ID: 7603

Thomas E. Wilde
3440 Parkway
Butte, MT 59701

Dear Mr. Wilde:

This responds to your July 28, 1992 letter asking for information on any Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to retrofit air bags. Your letter states that these devices are intended for vehicles which do not have factory-installed air bags. I note that your letter was stamped confidential; however, in a phone conversation with Mary Versailles of my staff, you indicated that you did not object to your letter being placed in our public docket.

I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our laws and regulations to you. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Safety Act; 15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.) authorizes this agency to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA has exercised this authority to establish Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection (49 CFR 571.208). Standard No. 208 requires, among other things, that passenger cars provide automatic crash protection. Light trucks will also be required to provide automatic crash protection beginning with the 1995 model year. Vehicles equipped with automatic crash protection protect their occupants by means that require no action by vehicle occupants. Compliance with the automatic crash protection requirements of Standard No. 208 is determined in a dynamic crash test. That is, a vehicle must comply with specified injury criteria, as measured on a test dummy, when tested by this agency in a 30 mph barrier crash test.

At this time, manufacturers are not required to use a specific design of automatic crash protection to meet the requirements of Standard No. 208. Instead, each automobile manufacturer is allowed to select the particular design for the automatic crash protection installed in its vehicles. The two types of automatic crash protection currently offered on new passenger cars are automatic safety belts (which help to assure belt use) and air bags (which supplement safety belts and offer some protection even when safety belts are not used).

Please note that the automatic crash protection requirement applies to the performance of the vehicle as a whole, instead of setting requirements for the air bag as an individual item of equipment. This approach permits vehicle manufacturers to "tune" the performance of the air bag to the crash pulse and other specific attributes of each of their vehicle models. However, this approach also means that the Federal standards do not specify specific performance attributes for air bags such as inflated dimensions, actuation time, and the like. Hence, there are no specific performance attributes with which retrofit air bags must comply.

The only Federal requirement that might affect a retrofit air bag would be the "render inoperative" prohibition in section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)). That section provides that:

No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or in part, any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle ... in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard.

With regard to retrofit air bags, the existing safety belts (in a vehicle not already equipped with an air bag) are a "device or element of design installed in a motor vehicle in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard." If a retrofit air bag installed by a commercial business interferes in any way with the performance of the safety belt system, it would violate the "render inoperative" prohibition.

You should also note that a retrofit air bag would be considered "motor vehicle equipment" within the meaning of the Safety Act. Therefore, if the air bag contained a defect (either in manufacture, design, or performance) that relates to motor vehicle safety, you would be required to conduct a recall campaign to notify owners and to remedy the defect free of charge.

I have enclosed an information sheet for new manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment that briefly explains the responsibilities imposed on manufacturers, and tells how to get copies of the relevant laws and regulations.

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,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

Enclosure

ref:VSA#208 d:9/9/92

ID: nht92-4.12

DATE: September 9, 1992

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Thomas E. Wilde

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 7/28/92 from Thomas E. Wilde to Office of Chief Counsel, NHTSA (OCC-7603)

TEXT:

This responds to your July 28, 1992 letter asking for information on any Federal motor vehicle safety standard applicable to retrofit air bags. Your letter states that these devices are intended for vehicles which do not have factory-installed air bags. I note that your letter was stamped confidential; however, in a phone conversation with Mary Versailles of my staff, you indicated that you did not object to your letter being placed in our public docket.

I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our laws and regulations to you. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Safety Act; 15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.) authorizes this agency to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA has exercised this authority to establish Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection (49 CFR S571.208). Standard No. 208 requires, among other things, that passenger cars provide automatic crash protection. Light trucks will also be required to provide automatic crash protection beginning with the 1995 model year. Vehicles equipped with automatic crash protection protect their occupants by means that require no action by vehicle occupants. Compliance with the automatic crash protection requirements of Standard No. 208 is determined in a dynamic crash test. That is, a vehicle must comply with specified injury criteria, as measured on a test dummy, when tested by this agency in a 30 mph barrier crash test.

