makes clear that the data derived from research, investigations, and demonstrations utilizing the 12 City Bees is sought and supported by several Regional, Federal, and State governmental agencies and a public utility and that the proposed lease to BART will facilitate the project. Finally we note that the City Bees will apparently meet all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards with the exception of the automatic restraint requirements of Standard No. 208. Therefore, NHTSA believes that waiving paragraph 591.7(c) in this instance will be in the public interest.

If you have any further questions, you may again consult with Taylor Vinson on this matter at (202) 366- 5263.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel ref:591#208 d:8/30/95

ID: aiam5495

"Dear Mr. Smith: Thank you for your letter regarding the inquiry fro your constituent, Dave Globig of Spring Arbor College, concerning Federal requirements for the transportation of school children. I appreciate this opportunity to clarify our regulations on this subject. Mr. Globig's understanding is that Federal law 'will not allow certification of any vans made after 1995 and, after 1997, will not allow any vans to be certified.' You stated that Mr. Globig was concerned about purchasing expensive vehicles and finding out later that 'they cannot be certified.' By way of background information, 49 U.S.C. section 30101 et seq. authorizes the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) for new motor vehicles, including school buses. Under that authority, NHTSA issued a comprehensive set of school bus safety standards that ensures that school buses are one of the safest forms of transportation. These standards require school buses to have safety features that include emergency exits, strengthened body panel joints, protective seating and special lamps and mirrors. Our regulations require manufacturers to self-certify the compliance of their vehicles. Our regulations also require each person selling a new school bus to sell only buses that have been certified by the manufacturer as meeting these school bus safety standards. Under our regulations, a motor vehicle, including a van, designed to carry 11 or more persons (including the driver) is classified as a 'bus.' A 'school bus' is defined as a bus that is sold 'for purposes that include carrying students to and from school or related events.' The term 'school' refers to preprimary, primary, and secondary school. With regard to Mr. Globig's belief that after 1995, Federal law will not allow any vans to be certified, there is no such prohibition going in effect. NHTSA has no requirement that would prevent a manufacturer from certifying its van as meeting all applicable FMVSSs, including the school bus standards, if the vehicle in fact complied with those standards. There are two issues we would like to bring to Mr. Globig's attention. The first issue relates to which requirements apply to the use of school vehicles. The responsibility for complying with our school bus requirements rests with the manufacturer and seller of a new bus. The school purchaser, on the other hand, has no obligation under our regulations to purchase and use a complying school bus, or any other type of vehicle. Since Federal law applies only to the manufacture and sale of a new vehicle, under our regulations, a school may use any vehicle it chooses to transport its students. NHTSA does not have the authority to prevent a school from using any of its vehicles. Once a new vehicle has been sold, the use of that vehicle becomes subject to state law. Thus, Mr. Globig should contact state officials for information about any requirements Michigan might have concerning the use of vans as school vehicles. NHTSA strongly recommends that school children only be carried in vehicles meeting Federal school bus safety standards. We have enclosed for your information a copy of Highway Safety Program Guideline No. 17, Pupil Transportation Safety. This publication was issued under the authority of the Highway Safety Act of 1966, 23 U.S.C. 401, et seq., which authorizes this agency to issue nonbinding guidelines to which states may refer in developing their own highway safety programs. Guideline 17, jointly issued by this agency and the Federal Highway Administration, provides recommendations to the states on various operational aspects of their school bus and pupil transportation safety programs. The Guideline recommends, among other things, that any school vehicle designed to carry 11 or more persons should comply with all Federal safety standards applicable to school buses at the time the vehicle was manufactured. The second issue concerns the meaning of 'school' with respect to our school bus safety standards. The school bus safety requirements apply only to new buses used to transport preprimary, primary, or secondary school children. If Mr. Globig is asking about a college, such an institution is not considered a 'school' as that term is used in our regulations. Therefore, new buses sold for transporting college students are not required to comply with the Federal school bus safety standards. I hope this information is helpful to you in responding to your constituent. Should Mr. Globig have additional questions or need additional information, he should feel free to contact Walter Myers of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Philip R. Recht Chief Counsel Enclosure";

ID: nht90-1.93

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/30/90

FROM: STEVE MOORE -- BUSINESS MARKETS

TITLE: LOCAL CRAFTSMAN UNSWAYED BY FEDERAL CIVIL LAWSUITS THE LAWSUITS CHARGE THE COMPANIES WITH VIOLATING FEDERAL SAFETY STANDARDS INSTALLING WINDOW TINTING FILM THAT IS TOO DARK AND UNSAFE FOR MOTORISTS

