ID: nht90-2.58

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 05/30/90

FROM: STEPHEN P. WOOD -- NHTSA ACTING CHIEF COUNSEL

TO: TIMOTHY A. KELLY -- PRESIDENT SALEM VENT INTERNATIONAL, INC.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 01/29/90, FROM TIMOTHY A. KELLY TO DAVID A. GREENBURG -- NHTSA; RE SALEM BUS VENTILATOR/ESCAPE HATCH - FMVSS 217; OCC 4382; LETTER DATED 01/29/90 FROM TIMOTHY A. KELLY TO DAVID A. GREENBURG -- NHTSA; RE SALEM BUS VENTILATOR / ESCAP E HATCH - FMVSS 217

TEXT: This responds to your request for an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 217; Bus Window Retention and Release as it applies to roof exits. You asked four specific questions which I have addressed below.

First, you asked for confirmation that the only specification in Standard No. 217 concerning the size of roof exits is the requirement that the exit be able to accommodate an ellipsoid with a major axis of 20 inches and a minor axis of 13 inches pushed h orizontally through the exit opening. Your understanding is not entirely correct. The ellipsoid requirement to which you refer, set forth in S5.4.1 of Standard No. 217, is the only provision in the standard that specifies a minimum size requirement for roof exit opening. Although there is no maximum size limit, you should be aware that S5.2 of Standard No. 217 provides that, in determining the total unobstructed openings for emergency exit provided by a bus, no emergency exit, regardless of its area shall be credited with more than 536 square inches of the total area requirement. Thus, if a roof exit is larger than 536 square inches, only 536 square inches will be counted for the exit in determining whether the bus complies with the unobstructed op enings requirement of S5.2 of Standard No. 217.

Second, you asked for confirmation that Standard No. 217 does not permit the use of escape hatches or ventilators in the roof of school buses as a substitute for any of the emergency exits required on school buses by S5.2.3 of Standard No. 217. This und erstanding is correct. Additionally, you should be aware that the agency has a longstanding position that any emergency exits, including any roof exits, installed on a school bus in addition to the emergency exits required by S5.2.3 must conform to the requirements of Standard No. 217 for emergency exits installed on buses other than school buses. See the enclosed July 6, 1979 interpretation to Robert Kurre on this issue.

Third, you asked for confirmation that Standard No. 217 permits the use of roof exits as a substitute for the rear exit door on buses other than school buses. This statement is not entirely correct. S5.2.1 of Standard No. 217 requires the use of a rear exit door on all non-school buses with a GVWR of more than 10,000 lbs., except where the configuration of the bus precludes the installation of an accessible rear exit. In that case, S5.2.1 requires the installation of a roof exit in the rear half of th e bus in lieu of the rear exit. This substitution of a roof exit for a rear exit door is allowed only where the bus design precludes the use of a rear exit (such as on rear-engine buses). It is not an option allowing the substitution of a roof exit for the rear door in any design.

Fourth, you asked whether the addition of more than one roof exit on a non-school bus would allow a manufacturer to delete any other required exits in addition to the rear door. It is possible that increasing the total exit space on the bus by adding ro of exits could enable a manufacturer to reduce the number or size of other emergency exits on the bus and still comply with the unobstructed openings requirement of S5.2. You should be aware that exit space provided by roof exits is not counted in deter mining compliance with the requirement in S5.2 that 40 percent of the total unobstructed openings be located on each side of the bus. Whether this substitution of additional roof exits could be made on any particular non-school bus would depend upon whe ther the bus complied with the exit space and location requirements of S5.2.1 (if the bus has a GVWR of more than 10,000 pounds) and the applicable requirements of S5.2.2 (if the bus has a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less).

I hope you have found this information helpful. Please do not hesitate to contact David Greenburg of my staff at (202) 366-2992 if you have any further questions or need additional information.