At this time, manufacturers are not required to use a specific design of automatic crash protection to meet the requirements of Standard No. 208. Instead, each automobile manufacturer is allowed to select the particular design for the automatic crash protection installed in its vehicles. The two types of automatic crash protection currently offered on new passenger cars are automatic safety belts (which help to assure belt use) and air bags (which supplement safety belts and offer some protection even when safety belts are not used).

Please note that the automatic crash protection requirement applies to the performance of the vehicle as a whole, instead of setting requirements for the air bag as an individual item of equipment. This approach permits vehicle manufacturers to "tune" the performance of the air bag to the crash pulse and other specific attributes of each of their vehicle models. However, this approach also means that the Federal standards do not specify specific performance attributes for air bags such as inflated dimensions, actuation time, and the like. Hence, there are no specific performance attributes with which retrofit air bags must comply.

The only Federal requirement that might affect a retrofit air bag would be

the "render inoperative" prohibition in section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)). That section provides that:

No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or in part, any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle ... in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard.

With regard to retrofit air bags, the existing safety belts (in a vehicle not already equipped with an air bag) are a "device or element of design installed in a motor vehicle in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard." If a retrofit air bag installed by a commercial business interferes in any way with the performance of the safety belt system, it would violate the "render inoperative" prohibition.

You should also note that a retrofit air bag would be considered "motor vehicle equipment" within the meaning of the Safety Act. Therefore, if the air bag contained a defect (either in manufacture, design, or performance) that relates to motor vehicle safety, you would be required to conduct a recall campaign to notify owners and to remedy the defect free of charge.

I have enclosed an information sheet for new manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment that briefly explains the responsibilities imposed on manufacturers, and tells how to get copies of the relevant laws and regulations.

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.

ID: nht90-1.71

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/15/90

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

TO: SATOSHI NISHIBORI -- NISSAN RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT, INC.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 1-16-90 TO ROBERT F. HELLMUTH, NHTSA, FROM SATOSHI NISHIBORI, NISSAN RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT, INC., ATTACHED

TEXT: This responds to your January 16, 1990 letter to Mr. Robert Hellmuth, the Director of this agency's Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, seeking an interpretation of Standard No. 120, Tire Selection and Rims for Motor Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars ( 49 CFR @ 571.120). Specifically, S5.1.2 of Standard No. 120 provides that when a passenger car tire is used on vehicles other than passenger cars, the tire's load rating shall be reduced by dividing it by 1.10 before calculating the sum of the load rati ngs of all of the original equipment tires on the vehicle. S5.3.2 through S5.3.5 establish requirements for certain information about the tires and rims to be labeled on the vehicle. S5.3.2 sets forth lettering size and format requirements for the labe ling. S5.3.3 through S5.3.5 require the labeling to provide the following information: the "size designation of tires . . . . appropriate (as specified in S5.1.2) for the GAWR" be given on the label; the size and type designation of rims "appropriate fo r those tires", and the "cold inflation pressure for those tires".

Your question was whether the cold inflation pressure set forth on the label in response to S5.3.5 of Standard No. 120 must reflect the 1.1 reduction factor set forth in S5.1.2 for passenger car tires. You suggested in your letter, and in your January 1 8, 1990 meeting with agency staff, that S5.3.5 does not require the 1.1 reduction factor to be taken into account when determining the cold inflation pressure to be specified. Instead, you suggested that Standard No. 120 requires the vehicle manufacture r to specify an inflation pressure that is adequate to support the tire's share of the gross axle weight rating (GAWR), without regard to the 1.1 reduction factor. I cannot agree with your suggested interpretation.

You asserted that S5.3.5 merely requires the label to include the "cold inflation pressure for those tires," without referring to S5.1.2 and its 1.1 reduction factor. You contrasted this requirement with that in S5.3.3, which expressly refers to S5.1.2 and the 1.1 reduction factor. You asserted that this difference in wording showed that the 1.1

reduction factor need not be considered when specifying the cold inflation pressure on the label in response to S5.3.5. This argument is not persuasive.

