ID: 7842

Mr. Fredd Scheys
President
S.C.C. CARAT Inc.
109 Maple Avenue
Huntsville, AL 35801

Dear Mr. Scheys:

This responds to your letter of October 2, 1992, asking for an explanation of how this agency's regulations would affect two types of vehicle conversions your company plans to undertake.

In the first situation, a customer in California wishes to send two "U.S. spec" cars that he presently owns to Europe for a 39-inch stretch conversion. In the second situation, the customer would take delivery of a "U.S. spec car" in Europe, use it for tourist purposes, and leave it at your factory for conversion, and subsequent shipment to the United States. You also ask for "advice for the case where we have to convert a car into an armoured car." I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our laws and regulations for you.

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Safety Act) provides generally that no person shall manufacture, sell, or import into the United States any motor vehicle unless that vehicle is in conformity with all applicable U.S. motor vehicle safety standards and is covered by a manufacturer's certification to that effect. The certification requirements are set forth in 49 Code of Federal Regulations, Part 567. The certification requirements apply to persons and entities that perform some manufacturing or conversion activities to a vehicle before that vehicle's first sale for purposes other than resale. This means that the original manufacturer of a vehicle (Mercedes-Benz, for instance) must certify that each of its completed vehicles conforms to all applicable U.S. safety standard and permanently affix a label with that statement on each such vehicle. For the purposes of this letter, I am assuming that the cars you call "U.S. spec" cars are cars to which the original manufacturer has affixed its certification label.

If any party performs conversion operations on a certified vehicle before the initial purchase of the vehicle, the party would be an "alterer" and required to affix its own label identifying itself and certifying that the converted vehicle continues to conform to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. See 49 CFR 567.7. However, in the situations posited in your letter, the conversions to be performed in Europe by your company would be performed on vehicles after the first purchase of the vehicle for purposes other than resale. This agency does not require any certification to be made or certification label to be affixed by entities that perform conversions on vehicles after the first purchase of those vehicles. Thus, your company need not make its own certification nor affix its own label. Instead, your company must leave in place the original manufacturer's certification label.

The only provision in U.S. law that applies to conversion operations performed on vehicles after the first purchase in good faith for purposes other than resale is set forth in Title 15, United States Code, section 1397(b)(2). That section of the law forbids any "manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business" from "knowingly rendering inoperative in whole or in part any device or element of design installed in accordance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard." This means that your company must ensure that your conversion operations do not cause the converted vehicle to no longer comply with the U.S. motor vehicle safety standards. Pursuant to this responsibility, the agency would, for example, expect that, if the vehicle's weight ratings and tire inflation pressures shown on its original certification labels were no longer valid after conversion, a converter would install new labels showing the correct weight ratings and tire inflation pressures.

Assuming your company leaves the original manufacturer's certification label in place on the converted vehicles, the owner of the vehicles should not encounter any difficulties when the converted vehicles are imported into the United States. The importer would simply file a declaration stating that the vehicle conforms to the applicable safety standards and bears an original manufacturer's certification label to that effect, pursuant to 49 CFR 591.5(b).

For your information, I have enclosed a copy of an information sheet for new manufacturers that briefly explains our regulations and tells how to obtain copies of those regulations. I hope this information is helpful.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

Enclosure

ref:567 d:11/16/92

ID: 7854-2

Robert R. McAusland, P.E.
1311 N. 35th St.
Seattle, WA 98103

Dear Mr. McAusland:

This responds to your letter asking whether your design of an infant seat would comply with S5.2.4 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 213, Child Restraint Systems. You state that your infant seat would have a frame made from 1/4 inch thick polyethylene sheet, and that all the edges of the frame are rounded to a radius of 1/8 inch. As discussed below, the design would not comply if the edges of the seat frame are contactable by the infant dummy's head or torso during the standard's dynamic test.

Some background information on Federal motor vehicle safety laws and regulations may be helpful. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq., Safety Act) authorizes this agency to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA, however, does not approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, nor do we endorse any commercial products. Instead, the Safety Act establishes a "self- certification" process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards. The following represents our opinion based on the facts set forth in your letter.

