ID: aiam4071

Dear Mr. Black: This responds to your letter to Mr. Barry Felrice, our Associat Administrator for Rulemaking, requesting an interpretation of Part 541, *Federal Motor Vehicle Theft Prevention Standard*. You stated that you plan to begin production of a 1987 carline in March 1986. This particular carline has been selected as one that will be subject to the requirements of Part 541. However, Part 541 does not become effective until April 24, 1986. You stated your belief that the introduction of the 1987 vehicles in that carline before the effective date of Part 541 means that none of the 1987 vehicles in that carline will be required to comply with Part 541, but that the 1988 vehicles would be required to comply. Your belief is essentially correct.; As you noted, the effective date for Part 541 is April 24, 1986. Thi effective date means that Part 541 applies to all selected carlines beginning with the 1987 model year. However, the legislative history for Title VI of the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act (15 U.S.C. 2021 *et seq*.), which Title requires that Part 541 be promulgated, expressly states: 'The theft prevention standard cannot apply to a car in the middle of the model year.' H.R. Rep. No. 1087, 98th Cong., 2d Sess. at 11 (1984).; For the purposes of Title VI of the Cost Savings Act, NHTSA believe that the model year for a carline begins on the day on which a vehicle in that carline is introduced into commerce in the United States. In your case, since these cares are manufactured outside of the United States, the start of production does *not* constitute an introduction into commerce in the United States. The cars would be considered to be introduced into commerce in the United States when the first vehicle is *imported* into the customs territory of the United States.; Assuming that one of the 1987 vehicles in this carline is imported, an thus introduced into commerce, before April 24, 1986 (the effective date for Part 541), the 1987 model year for that carline would have begun prior to the effective date of the theft prevention standard. Obviously, the requirements of any standard do not apply before the effective date. Given the clear expression of Congressional intent that this theft prevention standard cannot apply to a carline in the middle of its model year, NHTSA concludes that a 1987 model year version of a carline introduced into commerce before the effective date of the theft prevention standard is not subject to the requirements of the theft prevention standard for the 1987 model year. It would, of course, be subject to the requirements for the 1988 model year.; If you have any further questions or need more information on thi subject, please do not hesitate to contact me.; Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam4730

"Dear Mr. Dahl: This responds to your letter seeking an interpretatio of 49 CFR 574, Tire Identification and Recordkeeping. Specifically, you asked whether an additional symbol, which is intended to identify more precisely the year of manufacturer, is permitted to be included in the tire identification number. As explained below, the answer is yes. The purpose of the tire identification 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. Section 574.5 requires that each tire be marked with the tire identification number. In particular, it requires that the fourth grouping contain three numerals of which the first two identify the week of the year and the third numeral identifies the year of manufacture. You believe that this requirement may lead to confusion because the third numeral, e.g. '9', could refer to more than one year, e.g., 1979 or 1989. Accordingly, you state that your company would like to be able to distinguish the year of manufacture in an interval longer than one decade. To do this, you would like to add a symbol immediately following the fourth grouping of the tire identification number to identify that this tire was produced in the decade 1990 through 1999. Standard No. 109, New pneumatic tires (49 CFR 571.109) and Standard No. 119, New pneumatic tires for vehicles other than passenger cars (49 CFR 571.119) together with Part 574 require that certain information be labeled on the sidewalls of each tire subject to the standards. In a May 31, 1988 letter to Mr. Garry Gallagher of Metzeler Motorcycle Tire (copy attached), the agency explained that The agency has frequently stated in past interpretations that the purpose of these labeling requirements is to provide the consumer, in a clear and straightforward manner, with technical information necessary for the safe use of the tires. These standards permit tire manufacturers to label additional information on the sidewall on the tires, provided that the additional information does not obscure or confuse the meaning of the required information, or otherwise defeat its purpose. Applying this standard to the question you have asked, we believe that the additional symbol, an isosceles right triangle, is not prohibited from appearing on the sidewall of your company's tires. As explained above, the labeling requirements are intended to provide information about the tire, including the year of manufacture, in a clear and straightforward manner. Because the suggested symbol does not appear to introduce additional information that might obscure or confuse the meaning of the required information or otherwise defeat its purpose, the agency has determined that marking a tire with an isosceles right triangle after the tire identification code is not prohibited. Sincerely, Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel";

ID: aiam5265

"Dear Mr. Hachiya: This responds to your letter of October 12, 1993 asking several questions concerning the labeling requirements of the recent final rule mandating the installation of air bags in passenger cars and light trucks (58 FR 46551, September 2, 1993). Your questions concern the labeling requirements in this final rule. As you may know, NHTSA has received two petitions for reconsideration of the September 2 final rule. The petitions raise issues concerning the labeling requirements. We will address your first, second, and fourth questions in the notice responding to the petitions for reconsideration. Your other questions and the response to each follow. The mandatory air bag rule establishes type size and format requirements for the air bag maintenance label (section 4.5.1(a)), but no similar requirements for the air bag warning label in section 4.5.1(b). Are we correct in understanding that the lettering of the warning label may be of any size or format, so long as the letters are legible? May different type size and formats be used if the two labels are combined? You are correct that there are not any size requirements for the air bag warning label. Therefore, so long as the information on the label is legible, the lettering may be of any size. It is unclear what you mean by format, but the warning label must contain the exact words, in the exact order, as specified in section 4.5.1(b). The issue of combining warning and maintenance labels will be addressed in the notice responding to the petitions for reconsideration. It is our understanding that warning labels that do not refer to air bags or seat belts may continue to be placed on the side of the sun visor opposite from the air bag warning label. Nissan currently places a label on the sun visor of a convertible model which provides instructions regarding the use of the convertible top. May this type of label continue to be placed on the sun visor, so long as it is on the side of the visor opposite from the air bag warning label? Section S4.5.1(b)(2) specifies (1) that no other information shall be on the same side of the sun visor as the air bag warning label, and (2) that no other information concerning air bags or seat belts shall appear anywhere on the sun visor. Therefore, you are correct that information concerning the operation of a convertible top could be placed on the side of the sun visor opposite the side with the air bag warning label. I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Mary Versailles of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel";

ID: aiam2001

Dear Mr. Hatch: This is in response to your letter of July 14, 1975, asking whethe recycled replacement bumpers must comply with the requirements of Standard No. 215, *Exterior Protection*, and which States have bumper requirements that exceed the level of performance mandated by the Federal standard.; Standard No. 215 is a motor vehicle safety standard that applies to th performance of bumper systems on cars manufactured after certain dates. The requirements of the standard are not imposed on the manufacturers of the bumper as an item of motor vehicle equipment. It is the manufacturer of the car who must certify the compliance of the bumper system with the provisions of Standard 215. Therefore, the sale of a bumper, as an item of replacement equipment, does not fall within the application of the standard.; Section 108 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Pub L. 89-563), as amended (Pub. L. 93-492), prohibits any manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business from knowingly rendering inoperative any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with a safety standard. Thus, even though a recycled bumper is not required to meet the requirements of Standard 215 when it is produced or sold, its installation on a car by one of the above-named persons would invoke the application of section 108 of the Act. As long as a vehicle complies either with the particular safety standard in effect at the time of its manufacture or with the standard in effect at the time the system in question is replaced or altered, no violation of section 108 would have occurred.; The Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act of 1972 (Pub. L 92-513) directs the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to promulgate a Federal bumper standard that will achieve the maximum feasible reduction in costs to consumers who are involved in low speed collisions. Currently, several States have bumper standards that are geared toward the same type of cost reduction. According to section 110 of the Cost Savings Act, States with cost-reduction standards (applying to non-safety-related damage) that were in effect or promulgated by the date of the Act's issuance (October 20, 1972) can retain those standards, to the extent they do not conflict with Standard No. 215, until a Federal cost-reduction bumper standard takes effect. Once the NHTSA enacts such a Federal bumper standard, those bumper standards which are not identical will be preempted.; As far as we know, the only States which currently have bumpe standards imposing requirements different from those contained in Standard 215 are California, Florida, and Georgia.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel

ID: aiam5605

FAX: 512-476-2179 Dear Ms. Coffey: This responds to your letter askin whether a dealer would violate Federal law by disconnecting a malfunctioning motor in an automatic seat belt system of a 1990 model vehicle. You state, 'a consumer has brought their vehicle to a dealership with an automatic seat belt in which the motor on the automatic seat belt continues to run. This continuous running of the seat belt motor causes the battery on the vehicle to run down, rendering the vehicle inoperable.' In a telephone conversation with Edward Glancy of this office, you indicated that the automatic seat belt is stuck in one position. The consumer has requested that the dealership disconnect the motor in lieu of repairing it. You also stated that, in the event of such disconnection, the seat belt may still be connected manually. As discussed below, it is our opinion that, under the facts stated above, a dealer would not violate Federal law by disconnecting the malfunctioning motor. By way of background information, Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, required 1990 model cars to be equipped with automatic crash protection at the front outboard seating positions. Automatic seat belts were one means of complying with that requirement. Federal law (49 U.S.C. 30122, formerly section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act) provides that: A manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business may not knowingly make inoperative any part of a device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable motor vehicle safety standard . . . It is our opinion that this requirement does not prohibit a dealer from disconnecting a malfunctioning seat belt motor in the factual situation described above. Since the seat belt motor would already be inoperative when the vehicle was brought to the dealer, we would not consider the subsequent disconnection of the motor as making it inoperative. I note, however, that in servicing the vehicle, the dealer must not make another part of the vehicle or element of design inoperative with respect to the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. While Federal law does not require dealers or owners to repair a malfunctioning seat belt motor, NHTSA strongly urges such repair, so that the vehicle continues to provide maximum safety protection. We also note that dealers and owners may be affected by State laws in this area, including ones for vehicle inspection and tort law. In closing, we suggest that the dealer urge the consumer to contact NHTSA's toll-free Auto Safety Hotline about this problem, at 800-424-9393. The agency uses this type of information in performing its safety mission. I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please contact Mr. Glancy of my staff at (202)366-2992. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel;

ID: nht90-3.50

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: August 7, 1990

FROM: William T. Mullen -- Undersheriff of McHenry County

TO: Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: Re NCC--01

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 9-17-90 from PJ. Rice to W.T. Mullen (A36; Std. 208); Also attached to letter dated 5-25-90 from S.P. Wood to H. Reid; Also attached to letter dated 7-29-85 from J.R. Miller to F. Browne (Std. 208)

TEXT:

We are having serious problems with the 13, 1990 Chevrolet Caprice Squad cars, that we purchased in January 1990.

First: Our officers are experiencing difficulties with the shoulder harnesses, which is very serious. The shoulder harnesses causes a blind spot on the drivers left side, where the strap is connected to the door. There is a definite deficiency with vis ual surveillance.

Second: The shoulder harnesses also prevents left arm movements of our taller officers.

We now have 10, 1989 Chevrolet Caprice Squad cars and have not experienced any problems with the shoulder harnesses.

Would it be permissable to install 1989 style shoulder harnesses and lap belts in our 1990 models. If this is acceptable, please notify us in writing as soon as possible, so we may correct these problems.

Thank you for your time and concern.

ID: 07-005545as

ID: nht73-4.50

DATE: 08/28/73

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; James B. Gregory; NHTSA

TO: Meteor Works

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: In your letter of July 5, 1973, you express two concerns about the treatment of multipurpose passenger vehicles under the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act.

Your first concern is that the standards to be issued under the act will apply to all passenger motor vehicles, and will include multipurpose passenger vehicles unless the agency expressly exempts them. As we stated in the notice of proposed rulemaking on the new bumper standard, we are proposing to exempt multipurpose passenger vehicles from the initial standard. The continuance of this exemption depends on a variety of considerations, and we would appreciate the benefit of your views on the subject.

Your second concern is that the definition of "multipurpose passenger vehicle" in the safety standards (49 CFR 571.3(b)) differs from the definition of the same term in the Cost Savings Act. Although the definitions are fundamentally similar, the safety standards definition limits the MPV category to vehicles designed to carry 10 persons or less, while the Cost Savings Act definition includes somewhat larger vehicles, up to a capacity of 12 persons. We do not foresee any problems as a result of this difference, but if problems arise, it would be possible through rulemaking to restrict the applicability of a cost savings standard to MPV's having a capacity of 10 persons.

ENC.

The Administrator National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

5 Jul 1973

Rover British Leyland UK Ltd manufacturers the Land Rover multi-purpose passenger vehicle which is sold in the United States by British Leyland Motors Inc., 600 Willow Tree Road, Leonia, New Jersey.

The Land Rover is designed to operate on and off road and to carry special equipment and is therefore incapable of meeting some of the requirements of passenger cars, for example bumper heights, without impairment of its special performance capabilities. This fact is recognised in the differential application of the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards to passenger cars and multi-purpose passenger vehicles. We wish to ensure that a clear distinction between these two classes of vehicle is made and continue to be made and for this reason we are concerned that the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act adopts a different definition for multi-purpose passenger vehicle from that adopted in Part 371 of the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards.

We quote from the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act "(1) The term "passenger motor vehicle" means a motor vehicle with motive power, designed for carrying twelve persons or less, except (A) a motorcycle or (B) a truck not designed primarily to carry its operator or passengers.

(2) The term "multipurpose passenger vehicle" means a passenger motor vehicle which is constructed either on a truck chassis or with special features for occasional off-road operation."

and from the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards "Passenger car" means a motor vehicle with motive power, except a multipurpose passenger vehicle, motorcycle, or trailer designed for carrying 10 persons or less."

"Multipurpose passenger vehicle" means a motor vehicle with power, except a trailer, designed to carry 10 persons or less which is constructed either on a truck chassis or with special features for occasional off-road operation."

It is obvious that the two definitions are different although the vehicles to be defined are the same.

Our concern is that the term "multi-purpose passenger vehicle" in the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act is embraced by the term "passenger motor vehicle". Thus any requirements written under this Act for a "passenger motor vehicle" apply automatically to a "multi-purpose passenger vehicle" unless the latter is specifically exempted. Such exemption is expected to be necessary in consequence of the different purpose for which the vehicles are designed.

Secondly the Seating capacity used in the definitions is 12 persons or less in the case of the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act and 10 persons or less in the case of the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards.

The most satisfactory solution would be for the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act to adopt the definitions of "Multi-purpose Passenger Vehicle" and "Passenger Car" of Part 371 of the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards, if however such an administrative solution is not possible perhaps NHTSA would consider seeking a technical amendment to work this out.

We would be pleased to receive your comments on this proposal and particularly if we have to take any further action to request such an amendment or how the different definitions will be interpreted.

C J GOODE SAFETY CO-ORDINATOR (PASSENGER CARS)

ID: nht90-1.33

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: FEBRUARY 1, 1990

FROM: HERBERT E. STOEL

TO: JOHN WOMACK -- DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 4-8-90 TO HERBERT E. STOEL FROM STEPHEN P. WOOD; (A35; STD. 108). ALSO ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 12-30-87 TO KEN SIKKEMA FROM HERBERT E. STOEL. TEXT:

For quite some time, I have been deeply concerned about the need for greater safety on our highways. Back in August 1971, I gave a letter to former President Gerald R. Ford who was then a United States Congressman, stating the need for a change in the t aillights on all cars and trucks. The change would be green taillights and red stoplights. RED should mean only one thing, STOP.

Then on December 30, 1987, I gave a letter to Michigan State Representative Mr. Ken Sikkema (see letter enclosed), and now I feel inclined to bring this matter to your attention, because you have the authority to act on it. We have a law demanding the u se of seat belts or air bags on all cars, but it is more important to go even further and get to the origin of the problem. (A better warning of impending danger up front.)

So if we had Green taillights and Red stoplights, it would carry out the same system as our traffic lights, thus the idea would be received without confusion.

May it be found in your good pleasure and authority to enact this change before Japan or some other foreign nation forces us into it.

Enclosure

ID: nht91-1.14

DATE: January 5, 1991

FROM: Chris Lawrence -- Chang & Lawrence

TO: August L. Burgett -- Safety Standards Engineer, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 3-21-91 from Paul Jackson Rice to Chris Lawrence (A37; Std. 108; VSA 108(a)); Also attached to letter dated 8-17-89 from Stephen P. Wood to Alan S. Eldahr (VSA 108(a)(2)(A))

TEXT:

I got your name from Mr. Patrick Maguire, Director of the Minnesota Trade Office in Taiwan. He said you might be able to answer questions I have concerning safety regulations for automobiles in the United States.

I am considering producing a new product, an electronic sign board for cars, that would display messages on the outside of the vehicle. The driver would select one of several pre-programmed messages by voice command; a voice recognition unit on the sign board would interpret the command and initiate display of the appropriate pre-programmed message. A voice output unit would confirm that the right message was selected by announcing the fact on a voice output unit.

My questions concern safety regulations that would restrict the use of lights to form messages on the outside of cars or from a window. The "Federal Register" (Standard 108 of Part 571 of Chapter 49) explains what lamps are specifically required on motor vehicles, and states that additional lamps that impair the effectiveness of the required lamps are prohibited. What is meant by "impairing the effectiveness of the required lamps"? And are there restrictions about what can be mounted in a window of a vehicle? Your assistance is greatly appreciated.