The load-carrying capability of a tire generally varies with the inflation pressure of that tire; i.e., a tire can carry a greater load at a higher inflation pressure and a lesser load at a lower inflation pressure. Hence, a reference to inflation press ure alone, without any corresponding load-carrying capability to which that inflation pressure applies would be meaningless. If S5.3.5 of Standard No. 120 were interpreted to require the manufacturer to specify some inflation pressure, without regard to any load that must be borne by the tire at that inflation pressure, the vehicle manufacturer could specify an extremely high or low inflation pressure. Such a specification would be useless or even dangerous for the consumer, and contrary to the purpos es of the labeling requirements.

You implicitly recognize that such an interpretation is unacceptable when you argue on page 1 of your January 16, 1990 that S5.3.5 of Standard No. 120 must be interpreted to require the manufacturer to recommend an inflation pressure "that will permit th e tires to safely carry Gross Axle Weight Rating loads and will provide good vehicle ride characteristics." In other words, Nissan agrees that the inflation pressure specified in response to S5.3.5 cannot be an extreme value such as 1 psi; instead, it mu st be determined with reference to some load that the tires will carry.

The question then becomes what loading must be considered to determine if the specified inflation pressure complies with S5.3.5. This question is answered by reading the labeling requirement of S5.3.5 in connection with the other labeling requirements i n S5.3, instead of considering S5.3.5 in a vacuum. S5.3.2 sets forth the format and lettering size for the labels to be placed on all vehicles manufactured on or after December 1, 1984. The information that must appear on such labels is set forth in S5 .3.3, S5.3.4, and S5.3.5 of Standard No. 120. S5.3.3 specifies that the label shall include information on "the size designation of tires (not necessarily those on the vehicle) appropriate (as specified in S5.1.2) for the GAWR." (Emphasis added). On any reading of this emphasized language, it is beyond dispute that the 1.1 reduction factor set forth in S5.1.2 must be considered when specifying the appropriate tire size designation pursuant to S5.3.3. Following this, S5.3.4 requires information on the size and type designation of rims "appropriate for those tires" to appear on the label. The reference to "those" tires in S5.3.4 indicates that the tires are the tires previously specified in S5.3.3. Similarly, when S5.3.5 requires the cold inflation p ressure for those tires to appear on the information label, the language is referring back to the tires specified in S5.3.3. Since NHTSA agrees with your statements that S5.3.3 incorporates the 1.1 reduction factor of S5.1.2 to

determine compliance with S5.3.3, and since S5.3.5 refers to the tires specified in S5.3.3, the 1.1 reduction factor set forth in S5.1.2 must be considered to determine ocmpliance with S5.3.5 of Standard No. 120.

ID: 2876o

Mr. Joseph J. O'Brien
Chairman of the Board
ITD Industries, Inc.
2544 Terminal Drive South
St. Petersburg, FL 33712

Dear Mr. O'Brien:

This responds to your letters of January 29, 1988, and March 15, 1988, requesting a determination concerning the installation of one of your products in used vehicles. You enclosed a sample of a clear plastic film with a scratch-resistant coating on it and a pressure sensitive adhesive used to attach the plastic film to the glass. You asked whether it is "legal to retrofit existing cars of windshields with a 4 mil clear film with a scratch-resistant coating that meets the anti-lacerative windshield spec as far as scratch resistance.." I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our statute and regulations to you.

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (Safety Act; 15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.) authorizes this agency to issue safety standards for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. The Safety Act establishes a "self-certification" process in which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards. Accordingly, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not approve motor vehicles or items of motor vehicle equipment.

We have issued Standard 205, Glazing Material (49 CFR 571.205), which establishes performance criteria for the types of glazing that may be used in various types and locations of motor vehicles. Your clear plastic film is not itself glazing material, so it does not have to comply with the requirements of Standard 205. Even though Standard 205 does not apply specifically to your product, there are several statutory provisions of which you should be aware.

Clear plastic film would be considered motor vehicle equipment, under section 102(4) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1391(4)). Thus, as a manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment, you would be subject to the requirements in sections 151-160 of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1411-1420) concerning the recall and remedy of products with defects related to motor vehicle safety. You also should be aware of section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)), which prohibits any manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or 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 an applicable motor vehicle safety standard. Standard 205 specifies 14 performance elements with which glazing might not comply if your clear plastic film were installed. If the application of your film to windshields in used vehicles would render inoperative the glazing's compliance with these provisions of Standard 205, any manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or repair business that applied your film would be subject to a civil penalty of up to $1,000 for each application, as specified in section 109 of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1398).