Standard No. 213 specifies requirements for child restraint systems used in motor vehicles and aircraft, to reduce the number of children killed or injured in motor vehicle crashes and in aircraft. S5.2.4, "Protrusion limitation," of Standard No. 213 states:

Any portion of a rigid structural component within or underlying a contactable surface, or any portion of a child restraint system surface that is subject to the requirements of S5.2.3 [the head impact protection requirements for infant seats], shall, with any padding or other flexible overlay material removed, have a height above any immediately adjacent restraint system surface of not more than 3/8 inch and no exposed edge with a radius of less than 1/4 inch. (Emphasis added.)

The term "contactable surface" is defined in S4 of the standard as "any child restraint system surface (other than that of a belt, belt buckle, or belt adjustment hardware) that may contact any part of the head or torso of the appropriate test dummy, specified in S7, when a child restraint system is tested in accordance with S6.1."

Under S5.2.4, any edges of a rigid structural component within or underlying a surface that can be contacted by the head or torso of the appropriate test dummy during Standard No. 213's dynamic test must have a radius of at least 1/4 inch. Since the frame edges of your infant seat have a radius of only 1/8 inch, the seat would not comply with S5.2.4 if the surfaces overlying those edges can be contacted by the infant dummy during the dynamic test.

You ask whether, since side loading is not specified in Standard No. 213, can you conclude that there is no way that the child's head or torso could contact the sides of the frame, i.e., that the surfaces overlying those edges cannot be contacted by the infant dummy during the dynamic test. We assume that you believe the infant's head and torso are unlikely to contact the frame's edges in the 213 dynamic test since, due to the forward motion of the test, the dummy's components are likely to move forward and rearward, rather than laterally.

I note that, for purposes of compliance testing, NHTSA would determine whether the surfaces are contactable surfaces for the purposes of S5.2.4 by observing a dynamic test, conducted according to the procedures in Standard No. 213. With respect to the issue of what information or analysis would be sufficient, for purposes of certification, for you to conclude that the surfaces overlying those edges cannot be contacted by the infant dummy during the dynamic test, manufacturers must have some basis for their certification that a product complies with all applicable safety standards. However, this does not necessarily mean that a manufacturer must conduct the specific tests set forth in an applicable standard. Certifications may be based on, among other things, engineering analyses, actual testing, and computer simulations.

You should be aware, however, that the direction of dummy movement during the Standard No. 213 dynamic test depends on many variables other than the direction of the test, such as the performance of the restraint's belt system. For example, in the event a child seat's upper torso restraint slipped off the dummy's shoulder in the dynamic test, the dummy could move laterally and strike the sides of the restraint system. You should consider all of the variables that could affect the dummy's performance when determining whether frame contact can occur.

I also note that manufacturers of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment are subject to the defect provisions of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. Infant restraints are involved in real-world crashes other than the frontal impacts simulated in Standard No. 213. If data indicated that a child seat exposed occupants to an unreasonable risk of injury, such as sharp edges resulting in injuries in a side crash, the agency might conduct a defect investigation which could lead to a safety recall.

Enclosed is an information sheet which provides additional information for new manufacturers of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. If you have further questions, please call Ms. Deirdre Fujita of my staff at (202) 366- 2992.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

Enclosure

ref:213 d:12/16/92

ID: 7855-2

Mr. Robert F. Gayer
Equipment Coordinator
Transportation Services
Salt River Project
P.O. Box 52025
Phoenix, AZ 85072-2025

Dear Mr. Gayer:

This responds to your letter asking whether certain trailers, manufactured in 1989, were required to comply with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems. (49 CFR 571.121). You explained that you disagree with statements by the trailers' manufacturer that "these trailers do not need to comply with `121,' because they are `Heavy Haul Trailers.'" You further stated that the trailers may not comply with certain provisions in Standard No. 121, including the reservoir requirements in S5.2.1.1 and S5.2.1.5.

I note that we previously responded to a similar letter from Salt River Project concerning certain trailers manufactured in 1987. Our letter (copy enclosed) was sent to Mr. Derral T. Crance on April 3, 1989. We explained that heavy hauler trailers are not excepted from Standard No. 121 unless they have a GVWR of more than 120,000 pounds. Since you indicated that the trailers of current concern have a GVWR of 68,000 pounds, they would not be excepted from the standard as heavy hauler trailers. Moreover, the trailers do not appear to come within any of the other exceptions to Standard No. 121.

