ID: 86-3.2

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 05/01/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: A.D. Fish

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. A. D. Fish Road Transport Division Ministry of Transportation Aurora House 62 The Terrace Wellington, New Zealand

Dear Mr. Fish:

We regret the delay in responding to your letter (14/1/9) dated September 18, 1985, to Mr. Francis Armstrong requesting information in relation to our compliance test report number 213-CAL-83-011-33-011. Your letter was referred to my office.

In your letter you asked for an interpretation of Standard No. 213, Child Restraint Systems, regarding the reason for the test laboratory marking two parts of the test procedure as not applicable to your child restraint. The answers to your specific questions are as follows:

1. Page 12--Resistance to Microorganisms. Polyester and nylon, which comprise 100% of all vehicle seat belt and child seat harness webbing, are inherently resistant to microorganisms. Therefore, in an exercise of its prosecutorial discretion, the agency has thus far chosen not to conduct this test on nylon and polyester belts. If a child restraint harness or vehicle seat belt were found to be made of cotton or some other fibrous material, the resistance to microorganisms test would be conducted on those materials. In addition, the agency reserves the authority to test nylon and polyester belts as well, although it has no plans to do so.

2. Page 26--S5.4.3.3. Seating Systems. The requirements of S5.4.3.3 apply to child restraints that are "designed for use by a child in a seated position." Infant restraints are designed to place the child in a rear-facing, semi-recumbent position instead of a seated position and therefore S5.4.3.3 is not applicable to them. Since infant restraints are rear-facing, the major forces acting on the child's body from vehicle deceleration are exerted by the foam liner/plastic shell instead of the belt system. In addition, all infant restraints on the market are equipped with a three-point harness system (shoulder belt/crotch strap) to position the child and hold him or her in the restraint during rebound.

Sincerely,

Original Signed By

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

modifies its own vehicles. Since a vehicle owner is free under the Safety Act to alter its own vehicles, any such action by Wayne County or its school systems does not violate the Safety not or render them subject to any penalty under the Act. On the other hand, Wayne County's conversion of the vans would, of course, still have to comply with any applicable state laws.

If you have further questions, please contact my office.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Enclosure

14/1/9 ROAD TRANSPORT DIVISION

18 September 1985

AIRMAIL

Contract Technical Manager Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance U.S. Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590 U.S.A.

Dear Sir

We are experiencing some difficulty in interpreting FMVSS 213 in relation to your report number 213-CAL-83-011 and would be glad of any assistance you may be able to give us in this regard. The two points of difficulty are as follows: 1. Page 12. Resistance to micro-organisms.

The report lists this as N/A. However, my copy of FMVSS 213, S5.4.1(b) indicates that S4.3(e) to (h) of FMVSS 209 apply. (Presumably meaning S4.2).

2. Page 26. S5.4.3.3. Seating Systems.

FMVSS 213 seems to require upper torso and lower torso restraints, but the report lists this section as N/A and the restraint system does not seem to comply.

Your advice on the above points would be greatly appreciated.

Yours faithfully

A.D. Fish for Director, Road Transport Division

18I5/Trl

ID: 86-3.20

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 05/08/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Thomas T. Griffing

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Thomas T. Griffing Manager, Technical Services Yokohama Tire Corporation 1530 Church Road Montebello, CA 90640

Dear Mr. Griffing:

This responds to your letter to Mr. Glen Ludwig, of our Enforcement division, seeking an interpretation of Standard No. 119, New Pneumatic Tires for Motor Vehicles Other Than passenger Cars (49 CFR S571.119). Specifically, you stated that your company would like to label the following information on medium truck tires, in addition to the information specifically required to appear on the tires by Standard No. 119:

1. the load index specified by the International Standards Organization (ISO): and

2. the speed rating specified by the European Tire and Rim Technical Organisation (ETRTO).

You asked two questions concerning these markings. First, you asked whether Standard No. 119 allows tire manufacturers to place two different load plates on tires, one for Standard No. 119 and one with the ISO load index, even if the maximum load given in pounds is not exactly the kilogram value for the maximum load of the listed ISO load index. The answer to this question depends on whether the ISO load index information is presented in a manner that would obscure or confuse the meaning of the information required to appear on the sidewall of the tire by Standard No. 119, or otherwise defeat the purpose of the required information.