If the windshield continues to comply with the requirements of Standard 205 after application of this film, it may legally be installed by any business. Because of this potential liability, a repair shop or other business that installs glazing films may ask your company to provide some assurance that the motor vehicle windshield, as modified by the installation of your film, continues to meet the performance requirements set forth in Standard 205.

Please note that the "render inoperative" prohibition does not apply to individual vehicle owners. Federal law permits individual vehicle owners to install any materials on the glazing in their vehicles, regardless of the effect on compliance with Standard 205. However, the individual States govern the operational use of vehicles by their owners and it is within the authority of the States to preclude owners from installing certain films on their own vehicles.

I appreciate your interest in safety and your desire to ensure that your company complies with all Federal requirements. If you have any further questions or need additional information, please let me know.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel ref:205 d:7/11/88

ID: nht87-2.57

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/23/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: M. Iwase -- Manager, Technical Administration Dept., Koito Mfg. Co. Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. M. Iwase Manager, Technical Administration Dept. Koito Mfg. Co.. Ltd. Shizuoka Works 500, Kitawaki Shimizu-Shi, Shizuoka-ken Japan

Dear Mr. Iwase:

This is in reply to your letter of March 24, 1987, asking two questions with respect to Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

Your first question concerns an aiming adaptor for replaceable bulb headlamps whole lenses may slant 60 degrees from the vertical or horizontal. You have discovered that the Hopkins universal adaptor cannot be used with these headlamps, and you propose t o provide a special adaptor with each vehicle equipped with such headlamps, as well as aiming adjustment procedure information in the vehicle's service manual. You ask for confirmation of your belief that this is permissible under Standard No. 108.

Standard No. 108 does not require that an aiming adaptor be provided with a motor vehicle, only that its headlamps be capable of mechanical aim. Therefore there is no legal requirement that the adaptor be provided. However, without such an adaptor, an ow ner of a vehicle with the 60-degree headlamps may encounter difficulties at State inspection stations where mechanical aimers are in use, and at repair facilities when headlamps are replaced or after body work has been performed that necessitates reaim o f headlamps. Therefore we believe that provision of the adaptor and aiming information would enhance consumer acceptance of the 60-degree headlamps.

Your second question concerns the legality of the upper aiming boss on a low profile headlamp. Because the height of the lens is insufficient to incorporate the upper aiming boss, you propose to place it on a flange of the lens in a "photometrically inef fective area." However, the flange is concealed when the hood is shut, and the hood must be opened in order for aiming adjustment to occur. You believe that this is acceptable under Standard No. 108 and ask for our confirmation.

Paragraph S4.1.1.36(a)(2) requires that "the lens or each replaceable bulb headlamp shall have three pads which meet the requirements of figure 4...." Your drawing indicates that the flange is part of the headlamp lens even though that portion of the len s is not needed to provide illumination. Therefore this design would appear to meet the requirements of Figure 4 as you have concluded.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Ms. Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Admin. 400 Seventh Ave., S. W. Washington D.C., 20590 USA

Dear Ms. E. Z. Jones

We would like to ask you the following question concerning aiming adjustment for bulb replacement headlamp.

RE: 1) Aiming Adaptor for 60o Slant Bulb Replaceable Headlamp

We are developing and engineering-designing of bulb replaceable headlamp whose lens slants up to about 60o in vertical and horizontal as shown below.

SEE HARD COPY FOR GRAPHIC ILLUSTRATION

Upon our technical review, we have come to conclusion that this headlamp would be able to meet with all of the requirements specified in FMVSS NO. 108.

This headlamp lens has three pads which meet the requirements of Figure 4, Group II Aiming Pad Location (prescribed for 1A1, 2A1 sealed beam unit) and is marked "22H62V" for aiming in accordance with S4.1.1.36-(a)(3) of FMVSS NO. 108.

This headlamp is designed, in accordance with S4.1.1.36(b)(3), so that it would be aimed by use of mechanical aimer specified in SAE J602C.