Sincerely,

ENCLOSURE

ID: nht90-2.59

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 05/30/90

FROM: NANCY L. BRUCE -- DOT DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF CONGRESSIONAL AFFAIRS

TO: J. SMITH -- HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

TITLE: NONE

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 05/25/90 FROM LAWRENCE J. SMITH -- CONGRESS TO NANCY BRUCE -- DOT; NEWSPAPER ARTICLE; UNDA TED BY UPI; US SUES 4 AUTO TINTING SHOPS; OCC 4842; NEWSPAPER ARTICLE DATED 03/30/90; BY STEVE MOORE -- BUSINESS MARKETS; LOCAL CRAFTSMAN UNSWAYED BY FEDERAL CIVIL LAWSUITS; NEWSPAPER ARTICLE DATED 03/29/90 BY BRUCE VIELMETTI -- ST PETERSBURG TIMES; US C RACKS 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: Thank you for your letter forwarding correspondence from your constituent, Mr. Joel Leitson.

I have transmitted your inquiry to the appropriate Departmental officials who are familiar with this matter and they will respond to you directly.

I appreciate your contacting me and hope you will not hesitate to call if I can be of any further assistance.

Sincerely,

ID: nht90-2.6

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: APRIL 9, 1990

FROM: STEPHEN P. WOOD -- ACTING CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TO: JOSEPH PERRY

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 11-7-89 TO STEPHEN P. WOOD FROM JOSEPH PERRY ATTACHED; (OCC-4134) TEXT:

This is in reply to your letter with respect to the rules and regulations pertaining to the importation of a kit car. Your letter indicates that the vehicle will utilize both new and used components, some of them imported from England, and the remainder supplied in the United States. I regret the delay in responding.

Specifically, the components you wish to import from England are described as "the body chassis unit, possibly two boxes of used and reconditioned suspension parts and interior seats and trim in other boxes." You would like to know "if it is acceptable to have all window glass and doors fitted to the body unit before shipping to best assure its arrival in one piece; at this point "the interior, suspension, dash, wiring and steering and wheels will not be installed.

Under the fact situation you outline, it is immaterial under our regulations whether or not you install the window glass and doors before shipping, or after importation into the United States. If you prefer to install these components before shipping, t hat is acceptable to us. Those components, such as windshield glazing, that are covered by an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard must comply with such standard upon importation, whether or not they are attached to a larger assemblage of mo tor vehicle equipment. With respect to windshield glazing, the manufacturer's marking of "AS1" and "DOT" Will provide the necessary assurance to a Customs inspector that the glazing conforms.

Although you mention no other covered equipment except lighting, if you are importing as part of the kit brake hoses, brake fluid, tires, seat belt assemblies, or other glazing for use in the vehicle, these must also be marked as conforming with DOT requ irements.

If you have any further questions, we shall be happy to answer them.

ID: nht90-2.60

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: May 30, 1990

FROM: G. Nick Routh -- President, American Energetics

TO: Connie Mack -- United States Senator

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 8-1-90 from J.M. Fish to C. Mack (A35; Std. 205); Also attached to letter dated 5-29-90 from G.N. Routh to NHTSA c/o J. Medlin

TEXT:

I have a small business that is engaged in the selling and distribution of solar control films throughout the United States. These films are designed to reduce radiant heat gain through windows thereby lowering the energy costs. Over the past ten years or so, the market for auto window film has grown significantly. The demand for these films has increased year after year due to the features they provide for automobiles. As you are aware, the design of cars has changed dramatically due to fuel use co nsiderations and other factors. Cars have become smaller with smaller engines and more glass has been added to give a more spacious feeling. The additional glass and smaller engines have placed a greater load on the air conditioners in automobiles. Th e use of film on auto windows helps reduce the heat gain through the glass area and allows the cars to be more efficient and more comfortable for the occupants. It also reduces the effects of ultra-violet rays on the interior, reduces glare, and makes t he glass more shatter-resistant.