Standard No. 121 does, however, include a number of special provisions for heavy hauler trailers, including exceptions from certain requirements. Of particular note, S5.6 sets forth a number of specific parking brake requirements but permits heavy hauler trailers to meet the requirements of either that section, or, at the option of the manufacturer, the requirements of 49 CFR 393.43. Part 393 requires commercial motor vehicles to be equipped with various types of equipment, including brakes. Specifically, section 393.43 addresses brake requirements in breakaway and emergency braking situations.

Heavy hauler trailers manufactured in 1989 were generally subject to sections S5.2.1.1 and S5.2.1.5 of Standard No. 121, the provisions about which you specifically asked. Under S5.2.1.1, a reservoir was required to be provided that is capable of releasing the vehicle's parking brakes at least once and that is unaffected by a loss of air pressure in the service brake system. Under S5.2.1.5, each service reservoir was required to be protected against loss of air pressure due to failure or leakage in the system between the service reservoir and its source of air pressure by check valves or equivalent devices.

Notwithstanding the general applicability of S5.2.1.1, certain heavy hauler trailers which complied with the requirements of 49 CFR 393.43 instead of the specific parking brake requirements set forth in S5.6 would not have had to comply with S5.2.1.1. This is so because the vehicle is not required to have parking brakes. However, a braking system is required which applies automatically and promptly upon breakaway from a towing vehicle. Such a vehicle would also be required to carry sufficient chocking blocks to prevent movement when parked, as required by 393.41.

Since your letter suggests that you purchased trailers that may not have complied with Standard No. 121, I have referred the matter to our Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance for appropriate action.

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

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

ref:121 d.12/14/92

ID: 7857

Air Mail

Mr. T. Kouchi Director & General Manager Automotive Equipment Development & Administration Dept. Stanley Electric Co. Ltd. 2-9-13, Nakameguro-ku, Meguro-ku Tokyo 153, Japan

Dear Mr. Kouchi:

This responds to your letter of October 8, 1992, with respect to photometric test methods for a center high-mounted stop lamp using light emitting diodes (LEDs) as light sources.

Your letter presents certain procedures and asks for associated revisions in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. After review, we have come to the conclusion that your method of proposed testing is allowable under Standard No. 108, but more stringent than what the standard requires.

In the section of your letter called "BACKGROUND", you state that you usually follow the technical guidance of SAE J1889 as a standard practice for LED lighting devices. There is no requirement in Standard No. 108 or in any of the SAE standards incorporated by reference in Standard No. 108 that requires you to follow the test methodology of J1889. Thus, when you say that you "must always allow a margin of the same percentage when designing initial light output of the lamp, which necessitates increase in the number of LEDs used, lamp size, product cost, and, therefore, user's expense", you are placing a burden upon yourself that does exist under J1889, but one which is not necessary for designing for compliance with Standard No. 108.

You have proposed a solution for the problem you have created by following J1889, and you provide three specific reasons in support. The third reason is based upon your interpretation of SAE J575's warpage test, under which you test operating cycles of 5 minutes on and 5 minutes off. However, you reference a version of J575 which does not apply to center high-mounted stop lamps. Paragraph S6.1 of Standard No. 108 specifies that J575e, August 1970, applies to high-mounted stop lamps designed to conform to SAE Recommended Practice J186a. SAE J575, August 1970, simply specifies that the device is to be operated in the test in the same manner as it will be operated in service, far different than the cycle method you employ.

Thus, you have requested that we revise Standard No. 108 by adding a new provision that center high-mounted stop lamps shall be energized for a minimum of 5 minutes before measurement of photometric minima. We note that nothing prohibits you from testing in such a manner, but we believe that an amendment of this nature is not required because the present allowable method of testing does not call for it.

You have asked for our comments on four steps of photometric measurement, and our permission to follow them. There is no reason you may not follow them, if you wish, but they are unnecessary to design for compliance under Standard No. 108.

I hope that this is responsive to your questions.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel ref:108 d:12/1/92

ID: 7866-2

Ms. Shirley A. Stewart
President
SAS Electrical Service, Inc.
1601 Society Court
Herndon, VA 22070

Dear Ms. Stewart:

This responds to your letter of October 16, 1992, to this office regarding the installation of a "silent monitor" on school buses. You stated in your letter that you made a presentation to Mr. Maurice Hicks and Mr. Rich Van Iderstine of this agency at a meeting on October 2, 1992, and you asked how our standards apply to installation of this device on school buses.