However, when this headlamp is installed onto the vehicle, the following inconvenience will come about to the aiming of this headlamp, we are afraid.

When user, dealer or vehicle inspection station try to perform aiming of this headlamp by use of the aimer specified in SAE J602C, the universal adaptor (Hopkin's smaller adaptor; stock #0203 - refer to the attached pamphlet) cannot be used onto this hea dlamp.

Because Hopkin's adaptor has the adjustable range in angle of suction cup which is limited within 35o max and adjustable length of legs within 4.0 in. max.

However, this headlamp requires 60o in its adjustable range and 6.2 in. in its adjustable length of legs.

For the above possible inconvenience, we have no other choice but to have each vehicle provided with a set of special adaptor for this headlamp (shown below) so that it could be made mechanical aiming adjustment by means of the aimer specified in SAE J60 2C, we think.

SEE HARD COPY FOR GRAPHIC ILLUSTRATION

The information of aiming adjustment procedures for this headlamp shall be put into vehicle service manual, we think.

Question-1):

We believe that this special adaptor and our countermeasure fully meet with FMVSS NO. 108 and have nothing illegal under FMVSS NO. 108.

We would like you to confirm that our interpretation is correct.

RE: 2) ARRANGEMENT OF AIMING BOSS FOR LOW PROFILE HEADLAMP

We are developing and engineering-designing such a low profile headlamp as the height of its lens is not enough to apply to the aiming boss arrangement in Fig. 4 of FMVSS NO. 108.

SEE HARD COPY FOR GRAPHIC ILLUSTRATION

Accordingly we have an idea to have aiming boss arranged as shown below.

SEE HARD COPY FOR GRAPHIC ILLUSTRATION

(1) The upper aiming boss is located on the flange of lens which is photometrically ineffective area.

(2) The aiming boss location is applied to Fig. 4 of FMVSS NO. 108.

(3) However, the upper boss is located in a part which is covered by the bonner and so the bonner must be opened when aiming adjustment is made.

Question-2):

We believe that the aiming boss arrangement as abovementioned can be applied to FMVSS NO. 108 and have nothing illegal under FMVSS NO. 108.

We would like you to review and confirm that it is correct.

Upon your review, your prompt reply to this matter would be greatly appreciated.

Sincerely

M. Iwase, Manager Technical Administration Dept. Koito Mfg. Co., Ltd. Shizuoka Works

Attached: Copy of Universal Adaptors Pamphlet

SEE HARD COPY FOR GRAPHIC AND ADDITIONAL TEXT INFORMATION

ID: 2503y

Mr. Theo Bose
Webasto Heater, Inc.
1458 E. Lincoln
Madison Hts., MI 48071

Dear Mr. Bose:

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

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

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

There is currently no FMVSS that directly applies to the heating unit you describe. Standard No. 301 (copy enclosed) applies only to completed new motor vehicles, and not to components of fuel systems. (The standard applies to trucks and buses with a gross vehicle weight rating of 10,000 pounds or less, and to school buses.) However, Federal law may affect the installation of your product, depending on who installs the heating unit and when the work is performed.

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

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

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

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

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

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosures /ref:301 d:5/3l/90

ID: 1982-2.28

DATE: 08/01/82

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Diane K. Steed; NHTSA

TO: Larry Pressler; U.S. Senate

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Dear Senator Pressler:

This responds to your July 23, 1982, letter enclosing correspondence from your constituent, Mr. Clyde Pritchard. Mr. Pritchard questioned the applicability of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's Standard No. 121, AirBrakes, to certain "heavy hauler trailers." He also questioned a portion of that standard that indicated that manufacturers of some vehicles may comply with the standard or, alternatively, with Part 393.43 of the regulations of the Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety (BMCS).

Only some types of heavy hauler trailers must comply with Standard No. 121. The applicability section of the standard states that a vehicle with a width in excess of 102 inches or a heavy hauler trailer with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) in excess of 120,000 pounds need not comply with any of the requirements. Therefore, any vehicle designed by Mr. Pritchard falling within these categories would be excepted from the standard. A heavy hauler trailer with a width less than 102 inches and a GVWR less than 120,000 must comply with the standard.

