ID: 86-1.32

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/12/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Jack H. McDaniel, Jr. -- President, Trim Plus

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Jack H. McDaniel, Jr. President Trim Plus P.O. Box 490811 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33349

This is in reply to your letters of November 18, 1985, and January 9, 1986, to the former Chief Counsel of this agency, Jeffrey Miller, asking questions about the relationship of the center high-mounted stop lamp provisions of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 to the installation of deck-mounted luggage racks.

You have stated that you install accessories on new motor vehicles before their delivery by their dealers. You have asked whether deck-mounted racks that have cross bars violate the safety standards? It is not possible to give a definitive answer. When a passenger car leaves the factory, its center high-mounted stop lamp must meet certain specified minimum design photometrics at certain test points, and be installed so that it has a signal visible to the rear through a horizontal angle from 45 degrees to the left to 45 degrees to the right of the longitudinal axis of the vehicle. It must continue to meet these requirements at the time of delivery to the first purchaser, even if a deck rack has been installed. If the rack prevents the lamp from meeting its photometric output at any test point, the standard does allow a supplementary center high-mounted stop lamp to be added, provided that it meets all applicable photometrics. If no such lamp is added, and the rack affects the photometric compliance of the lamp, we would view the installer (if a manufacturer, distributor, dealer of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, or a motor vehicle repair business) as a possible violator of 15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A) which forbids those commercial entities from rendering partially inoperative equipment that is installed in accordance with a Federal safety standard.

You have also asked whether a deck-mounted rack loaded with luggage would cause a violation. The answer is no; compliance with Standard No. 108 is determined without luggage in place, even if the lamp would be blocked when the rack is in use.

I hope that this answers your questions.

Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones

Chief Counsel

January 9, 1986

Mr. Jeffrey R. Miller Chief Councel U. S. Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Mr. Miller:

Mine is a company specializing in the sales and installation of automotive trim accessories with a clientele essentially being the franchised dealers of new American made automobiles.

Recently there has been some confusion among myself customers, and colleagues regarding one of the new motor vehicle safety standards which, I understand, is number 108 involving the center high-mounted stop lamp. Since one of the specialties of my company is the installation of rear deck-mounted luggage racks on new cars, I was wondering if you would give me some information as to how the new safety standards might infect this. Here is what I am particularly concerned about.

1. Would installing a rear deck-mounted luggage rack that has a cross bar on a 1986 automobile for a dealer cause a violation of the center high-mounted stop lamp provision of the new safety standard?

2. It seems to me that on most cars a deck-mounted luggage rack can be positioned so that the center high- mounted stop lamp can still be clearly seen from the rear. Are there any provisions of the new safety standards that I should know about that would help insure prevention a violation?

3. Would a deck-mounted rack loaded with luggage cause a violation?

Mr. Miller, this does make the second of my requests to your department for this information that I have yet to receive. I know how busy you department must be, but please let me hear from you at your earliest convenience. I shall await your reply with great interest, as it will make considerable difference in my sales and operation.

Respectfully, Jack McDaniel, President

November 18, 1985

Mr. Jefferey R. Miller Chief Counsel U.S. Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Mr. Miller:

Ours is a company specializing in the installation of automotive trim accessories. Most of our services are to the franchised dealers of the major automobile makers, installing accessories on their pre-delivered cars.

Recently there has been some confusion among myself and colleagues regarding the new safety standards for 1986 vehicles concerning the center high-mounted stop lamps which, I have been told, is Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. Since some of my orders are for installing deck-mounted luggage racks with cross bars on 1986 vehicles, I wonder if you could give me some information about how the new safety standards might affect this. I will list the things I am particularly concerned about.

1. Will deck-mounted racks that have cross bars violate the new safety standards? It seems to me that many racks can be mounted and positioned so that the high-mounted stop lamp is still clearly visible from the rear. How can we determine if one would cause a violation?

2. Would a deck-mounted rack loaded with luggage cause a violation?

I shall await your answers with great interest, Mr. Miller. Many thanks for any information you can give me. May I please here from you as soon as possible?