You described the silent monitor as a six-inch cube of welded steel designed to house a video camera to monitor the interior of school buses. You explained that the device is installed in the interior access panel above the bus windshield facing the passenger compartment. The box protrudes into the interior of the bus by three to four inches. The front of the box, which swings open for installation of a video camera, contains a reflective solar glass window to prevent glare on the inside of the box.

By way of background information, NHTSA does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Safety Act), it is the responsibility of the manufacturer to ensure that its motor vehicles or equipment comply with applicable Federal safety standards. The following represents our opinion based on the facts provided in your letter.

NHTSA does not have any safety standards specifically covering silent monitors. However, it is possible that the installation of a silent monitor could affect the compliance of a vehicle with some safety standards.

All new motor vehicles manufactured for sale in the United States must be certified by their manufacturers as complying with the applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. If your silent monitor is installed in a new school bus prior to its first sale to a customer, the person making the installation would be considered a vehicle alterer. Under our certification regulation (49 CFR Part 567), a vehicle alterer must certify that the vehicle as altered continues to comply with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards.

Manufacturers, distributors, dealers, or motor vehicle repair businesses modifying a used vehicle are prohibited by Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act from knowingly rendering inoperative any safety device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard. Thus, if your silent monitor is installed in a used school bus, any businesses, including your own, making such installations cannot render inoperative the vehicle's compliance with any of our standards.

We also note that manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment have responsibilities under the Safety Act regarding safety defects. Under Sections 151, et seq., of the Safety Act, such manufacturers must notify purchasers about safety- related defects and remedy the product free of charge.

In order to determine how installation of your silent monitors could affect the compliance of school buses with applicable Federal safety standards, you should carefully review each standard, including but not limited to those addressing school bus body joint strength, crash protection, and windshield intrusion. In that regard, I am enclosing for your information a fact sheet entitled Information for New Manufacturers of Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Equipment, and a booklet entitled Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards and Regulations.

As indicated above, you stated that your silent monitor would be installed in the interior access panel above the bus windshield facing the passenger compartment. Given the added weight that would be on the panel, we suggest that you carefully evaluate whether additional securement of the panel is needed to ensure that the panel and silent monitor do not come loose during a crash. We also note that the silent monitor appears to have sharp edges. You may wish to consider adding padding to prevent injury to an occupant who comes in contact with the monitor.

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

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel Enclosure

Ref:#201#208#221#222 d:11/17/92

ID: 7871

Mr. Michael J. Motzkin
Pioneer Plumbing
Post Office Box 35833
Tucson, AZ 85740-5833

Dear Mr. Motzkin:

This responds to your letter of October 14, 1992 regarding Federal requirements pertaining to brake specifications. In particular you asked whether there are any regulations requiring automotive brake drums and rotors not to be milled beyond manufacturer specifications, and whether manufacturers are required to stamp their specifications on brake drums and rotors. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our law and regulations for you.

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (Safety Act) authorizes the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards for new motor vehicles and new motor vehicle equipment. All motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment manufactured or imported for sale in the United States must comply with all applicable safety standards. This agency does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under the Safety Act, the manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its motor vehicles or equipment meet applicable standards.

NHTSA has issued a number of safety standards which specify performance requirements for new motor vehicle brake systems and certain new brake equipment. The standards do not require manufacturers to stamp specifications on drums or rotors, although it is common practice for manufacturers to do so.

The Federal motor vehicle safety standards do not apply to a motor vehicle after its first sale to a consumer. However, manufacturers, distributors, dealers, or motor vehicle repair businesses modifying a used vehicle are prohibited by section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act from knowingly rendering inoperative any safety device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with a safety standard. The milling or turning of brake drums and rotors is typically performed during the course of repairing a used vehicle with worn brakes. We do not believe that the "render inoperative" provision would ordinarily be relevant to such a situation.

The states may regulate the repair of motor vehicles. We suggest you investigate the laws of Arizona to see whether they affect your situation.

I hope this information is been helpful. If you have any further questions about NHTSA's safety standards, please feel free to contact David Elias of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel ref:105 d.12/14/92

ID: 7892

Mr. Chester I. Nielsen, III
Vice President Sales
Wesbar Corporation
P.O. Box 577
West Bend, WI 53095

Dear Mr. Nielsen:

This responds to your letter of October 21, 1992, to Walter B. McCormick, Jr. (the General Counsel of this Department). You have written for "further explanation of S5.3.1.1.1 in FMVSS 108."