Mr. Pritchard appears most interested in the specific requirements for parking brakes on heavy hauler trailers. Paragraph S5.6 of Standard No. 121 states that heavy hauler trailers shall comply with the requirements of Standard No. 121 for parking brakes or, alternatively, with BMCS regulation 393.43 for breakaway. Accordingly, the manufacturer of such a vehicle has the option of complying with either provision; parking brakes under Standard No. 121 or the breakaway and emergency braking section of the BMCS regulation. The citation in Standard No. 121 to BMCS regulation 393.43 is correct. The agency did not intend to permit optional compliance with BMCS regulation 393.41 as suggested by Mr. Pritchard. That regulation does not require separate brakes on trailers which the agency has always deemed necessary.

I hope this clarifies the air brake issue for your constituent. Please contact me if you need additional information.

Diane K. Steed Administrator

ID: 3321o

Bill Whiteside, Subcontract Manager
Harris Corporation
Government Electronics Systems Division
P. O. Box 96000
Melbourne, FL 32902

Dear Mr. Whiteside:

This responds to your letter asking for an interpretation of 49 CFR Part 567, Certification, and 49 CFR Part 568, Vehicles Manufactured in Two or More Stages, as those regulations apply to the certification of certain trailers. Your letter follows an earlier request for interpretation from Telex Communications. In the letter from Telex, your company, Harris Corporation, was identified as Company XYZ. Telex's question was whether it or your company had "ultimate responsibility for DOT certification" pursuant to 49 CFR Parts 567 and 568. NHTSA responded to Telex in a letter dated March 1, 1988. Because the information provided in the incoming letter from Telex was somewhat sketchy, and we had to make certain assumptions about whether your company was the end user or intended to resell the trailer, we could not provide a definitive answer to them.

Your letter and a telephone conversation between Larry Little of Harris Corporation and Dorothy Nakama of my staff have given us the following additional information. Your company has a contract with Telex under which Telex is required to deliver trailers to your company. According to your letter, Telex designs, integrates and/or fabricates all "transport related" features of the trailer, including structure, wheels, axles, brakes, running lights, towing package, and other parts. You state that in your specifications, Telex is "required to comply with the Code of Federal Regulations in the design and fabrication of the trailer." After Harris receives a trailer from Telex, other parties in a contractual relationship with Harris permanently mount hardware, such as generators and radio equipment, onto the trailer. You asserted that this additional equipment does not result in exceeding or modifying the GAWR or GVWR of the trailer, which comes from Telex. After the vendors have mounted the hardware onto the trailer, Harris delivers the finished trailer to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) pursuant to a Federal contract with that agency.

My answers to the questions posed in your letter are based on the above understanding of the facts. I will now address the specific questions posed in your letter.

Questions One and Two: Is Telex the complete vehicle manufacturer of this trailer? What process(es) are proper for certification of the trailer?

Response: Based on the information provided in your letter, it appears that the trailers delivered to Harris by Telex are "completed vehicles" within the meaning of 49 CFR 568.3. That section defines a "completed vehicle" as:

a vehicle that requires no further manufacturing operations to perform its intended function other than the addition of readily attachable components, such as mirrors or tire and rim assemblies, or minor finishing operations such as painting.

The determination of whether a vehicle meets this definition is made at the time it is delivered to the purchaser. In this case, the vehicles delivered to Harris by Telex are trailers which, according to your letter, already have the body structure, wheels, axles, brakes, lights, towing package, and all other components that are necessary for the trailer to be used as is without any further manufacturing operations. Assuming this is the case, these vehicles are completed vehicles because they do not require any further manufacturing operations to perform their intended function as trailers. Hence, Telex must certify that each of its completed vehicles conforms to all applicable Federal motor vehicle standards, as specified in 49 CFR 567.4. This certification should appear on the trailer at the time it is delivered to Harris.

However, Telex is not the only party that must certify that the trailers conform to applicable safety standards. Based on the information you have provided, it appears that the parties that permanently mount hardware to these trailers are "alterers," and must affix their own certifications that the trailers conform to all applicable safety standards affected by the alteration, after they have mounted the hardware to the trailer.