Respectfully,

Jack H. McDaniel, Jr. President

ID: 86-1.33

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/12/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Ray August -- Auto Trends

TEXT:

Mr. Ray August Auto Trends 9818 Grinnell Avenue Detroit, Michigan 48213

This is in reply to your letter of December 12, 1985, to Mr. Vinson of this office asking "what is the law pertaining to the new brake light at or by the rear window of the vehicle, and what effect, if any, would it have on After Market trunk racks."

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 requires each passenger car manufactured on or after September 1, 1985, to be equipped with a supplementary stop lamp mounted on the centerline of the vehicle not lower than three inches below the rear window (six inches if it is a convertible). The standard specifies that the lamp shall have a signal visible to the rear through a horizontal angle from 45 degrees to the left to 45 degrees to the right of the longitudinal centerline of the vehicle, and that it shall meet minimum candela values at certain specified test points. Under Federal law, the lamp must meet these requirements at the time the new car is sold. Thus, if the vehicle manufacturer or new car dealer equips a passenger car with a trunk rack, care must be taken to insure that the requirements are still met (obviously this depends both upon the location of the lamp and the configuration of the rack). If the rack prohibits the lamp from meeting its photometric output at any test point, the standard does allow a supplementary center-mounted stop lamp to be added, provided that it complies with all requirements of the standard.

After the sale of the vehicle, the owner may modify his car without reference to Federal law but a dealer, distributor, or motor vehicle repair business cannot make modifications that "render inoperative in whole or in part" any equipment relating to a Federal motor vehicle safety standard. We would view dealer installation of a trunk rack on a used car with an original equipment center stop lamp as subject to this prohibition if the rack affects compliance with photometric and visibility requirements.

The question is frequently asked us whether a deck-mounted rack loaded with luggage would cause a violation. The answer is no: compliance is determined without the load in place, even if the lamp would be blocked when the rack is in use.

I hope that this answers your questions.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones

Chief Counsel

Dec. 12, 1985

Taylor Vinson Legal Consul NHTSA Room 5219 U.S. Dept. of Transportation 400 7th St. S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Subject: New Brake Light - Rear Window

Dear Mr. Vinson:

In my discussion with Mr. Kagy of the U.S. Dept. of Transportation, he recommended I write to you for a legal opinion in this matter.

Auto Trends is a manufacturer of luggage racks, both roof racks and trunk racks. What is the law pertaining to the new brake light at or by the rear window of the vehicle, and what effect, if any, would it have on After Market trunk racks?

Thank you for your assistance in this matter.

Sincerely yours,

Ray August, Plant Manager RA:ks cc:ra

ID: 86-1.34

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/12/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Mr. H. M. Metcalf

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. H. M. Metcalf 2860 Peachtree Road, N.W. Apt. 709 Atlanta, Georgia 30305-4155

Thank you for your letter asking about how our regulations would affect the modification of a vehicle to accomodate a handicapped person. I regret the delay in our response.

You explained that you have had a partial amputation of your left leg and want to have the seat in your car modified to make it easier for you to enter and operate your car. You said that no one will modify your car because of our regulations. You asked if you could obtain a waiver so that you could have a new car modified before its delivery to you. I hope the following discussion, explaining our regulations, will be of assistance to you.

Our agency is authorized to issue Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. Manufacturers must certify that their products conform to our safety standards before they can be offered for sale. If a vehicle is altered prior to its first sale, then the person making the alteration must certify that the vehicle as altered continues to comply with the Federal safety standards.

In the case of a used vehicle, vehicle modifications are affected by section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. That section prohibits commercial businesses from knowingly rendering inoperative any elements of design installed on a vehicle in compliance with a Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard.

While the requirements and prohibitions discussed above apply to the general case, this agency has distinguished the situation where a vehicle must be modified to accommodate the special needs of a handicapped person. In this limited situation, we have been willing to consider any violations a purely technical one justified by public need, and have exercised our discretion not to take any enforcement action. In a case such as yours, I can assure you that the NHTSA would not institute enforcement proceedings against a motor vehicle dealer that modifies a seat to accommodate your condition. Modification of a safety system for legitimate medical reasons is not the type of action that the Vehicle Safety Act sought to prevent.