You have heard that there is an additional interpretation with respect to the location of clearance lamps on boat trailers whose overall width is 80 inches or more, which would allow mounting of these lamps in accordance with a sketch that you enclosed, and you ask for confirmation of this interpretation.

We are unaware of any interpretation of this nature. The requirements for the provision and location of clearance lamps on wide boat trailers remain those set forth in Tables I and II of Standard No. 108, with the exceptions set forth in paragraphs S5.1.1.9, S5.3.1.1.1, and S5.3.1.4.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

ref:108 d:12/1/92

ID: 7896

Mr. Douglas Berg
President
Ascend Productions
9823 Lake Avenue
Cleveland, Ohio 44102

Dear Mr. Berg:

This responds to your letter asking whether Standard No. 125, Warning Devices, applies to your product, the "Hazard Helper Safety Sign." In an earlier letter to the agency, you stated that this reversible device attaches to the driver's window and displays either a help needed symbol (a stick figure with extended arms and legs) or a hazard alert symbol (a triangle). In my July 28, 1992 response, I explained that your device was subject to the Standard and that it appeared not to comply with certain provisions in the Standard.

In a subsequent letter, you explain that you have added a cyalume light stick to your product to illuminate the warning sign. As explained below, you are correct in your belief that your warning device containing a light stick would no longer be subject to Standard No. 125.

As you correctly stated, Standard No. 125 applies to "devices, without self-contained energy sources, that are designed to be carried in motor vehicles and used to warn approaching traffic of the presence of a stopped vehicle, except for devices designed to be permanently affixed to the vehicle." (emphasis added; see section S3) In other words, Standard No. 125 does not apply to warning devices with self-contained energy sources. In an August 10, 1982 interpretation to Dwight Hicks, Jr., the agency determined that the phrase "self-contained energy sources" includes such things as cyalume light sticks. Accordingly, a warning device to which a cyalume light stick was added would not be subject to Standard No. 125.

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

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

ref:125 d:12/17/92

ID: 7906

The Honorable Bob Graham
United States Senate
Post Office Box 3050
Tallahassee, FL 32515

Dear Senator Graham:

Thank you for your letter of December 15, 1994, addressed to John Womack of this office. You forwarded to us a letter from your constituent, Mr. Howard Levy, Vice-President, Used Tire International, of Deerfield Beach, Florida.

Mr. Levy expressed concern in his letters to you and this agency, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) about a proposed bill in the Puerto Rico Senate which would require that used tires imported into Puerto Rico have not less than 5/32 inch tread depth and which would impose a tax of $10 per tire on such imports. Mr. Levy is concerned that the proposed bill would mean the end of the used tire industry on the island. In his letter to this agency, he asked "Does NHTSA have jurisdiction over these laws in Puerto Rico or does the Puerto Rican Senate control the regulations over highway safety," and requested our help in this matter.

We have carefully evaluated Mr. Levy's concerns. As discussed in our enclosed response to Mr. Levy, however, we have concluded that the laws and regulations that we administer will not be of help to him. Since our opinion is limited to consideration of the laws and regulations that we administer, we have suggested to Mr. Levy that he may wish to consult a private attorney concerning whether the proposed Puerto Rico bill raises other legal issues that are relevant to his concerns.

Sincerely,

Philip R. Recht Chief Counsel

Enclosure ref:109 d:1/17/95

ID: 7912

Mr. Chester I. Nielsen, III
Vice President Sales
Wesbar Corporation
P.O. Box 577
West Bend, WI 53095

Dear Mr. Nielsen:

This responds to your letter of October 21, 1992, to Walter B. McCormick, Jr. (the General Counsel of this Department). You have written for "further explanation of S5.3.1.1.1 in FMVSS 108."

You have heard that there is an additional interpretation with respect to the location of clearance lamps on boat trailers whose overall width is 80 inches or more, which would allow mounting of these lamps in accordance with a sketch that you enclosed, and you ask for confirmation of this interpretation.

We are unaware of any interpretation of this nature. The requirements for the provision and location of clearance lamps on wide boat trailers remain those set forth in Tables I and II of Standard No. 108, with the exceptions set forth in paragraphs S5.1.1.9, S5.3.1.1.1, and S5.3.1.4.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

ref:108 d:12/1/92