Alterers that are required to affix certification labels in accordance with 567.7 are defined in that section as follows:

A person who alters a vehicle that has previously been certified in accordance with 567.4 or 567.5, other than by the addition, substitution, or removal of readily attachable components such as mirrors or tire and rim assemblies, or minor finishing operations such as painting, ... before the first purchase of the vehicle in good faith for purposes other than resale, ... * * * * *

The parties that permanently mount hardware to the trailers delivered by Telex are altering previously certified vehicles before the first purchase of the trailer in good faith for purposes other than resale. The only conditions in which these alterers would not be required to affix their own certification labels to each trailer on which they permanently mount hardware would be:

1. The hardware consisted of "readily attachable components;" or

2. Permanently mounting this hardware is only a "minor finishing operation."

Based on the information you have provided, neither of these exceptions would apply to these parties. Equipment of the sort described in your letter (generators, powerful radio antennas, communications equipment, etc.) are not "readily attachable components." Similarly, the operations performed by these parties appear to be far more sophisticated than "minor finishing operations."

Since the requirements set forth in 49 CFR 567.7 appear to apply to these parties, the parties must make the certification specified in that section. To summarize, alterers must allow the certification labels affixed by the original manufacturer (Telex, in this case) to remain in place and affix their own certification labels in accordance with 567.7. The alterers' certification label must identify the alterer and the month and year in which the alterations were performed, and state that the vehicle as altered conforms to all applicable safety standards affected by the alteration.

The information you have provided suggests that your company simply purchases the trailers from Telex and delivers the trailers to the two parties to be altered. Assuming that your company does not itself either manufacture or alter these trailers before delivering them to FEMA, your company is not required to make any certification pursuant to 49 CFR Part 567. However, since the parties that are altering the Telex trailers are doing so under contract to Harris, Harris could, if it chooses to do so, assume the certification responsibilities for the parties with whom it has contracted. In that case, Harris would have to affix a certification label in accordance with 567.7 that identifies Harris as the alterer of the trailers.

Question Three: If you rule that Telex has certification responsibility for the trailer, do we have any recourse through your office to enforce certification of the trailer?

Assuming that the facts presented in your letter and our understanding of those facts are correct, Telex must certify that the trailers it delivers comply with all applicable safety standards and each party that has mounted hardware inside the trailer must certify that the trailer complies with all applicable safety standards affected by the alteration. If you believe that you have information showing that some party has failed to comply with its certification responsibilities or any other requirement in our regulations or safety standards, we would appreciate it if you would forward that information to our Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance at this address. That office will investigate the matter and take appropriate action.

I hope this information is helpful. Please let me know if we can be of further assistance.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

/ref:567#568 d:12/19/88

ID: nht87-1.64

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/13/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: George Ziolo

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. George Ziolo 16182 Arena Drive Ramona, CA 92005

Dear Mr. Ziolo:

This letter responds to your inquiry concerning Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 111. I apologize for the delay. As I understand your question, you are concerned with a passenger car whose inside rearview mirror apparently does not meet the fiel d-of-view specifications in S5.1 of FMVSS 111 and therefore that must have an outside passenger side mirror in order to comply with the standard. You wish to know whether the need to inscribe the convex mirror in accordance with S5.4.2 is eliminated when the passenger side of the car has both a complying mirror of unit magnification and a convex mirror.

Please understand that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, it is the manufacturer's responsibility to ensure that its vehicle or equipment complies with applicable standards. Therefore, this letter is an opinion based on the facts you provide in your letter.

The answer to your question is "yes." The passenger side of a new car would need an outside convex mirror inscribed in accordance with S5.4.2 only if its inside rearview mirror failed to meet the S5.1.1 field of view specifications, and the manufacturer chose to comply with the requirement of S5.3 for an outside passenger side mirror by installing a convex passenger-side mirror rather than a unit magnification passenger-side mirror. S5.4 provides that the requirements in S5.4.1 - S5.4.3 are applicable t o a convex mirror only if that mirror is used to comply with S5.3. In your example, a mirror of unit magnification is used to comply with S5.3. I should add that the manufacturer would have to ensure that installing the convex mirror does not take the mi rror of unit magnification out of compliance with FMVSS 111.