I suggest you show this letter to your dealer. If you have any further questions, please let me know.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Mr. Jeffery Miller, Chief Council National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 2nd. St. S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Sir,

Two years ago, I had a "below the knee" amputation of my left leg. At that time I attempted to have my car seat modified to make it easier to enter and operate my car. No one would modify the car because of your agency's regulations.

Mr. Thomas Enright provided your name as the contact to obtain a waiver so that a car can be modified. My plans are to buy a new car and I would have it modified before delivery so that the manufacturer's warranty would not be voided.

I believe there are provisions in the regulations that allow a standard car to be modified for a handicapped person . Your assistance in obtaining the necessary information will be appreciated.

Yours truly,

H. M. Metcalf 2860 Peachtree Rd. N.W. Apt. # 709 Atlanta, Georgia 30305-4155

ID: 86-1.37

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/12/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Mr. R. O. Sornson

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. R. O. Sornson Director, Regulatory Research and Analysis Chrysler-Corporation P.O. Box 1919 Detroit, MI 48288

Dear Mr. Sornson:

This responds to your letter to Administrator Steed, asking this agency to "delay" its final selection of the Chrysler LeBaron GTS and Dodge Lancer car lines as "high theft lines" for the purposes of 49 CFR part 541, Federal Motor Vehicle Theft Prevention Standard. Section 603(a)(3) of the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act (15 U.S.C. 2023(a)(3)) requires that all selections of lines initially introduced into commerce before the effective date of Part 541 (April 24, 1986) as high theft lines must be made final within one year after enactment of Title VI of the Cost Savings Act. Neither that statutory requirement nor the implementing regulations adopted by this agency contain any provision that would allow this agency to "delay" its final selection. Accordingly, your request is denied.

In accordance with 15 U.S.C. 2023(a)(3) and 49 CFR Part 542, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) informed Chrysler of its final selection of the LeBaron and Lancer lines as high theft lines by letter dated October 25, 1985. That letter was a final agency action on this question, again in accordance with 15 U.S.C. 2023(a)(3). There is no provision in the law allowing us to "delay" final selections, so there is no basis for entertaining your request.

You stated in your letter that the best test of whether a car line should be treated as a high theft line is its actual theft rate. We agree with that statement. However, it does not address the issue of how to treat car lines, such as your LeBaron GTS and Lancer, for which sufficient theft data are not available.

This agency has been told repeatedly by law enforcement groups that the theft rate for a car in its initial year of introduction is almost always lower than its theft rate in subsequent model years. This is because the vehicle population is relatively small, and experiences a lesser exposure to accidents and other damage than do lines which have been available for more than one model year. Accordingly, lines are less desirable targets for chop shops in their first year of introduction than they become in subsequent model years. Because of this phenomenon, NHTSA did not believe it appropriate to make selections of high theft lines based solely or primarily on preliminary theft data.

Under section 603(a)(3) of the Cost Savings Act, the agency was required to select not later than October 25, 1985, (one year after the date of enactment of Title VI of the Cost Savings Act) the high theft lines from among air lines introduced between January 1, 1983, and the effective date of the theft prevention standard. To meet this statutory deadline, NHTSA published a proposal to establish a new Part 542, Procedures for Selecting Lines to be Covered by the Theft Prevention Standard. at 50 FR 25603. June 20, 1985. Section 542.1 set forth six proposed criteria to be used in selecting likely high theft lines from lines such as the LeBaron GTS and the Lancer, which were introduced after January 1, 1983, and before the effective date of the theft prevention standard. These criteria were:

1. Retail price of the vehicle line.

2. Vehicle image or marketing strategy.

3. Vehicle lines with which the new line is intended to compete, and the theft rates of such lines.

4. Vehicle line(s), if any, which the new line is intended to replace, and the theft rate(s) of such line(s).

5. Presence or absence of any new theft prevention devices or systems. 6. Preliminary theft rate for the line, if it can be determined on the basis of currently available data.

Chrysler's comments on the proposal stated, "We generally concur with the proposed procedures. In our opinion the information which the NHTSA is requesting from manufacturers in order to establish anticipated theft rates for their various car lines appears reasonable." General Motors commented that the agency should adopt some weighting of these criteria, so that the process of selecting a line as a high theft line would be more objectively defined. General Motors specifically commented, "Probably the only criterion which could be used with any degree of certainty in selecting vehicles ... is theft data." In the final rule establishing Part 542, NHTSA responded to this comment as follows:

As noted in the NPRM, these judgments of likely high theft lines are partially subjective judgments. NHTSA concurs with GM's statement that neither price nor vehicle image alone can be strictly correlated to vehicle theft rates. However, NHTSA believes that the six criteria set forth in Appendix C considered together do form an objective basis for predicting if a new line is likely to be a high theft line. 50 FR 34831, at 34834, August 28, 1985.

NHTSA continues to believe that the six criteria form an objective basis for predicting if a new line is likely to be a high theft line. When these criteria were applied to the LeBaron GTS and Lancer lines, we concluded that criterion 1 did not point to the cars being either high or low theft, criteria 2 and 3 indicated the lines would be high theft, criteria 4 and 5 were not applicable, and criterion 6 indicated the cars would be low theft. On balance, then, the criteria indicate the lines will be high theft lines.

Accordingly, even if there were some authority to allow us to delay the October 25 final selections, we would still conclude that the LeBaron GTS and Lancer lines are likely high theft lines.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

November 13, 1985

Ms. Diane K. Steed, Administrator National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, DC 20590

RE: Request for Reconsideration, Final Determination of Car Lines Subject to Part 541

Dear Ms. Steed:

Chrysler Corporation hereby requests the NHTSA to delay its final ruling concerning the theft ratings of the Chrysler LeBaron GTS and the Dodge Lancer relative to Part 541 - Motor Vehicle Theft Prevention Standard. Existing theft data for the first six months of the 1985 calendar year clearly indicate these two car lines should not be on the high theft rate list. Additional theft data will be available soon and we believe the final decision on the theft ratings should be deferred until that data is available.

In keeping with the purpose of the law, the best test or whether a car line should be marked is its theft rate. In determining the theft rate of a car line, we believe it is much more realistic and reasonable to use the actual theft data results for that car line rather than to use subjective criteria such as image and suggested competitive car lines. Actual theft data for the full calendar year 1985 should be available from the NCIC by the middle of January. We propose that this actual theft data be used to determine the theft status of these two car lines.

In order to protect the slim lead time remaining for 1987 models, we shall continue preparations to mark the Chrysler LeBaron GTS and the Dodge Lancer. When the NCIC theft data becomes available in January, we request that the theft rate for these two car lines be recalculated to determine whether they remain below the median theft rate and therefore will not be required to have their parts marked.

Sincerely,

R. O. Sornson RSA/jal

ID: 86-1.38

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/13/86

FROM: JOSEPH A. GIAMPAPA

TO: ERIKA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 09/05/86 EST, TO JOSEPH A GIAMPAPA FROM ERIKA Z. JONES; REDBOOK A29; VSA 108

TEXT: Dear Ms. Jones:

My telephone inquiry to the Office of the General Counsel (Joanne Petrie, Esq.) was referred to Steven Ash, Esq., of your staff. The inquiry concerned whether or not a product one of my clients intends to manufacture might be subject to federal regulation. The subject device is an Auto Body Gauge for use by auto body specialists when performing repairs, and is not equipment actually used inside a vehicle. A copy of the patent covering this item is enclosed herewith for explanatory purposes.

I hereby request a formal opinion as to whether or not said device is subject to NHTSA regulations. I would also appreciate your passing on information about any other regulations you might know of which such a device might be subject to.

Meanwhile, let me thank you, in advance, for your time and careful attention to this matter. If I can be of further assistance in this inquiry, please do not hesitate to contact me.

ENCLOSURE OMITTED

ID: 86-1.39

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/17/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Ralph Trimarchi -- President, Trimco International Sales

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

ATTACHMT: 3/1/86 (EST) letter from Erika Z. Jones to Dipl.-Ing F. Vapenicek (Nova Hut Klementa Gottwalda)

TEXT:

Mr. Ralph Trimarchi President Trimco International Sales P.O. Box 322 Flushing, NY 11358

This responds to your letter seeking information about the Federal requirements applicable to automotive wheels that are to be imported into the United States. There are two Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards that apply to wheel rims, one for rims for passenger cars and the other for rims for other types of motor vehicles. It is not clear whether your reference to "automotive wheels" is limited to passenger car wheels, so I have included a discussion of the requirements for both types of wheels. None of our standards set requirements for the parts of the wheel assembly other than the rim.

The two potentially applicable standards are No. 110, Tire selection and rims - passenger cars, and No. 120, Tire selection and rims for motor vehicles other than passenger cars. I have enclosed copies of both standards, along with Standards No. 109 and No. 119, which are applicable to tires and are referenced in the rim standards. For those passenger car rims you wish to import, section S4.4 of Standard No. 110 specifies two requirements. First, the rim must be constructed to the dimensions of one of the rims that is listed under the definition of a test rim in Standard No. 109. This means that the rim must comply with the dimensional specifications shown for that rim size in the current publications of specified standardization organizations, such as the Tire & Rim Association or the European Tyre and Rim Technical Organisation. Second, in the event of a rapid loss of inflation pressure with the vehicle travelling in a straight line at 60 miles per hour, the rim must retain the deflated tire until the vehicle can be stopped with a controlled braking application.

For those rims you import for use on vehicles other than passenger cars, Standard No. 120 also specifies two requirements. The first requirement, set forth in section S5.1.1, is that the rims on a vehicle must correspond with the size tire on the vehicle, i.e., be listed as suitable by the tire manufacturer, pursuant to either Standard No. 109 or No. 119. This would be done in the publications of the standardization organizations, as explained above. This requirement is the responsibility of any vehicle manufacturer that uses your rims as original equipment, since only it would know what size tires will be installed on the vehicle. The second requirement, set forth in section S5.2, is that the rim be marked by the rim manufacturer with five specified items of information. These are:

1. A specified designation indicating the source of the rim's published nominal dimensions:

2. The rim's size designation and, in the case of multipiece rims, the rim type designation;

3. The symbol DOT, which constitutes a certification by the rim manufacturer that the rim complies with the applicable requirements of the safety standards:

4. A designation identifying the rim manufacturer by name, trademark or symbol; and

5. The month and year in which the rim was manufactured.

You stated that you wanted to learn if the rims were subject to any tests by the Department of Transportation. The United States does not use a certification process similar to the European countries, in which the manufacturer delivers the rims to be certified to a governmental entity, and that entity tests the rims to determine if they can be certified as complying with the applicable standards. Instead, in the United States, the individual rim manufacturer must certify that its rims comply with comply with all applicable standards. The certification need not be based on actual tests: the only requirement is that the manufacturer exercise due care in making the certification. Obviously, with respect to the requirements for rims, a manufacturer as defined below is not expected to test if the rims have the necessary markings and if the rim size is listed in one of the standardization organization publications.

You should also be aware of the fact that section 102(5) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1391(5)) treats both the actual manufacturer and the importer of a wheel as its manufacturer. If either the manufacturer or this agency determines that the imported rims do not comply with the requirements of the above-described safety standards or determine that the rims contain a defect related to motor vehicle safety, the manufacturer would be required to remedy the defect or noncompliance. Section 154 (a)(2)(B) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1414(a)(2)(B)) specifies that, if the rims fail to comply within applicable safety standard or contain a safety related defect, the manufacturer must notify purchasers of the safety-related defect or noncompliance and must either:

1. repair the rim so that the defect or noncompliance is removed, or

2. replace the rim with an identical or reasonably equivalent rim that does not have a defect or noncompliance.

Whichever of these options is chosen, the rim manufacturer must bear the full expense and cannot charge the rim owner for the remedy if the rim was first purchased less than 8 years before the notification campaign.

In the event that neither the importer nor the actual manufacturer satisfied an obligation imposed on a "manufacturer" by the Act or our regulations, the agency would consider taking enforcement action against both parties. Any such obligation, however, may be completely satisfied by either party.

Additionally, I am enclosing copies of two procedural rules which apply to all parties subject to the regulations of this agency. The first is 49 CFR Part 566, Manufacturer Identification. This requires either the actual manufacturer of the rims or your company as the importer to submit your name, address, and a brief description of the items of equipment you manufacture to the agency within 30 days of the date these wheels arrive in the United States.

The other regulation is 49 CFR Part 551, Procedural Rules. This regulation requires the actual manufacturer of these rims to designate a permanent resident of the United States as the manufacturer's agent for service of process in this country. Your company may be designated as the agent, if the manufacturer so chooses. 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 manufacturer under the laws, corporate by-laws, or other requirements governing the making of the designation at the time and place where it is made:

2. The full legal name, principal place of business, and mailing address of the manufacturer;

3. Marks, trade names, or other designations of origin of any of the manufacturer's wheels and rims that do not bear its name:

4. A statement that the designation shall remain in effect until withdrawn or replaced by the manufacturer:

5. A declaration of acceptance duly signed by the agent appointed by the manufacturer, and that agent may be an individual, firm, or U.S. corporation: and

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

This designation must be received by this agency before these wheels and rims are imported into the United States.

If you need further information, or a clarification of any of the information set forth herein, please contact Steve Kratzke of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 426-2992.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones

Chief Counsel

Enclosures

11/6/85 Office of Cheif Council National Highway Traffic Safety Adm. 400 7th. St. S.W. Washington, 20590

Dear sir,

I own an import/export company in New York and I am planning on importing automotive wheels from Italy. With regards to this, I would like to know if these wheels are subject to any applicable laws or tests by the Dept. of Transportation. If so, please direct me as to the steps involved if not, send a letter stating such.

Thanking you in advance, I remain,

Sincerly yours,

Mr. Ralph Trimarchi

President

RT/c

ID: 86-1.4

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 01/03/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Mr. R. C. Attwood

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. R. C. Attwood ASE (UK) Ltd. Norfolk Street Carlisle, Cumbria ENGLAND CA2 5HX

Dear Mr. Attwood:

Thank you for your letter of October 8, 1985, concerning the safety belt: anchorage requirements of Standard No. 210, Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages. You asked a question about the anchorage requirements that would apply to a two point automatic safety belt, which has a separate manual lap belt. You asked if it is permissible for the two anchorages of the automatic belt and the two anchorages of the manual lap belt to be located outside of the zones specified in Standard No. 210, if three additional anchorages are located within Standard No. 210's zones. As explained below, the design you described would be permissible, assuming that you are voluntarily providing the manual lap belt.

Section S4.1.1 of the standard requires anchorages for a Type 2 safety belt to be provided at each front outboard seating position. Sections S4.3.1 and S4.3.2 set out the location requirements for Type 2 belts. However, S4.3 provides that the anchorages for automatic restraints which meet the frontal crash protection requirements of Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, do not have to meet the location requirements of the standard.

In interpreting the location requirement, the agency has said that all of the anchorages for an automatic belt may be located outside of the zones specified in Standard No. 210, as long as there are the three anchorages for a Type 2 safety belt located within the zone. Since your design for the automatic belt would provide three anchorages within the required zone, it would be permissible as long as the anchorages meet the strength requirements of the standard.

If you are voluntarily providing the manual lap belt, then its anchorages would not have to comply with Standard No. 210 as long as the use of the lap belt would not degrade the ability of the automatic lap belt to comply with Standard No. 208. However, if you are providing the lap belt to comply with the requirements of S4.1.2.1(c) of Standard No. 208, then the lap belt would have to have anchorages complying with Standard No. 210.

I hope this information is of assistance. If you need further information please let me know.

Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Our Ref: RCA/EC 8th October, 1985

The Chief Counsel U.S. Dept. of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington D.C. 20590 U.S.A.

Dear Sir,

FMVSS 208 a Seat Belt Anchorages

We seek your assistance in resolving a query about the location and number of anchorages in a passenger vehicle fitted with a two point automatic seat belt (passive restraint), and an active lap belt.

We wish to know if it is permissible for both anchorages of the two point automatic belt and both anchorages of the active lap belt to be situated outside the zones stipulated in FMVSS 210 on condition that three additional anchorages are provided in the zones specified in FMVSS 210.

Your early response to our questions will be very much appreciated.

Yours faithfully, R. C. Attwood Quality Assurance Director

ID: 86-1.40

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/21/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Dean Hansell, Esq.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Dean Hansell, Esq. Messrs. Donovan Leisure Newton & Irvine 555 South Flower Street Los Angeles. California 90071

Dear Mr. Hansell:

This is in reply to your letter of January 14, 1986, asking whether Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 permits headlamps to be nonrectangular.

Standard No. 108 prescribes dimensions only for sealed beam headlamps, in accordance with the terms of the standard and the materials of the Society of Automotive Engineers incorporated by reference. Under these requirements, sealed beam headlamps must be either circular or rectangular according to either the diameters or length/width dimensions specified.

In 1983 Standard No. 108 was amended to allow additional headlighting systems (see paragraph 54.1.1.36) incorporating a replaceable light source with an "0" ring seal. Dimensions are prescribed for this light source. With this type of system, the emphasis on standardization of lighting equipment shifts from size and shape of the unit to the light source itself. This allows the headlamp designer freedom to choose the headlamp size and shape most acceptable to his client within the constraints of the standardized replaceable light source and the photometric requirements of the standard which are essentially the same for all headlamps. Further, such headlamps must be capable of mechanical aim just like sealed beam units.

I hope that this answers your question.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

January 14, 1986

Erika Z. Jones, Esq. Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 4000 Seventh Street, S.W. Room 5219 Washington, D.C. 20590

Re: FMVSS 108 - Request for Interpretation

Dear Ms. Jones:

We seek the Agency's interpretation concerning FMVSS 108 (Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment). Our question is whether headlamps can be nonrectangular.

We find nothing in FMVSS 108 mandating a specific shape for a headlamp. However, the illustrations in FMVSS 108 (for example, figures 11 and 12) all show rectangular headlamps. Although this is presumably due to the fact that only rectangular headlamps were available at the time the regulations were initially written, it did raise a question whether some intention to limit the shape of headlamps was being indicated. In any case, it is now our understanding that in connection with the rewriting of FMVSS 108, the size and shape of headlamps has been "deregulated".

We do understand that, if an alternate shaped headlamp is used, the beam pattern and photometric output specifications of FMVSS 108 must be followed and the headlamp must be capable of being used with a standardized universal adapter (or have an "O" ring).

Thank you for your assistance on this matter.

Yours truly,

Dean Hansell

DH:l

cc: Jere Medlin Crash Avoidance Division

ID: 86-1.41

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/21/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Yoshikazu Ito

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Yoshikazu Ito Manager, Operations Sect. Overseas Operations Dept. Tokai Rika Co. Ltd. Oguchi-cho Aichi Pref. 480-01 JAPAN

Dear Mr. Ito:

This is in reply to your letter of November 29. 1985, to Jeffrey R. Miller, former chief counsel of this agency, with reference to the acceptability of a headlamp switch under Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. According to you, "upper and lower lamps light at the same time when a driver puts on the switch for headlamp horn in a daytime with light switch OFF...."

You have asked whether the circuit complies with Standard No. 108 and any SAE standards referenced in Standard No. 108. Standard No. 108 does not specify circuit design. The "optical horn" is neither required nor prohibited by Standard No. 108 and is viewed as permissible for its use for momentary signalling purposes. This would include simultaneous activation of both upper and lower beam filaments as in your design.

I believe that this uppers your other questions as well.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

November 29, 1985

Mr. Jeffrey R. Miller Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration US Department of Transportation 400 Seventh Street. S.W. Washington. D.C. 20590 U.S.A.

Re: Head Lamp Switch Circuit

Dear Sir:

We are automotive switch manufacturer in Japan and are making prototype of a head lamp switch for our customer's new car model for U.S.A. which has a circuit by which upper and lower lamps light at the same time when a driver puts on the switch for head lamp horn in a daytime with light switch OFF (please see an attached sheet). To our experience, the circuit has never been designed for cars which are to be marketed in U.S.A.

Would you like to answer the following questions?

1. Does the above-mentioned circuit comply with requirements of FMVSS and the concerned standards (SAE?) referred in FMVSSS:

2. What provision(s) of FMVSS and the standards involve this matter?

3. What are interpretation of the FMVSS and the standards provision(s)?

We really appreciate it if you could kindly send us your answers by December 27, 1985. Your kind assistances have been useful for us all the time.

Thank you for your assistance in advance.

Faithfully yours,

TOKAI RIKA CO., LTD.

Yoshikazu Ito, Manager Technical Operations Sect. Overseas Operations Dept.

ID: 86-1.42

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/21/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Mr. M. Hayashibara

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. M. Hayashibara Managing Director Certification Business Division Mazda (North America), Inc. 24402 Sinacola Court Farmington Hills, MI 48018

Dear Mr. Hayashibara:

This responds to your letter seeking an interpretation of certain terms used in Standard No. 110, Tire selection and rims -passenger cars (49 CFR S571.110). Specifically. you asked about the definitions of the terms "curb weight", "accessory weight", and "production options weight". These terms are defined in Standard No. 110 as follows.

The "curb weight" of a vehicle is calculated by adding the weight of the vehicle with all of its standard equipment, including its maximum capacity of fuel, oil, and coolant to the weights of two optional items of equipment, if the vehicle is equipped with these optional items. The items whose weight is included in calculating the curb height, if present on the vehicle, are air conditioning and the additional weight of an optional engine. No other optional items are included in calculating a vehicle's curb weight, even if the vehicle is equipped with such options.

The "accessory weight" of a vehicle means the combined weight (in excess of the weight of the standard equipment items that may be replaced) of automatic transmission, power steering, power brakes, power windows, power seats, radio, and heater to the extent that these items are available as factory-installed options on that vehicle, regardless of whether these options are actually present on the vehicle in question. No other items of optional equipment are included in calculating the accessory weight, even if the vehicle is equipped with such options.

The "production options weight" means the combined weight of all items of optional equipment that meet all of the following criteria:

(1) The weight of the item of optional equipment is more than five pounds greater than the weight of the item of standard equipment that it replaces:

(2) The optional equipment is present on the vehicle in question: and

(3) The weight of the optional equipment has not previously been considered in either the curb weight or the accessory weight.

Section 53 of Standard No. 110 lists the following examples of items of optional equipment whose weight might be considered when calculating the production options weight: heavy duty brakes, ride levelers, roof rack, heavy duty battery, and special trim, However, any item of optional equipment that meets the three criteria listed above would be included in calculating the production options weight, even if that item were not listed in the examples. Therefore, Mazda's understanding is correct that the weight of four-wheel drive components, aerodynamic accessories, special body styling panels, and sunroofs ace included when calculating the production options weight.

If you have any further questions on this subject or need more information, please contact Steve Kratzke of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 426-2992.

Sincerely,

Original Signed By

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

November 21, 1985

Ms. Erika Jones Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

RE: Request for Interpretation - Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 110 - Tire Selection and Rims

Dear Ms. Jones,

Mazda requests clarification and verification of selected terms that appear in FMVSS 110. Tire Selection and Rims. These relate to the definition of the various weight classifications and the inclusion of the items that compose and differentiate them.

In FMVSS 110.3, the terms "accessory weight", "curb weight", "vehicle capacity weight" and "production options weight are defined and used to classify various vehicle configuration weights. These vehicle configuration weights, the "vehicle maximum load on the tire" and the "vehicle normal load on the tire" are then applied to the load capacities of the tire selected for that vehicle to insure adequate performance of the tire under foreseeable vehicle operating conditions. The principle areas of difference between the two are: specified cargo weight, luggage weight, difference in occupant weight dependent on the difference in the total number of designated seating positions and the number of seating positions cited in Table I, and production options weight.

Mazda's central area of interest in these definitions lies in the components that must be included in the "curb weight", "accessory weight" and the "production options weight". It is Mazda's understanding that the components listed in the definition of "curb weight" and "accessory weight" are limited to only those components actually specified,,such as standard equipment, heavier optional engines, automatic transmissions, power steering, power brakes, etc.; and no additional components. Conversely. the "production options weight" definition is understood to contain only a partial listing of the many different components, excluding only those specifically referenced in the "curb weight" and "accessory weight", that may be installed on a vehicle. Some examples of components not referenced that may, by means of Mazda's current understanding of the definitions, be included in the "production options weight" are: four wheel drive components, aerodynamic accessories, special body styling panels, and sunroofs.

Please review our understanding of these terms and verify that they are accurate. Also, please comment on any factors that have not been discussed that may influence the determinations of the Agency and the application by manufacturers of these definitions.

Thank you for your consideration of this matter.

Sincerely,

M. Hayashibara Managing Director Certification Business Division