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 06/25/90, FROM PAUL JACKSON RICE -- NHTSA TO LAWRENCE J. SMITH -- CONGRESS; A35, VSA 108 [A] [2] [A]; STANDARD 205; LETTER DATED 05/30/90 FROM NANCY L. BRUCE -- DOT TO LAWRENCE J. SMITH -- CONGRESS; LETTER DATED 05/25/9 0 FROM LAWRENCE J. SMITH -- CONGRESS TO NANCY BRUCE -- DOT; NEWSPAPER ARTICLE; UNDATED BY UPI; US SUES 4 AUTO TINTING SHOPS; OCC 4842; NEWSPAPER ARTICLE DATED 03/29/90 BY BRUCE VIELMETTI -- ST PETERSBURG TIMES; US CRACKS DOWN ON WINDOW TINTERS; NEWSPAPER ARTICLE DATED 03/29/90 FROM JIM LEUSNER -- ORLANDO SENTINEL; US SUES CAR - WINDOW TINTERS - LET THERE BE MORE LIGHT; 1984 FLORIDA AUTO TINT LAW; PRESS RELEASE DATED 03/28/90 BY UNITED STATES ATTORNEY MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TEXT: The owner of a local automobile window tinting business says a federal lawsuit is not going to stop him from serving his customers.

"It's business as usual," David Spearin said Thursday. "It's steady as she goes."

ShakeSpearin's Inc. of Holly Hill was one of six Central Florida businesses named in civil complaints filed Wednesday by U.S. Attorney Robert W. Genzman of Tampa on behalf of the U.S. Justice Department.

The lawsuits charge the companies with violating federal safety standards by installing window tinting film that is too dark and unsafe for motorists.

Federal regulations require automobile glass that allows at least 70 percent light through its surface. The complaints seek to stop the businesses from violating the regulation [Illegible Word] impose civil [Illegible Word] for the violations.

Spearin and owners of several [Illegible Word] cal window-tinging operations [Illegible Word] follow state standards, which [Illegible Word] stringent, and Spearin said he was unaware of the tougher federal rules. State law permits tinting that allow s only 35 percent of the light to pass through windshield and front-seat windows, and 20 percent through rear and back-seat windows.

"We've always complied with Florida statutes and will continue to do so," Spearin said.

Officials with the National Highway Traffic and Safety Administration in Washington, which oversees federal highway safety rules, could not be reached for comment Thursday.

Owners of other local companies in the automobile detailing business not named in the lawsuits said they wore nontheless concerned.

"The National Highway Traffic and Safety Administration sent us some form a few years back pertaining to the light transmission qualities of the tinting, but that was the last I heard about it until now," said Ray Gordon, owner of Auto Appearance Cent er in South Daytona.

"Tinting that lets 70 percent of the light in is basically what cars come with," he said. "It's just ridiculous why they're doing something like this."

Gordon said he would start abiding by the federal standard, at least until the issue is resolved.

"It's going to wind up scaring customers away right at the peak of the season," he said. "But a law is a law so I'll follow it."

Lance Puckett, owner of Stardrive Detailing and Tinting of Holly Hill, said he got started in the tinting business only recently.

"I've heard the federal law was [Illegible Word] but nobody told me what it was, [Illegible Word] ways followed the state law," he don't do big volume on window but maybe it's time to start [Illegible Word] gurt."

Solar-X of Daytona was the [Illegible Word] in Volusia County to offer tinting, according to owner Brian [Illegible Word]

"My family got into this businesses years ago and there's always [Illegible Word] continuity between federal law [Illegible Word] law," he said. "Instead of wasting payers' money trying to prosecute people, the federal government [Illegible Word] get with the states and draft a [Illegible Word] law."

Martin Energy Products of Fort dale, makers of tinting film, are Congress to make the federal [Illegible Word] percent.

Smith said he's lost business by to install film darker than allow state law.

"I turn people away almost [Illegible Word] said. "I don't do those gangster [Illegible Word] know Dave (Spearin) doesn't either of the smaller shops, for an [Illegible Word] they'll paint your windows [Illegible Word] want. But I see the Florida la w very sufficient and it's going to [Illegible Word] as usual for me."

[POOR COPY]

ID: 86-5.9

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 09/02/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Stephen P. Wood for Erika Jones; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Roger F. Hagie

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Roger F. Hagie Government Relations Manager Kawasaki Motors Corporation, D.S.A. P.O. Box 11447 Santa Ana, CA 92711

Dear Mr. Hagie:

This responds to your April 11, 1986, letter to this office requesting an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 106, Brake Hoses. We regret the delay in our response.

You asked whether brake hoses that comply with all requirements of Standard No. 106 except the whip resistance test of S5.3.3 may be used in locations not subject to movement during vehicle operation. As explained below, the answer to your question is no.

As you know, Standard No. 106 defines "brake hose" as "a flexible conduit, other than a vacuum tubing connector, manufactured for use in a brake system to transmit or contain the fluid pressure or vacuum used to apply force to a vehicle's brakes." Manufacturers of brake hoses must certify that their hoses comply with all applicable requirements of the standard. From your letter, it appears that while you agree that the equipment you manufacture are brake hoses, you believe that they should not be subject to the whip resistance test because your hoses would not be used between articulating parts.

We do not agree that the whip test does not apply to brake hoses used between non-articulating parts. No provision has been made in the standard or in the whip resistance test of S5.3.3 to exclude hoses manufactured for use between non-moving parts. In contrast, the standard has set separate requirements under certain tests for brake hoses used betheen articulating parts hhen it is appropriate to distinguish between articulat ng and non-articulating applications (see, for example, the tensile strength test of S7.3.10 for air brake hose assemblies).

Further, we believe that there is a safety need to test brake hoses intended for non-articulating applications for fatigue resistance, since they are also subject to vibration, bending and articulating stress while the motor vehicle is being operated or repaired.

If you have further questions, please let me know.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

April 11, 1986

Erika Z. Jones, Esq. Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street., N.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Re: Request for Interpretation, FMVSS 106

Dear Ms. Jones:

By this letter, Kawasaki Motors Corp., U.S.A. requests an interpretation of the applicability of 49 CFR Part 571.106 (FMVSS 106 - Brake Hoses) to a proposed installation of brake hose to a Kawasaki motorcycle.

Background to Request

Standard 106 defines "brake hose" as "a flexibly conduit . . . manufactured for use in a brake system to transmit or contain the fluid pressure . . . used to apply force to a vehicle's brakes." In introducing amendments to Standard 145, NHTSA states that "(c)hassis plumbing1/ which is flexible fails within the definition of brake hose." (Docket No. 1-5; Notice 8; 38 F.R. 31302.) This pronouncement provoked a number of responses, leading NHTSA to clarify that ". . . a safety need exists to include flexible chassis plumbing in this standard because it is used in the same environment as hose located at articulating points and is subject to many of the same types of stress, including heat, cold, and pressure." (Docket No. 1-5; Notice 10; 39 F.R. 7425.)

However, apparantly realizing that not every installation of flexible hose as chassis plumbing would be, in fact, subject to the same range of stress as that applied to hose connecting the chassis and a wheel-mounted brake system, NHTSA stared that it "will continue to provide interpretations (concerning the applicability of the standard to specific installations) to interested persons upon request." (ibid.) This policy was subsequently restated by NHTSA in Docket 1-5; Notice 11; 39 F.R. 24012: "The NHTSA continues to believe that this concept can best be treated on a case-by-case request for interpretation . . ."

1/ Chassis plumbing, which is not defined to Kawasaki's knowledge, is assumed to refer to brake hoses or lines which are firmly attached to the chassis and are not required to "flex" to accomodate movement such as between chassis and wheel or between tractor and trailer.

Request

Kawasaki wishes to know whether NHTSA would agree that brake hose which complies with all requirements of FMVSS 106 except Section 5.3.3 (Whip resistance) may be used as chassis plumbing, i.e., installed in a location not subject to movement during vehicle operation.

Your earliest consideration of this request will be appreciated.

Sincerely, KAWASAKI MOTORS CORP., U.S.A.

Roger F. Hagie Government Relations Manager

RFH:jb

ID: 8371-2

Mr. Peter Drymalski
Investigator
Montgomery County Government
Office of Consumer Affairs
100 Maryland Avenue
Rockville, MD 20850

Dear Mr. Drymalski:

This responds to your letter and telephone conversations with David Elias, formerly of this office, asking about a situation you term as the "cannibalization" of new, unsold vehicles. I apologize for the delay in our response.

The situation involves motor vehicle dealers who remove equipment (e.g., a power steering pump) from new vehicles to repair or replace malfunctioning equipment on previously-sold vehicles. The new vehicles are "cannibalized" to expedite repairs when replacement equipment for the repair is temporarily unavailable. The new vehicles have their cannibalized equipment replaced when the parts become available, before the vehicles are sold.

You ask whether the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) permits dealers to cannibalize parts. As explained below, the answer is yes, provided that certain requirements are met.

By way of background, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act ("Safety Act") authorizes NHTSA to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards ("FMVSS's") applicable to new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. Section 108(a)(1)(A) of the Safety Act prohibits any person from manufacturing or selling a new vehicle manufactured on or after the effective date of any applicable FMVSS that does not comply with each of those standards. Under 114 of the Safety Act, each motor vehicle must be certified as conforming to the FMVSS's. NHTSA's certification regulations (49 CFR Part 567) require any person altering (i.e., performing extensive manufacturing operations on) a certified vehicle before the first purchase of the vehicle by the consumer to certify that the vehicle, as altered, conforms to all applicable standards affected by the alteration. 49 CFR 567.7. However, persons altering a certified vehicle only by the addition, substitution, or removal of "readily attachable components" (e.g., mirrors or tires and rim assemblies) or by performing minor finishing operations (e.g., painting), are not considered alterers, and need not re-certify the vehicle.

Whether modifications involve "readily attachable" components depends on the intricacy of the installation of those components. "Simple tools, a relatively short installation time, and the ability to install the device without extensively modifying the vehicle would all be factors pointing to a decision that a component is readily attachable." NHTSA letter to Fred Cords, March 4, 1975. Applying these considerations to the situation you present, we conclude that a power steering pump is a readily attachable component.

A power steering pump can be installed with extraordinary ease. The pump can be replaced on the dealer's lot in minutes, simply by opening the hood and popping the old pump out and inserting the new one, with no need to use special tools or have special expertise. The pump can be replaced without extensively modifying the vehicle in any manner.

Since the power steering pump is a readily attachable component, the dealer described in your letter is not an alterer under 567.7. The dealer can "cannibalize" the new unsold cars for power steering pumps and install new pumps when they arrive without applying its own new certification label.

I emphasize that a dealer would not be considered an alterer only in the narrow circumstances in which the component being "cannibalized" is readily attachable. If the component is not readily attachable, the dealer could "cannibalize" the new cars and later repair and sell them if the following requirements are met. First, the dealer would be responsible under 108(a)(1)(A) of the Safety Act for ensuring that each new vehicle it sells complies with the applicable FMVSS's. Thus, the new vehicle must comply with the FMVSS's. Second, the dealer would be responsible, as an "alterer," for certifying the new vehicles from which it removed and replaced the equipment. The dealer would be an alterer since the work performed would be more extensive than "the addition, substitution, or removal of readily attachable components" or the "minor finishing operations" described in 567.7. The dealer would certify the vehicle by allowing the original certification label to remain on the vehicle and affixing an additional label of the type and form specified in 567.7.

In all cases, including where the dealer is replacing a readily attachable component, the dealer must also adhere to 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act, which 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, unless such manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair business reasonably believes that such vehicle or item of equipment will not be used... during the time such device or element of design is rendered inoperative.

The effect of 108(a)(2)(A) is to limit the modifications that a dealer may make to a new or used vehicle. If, in making the temporary repair affecting a new vehicle, the dealer "renders inoperative" a device or design installed on the new vehicle pursuant to an FMVSS, the dealer must return the vehicle to compliance before the new vehicle can be sold to the public, or even test-driven by a member of the public.

Section 108(a)(2)(A) also applies to the used vehicles into which the cannibalized equipment is installed. The dealer must ensure that it does not violate the Safety Act by "rendering inoperative" equipment or designs on the vehicles in the process of repairing them.

I hope this information has been helpful. If you have any further questions, please contact Deirdre Fujita of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel ref:567#VSA d:5/3/94

ID: nht73-4.44

DATE: 08/07/73

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; R. B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Hank Thorp Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of July 7, 1973, which asks if the Manufacturer Code proposal (38 FR 14968, June 7, 1973) as it applies to wheel nuts (1) requires all manufacturers, including vehicle manufacturers, to label their products, (2) permits labeling with self-adhesive stickers, and (3) has authorized the issuance of codes at this time. In addition, you requested a clarification of an interpretation of Standard 211, Wheel nuts.

The answer to your first question is yes. The labeling requirements apply to foreign and domestic manufacturers of passenger cars and multi-purpose passenger vehicles and to manufacturers of equipment for those vehicles. The term "manufacturer" includes an importer of vehicles or regulated equipment.

The use of a self-adhesive sticker in satisfaction of the permanent and legible labeling requirements of the proposal is permissible, so long as the information printed thereon is indelible and the label is affixed in such a manner that it cannot be removed without destroying or defacing it.

No codes have been assigned at this time. Assignment will not occur until a decision is reached as to issuance of a final rule.

The small hexagonal nuts which you import and which you describe as serving the same purpose as the small hexagonal nuts which secure factory-mounted, steel wheels to an axle, are not wheel nuts under the standard. The reference to normal coverage by a hub cap or wheel disc is simply descriptive of their location.

MINILITE

July 7, 1973

James E. Wilson Associate Administrator Traffic Safety Programs U.S. Department of Transportation

I am writing to you with respect to the proposed rules (49CFR Parts 566, 567, 568, 571) as published in Volume 38, #109, of the Federal Registration of Thursday, June 7, 1973. I have a number of questions concerning these proposed rules which should also be construed, in part, as comment upon the proposed rules before adoption.

1. As exclusive U.S. Importer of light alloy road wheels, trademarked MINILITE(register) (Registration #893174), we also import wheel nuts and hub caps used with these wheels.(Illegible Word) 1 January 1968, we were required by the U. S. Bureau of Customs to clearly(Illegible Word) the containers in which these products were imported to indicate that they complied fully with Section 571.211. At that time, manufacturers of identical products for the aftermarket within the United States were not required to show similar statements of compliance on their packages. Do the proposed rules referenced above affect all manufacturers of these products, whether or not they are imported or not and whether or not they are used in the assembly of new motor vehicles?

2. Please refer to the specifics of Part 571; S211-1. This standard was revised effective 7/25/69 to add an interpretation as follows.

"INTERPRETATION"

A clarification of the term "wheel nut" as used in the requirements section S3 of Standard No. 211 has been requested. This section states that "wheel nuts, hub caps, and wheel discs for use on passenger cars and multipurpose passenger vehicles shall not incorporate winged projections." A "wheel nut" is an exposed nut that is mounted at the center or hub of a wheel, and not the ordinary small hexagonal nut, one of several which secures a wheel to an axle, and which is normally covered by a hub cap or wheel disc."

The wheel nuts we import are small hexagonal nuts and 4 or 5 are used to hold each wheel to the axle. The U. S. Bureau of Customs has not considered these to be of the type affected by this standard. However, due to the nature of light alloy wheels, our wheels nuts are not "normally covered by a hub cap or wheel disc". I am requesting a written interpretation as to whether the small hexagonal wheel nuts used with light alloy wheels but not normally covered by a hub cap or wheel disc are covered by Standard 211.

3. If the answer to #2 above is no, I would comment that it would seem appropriate to change the language of Standard 211 and designate that the standard covers "center lock wheel nuts" rather than "wheel nuts".

4. Regards hub caps; our cap is a smooth chemically brightened aluminum cap of either 2 5/8 or 3 1/8 diameter which is pushed through the center hole from the back of the wheel before the wheel is mounted to the axle. It is clear that this is covered by the Standard and would, therefore, require manufacturers identification if the proposed rules are passed. Does the comment that "each wheel nut, wheel disc, and hub cap to be permanently and legibly marked or labeled with the manufacturers code number . . ." permit labeling to take the form of a self-adhesive label affixed to the inside of our hub cap so as not to be visible when the cap is fitted to an automobile?

5. If your answer to question #1 indicates that stateside manufacturers of after-market hub caps are not affected by the standard and/or the proposed manufacturers certification requirements, I would comment that the standard is missing the main(Illegible Word) of its purpose; that is, to eliminate winged extensions from center lock wheel nuts and hub caps on vehicles used on the public highways of the United States. The prime source of hub caps produced with eared extensions is from automotive aftermarket manufacturers located in this country.

6. Are assignment of manufacturers identification numbers being made now, or will this assignment be made after the proposed rules are adopted?

I look forward to a reply from you on the above points.

Hank Thorp

ID: nht92-9.43

DATE: January 22, 1992

FROM: Cliff Chuang -- President, Prospects Corporation

TO: Dorothy Nakama -- Legal Counsel, Chief Counsel Office, NHTSA

TITLE: Re: Request of An Interpretation

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 2/14/92 from Paul Jackson Rice to Cliff Chuang (A39; Std. 118)

TEXT:

We have reviewed the FMVSS 118 rule published on April 16, 1991. It gives car manufacturers and automotive suppliers with substantial design flexibility to improve the vehicle power window and sunroof operation.

Prospects Corporation has developed a window/roof system (AEM: Automobile Environment Management) that provides many useful new features to help consumers to solve several of their automotive problems. One of the features is that the system can close all windows in a parked vehicle when unexpected rain occurs to avoid water damage.

Prospects is currently marketing this system to automobile manufacturers. The initial reception in the OEM market is very positive. However, a few OEM customers have asked a question regarding the AEM system complying with the FMVSS 118 rule. Their concern is that there is no "automatic" word in the section S5 (a) of the FMVSS 118 rule. In order for them to feel comfortable using the AEM system, a written interpretation from your office is necessary to clarify the AEM rain sensing close with pressureless anti-pinch safety feature complies with FMVSS 118.

The AEM system has a PRESSURELESS infrared anti-pinch safety protection feature. If the obstruction is detected before the automatic close, the system will refuse to activate the close operation. If an obstruction is detected while the window or roof is in closing operation, the system will stop and reverse open the window at least 200 mm immediately. If the safety sensing mechanism malfunctions, the system will disable the rain close feature. Because of the photo sensing technology, there is no pressure force is applied on the objection, therefore, the resistive force will be much less than 22 pounds, and in most cases, there is no extra resistive force.

The section S5 (a) of FMVSS 118 says: ".... may close: (1) Upon the one-time activation of a locking system on the exterior of the vehicle, (2) Upon the one-time activation of any remote actuation device, or (3) Upon continuous activation of any remote actuation device capable of closing the power window, partition or roof panel from a distance of more than 20 feet from the vehicle."

From the function definition, the AEM rain sensing close feature falls in the S5 (a)(1) description. Assuming a vehicle is equipped with the AEM system, and the driver decided to close the windows if unexpected rain occurs on a hot summer day during parking, so that he selected the Automatic Mode of AEM (the locking system, its control switch is on the dashboard or door panel). When rain drops triggered the AEM moisture sensor, the system closed the

windows with one-time activation. In this case, we interpret that this driver is CLOSING the vehicle windows by using a "locking system" (AEM) on the exterior of the vehicle, per S5 (a) (1) of FMVSS 118.

The AEM system brings an innovation to benefit consumers: they now have a choice of venting the hot air out of their cars in the appropriate parking environment, and close the windows when it becomes necessary (rain occurs). Because of the requirement for clarification from our OEM customers, we need your office to provide a written reply as soon as possible. Your earliest reply will significantly help this innovation become available to public consumers.

I am looking forward to your written reply.

Attachment

PROSPECTS CORPORATION AEM System Active Infrared Sensing Safety Protection Mechanism

September 20, 1991

The AEM system provides a safety feature that will ensure the vehicle window close operations: - Automatic close due to rain sensing; - Security close when the ignition key is removed; - "l-touch" express close while driving.

The safety mechanism includes several infrared sensors and emitors that will detect the upper window frame areas for obstructions just before and during the above close operations.

Before the AEM system commands the windows to do one of the above three close operations, the infrared device will perform the obstruction detection function. If an object is detected between a particular window frame and the window glass, the AEM system will not issue the close operation common to that window.

If the pre-checking has passed, the windows will begin to express close. The infrared devices will continue to work during the window closing process. Any point, if an object is detected between an upper window frame and the upward moving window glass, the AEM system will immediately stop that window and reverse it to open 200mm regardless of whether the window glass reaches the object or not.

If for any reason the infrared safety devices malfunction, the AEM system has the capability to perform a diagnostic test. It will detect the device malfunction on the particular window(s) and then disable the Express close, Security close, and Automatic close functions for that window(s). Therefore, the potential injury will be completely eliminated with this strict safety algorithm.

The same principle is being applied to the sunroof operation to eliminate the potential safety liability from the manufacturer.

Attached are 5 drawing diagrams to detail the method and mechanism that will ensure the safe operation with the advanced AEM system.

** (Prospects Corporation has filed a U.S. patent application for this device)

(Drawings, photos and text omitted.)