The purpose of this letter is enlist your assistance in a very serious matter that could gravely affect our industry. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), through the U.S. Justice Department, has filed suits against six companies involved in the installation of film on autos in the state of Florida. The six companies named in the suits are all in the Tampa/St. Petersburg area. The basis for the suits is that these companies have violated Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Statute # 2 05 (FMVSS #205). This statute states that there must be a minimum of 70% visible light transmission through driver and passenger windows of new automobiles and cannot be tampered with even after first sale of the automobile since these windows are consi dered a safety aspect of the vehicle. The problem is that the State of Florida has a law on the books which allows companies to install film on automobiles as long as the film has a visible light transmission of 35% on the driver and passenger windows. Various other Sunbelt states have adopted laws similar to Florida's with no increase in accidents or additional problems with law enforcement officers. Our problem appears to be one of a "jurisdictional" nature in that NHTSA allowed the states to write laws that allowed these six companies and some 5,000 other businesses throughout the United States to be engaged in the business of applying films to automobiles and they are now saying that their statute preempts the state laws that are different from t he statute. I have enclosed a copy of a letter that I have sent to the people at the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration which will hopefully shed more light on the situation.

Basically, the suits that NHTSA have filed endanger the livelihoods of some 5,000 installers across the country along with some 30 distributors

and 7 manufacturers. We feel that this is an issue that is best left to the discretion of the individual states with regard to the use of film in the automotive aftermarket. In the states that allow darker film than FMVSS #205 would allow, there is no evidence that traffic safety has suffered or law enforcement personnel have been placed in any greater danger than they normally face in the pursuit of their duties. What has happened is that some half-million consumers per year are enjoying the benefit s of a product that is sorely needed in the automotive aftermarket.

Our industry has petitioned NHTSA to change their standard to more correctly reflect what is going on in many states which is the allowance of 35% visible light transmission film on the driver/passenger windows. While this may be one way to address the p roblem we currently face, it would seem to me that the simplest way to address this problem would be for NHTSA to address itself to the standards necessary for the manufacture of new automobiles and let the individual states legislate the requirements of items that are going to be added to automobiles after the car has been purchased and registered in a state.

I would humbly request that you look into this matter at your earliest convenience to see if you can determine what would be the best solution to this problem that is fair to all concerned.

ID: nht90-2.61

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 05/31/90

FROM: STEPHEN P. WOOD -- ACTING CHIEF COUNSEL NHTSA

TO: VIRVE AIROLA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 01/26/72 FROM RICHARD B. DYSON -- ASSISTANT CHIEF COUNSEL NHTSA TO K. NAKAJIMA -- TOYOTA; LETTER AND BROCHURE DATED 04/14/89 FROM VIRVE AIROLA OF OY TUPPI AB TO NHTSA CONCERNING ITS FINLAND COMPANY'S RANGE OF PLASTIC TUBES AND HOSE S PARTICULAR ITS AIR BRAKE TUBING

TEXT: This responds to your letter concerning Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 106, Brake Hoses. We understand that you are interested in supplying your products to a vehicle manufacturer (Saab-Scania), who specifies that you must "register" with this agency as a brake hose manufacturer. You request information that would enable you to meet this product specification. I regret the delay in responding.

By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) administers Federal regulations for the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles and certain items of motor vehicle equipment (including brake hoses) sold in or imported i nto this country. 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 all applicable safety standards. This process requires eac h manufacturer to determine in the exercise of due care that its products meet all applicable requirements. NHTSA tests vehicles and equipment sold to consumers for compliance with the FMVSS's and investigates defects relating to motor vehicle safety. If a manufacturer or NHTSA determines that a noncompliance or safety-related defect exists, the manufacturer must notify purchasers of its product and remedy the problem free of charge. (Note that this responsibility is borne by the vehicle manufacturer in cases in which your hoses are installed on a new vehicle by or with the express authorization of that vehicle manufacturer.) Any manufacturer which fails to provide notification of or remedy for a noncompliance or defect may be subject to a civil pen alty of up to $ 1,000 per violation.

Saab-Scania's product specification appears to relate to the labeling requirements of Standard No. 106. Under S7.2.1(b) of Standard No. 106, air brake hose manufacturers must label their hose with a designation (consisting of block capital letters, nume rals or a symbol) that identifies the manufacturer of the hose. The designation assists NHTSA in identifying the manufacturers of noncomplying or defective brake

hoses. There is no NHTSA application form for the designation; instead, the manufacturer simply files the designation in writing with NHTSA's Crash Avoidance Division, at the address provided in S7.2.1(b) of the standard.

From your letter, it appears that Saab-Scania also specifies that your brake hoses must meet all applicable FMVSS's. Standard No. 106 applies to new motor vehicles and to "brake hoses" (which include plastic tubing), brake hose end fittings, and brake h ose assemblies. The standard specifies labeling and performance requirements for these products to reduce the likelihood of brake system failure from ruptures in the brake hose or brake hose assembly. New brake hoses, end fittings and assemblies must m eet these requirements to be sold in or imported into this country. If they don't comply, the manufacturers are subject to civil penalties of $ 1000 per violation, and the notification and remedy provisions of the Safety Act. I have enclosed a copy of the standard for your information, photocopied from the October 1, 1989 edition of Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations (49 CFR @ 571.106).

In addition to the requirements described above, please note that your manufacture of brake hoses may also be affected by NHTSA's longstanding interpretation of our regulation on manufacturer identification (49 CFR Part 566; copy enclosed), if Saab-Scani a sells vehicles equipped with your brake hoses in this country. This rule requires a manufacturer of equipment to which an FMVSS applies ("covered equipment" -- e.g., brake hoses) to submit its name, address, and a brief description of the items of equ ipment it manufacturers to NHTSA separately from the vehicle manufacturer to which the equipment manufacturer supplies its products. NHTSA has interpreted this regulation to require the information from foreign manufacturers of covered equipment supplyi ng their products to a foreign vehicle manufacturer selling its vehicles in the United States. (Enclosed is a copy of the agency's January 26, 1972 letter to Mr. Nakajima of Toyota Motor Company on this issue.)

Please note that Oy Toppi is not required to designate an agent for service of process under 49 CFR Part 551 (Subpart D), if Oy Toppi supplies its products only to a foreign vehicle manufacturer. This is the case even if the foreign vehicle manufacturer installs Oy Toppi's products on vehicles that will be sold in the United States. However, please keep in mind that Oy Toppi must designate an agent under Part 551 if Oy Toppi decides to offer its equipment for importation into the United States. I hav e enclosed a copy of this regulation for your information.

I hope this information is helpful. Please contact us if you have further questions.

ENCLOSURES

ID: nht90-2.62

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 05/31/90

FROM: STEPHEN P. WOOD -- NHTSA ACTING CHIEF COUNSEL

TO: MARCIA M. AVIS

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 05/03/89 FROM MARCIA M. AVIS -- M. AVIS CO TO NHTSA OFFICE OF CHIEF COUNSEL, OCC 3509

TEXT: This responds to your letter to this agency asking about Federal regulations that apply to "an accessory seat pad" for booster seats and child restraint systems. I regret the delay in responding.

Your letter describes your product as a fabric seat cushion which is intended to provide comfort and head support to a child when the child is sleeping in the restraint system. You state that the cushion would be "held in place" on the seat with "the st rap system inherent to the booster seat along with the weight of the child on the seat."

There is currently no Federal motor vehicle safety standard that is directly applicable to the product you wish to manufacture and sell. Our standard for child restraint systems (Standard No. 213) applies only to new systems and not to aftermarket compo nents of a child restraint system, such as an aftermarket seat-pad.

However, there are other Federal laws that indirectly affect your manufacture and sale of the seat-pad. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, your product is considered to be an item of motor vehicle equipment. As a manufacturer of m otor vehicle equipment, you are subject to the requirements in sections 151-159 of the Safety Act concerning the recall and remedy of products with defects relating to motor vehicle safety. I have enclosed an information sheet that briefly describes tho se responsibilities. In the event that you or NHTSA determines that your seat-pads contain a safety related defect, you would be responsible for notifying purchasers of the defective equipment and remedying the problem free of charge.

If your product would be installed by commercial businesses instead of child seat owners, those businesses would have to do so in a manner consistent with section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Act. The provision states: "No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or m otor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render 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 motor vehicle safety standard . . ." Thus , this provision prohibits manufacturers, distributors, dealers or

motor vehicle repair businesses (i.e., any person holding him or herself out to the public as in the business of repairing motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment for compensation) from installing your seat-pad if the addition of your product would neg atively affect the compliance of a child restraint with Standard 213 and if the installing business were aware of that effect.

There are elements of design incorporated in a child restraint system pursuant to Standard 213 that may be affected by installation of a seat-pad. For example, Standard 213 sets flame-retardant performance requirements for materials used in a child rest raint system. (See paragraph S5.7 of Standard 213, referencing Standard 302, Flammability of Interior Materials (copy enclosed).) Installation of rapidly burning materials could vitiate the compliance of the child restraint with FMVSS No. 213. Section 109 of the Act specifies a civil penalty of up to $ 1,000 for each violation of @ 108.

In addition, Standard 213 sets crash protection requirements for all new child restraint systems. It is unclear from your letter whether the seat-pad has provision for passing the belt systems of a child restraint around or through the pad and cushion. If the installation of your seat-pad would impair the function of a belt installed to restrain the child, then any manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business installing the seat-pad would likely be regarded as having knowingly r endered inoperative a Federally required element of design in child restraint systems, in violation of @ 108 (a)(2)(A).

The prohibitions of @ 108(a)(2)(A) do not apply to the actions of a vehicle owner in adding to or otherwise modifying his or her vehicle or motor vehicle equipment. Nevertheless, this agency urges you to voluntarily ensure that your seat-pad would not r ender inoperative the crash protection and flammability resistance of any child restraint.

I hope this information is helpful. Please contact us if you have further questions.

Enclosure

ID: nht90-2.63

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 05/31/90

FROM: BARRY FELRICE -- ASSOCIATE ADMINISTRATOR FOR RULEMAKING NHTSA

TO: MIKE LOVE -- MANAGER, SAFETY COMPLIANCE PORSCHE CARS NORTH AMERICA, INC.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER FROM BARRY FELRICE -- NHTSA TO STEPHEN WOOD -- NHTSA ACTING CHIEF COUNSEL ENTITLED PORSCHE'S MODIFIED ANTITHEFT EXEMPTION, LETTER DATED 04/12/90; LETTER DATED 03/30/90 FROM MIKE LOVE -- PORSCHE TO JERRY CURRY -- NHTSA ADMINISTRATOR ON 49 CFR PART 543 EXEMPTION

TEXT: This responds to your request that this agency determine that the new feature added to the antitheft device proposed to be installed on the MY 1991 911 and 928 Porsche car lines, represents a de minimis change in the system that was the basis for the age ncy's previous granting of a theft exemption for those car lines beginning in MY 1990, and that therefore Porsche 911's and 928's containing the new device would be fully covered by that exemption.

As you are aware, the Porsche 911 and 928 car lines were granted an exemption, pursuant to 49 CFR Part 543, from antitheft marking because Porsche showed that the antitheft device to be used in lieu of marking on these car lines was likely to be as effec tive as parts marking. This exemption was issued on May 25, 1989, and appeared in the Federal Register on June 2, 1989 (54 FR 23727).

The agency granted the exemption from theft marking because the agency found that based on substantial evidence, the agency believed that the antitheft device is "likely to be as effective in reducing and deterring motor vehicle theft as compliance with the parts-marking requirements of the theft prevention standard (49 CFR Part 541)." In the granting of the exemption from theft marking, the agency stated that it believed that the device will provide the types of performance listed in 49 CFR Part 543.6( a)(3): Promoting activation; attracting attention to unauthorized entries; preventing defeat or circumventing of the device by unauthorized persons; preventing operation of the vehicle by unauthorized entrants; and ensuring the reliability and durability of the device.

In your letter, it was stated that beginning from MY 1991, Porsche plans to modify the antitheft device that is standard equipment on the Porsche 911 and 928, as follows: integrate the alarm control unit with the central locking and interior light contro l units; incorporate a feature that will also monitor the glove box for unauthorized opening; improve

P2

diagnostic capability in order to enhance serviceability; and install a capability to accept other features (such as motion sensors) if they are desired in the future.

In addition, it was stated that the changes in the system will be virtually unnoticeable to the operator, and that the system will still be armed passively by locking either door with the key. Further, with the addition of the glovebox, all the same poi nts of entry, such as the doors, hood, and hatch, will be monitored by the system and the engine disabling and alarm features will be the same. Porsche further stated that the system "will be as protected and tamper resistant as the current system."

After reviewing the proposed changes to the componentry and performance of the antitheft device on which the exemption was based, the agency concludes that the changes are de minimis. While the new device has enhanced componentry and provides some aspec ts of performance not provided by the original device, it also continues to provide the same aspects of performance provided by the original device and relies on essentially the same componentry to provide that performance. Therefore, it is not necessar y for Porsche to submit a petition to modify the exemption pursuant to 49 CFR Part 543.9(c)(2).

If Porsche does not implement the new antitheft device as described in your letter, or delays implementation until after MY 1991, we request that Porsche notify the agency of such decisions.

It is my understanding that, in an April 13, 1990 telephone conversation with Dorothy Nakama of NHTSA's Office of Chief Counsel, you stated that Porsche was not requesting confidential treatment of any information provided in your letter. Therefore, a c opy of your letter, and this response, will be placed together in NHTSA's public docket.

REF: PART 543

ID: nht90-2.64

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 05/31/90

FROM: STEPHEN P. WOOD -- ACTING CHIEF COUNSEL NHTSA

TO: THEO BOSE -- WEBASTO HEATER, INC.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER FROM THEO BOSE -- WEBASTO HEATER INC DATED 07/19/89 TO FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION ON CLARIFICATION OF TITLE 49 393.77[12]

TEXT: You wrote to the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) asking about requirements for "diesel fuel burning coolant heaters and air heaters" that you import for installation in trucks, buses and school buses. According to the installation instructions for the heaters, they are connected either to the fuel tank of the vehicle or to a separate fuel tank. The FHWA forwarded us your letter with regard to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 301, Fuel System Integrity, since the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is responsible for this standard. I regret the delay in responding.

By way of background, NHTSA is authorized to issue FMVSS's applying to the manufacture of new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA is not authorized to certify or approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment for compliance wit h our FMVSS's. Instead, under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (copy enclosed), each manufacturer of a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards . This process requires each manufacturer to determine in the exercise of due care that its products meet all applicable requirements. (A general information sheet describing manufacturers' responsibilities under the Safety Act is enclosed.)

The Safety Act defines the term "manufacturer" as "any person engaged in the manufacturing or assembling of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, including any person importing motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment for resale." (@ 102(5); emphas is added.) As a manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment, you are responsible for compliance with the Safety Act and applicable regulations.

There is currently no FMVSS that directly applies to the heating unit you describe. Standard No. 301 (copy enclosed) applies only to completed new motor vehicles, and not to components of fuel systems. (The standard applies to trucks and buses with a g ross vehicle weight rating of 10,000

pounds or less, and to school buses.) However, Federal law may affect the installation of your product, depending on who installs the heating unit and when the work is performed.

If the heating unit were installed as original equipment on a new vehicle, the vehicle manufacturer is required by our certification regulations to certify that the entire vehicle (with your product installed) satisfies the requirements of all applicable FMVSS's. If the heater were added to a new, previously-certified vehicle (e.g., a new completed school bus), the person who adds the system would be required to certify that, as altered, the vehicle continues to comply with all of the safety standards affected by the alteration. These certification requirements apply to the vehicle manufacturer and alterer regardless of whether the heater is connected to the vehicle's fuel system. Of course, if the heater is connected to the vehicle's fuel system, th e vehicle's compliance with Standard No. 301 should be carefully scrutinized. (I have enclosed a copy of our certification regulation (49 CFR Part 567) for your information.)

If the heater were installed on a used vehicle by a vehicle manufacturer, distributor, dealer or repair business, the installer would not be subject to the certification requirements outlined above. Instead, the installer would have to ensure that it di d not knowingly render inoperative the compliance of the vehicle with any applicable safety standards, including Standard No. 301. This is required by @ 108 (a) (2)(A) of the Safety Act. If the modification of the vehicle entailed connecting the heater to the vehicle's fuel system, compliance with Standard No. 301 would of course be especially germane to whether the modification had rendered inoperative the vehicle's compliance.

The prohibition of @ 108(a)(2)(A) does not apply to individual vehicle owners who alter their own vehicles. Thus, under our requirements, individual owners may install any item of motor vehicle equipment regardless of its effect on compliance with Feder al motor vehicle safety standards. However, NHTSA encourages vehicle owners not to tamper with vehicle safety equipment if the modification would degrade the safety of the vehicle.

In addition to the foregoing, you should be aware that manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment are subject to the requirements in sections 151-159 of the Safety Act concerning the recall and remedy of products with defects relating to motor vehicle safe ty. If you or NHTSA determines that a safety-related defect exists, you must notify purchasers of your product and remedy the problem free of charge. (Note that this responsibility is borne by the vehicle manufacturer in cases in which the heater is in stalled on a new vehicle by or with the express authorization of that vehicle manufacturer.) Any manufacturer which fails to provide notification of or remedy for a defect may be subject to a civil penalty of up to $ 1,000 per violation.

I hope this information is helpful. Please contact my office if you have further questions.

ENCLOSURES

ID: nht90-2.65

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 05/31/90

FROM: STEPHEN P. WOOD -- NHTSA ACTING CHIEF COUNSEL

TO: SUICHI WATANABE -- GENERAL MANAGER AUTOMOTIVE LIGHTING ENGINEERING CONTROL DEPARTMENT STANLEY ELECTRIC CO., LTD.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 03/19/90 FROM SHUICHI WATANABE TO ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA; OCC 4549

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of March 19, 1990, asking whether a new combination rear lamp is permitted under Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

The lamp consists of three compartments. In its normal operating mode, when the taillamp and/or stop lamp are activated, all three compartments show a red light. Your question arises with respect to three different operating modes. The first occurs whe n the turn signal is activated; the red light in one of the compartments is replaced by an amber flashing one. The second occurs when the backup lamp is activated; the red light in another of the compartments is replaced by a white steady-burning one. The third occurs when both the backup lamp and turn signal are activated; in this event, the combination lamp would present an amber flashing light, a red steady-burning one, and a white steady-burning one. You have informed us that "the requirement of photometric and lighted area for each lamp function comply to FMVSS No. 108 and related comply with requirements for one and three compartment lamps when operating with one or three compartments (we assume that they would also meet the requirements for t wo compartment lamps).

The lamp appears to be intended to fulfill the requirements of Standard No. 108 for turn signal, stop, tail, and backup lamps. Thus, your question appears to be whether Standard No. 108 requires separate lamps or compartments dedicated to a specific pur pose, or whether your multiple purpose lamp is acceptable.

Standard No. 108 does not prohibit a combination of the functions that any chamber of your lamp provides. When a specific function is activated, the lamp will perform that particular function in a manner that appears to meet the minimum standard establi shed by Standard No. 108. Assuming that the CIE color definitions for white, amber, and red are met by the backup, turn, and stop/tail functions, the lamp appears to be permissible under Standard No. 108.

Sincerely,

ID: nht90-2.66

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 05/31/90

FROM: STEPHEN P. WOOD -- NHTSA ACTING CHIEF COUNSEL

TO: SATOSHI NISHIBORI -- VICE PRESIDENT INDUSTRY/GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS NISSAN RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT, INC.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 02/15/90 FROM SATOSHI NISHIBORI -- NISSAN RESEARCH TO STEPHEN P. WOOD -- NHTSA; OCC 4485

TEXT: This responds to your letter requesting an interpretation of 49 CFR Part 575, Consumer Information Regulations. Specifically, you asked about the requirement in @ 575.6(a)(2)(i), which requires the "name of the manufacturer" to be inserted in two places in a statement required to appear in the owner's manual. You asked whether you could use the name "Infiniti" as the required "name of the manufacturer" for vehicles manufactured by that division of Nissan Motors, or whether Nissan would have to be ident ified as the manufacturer of those vehicles. The answer is that identifying Infiniti as the manufacturer of the vehicles produced by that division of your corporation would not violate @ 575.6(a)(2), as explained below.

The term "manufacturer" is not specifically defined for Part 575 in @ 575.2. However, @ 575.2(a) provides that all terms used in Part 575 that are defined in section 102 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Safety Act; 15 U.S.C. 1391 ) are used as defined in the Safety Act. Section 102(5) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1391(5)) defines a manufacturer as "any person engaged in the manufacturing or assembling of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, including any person importing m otor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment for resale." According to your letter, Infiniti is a division within Nissan Motor Corporation (USA), the importer of Nissan and Infiniti vehicles. The Infiniti vehicles are assembled by Nissan Motor Company, Ltd. , the parent corporation, in Japan. Hence, both the parent corporation, as the assembler of the Infiniti cars, and the U.S. subsidiary, as the importer of those cars, would be "manufacturers" of the Infiniti cars, within the meaning of the Safety Act.

Generally speaking, when this agency's regulations require disclosure of the name of the manufacturer, it is permissible to identify the

manufacturer as the division that sells and markets the vehicle, instead of naming the corporation of which the division is a part. The only exception to this general rule would arise if naming the division, instead of the whole corporation, as the manu facturer would be likely to confuse the public or otherwise frustrate the purposes of the regulation.

With respect to @ 575.6(a)(2), the preamble to the final rule that added these requirements identified their purpose as "to increase consumer awareness of the [Auto Safety] Hotline and the agency's efforts to strengthen its defect investigation activitie s." 54 FR 48745, at 48746; November 27, 1989. It does not appear that identifying Infiniti, instead of Nissan, as the manufacturer of the Infiniti cars would in any way hamper or frustrate this purpose. Additionally, that preamble also included the foll owing discussion:

NHTSA nevertheless agrees with the commenters that the public should be instructed to also contact the manufacturer. Therefore, the agency has revised the message to state that a consumer should also contact the manufacturer or its designate (e.g., i ts authorized dealer) to resolve safety-related or other problems with the vehicle. 54 FR 48747. (Emphasis added)

This language shows that NHTSA intended these requirements to provide the consumer with necessary information to resolve safety-related or other problems with the vehicle, not to provide the consumer with information about the corporate structure of the manufacturer. In fact, identifying Infiniti instead of Nissan as the manufacturer of Infiniti cars may be more useful information for the purchasers of those cars. Hence, we conclude that nothing in @ 575.6(a)(2) prohibits Nissan from identifying its I nfiniti division as the manufacturer of Infiniti cars.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Marvin Shaw of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,