Please let me know if you have any further questions.

Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

GEORGE ZIOLO 16182 ARENA DRIVE RAMONA, CA 92065 619-789-9792

Office of the Chief Counsel US DOT/NHTSA 400 7th St SW Washington, DC 20590

Subj: FMVSS 111

A convex mirror installed in accordance with (IAW) S5.3 must meet S5.4.2 (inscription)

Mirrors installed IAW S6 must meet S6.1(a) or (b); the latter makes no mention of a convex mirror.

I have observed that vehicles falling into the category specified in S6 are sold with mirrors meeting S6.1.(b). However, in addition to mirrors of unit maginification, convex mirrors are also installed but they do not bear the inscription mentioned in S5 .4.2 (bear no inscription).

It therefore appears to me that when a mirror of unit magnification is supplemented by a convex mirror, the latter need not meet the inscription requirement of S5.4.2.

The question therefore arises whether the above would as well apply to vehicles falling into the category of S5 - passenger cars. That is to say, is the need for the inscription (S5.4.2) eliminated when there is installed a mirror of unit magnification in addition to a convex mirror.

Please advise me of your opinion in this matter.

Sincerely,

GEORGE ZIOLO DOT Paperwork Processor

ID: 86-3.32

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 05/27/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Mr. H. Moriyoshi

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

May 27, 1876 Mr. H. Moriyoshi Executive Vice President and General Manager Mazda (North America), Inc. 24402 Sinacola Court Farmington Hills, MI 48108 Dear Mr. Moriyoshi: This responds to your letter seeking an interpretation of the requirements of Part 541, Federal Motor Vehicle Theft Prevention Standard. You asked two separate questions, which are discussed in detail below. Your incoming letter has been granted confidential treatment i accordance with 49 CFR Part 512, so it will not be forwarded to the docket along with this response. First, you asked whether your marking system would be subject to the performance requirements for labels, set forth in 541.5(d)(1), or the performance requirements for other means of identification, set forth in 541.5(d)(2). You indicated in your letter that this marking system would affix the required marking to engines and transmissions. Section 541.5 expressly states that the required markings "must be affixed by means that comply with paragraph (d)(1 0 of this section or inscribed by means that comply with paragraph (d)(2) of this section" (Emphasis added). this requirement means that all markings that are affixed to a part, whether by means of adhesive, screws, rivets, or welding, must satisfy the performance requirements for labels set forth in 541.5(d)(1). Second, you asked whether your marking system would appear to satisfy the theft prevention standard's performance requirements for labels. You stated in your letter that you know it is your company's responsibility to certify compliance with the standard, but that this agency's "opinions and comments" on whether the marking system appears to comply with the theft" prevention standard would be highly appreciated. As you noted in your letter, section 606(c) of the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act (15 U.S.C. 2026(c))requires each manufacturer to certify that its vehicles comply with the theft prevention standard. Therefore, this agency does not approve, endorse, or certify that any manufacturer's markings system complied with theft prevention standard. We will, however, state whether a particular marking system appears to comply if we are provided with sufficient information on which to base that opinion. In this case, your letter simply does not provide sufficient information for us to offer an opinion. You sought NHTSA's opinion as to whether your marking system appears to comply with the "footprint" requirement specified for labels in 541.5(d)(v)(B). that section requires that removal of the label must "discernibly alter the appearance of that area of the part where the label was affixed by leaving residual parts of the label or adhesive in that area, so that investigators will have evidence that a label was originally present." For us to offer an opinion in this area, we must have some way to determine what remains on a part after the affixed label is removed. Ideally, we would have several labels affixed to a metal section by the means described in your letter. We could then remove the labels and examine the metal section for a "footprint". At a minimum, we need some means of determining what the "footprint" would be if these labels were removed, and whether such "footprint" would give investigators evidence that a label was originally present. Please feel free to contact me if you need some further explanation of our theft prevention standard or if you wish to provide additional information so that we can offer an opinion as to whether your labels appear to comply with the requirements set forth in 541.5(d)(v)(B). Sincerely, Original Signed by Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel