ID: nht88-3.84

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 11/01/88

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA

TO: DOUG COLE -- NATIONAL VAN CONVERSION ASSOCIATION, INC.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 06/23/87 FROM DOUG COLE OF STEVE KRANTZKE; LETTER DATED 06/29/87 FROM JONATHAN JACKSON TO DOUG COLE; LETTER DATED 06/22/87 FROM ROSE M. TALISMAN TO DOUG COLE; LETTER DATED 06/08/87 FROM ROSE TALISMAN TO DOUG COLE

TEXT: Dear Mr. Cole:

This responds to your letter asking about the test procedures of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 302, Flammability of Interior Materils. I regret the delay in responding.

In your letter, you explained that the National Van Conversion Association (NVCA) gathers samples of materials used for vehicle floor coverings, seat covers, etc., in van conversions to determine the compliance of the material with Standard No. 302. In your test program, you have found that many samples do not appear to comply. You said that a closer look at the conditions under which these samples were tested revealed that use of support wires affected whether many materials passed or failed the stan dard's test. You ask for clarification as to when support wires are used in Standard No. 302 testing.

The conditions and procedures under which Standard No. 302 compliance testing is conducted using support wires are stated in paragraphs S5.1.3 and S5.3(a) of the standard. Basically, these two paragraphs specify, respectively, that support wires are use d: (1) when testing a specimen "that softens and bends at the flaming end so as to cause erratic burning," to keep the specimen horizontal; and (2) when testing a speciment that has an available width of not more than 2 inches, to position and mount the specimen on the U-shaped frames used in the test. Standard No. 302 makes no provision for using the wires other than in these two situations.

The agency follows the test procedure specified in Standard No. 302 when testing vehicles for compliance with the requirements of the standard. The agency uses heat-resistant wires as specified in S5.1.3 when there is a reasonable expectation that a tes t specimen will bend or curl while burning. NHTSA bases its determination about the likelihood of bending or curling on observations made in previously-conducted compliance tests of the speciment, or on the agency's knowledge of or testing experience wi th materials similar to a test specimen.

I would like to point out that manufacturers are not required by Standard No. 302 to test the flammability of their vehicles in only the manner specified in the standard. The standard only sets the procedure that the agency will use in its complaince te sting. Thus, a manufacturer is not required to use wires only with specimens that are anticipated to bend or curl, or that are too small to fit in the test frame without wires. However, manufacturers must exercise due care in making their certification of compliance that their product will meet the standard's requirements when tested by the agency according to the specified procedures of the standard. Whether a manufacturer meets that due care standard when using heat-resistant wires in situations ot her than those described in Standard No. 302 is a matter that can be determined only in the context of an enforcement proceeding.

Please contact us if you have any further questions.

ID: nht88-3.85

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 11/01/88 EST

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL NHTSA

TO: WILLIAM E. LAWLER -- SPECIFICATIONS MANAGER INDIANA MILLS & MANUFACTURING, INC.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 08/01/88 TO ERICA Z. JONES FROM WILLIAM E. LAWLER; OCC - 2362

TEXT: Dear Mr. Lawler:

This responds to your request for an interpretation of Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection (49 CFR @ 571.208). Specifically, you noted that a final rule published July 6, 1988 (53 FR 25337) upgrades the safety belt requirements for heavy vehicl es manufactured on or after September 1, 1990. One of the new requirements for those safety belts is that, if an automatic locking retractor (ALR) is used, that retractor "shall not retract webbing to the next locking position until at least 3/4 inch of webbing has moved into the retractor." Standard No. 208 sets forth this requirement in section S4.3.2.2 for trucks and multipurpose passenger vehicles with a gross vehicle weight rating of more than 10,000 pounds, and in section S4.4.2.2 for buses. You asked whether an ALR that depended on a mechanism external to the retractor itself to prevent it from retracting webbing to the next locking position would comply with S4.3.2.2 and S4.4.2.2. The answer to your question is no.

The agency explained in detail the reasons why the final rule did not adopt the proposed requirement for all heavy vehicle safety belts to be equipped with emergency locking retractors only; see 53 FR 25338-25340. The proposed prohibition of ALR's in he avy vehicles was based on the tendency of current designs of ALR's to become progressively tighter around an occupant as the vehicle travels over potholes or other jarring surfaces of the road. However, NHTSA acknowledged in the final rule that some nev er designs of ALR's do not exhibit this tendency. In response to these newer designs of ALR's, the agency said:

Therefore, this rule has been expanded from the proposal, in order to permit ALR's with anti-cinch capability to be installed in heavy vehicles. For the purposes of this rule, anti-cinch capability is determined by examining the working of the retrac tor after it has locked after the initial adjustment of the safety belt. 53 FR 25339.

This language explicitly states that the "working of the retractor" is what determines whether an ALR on a heavy vehicle belt complies with the requirements of Standard No. 208. Since the focus is exclusively on the "working of the retractor," an ALR mu st comply with these requirements without depending upon any external mechanisms to assist it. Any ALR that cannot satisfy these requirements without the assistance of external mechanisms would not comply with Standard No. 208's requirements for ALR's o n heavy vehicles.

This conclusion is reinforced by the agency's statement that:

"NHTSA believes it is appropriate to measure compliance with this new 3/4 inch minimum webbing travel requirement for ALR's in Standard No. 208 under the same conditions currently specified for determining compliance with the existing 1-inch maximum w ebbing travel requirement for ALR's in Standard No. 209." 53 FR 25340.

The 1-inch maximum webbing travel requirement for ALR's is set forth in section S4.3(i) of Standard No. 209. Since Standard No. 209 became effective in 1968, the agency has determined whether ALR's comply with this requirement by examining the performan ce of the retractor itself without any assistance from external mechanisms. As explained in the final rule, the same procedure (examining the performance of the retractor itself without any assistance from external mechanisms) will be used to measure co mpliance with the minimum webbing travel requirements in Standard No. 208.

In your letter, you requested that we issue an interpretation that any ALR that complies with Standard No. 209 can rely on the use of an external mechanism, such as your company's "Komfort-Lok," to comply with the minimum webbing travel requirements of S tandard No. 208 for ALR's on safety belts in heavy vehicles. I cannot do so, for the reasons explained above. Any ALR used on a heavy vehicle safety belt must satisfy the minimum webbing travel requirements in Standard No. 208 by the working of the ret ractor itself, without the use of any external mechanisms.

Sincerely,

ID: nht88-3.86

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 11/01/88

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA

TO: WILLIAM J. HENRICK -- GENERAL TIRE

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 06/03/88 FROM WILLIAM HENRICK TO ERIKA Z JONES

TEXT: Dear Mr. Henrick:

This is in response to your letter of June 3, 1988, seeking an interpretation of Part 574, Tire Identification and Recordkeeping. Specifically, you stated that your company has reached an agreement with two foreign tire manufacturers to jointly produce a radial medium truck tire in one of your domestic facilities. You anticipate that all three entities will use the same "green" or "uncured" tires. Although your letter is not clear on this point, I am assuming that the sidewall on a given tire will con tain the name and the respective tire identification mark of only one company. You asked whether each of the three companies involved in this joint venture may secure its own identification mark required by Part 574 to identify its tires. The answer to your question is yes.

49 CFR @ 574.5 requires that "Each tire manufacturer shall conspicuously label on one sidewall of each tire it manufacturers . . . by permanently molding into or onto the sidewall, in the manner and location specified in Figure 1, a tire identification n umber containing the information set forth in paragraphs (a) through (d) of this section." The purpose of the tire identification number requirements is to facilitate the effective recall of tires from the public if the tires are found not to comply with the applicable safety standards or if the tires contain a safety related defect. To best effectuate the recall of noncomplying or defective tires, the agency recommends but cannot require each production plant to have its own tire identification number .

If the company that produced the tires in its molds (General in this case) wished to put its tire identification number on all of the tires produced for this joint venture, @ 574.5 would not prohibit it from doing so, since that company could certainly b e considered the manufacturer of all of the tires. However, if that company were to do so, it would be responsible for any recalls of these tires, including the tires sold by the other partners in the joint venture.

On the other hand, @ 574.5 does not prohibit each of the three partners in the joint venture from putting its own tire identification number on those tires produced for it by the joint venture. Each partner could be considered the "manufacturer," for pu rposes of @ 574.5, of those tires that it markets under its name. Each partner would then be responsible for any recalls of those tires produced by the joint venture on which its identification number appears.

I am enclosing 49 CFR Part 551 which 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 process in this country. The agent may be either an individual or a business entity. Part 551 specifies that the designation of agent must contain the following six items of information:

1. A certification that the designation is valid in form and binding on the foreign company 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 foreign company;

3. Marks, trade names, or other designations of origin of any of the tires which do not bear the name of the foreign company.

4. A statement that the designation shall remain in effect until withdrawn or replaced by the foreign company;

5. A declaration of acceptance duly signed by the agent appointed by the foreign company, and the agent may be an individual, firm, or United States corporation; and

6. The full name and address of the designated agent.

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

ID: nht88-3.87

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 11/01/88

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA CHIEF COUNSEL

TO: BEVERLY B. BYRON -- CONGRESS U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: 8/24/88 letter from Joseph L. Ciampa, Jr. to Beverly B. Byron; 8/14/85 memo from C. Richard Fravel to Whom it May Concern; 8/4/88 memo from Arthur J. Lomart to Whom it May Concern; 8/1/88 letter from C.E. Shue to Joseph Ciampa, Jr.; 9/12/88 letter from Nancy F. Miller to Beverly B. Byron; 8/25/88 letter from Bevery B. Byron to Nancy Miller; 11/29/89 (est) letter from Jeffrey R. Miller to John D. Dingell (A34; Std. 205); 9/22/89 letter from John D. Dingell to Jeffrey R. Miller; 8/25/89 letter from Constance A. Morella to Norman Y. Mineta; 7/31/89 letter from W. Marshall Rickert to Constance A. Morella; 7/8/88 letter from Erika Z. Jones to Norman D. Shunway (Std. 205)

TEXT: Dear Ms. Byron:

Thank you for your recent letter on behalf of your constituent, Mr. Joseph L. Ciampa, Jr., who received a citation from the Maryland State Police, Automotive Safety Enforcement Division, for noncomplying window tinting. You asked us to review Mr. Ciampa 's letter and provide you with our comments and appropriate information. I am pleased to have the opportunity to do so.

Mr. Ciampa suffers from diabetes, which makes his eyes extremely sensitive to sunlight. Because of this, the side windows on his passenger automobile apparently were tinted such that the tinted glazing no longer complied with State of Maryland requireme nts. There is no indication whether Mr. Ciampa did the tinting on his own or had an aftermarket business do it. According to Mr. Ciampa's letter, he was previously given a medical exemption by the State of Maryland that permitted him to drive with wind ows tinted differently than Maryland law permits. However, Mr. Ciampa stated that Maryland officials have now told him that the Federal government will not allow Maryland to grant any more medical exemptions. This information is inaccurate.

Some background information on the Federal requirements in this area may be helpful. Our agency, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized, under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and certain items of motor vehicle equipment. The safety standard that specifies performance and location requirements for glazing used in vehicles is Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials (49 CFR 571.205). These require ments include specifications for minimum levels of light transmittance (70 percent in areas requisite for driving visibility, which includes all windows in passenger cars). Under Standard 205 no manufacturer or dealer is permitted to install solar films and other sun screen devices in a new vehicle, without certifying that the vehicle continues to be in compliance with the light transmittance and other requirements of the standard.

2

Federal law does not permit States to grant any exemptions, including medical exemptions, from the safety standards. Thus, we assume that Mr. Ciampa's car as delivered to him complied with Standard No. 205's requirement for at least 70 percent light tra nsmittance in all of its windows, including the side windows that are now the subject of dispute.

The requirement that a car comply with all applicable safety standards applies only until the car is first sold to a consumer. After a vehicle is first sold to a consumer, any modifications to the vehicle's windows, including the tinting performed on th e side windows of Mr. Ciampa's car, are affected by section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act. That section prohibits any manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or repair business from "rendering inoperative" any device or element of design installed in a vehi cle in compliance with any safety standard. In the case of windows in a passenger car, this means that no manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or repair business could install a sun screen device or window tinting that would result in a light transmittanc e of less than 70 percent for any window of the car, or otherwise cause the car to no longer comply with the other requirements of Standard No. 205. Violations of this "render inoperative" prohibition can result in Federal civil penalties to the manufac turer, dealer, distributor, or repair business of up to $ 1000 for each noncomplying installation.

Again, Federal law does not permit States to grant any exemptions, including medical exemptions, from the "render inoperative" prohibition in Federal law. Thus, the State of Maryland does not have any authority to permit manufacturers, distributors, deal ers, or repair businesses to install tinting on the side windows of passenger cars if such tinting causes those windows to have less than 70 percent light transmittance. Instead, the manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair business that installed s uch tinting on Mr. Ciampa's side windows would be liable for the civil penalty discussed above.

Please note that Federal law does not affect vehicle owners. Vehicle owners may alter their own vehicles and operate them on the highways as they please, even if the vehicle's windows no longer comply with the requirements of Standard No. 205. Hence, n o provision of Federal law or this agency's regulations prevents Mr. Ciampa himself from tinting his side windows.

However, each of the individual States has the authority to regulate the modifications that may be made to vehicles by their owners and to establish requirements for vehicles to be registered or operated in that State. It would seem that the State of Ma ryland has exercised its authority to prohibit windows being tinted in the way that Mr. Ciampa's are. The wisdom and fairness of applying that prohibition to individuals with Mr. Ciampa's condition is something to be decided by the State of Maryland, no t the Federal government. Contrary to the statement in Mr. Ciampa's letter, we have never told Maryland or any other State how to administer their laws and regulations with respect to the operational use of vehicles in the State.

3

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions or need some more information on this subject, please do not hesitate to contact Ms. Susan Schruth of my staff at this address, or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

ref:VSA#205

SECTION 1. Section 25251.5 of the Vehicle Code is amended to read:

25251.5 (a) Any motor vehicle may also be equipped with a system in which an amber light is center mounted on the rear of a vehicle to communicate a component of deceleration of the vehicle, and which light pulses in a controlled fashion at a rate whi ch varies exponentially with a component of deceleration

(b) Any motor vehicle may be equipped with two amber lamps on the rear of the vehicle which operate simultaneously with not more than four flashes within four seconds after the accelerator pedal is in the deceleration position and which are not lighte d at any

ID: nht88-3.88

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 11/02/88

FROM: STEVEN W. CROWELL

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 05/31/90 FROM STEPHEN P. WOOD -- NHTSA TO WILLIAM D. FALCON; REDBOOK A 35; STANDARD 201; 202; 205; VSA 108[A][2][A]; LETTER DATED 01/30/89 FROM WILLIAM D. FALCON TO RALPH HITCHCOCK -- NHTSA; OCC 3107; LETTER FROM STEVEN CROWELL DATED 06/02/88 TO ELIZABETH DENNISTON -- EGOH BITTNER COMMISSIONER WALTHAM MASSACHUSETTS

TEXT: (Illegible Words)

It has come to my attention that (Ilelgible Word) 71.4.1 guidelines issued by The Commission on Accreditation for Law Enforcement Agencies may be in need of amendment in order to reduce risk of injury and suit. The following information may be of ass istance to you.

This is a quote from a letter to me dated 9/13/85 from the Chief Counsel for The United States Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Jeffrey R. Miller. "The National Highway Traffic Safety Act of 1966 authorize s this agency to issue safety standards for new motor vehicles and equipment (sect. (Illegible Word) prohibits the sale or manufacture of new vehicles and equipment which do not meet those standards (sect. 108(a)(1)(A)), establishes civil penalties for n on-complying vehicles and equipment (sect. 109 (a)), and requires manufacturers to recall and remedy any non-compliances (sect. 154 (a))."

"In addition, the Act requires certification of compliance with applicable safety standards (sect. 114). This requirement applies to the manufacturers of equipment, with regard to those items of equipment and to vehicle manufacturers, with regard to the entire vehicle. Thus, if the auxiliary interior equipment is installed in a vehicle prior to the first sale, the equipment manufacturer must certify compliance with any safety standards applicable to the item of equipment, and the vehicle manufactur er must certify that the entire vehicle (including the items of equipment) complies with all applicable standards."

If you refer to the Act (Illegible Word) C.P.L. 89-562 sect. 567.7) you will find the following:

[A person who alters a vehicle that has been previously certified shall affix to the vehicle an additional label containing the following information; the statement: "This vehicle was altered by (individual or corporate name) in (month and year in whi ch alterations were completed) and as altered it conforms to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards affected by the alteration and in effect in (month, year)."]

In light of the preceding information I wish to make the following recommendation. Rather than 71.4.1 reading "The safety barrier may be of wire mesh or heavy guage plastic. . .", I suggest it read; "The safety barrier must be one which has had a lab el or tag affixed to it which certifies compliance with all applicable safety standards and requirements established by the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966."

Your perspective on this recommendation will be appreciated.

ID: nht88-3.89

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 11/03/88 EST

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TO: BRIAN HALL -- PRESIDENT, VS TECHNOLOGY

ATTACHMT: MEMO TO MR. VINSON - VS TECHNOLOGY; FROM BRIAN HALL, OCC-2576

TEXT: This is in reply to your recent undated letter to Mr. Vinson of this Office. You have described a safety apparatus and have requested "approval" from the Department. The apparatus is a red light that is worn on the back of a rider on small open vehicles such as motorcycles. The light connects to the stop lamp system on the vehicle and is activated at the same time as the vehicle's stop lamp.

The Department has no authority to "approve" or "disapprove" specific concepts or equipment. However, it can advise whether such is permissible or impermissible under Federal statutes or Departmental regulations. Yours is a unique device, and there are no Federal motor vehicle safety standards that apply to it. Our primary concern is whether its operation would in any way interfere with the effectiveness of the vehicle's stop lamp, such as a power drain that would make that light less bright. Becaus e the apparatus is "apparel not a system part . . . which is intended for use exclusively to safeguard motor vehicles, drivers, passengers . . . from risk of accident, injury, or death", it meets the statutory definition of "motor vehicle equipment." Thi s means that the apparatus is subject to Federal notification and remedy provisions in the event a determination is made that it incorporates a defect that relates to motor vehicle safety.

Because the Department has no authority to regulate how a vehicle is used on the public roads, you may wish to investigate whether the apparatus is acceptable under the laws of the individual States. The American

Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators may be able to provide you with an answer. Its address is 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Va. 22203.

We appreciate your interest in improving safety.

ID: nht88-3.9

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/19/88

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL NHTSA

TO: DENNIS G. MOORE -- PRESIDENT SIERRA PRODUCTS INC.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 04/06/88 TO ERIKA Z. JONES FROM DENNIS G MOORE, OCC - 1860

TEXT: Dear Mr. Moore:

This is in reply to your letter of April 6, 1988, bringing to our attention the differing definitions of Canada and the United States of "optically combined lamps." The Canadian interpretation of that term appears to prohibit export of your lamps to that country.

I have reviewed the materials you enclosed. They indicate that until recently the two countries interpreted the phrase identically. As the then Chief Counsel Frank Berndt advised the Trailer Manufacturer Association on June 18, 1979, "the phrase is not intended to prohibit the installation of two separate bulbs in a single housing and covered by a common lens," and on October 22, 1981, Canada informed you that "The Canadian and U.S.A. federal standards are identical with respect to optical combination ...." However, Canada has undertaken to define the term by regulation in its revised CMVSS No. 108 rather than by interpretation as we have done. Under an amendment adopted in December 1987, a lamp with two separate bulbs in a single housing and covered by a common lens would be "optically combined." Canada believes that this "harmonizes" with the intent of FMVSS No. 108, us consistent with ECE practice, and similar to the definition adopted in J587 by the SAE. You believe that Canada's action is inco nsistent with the "Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade" between the two countries.

It would appear that NHTSA's definition and interpretation of the term is more permissive than that of the authorities you quoted, and that lamps meeting U.S. requirements might be barred from sale in Europe as well as Canada. The issue of whether this situation presents a trade barrier is not one that is properly before this agency. Matters of trade policy, and particularly allegations of trade agreement violations are within the jurisdiction of the United States Trade Representative, who can be

contacted at 600 17th Street, NW, Washington, DC 20506 (202-395-3204). However, NHTSA is an active participant in ECE lighting discussions and I shall bring this matter to the attention of the responsible agency personnel.

Thank you for bringing this matter to our attention.

Sincerely,

ID: nht88-3.90

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 11/03/88 EST

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TO: W. E. BALDWIN -- PRESIDENT, K-R INDISTRIES

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: MEMO DATED 9-1-88, FROM W. E. BALDWIN, TO ERIKA Z. JONES, OCC-2512

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of September 1, 1988, asking for an interpretation of paragraph S4.5.11(e) of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

You have developed a center highmounted stop lamp "containing 5 bulbs, where each bulb is illuminated in sequential order." You state that the "time between each lamp illumination is less than 250 ms, providing a steady photometric value, meeting S4.1.1. 41(c)", and that "the red lens of the lamp is steadily illuminated, with the illuminated area moveing (sic) in a back and forth motion." In your opinion, the invention meets the requirement of S4.5.11(e) that lamps, other than those enumerated be steady- burning.

We cannot provide the interpretation you seek. Under paragraph S4.5.4, "the stop lamps on each vehicle shall be activated upon activation of the service brakes." This means that all bulbs providing the center stop lamp signal must be simultaneously acti vated, not sequentially. In addition, we do not consider a lamp with a moving illuminated area to be one that is steady-burning within the meaning to S4.5.11(e).

ID: nht88-3.91

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 11/03/88 EST

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TO: T.P. BAILEY -- LEGISLATION ENGINEER, INTERNATIONAL AUTOMOTIVE DESIGN

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: MEMO DATED 6-10-88, TO NHTSA, FROM T. BAILEY - INTERNATIONAL AUTOMOTIVE DESIGN, FMVSS 104 WINDSHIELD WIPING & WASHING SYSTEMS

TEXT: This responds to your letter of June 10, 1988, in which you asked for an interpretation of Standard NO. 104, Windshield Wiping and Washing Systems (49 CFR @571.104). More specifically, you asked two questions about the requirements set forth in section S4.1.2, Wiped area, of Standard No. 104.

You first asked whether section S4.1.2 of Standard No. 104 applies only to passenger cars. The answer to this question is yes. Section S4.1.2 reads as follows: "When tested in accordance with SAE Recommended Practice J903a, May 1966, each passenger car windshield shall . . ." (emphasis added). The underlined language explicitly limits the requirements to passenger car windshields. Hence, the windshields on other vehicle types are not subject to the requirements of S4.1.2.

Your second question involved the dimensions of "Area A" used to determine whether a car complies with the wiped area requirements in section S4.1.2. Section S4.1.2.1 of Standard No. 104 specifies that the dimensions for "Area A" are established as shown in SAE Recommended Practice J903a, may 1966, and specifies that at least 80 percent of "Area A" must be wiped. Following the procedures set forth in the SAE Recommended Practice, you noted that "Area A" on a hypothetical vehicle would extend to the day light opening area on one side of the windshield and extend beyond the daylight opening area on the other side of the windshield. When calculating the percentage of Area A that is wiped, your letter sets forth four different possible dimensions for Area A and asks which is used to determine whether the vehicle wipes at least 80 percent of Area A. Again section S4.1.2 explicitly answers this question. That section specifies that each passenger car windshield shall wipe 80 percent of Area A that "is wit hin the area bounded by a perimeter line on the glazing surface 1 inch from the daylight opening."

Please let me know if you have any further questions or need any additional information.

ID: nht88-3.92

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 11/03/88 EST

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TO: MAX J. MIZEJEWSKI -- FOREIGN MARKETING SPECIALISTS, INC.

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 04-07-88 RE: ROAD READER TO NHTSA FROM MAX J. MIZEJEWSKI, FOREIGN MARKETING SPECIALISTS, INC.; OCC-1862; UNDATED LETTER TO MARK JANSEN, CHEVY DUTY PICK UP PARTS, FROM ERIKA Z. JONES, NHTSA; A32; STD.108

TEXT: This is in response to your letter in which you asked whether a product your company plans to import would be subject to any Federal motor vehicle safety standard (FMVSS). According to your letter, this product, which you refer to as a "Roadreader," att aches to the front of a motor vehicle and has two sensors which give a visual and audible alarm when the vehicle drifts off a road. You indicated that this product would be connected to the wiring related to the turn signals. You noted that this device does not affect vehicle functions such as acceleration, braking lighting, or visibility. You further stated that if required, you would provide the device to NHTSA or another government agency for inspection.

Section 103 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act ("Safety Act") directs the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to establish safety standards for motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. Title 49 CFR Part 571 contai ns the safety standards promulgated by the agency. Although you stated that this device does not affect the electrical wiring related to the turn lights, I suggest you closely review Standard No. 108,Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment ( Copy enclosed). This safety standard applies to both motor vehicle equipment installed in new motor vehicles and replacement equipment sold in the aftermarket.

While I cannot conclusively say that this standard is or is not applicable to your product based on the limited facts in your letter, this standard may apply to your product because the wiring for your device is connected to components (i.e., turn lights ) subject to the standard. For instance, S4.5.11 requires that components including the turn signal lamps must be wired to flash. More generally, S4.1.3 forbids the installation of an additional piece of motor vehicle equipment that impairs the lightin g equipment required by Standard No. 108. Therefore,

a device such as yours is permissible as original vehicle equipment provided that it does not impair the effectiveness of the lighting equipment required by the standard.

As for the sale of your product in the aftermarket for vehicles in use, Section 108 of the Safety Act prohibits a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business from knowingly rendering inoperative any device or element of design ins talled on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with a FMVSS. Since an importer is defined by the Safety Act as a manufacturer, you should assure that installation of your device does not render inoperative, in whole or in part, the turn signal lamp or any other item of motor vehicle equipment subject to Standard No. 108.

As for your second question concerning inspection and approval of your product, you should be aware that NHTSA does not provide approvals of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. Under Section 114 of the Safety Act, it is the responsibility of the manufacturer to ensure that its vehicles or equipment comply with all applicable safety standards. Further, as you noted, you would be responsible for recalling any safety-related defects which you or this agency finds in your product.

You also should be aware that laws from particular States may apply to your device. Therefore, you may wish to contact the State and local transportation authorities in the areas where you intend to market your product. The American Association of Moto r Vehicle Administrators (4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Va. 22203) may also be able to provide information about State laws concerning devices similar to your product.

Enclossssssure