Paragraph S6.5 of Standard No. 119 requires that certain information be labeled on the sidewalls of each tire subject to this standard. 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. See, for example, the enclosed April 30, 1980 letter to Mr. Arnold van Ruitenbeek. Standard No. 119 permits tire manufacturers to label additional information on the sidewall of the tires, provided that the additional information does not obscure or confuse the meaning of the required information, or otherwise defeat its purpose.

It is not clear from your letter whether you are proposing to add just the ISO load index to the required information on the sidewall of the tires, or that load index and a separate maximum load rating expressed in kilograms. If you are proposing the former course of action, Standard No. 119 does not prohibit tire manufacturers from adding the ISO load index to the information required by Standard No. 119 to appear on the sidewall of the tires, provided that the load index is shown in such a was that it is not confusing to consumers. This agency sent two letters to Michelin Tire Corporation on this subject, dated July 14, 1980 and August 28, 1980. I have enclosed copies of these letters for your information.

If, on the other hand, you are proposing the latter course of action, NHTSA has said that the load and inflation pressure information can be expressed in both English units and metric units, provided that the metric units are equivalent to the English units. See the enclosed April 5, 1979 letter to Mr. Michael Petler. However, Standard No. 119 does not permit a tire manufacturer to list two different maximum load values on its tires. See the enclosed August 18, 1983 letter to Mr. Arnold van Ruitenbeek. Accordingly, if your company's tires were to List one value as the maximum load rating in pounds and a different value as the maximum load rating in kilograms, NHTSA would consider such labeling to be a violation of the requirement in S6.5(d) that tires be labeled with "the maximum load rating". Two different maximum load ratings on the same tire could confuse consumers, and give rise to questions about which of the two loads is really "the maximum load" the tire can carry. Such confusion would frustrate the purpose of the labeling requirement in Standard No. 119. Accordingly, such labeling would violate the requirement of S6.5(d) of the Standard.

Your second question was whether this Department put out any special instructions for tire manufacturers regarding the placement on the tire of the ETRTO and ISO information. As explained above, Standard No. 119 prohibits the addition of information to tire sidewalls only if such information confuses or obscures the meaning of the required information, or otherwise defeats the purpose of the required information. There are no further "special instructions" concerning this requirement. In past agency interpretations, the agency has made clear that the ETRTO speed ratings and the ISO load indices may be included in a tire's size designation without violating this prohibition. See the enclosed June 25, 1981 letter to Mr. Keigo Ohgiya for the ETRTO speed ratings and the August 28, 1980 letter to Mr. John B. White for the ISO load indices.

This agency position leaves wide latitude for the tire manufacturers to incorporate such additional information onto the tire sidewalls. One of the reasons for allowing this wide latitude is this agency's hope that the tire manufacturers can collectively agree, through the standardization organizations, to a resolution of the potential problems associated with providing additional information. If the tire companies jointly agree on a method of presenting this information that is not confusing to consumers, no "special instructions" or other actions by this agency would be needed.

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

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Enclosures

February 5, 1986

U.S. Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Washington D.C. 20590 ATTENTION: Mr. Glen Ludwig

Dear Mr. Ludwig:

Yokohama has been requested by our European Subsidiary Company to install the required load index and speed symbols specified by ETRTO and ISO standards on our medium truck all steel tires for shipment and distribution there. Considering this request, Yokohama recognizes that in addition to the load and inflation markings mandated by FMVSS 119 regulation, a separate plate 'ill have to be installed for the aforementioned ETRTO/ISO markings since carrying capacities and some other information are dissimilar based upon two separate standards. This situation has prompted us to contact you in attempt to clarify the situation and insure we are in compliance with the U.S. Federal regulations.

Accordingly, would you please respond to our questions below concerning these markings:

1. If Yokohama places 2 different load plates on the tire, one for DOT 119 and a separate load index for ETRTO/ISO, is this compatible with the FMVSS 119 regulations even though the load in pounds is not exactly the kilogram value of the load index?

2. Is there any specific instructions put forth by the Department of Transportation to the placement on the tire of the additional ETRTO/ISO information?

In addition to your specific answers to these questions would you please comment upon any other information which you feel pertinent to these tire markings as it applies to Federal FMVSS 119 compliance.

Thank you for you assistance and cooperation.

Thomas T. Griffing Manager Technical Services

TTG:lea

ID: 86-3.21

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 05/12/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Rich Demski

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

May 12, 1986 Mr. Rich Demski Federal Motors Inc. P.O. Box 5000 Ocala, Florida 32678 Dear Mr. Demski: This responds to you request for an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 101, Controls and Displays. You asked about the identification requirements applicable to a coolant temperature telltale. According to your letter and an accompanying drawing, you are currently identifying the telltale with the identifying symbol for the coolant temperature telltale specified by Table 2 of FMVSS No. 101, and the words "ENG WATER TEMP". Noting that some of your vehicles have engines which are air-cooled rather than water-cooled, you asked if FMVSS No. 101 permits you to delete the word "WATER" while otherwise continuing to identify the telltale as described above. As discussed below, the answer to your question is yes. By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, the manufacturer has the responsibility to certify that its vehicles or equipment comply with applicable standards. The following represents our opinion based on the facts provided in your letter. Section S5.2.3 of FMVSS No. 101 states in relevant part: Except for informational read-out displays, any display located within the passenger compartment and listed in column 1 of Table 2 that has a symbol designated in column 4, shall be identified by that symbol. Such display may, in addition be identified by the word or abbreviation shown in column3.... Informational read-out displays may be identified by the symbol designated in column 4 of Table 2 or by the word or abbreviation shown in column 3. Additional words or symbols may be used at the manufacturer's discretion for the purpose of clarity... The coolant temperature telltale is a display listed in Table 2 of FMVSS No. 101, and the symbol pictured in your letter is the identifying symbol for that telltale specified in column 4 of the table. Therefore, under section S5.2.3 of the standard, your use of that symbol to identify the coolant temperature telltale is sufficient identification regardless of what, if any, identifying words you provide for the purpose of clarity. Sincerely, Original Signed By Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

ID: 86-3.22

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 05/12/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: The Honorable Leon E. Panetta

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

May 12, 986 The Honorable Leon E. Panetta Member, United States House of Representatives 380 Alvarado Street Monterey, California 93940 Dear Mr. Panetta: Thank you for your letter on behalf of your constituent, Mr. John Cormick of San Luis Obispo, California, regarding Federal regulations for wheelchairs on school buses. Your letter has been referred to my office for reply, since the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) administers Federal laws applying to school buses. Your constituent requested information about two sets of Federal regulation relating to school bus drivers. He first asked about any regulations issued by the Department of Justice for fingerprint checks of school bus drivers. I understand that those questions have been referred to the Justice Department for reply. His second set of concerns, which you asked us to review, pertain to regulations issued by California that permit temporary placement of wheelchairs in the aisle of school buses during operation of the vehicles. Mr. Cormick believes this is unsafe since a wheelchair might impede access from the school bus in the event of an accident and asks what effect Federal law might have on State adoption of such a regulation. As explained below, Federal law does not prohibit States from issuing a regulation for the temporary placing of wheelchairs in school bus aisles. While NHTSA has issued a number of recommendations to the States for operational requirements for school buses, States establish regulations for school bus use, such as the one described by your constituent. Mr. Cormick is thus correct in contacting State officials to express his concerns and suggestions. Since your constituent asks how Federal school bus regulations affect regulations issued by the States, I would like to begin with some background information on our school bus regulations. This agency administers two sets of regulations for school buses. The first set, issued under the authority of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, applies to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles and includes NHTSA's motor vehicle safety standards for new school buses. Those school bus safety standards set performance standards for various aspects of school bus safety, such as windows and windshields, fuel systems, emergency exits and seating systems. Under the Vehicle Safety Act, manufacturers of new buses must certify that their buses comply with our school bus safety standards if the vehicles are intended for carrying school children, and sellers of new school buses must ensure that complying school buses are only sold. The requirements of the Vehicle Safety Act and our school bus safety standards are Federal requirements which apply directly to school bus manufacturers and sellers and are thus not dependent on State adoption. On the other hand, the second set of regulations we have for school buses is contingent on State implementation. This set, issued under the Highway Safety Act of 1966, applies to Federal funding of State highway safety programs. Each State submits a highway safety program which is reviewed and approved by NHTSA each year. Highway Safety Program Standard No. 17, Pupil Transportation Safety (copy enclosed), contains guidelines for various aspects of pupil transportation programs including school vehicle identification, maintenance, and driver qualifications. One of its recommendations is that school bus drivers meet all special physical, mental and moral requirements established by the State agency having responsibility for pupil transportation. Since States set the procedures for selecting school bus drivers, State officials would be able to provide Mr. Cormick with more information about California's policies governing school bus driver selection and examination. Because we regulate the manufacture and sale of new school buses and not their use, we would have no authority to prohibit school bus users from placing wheelchairs in aisles of school buses. Further, no recommendations for accommodating wheelchairs in school buses have been made in Program Standard No. 17. However, we are concerned about practices that might affect the safety provided by school buses (such as impeding access to school bus exits) and we encourage States to ensure that school children are transported in the safest possible manner. Mr. Cormick's school district might want to consider using school buses that have seating positions specially modified to accommodate students in wheelchairs. Those vehicles have wheelchair positions to which wheelchairs can be firmly secured, which provides safer accommodations to all occupants of the school bus. Please contact me if you or your constituent have any further questions. Sincerely, Original Signed By Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel Enclosure cc: Washington Office

ID: 86-3.23

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 05/12/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Ms. Mary Fulton

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

May 12, 1986 Ms. Mary Fulton Willas USA 8933 Quartz Avenue Northridge, California 91324 Dear Ms. Fulton: This is in reply to your letter of March 24, 1986, enclosing a brochure on your new product "TaleLights," and asking our "opinion of the product's legal standing." The brochure describes TaleLights as a "multi-message signboard" which is mounted "in the same rear window area where the new mandatory 'extra' brakelights are placed." TaleLights features automatically-activated messages such as "STOP," and manually activated ones such as "OOPS! SORRY." The Federal requirements for motor vehicle lighting (Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108) presently cover aftermarket lighting equipment only to the extent that it is intended to replace lighting equipment that is originally installed on a vehicle in compliance with Standard No. 108. We assume from your brochure that your product is intended for installation in vehicles not originally equipped with center high-mounted stop lamps, and under this assumption, your aftermarket product would not be covered by our requirements. It is, however, subject to the laws of each State in which it is to be sold and operated, and we suggest that you contact the motor vehicle administrators of States where you intend to market TaleLights. Your lamp is not an acceptable substitute for a center high-mounted stop lamp and it would be a violation of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act for a dealer, distributor, manufacturer, or motor vehicle repair business to remove a center high-mounted stop lamp and to replace it with TaleLights. Sincerely, Original Signed By Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

ID: 86-3.24

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 05/16/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Takeshi Tanuma

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Takeshi Tanuma Nissan Research & Development, Inc. P.O. Box 8650 Ann Arbor, MI 48104

Dear Mr. Tanuma:

Thank you for your letter of February 5, 1986 (ref. W-141-H), concerning the application of Standard No. 201, Occupant Crash Protection in Interior Impact, to an inside door "pull-handle." You explained that the pull-handle is made of unpadded plastic and does not have a hard inside frame. The drawing provided in your letter shows that the pull-handle is 7.44 inches (186 mm) long, 1.12 inches (28 mm) wide, and projects 1.09 inches (27 mm) from the side of the door. I hope that the following discussion answers your questions.

You first asked if the armrest requirements of S3.5 of the standard would apply to the pull-handle if it is located within the pelvic impact area of either the front or rear passenger door. In determining whether the requirements of S3.5 apply to a structure, the agency has looked at the design and location of the structure to determine whether it is an armrest (See, for example, the agency's interpretation letter of September 21, 1983, to Mr. Suzuki of your company.). In this case, the pull-handle projects far enough from the side of the door so that it could be used to rest the arm. Further, if the pull-handle were located in the pelvic impact area, it is likely to be used to rest the arm. Thus, we would consider such a pull-handle located in the pelvic impact area to be an armrest which must meet the requirements of S3.5 of the standard.

You also asked if the pull-handle would have to meet the requirements of S3.5 of the standard if it were located outside of the pelvic impact area at the upper portion of the door. In a conversation with Mr. Oesch of my staff, Mr. Hayaski explained that the pull-handle would probably be located near the rearmost edge of the door. In this case, it appears that the pull-handle would be positioned above and to the rear of where occupants would normally be expected to rest their arms. Thus, we would not consider a pull-handle located in the upper portion of the door and near the door's rear edge to be an armrest.

If you have any further questions, please let me know.

Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

February 5, 1986 Ref : W-141-H

Ms. Erika Jones Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 7th St., S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Ms. Jones:

Re: REQUEST FOR INTERPRETATION - FMVSS 201, "OCCUPANT PROTECTION IN INTERIOR IMPACT"

On behalf of Nissan Motor Co., Ltd. of Tokyo, Japan, Nissan Research & Development, Inc. herewith requests interpretation regarding the applicability of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 201, "Occupant Protection in Interior Impact," to an inside door "pull-handle" as shown below.

(Please insert graphics)

Material Description :

- Plastic, unpadded - Without any hard (for example, metal) inside frame

Question 1.

If such a small handle is located within the "Pelvic Impact Area" of the door of either the front or rear passenger areas, is Section 3.5 of FMVSS 201 (the armrest requirement) applicable to this kind of feature?

ID: 86-3.25

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 05/16/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Earl J. Ogletree; John Gaski -- Harley Products Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Earl J. Ogletree Mr. John Gaski Harley Products Inc. 904 S Prospect Avenue Park Ridge, IL 60068 Dear Mr. Ogletree and Mr. Gaski: Thank you for your letter of March 28, 1986, asking how our regulations would affect a product you intend to manufacture both as an aftermarket item of motor vehicle equipment and as an item of original equipment on some vehicles imported into this country. You described the product as a sun visor that clips onto a vehicle's regular visor. You further explained that the sun visor has an extension arm that allows the visor to be moved to filter out the sun coming in through the window to the left of the driver, or moved below the original equipment visor or between the two original equipment visors. I hope the following discussion explains how our regulations affect your proposed visor.

Some background information on how Federal motor vehicle safety laws and regulations affect your product may be helpful. Our agency is authorized, under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and certain items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA, however, does not approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, nor do we endorse any commercial products. Instead, the Vehicle Safety Act establishes a "self-certification" process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards. The agency periodically tests vehicles and equipment items for compliance with the standards, and also investigates alleged safety-related defects. As explained below, installation of your proposed sun visor in new and used vehicles would be affected by our regulations. In addition, any manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment is subject to the requirements of the Vehicle Safety Act concerning the recall and remedy of products with noncompliances or defects related to motor vehicle safety.

We have issued Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials, which specifies performance and location requirements for glazing used in vehicles. These requirements include specifications for minimum levels of light transmittance (708 in areas requisite for driving visibility, which includes all windows in passenger cars).

No manufacturer or dealer is permitted to install solar films and other sun screen devices, such as the sun visors described in your letter, in new vehicles without certifying that the vehicle continues to be in compliance with the light transmittance and other requirements of the standard.

After a vehicle is first sold to a consumer, modifications to a vehicle are affected by section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Vehicle Safety Act. That section prohibits commercial businesses from tampering with safety equipment installed on a vehicle in compliance with our standards. Thus, no dealer, manufacturer, repair business or distributor can install a sun screen device for the owner of the vehicle, if the device would cause the window not to meet the requirements of Standard No 205. Violation of section 108(a)(2)(A) can result in Federal civil penalties of up to $1,000 for each violation.

Section 108(a)(2)(A) does not affect vehicle owners, who may themselves alter their vehicles as they please, so long as they adhere to all State requirements. Under Federal law, the owner may install sun screening devices regardless of whether the installation adversely affects the light transmittance. However, the agency encourages vehicle owners not to install devices which could impair their vision and thus adversely affect safety. Individual States govern the operational use of vehicles by their owners and therefore it is within the authority of the States to preclude owners from using sun screens in their vehicles.

If you need further information, please let me know.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

LEGAL COUNSEL NHTSB U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION ROOM 5219 400 7TH STREET S.W. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20590

DEAR SIR/MS:

I AM REQUESTING A RULING OR INFORMATION ON THE U.S. GOVERNMENTS POSITION ON THE LEGALITY OF MANUFACTURING AND SELLING A NEW TYPE OF SUN VISOR* FOR USE ON AUTOMOBILES IN THE AFTER SALE MARKET IN THE U.S. ALSO WE ARE PLANNING TO INCORPORATE THE NEW SUN VISOR AS ORIGINAL EQUIPMENT ON AUTOMOBILES MANUFACTURED IN KOREA WHICH WILL BE SOLD IN THE U.S. SOLD.

* THE NEW SUN VISOR CLIPS ONTO THE AUTOMOBILES' REGULAR VISOR. WHAT MAKES THE NEW SUN VISOR DIFFERENT IS THAT THE TINTED SUN VISOR CAN BE MOVED TO FILTER OUT THE SUN VIA AN EXTENSION ARM THAT HOLDS THE TINTED SUN VISOR WITHOUT MOVING THE REGULAR OR ORIGINAL EQUIPMENT VISOR. WITH THE NEW SUN VISOR ONE CAN FILTER OUT THE SUN AT THE LEFT SIDE DOOR WINDOW, BELOW THE ORIGINAL EQUIPMENT VISOR AND BETWEEN THE TWO ORIGINAL EQUIPMENT VISORS.

PLEASE ADVISE US AS TO WHETHER OR NOT THIS IS A FEDERAL ISSUE OR PROBLEM.

SINCERELY, EARL J. OGLETREE AND JOHN GASKI

ID: 86-3.26

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 05/17/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Yueh-An Chen

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Yueh-Am Chen Division Head Planning Division Yue Loong Motor Company, Ltd. P.O. Box 510 Taoyuan Taiwan 330 Republic of China

Dear Sir:

This is in reply to your letter of January 23, 1986, asking questions about features of motor vehicle headlighting systems.

Your first question is "to which regulations the headlamp assembly unit should be conformed, if this model is to be exported to U.S.A." The regulation that applies to motor vehicle headlighting assemblies is Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment. Its official citation is Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations Section 571.108. Standard No. 108 incorporates various materials of the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) pertaining to headlamps, such as photometric performance.

With respect to sealed beam headlamps, you have asked whether "it is necessary for us to set the aiming adjust device in front of the lamp unit, i.e. the aiming can be adjusted outside the vehicle?" The standard requires that all headlamps, whether sealed beam or not, must be capable of mechanical aim, that is to say, with an aiming device placed in front of the lamp unit without the removal of any vehicle parts. However, the actual aim adjustment device such as a screw or knob may be located anywhere.

With respect to replaceable bulb headlamps, you have asked whether there is any regulation "regarding the maximum degree of the inclination" of the lens, such as a 20 degree maximum. No, there is no regulatory limitation. However, the headlamp must comply with the minimum photometric requirements of Standard No. 108 with the lens in its design position, and it must be mechanically aimable using equipment designed to interface with the three aiming pads required to be located on the headlamp lens. The degree to which inclination may be limited is influenced by the design of mechanical aiming equipment available in the field for aim inspection and aiming. Consequently, you should contact manufacturers of such equipment to be sure that your headlamps are designed to be mechanically aimable as required by law.

You have also asked if there is any regulation regarding the necessity of putting on or off the headlamp unit outside the vehicle, i.e. do not need to open hood." No, there is no such U.S. regulation.

Finally, you have asked "If a headlamp unit can satisfy the photometric requirements of the SAP, but a small area of the lens is shaded by the other part of the vehicle" is such a configuration permissible. The answer is yes, as long as the headlamp unit can satisfy the photometric requirements as shaded by that part of the vehicle, and as long as any replacement headlamp units produced by you or others can also meet the photometric requirements in the shaded location.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

January 23, 1986

NHTSA 400 Seventh St., S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590 U.S.A.

Dear Sir,

We are the largest automobile manufacturer in Taiwan, R.O.C. In order to make our newly designed model satisfy the U.S.A. regulation, we are now confronted by some troubles in the part of headlight system. If it is possible, please provide us with the following informations:

1. To which regulations the headlamp assembly unit should be conformed, if this model is to be exported to U.S.A.

2. If adopting sealed beam headlamp unit, is it necessary for us to set the aiming adjust device in front of the lamp unit, i.e., the aiming can be adjusted outside the vehicle?

3. If adopting replaceable-bulb headlamp unit, not sealed beam, is there any regulation regarding the maximum degree of the inclination of glass lense, e.g., must be less than 20o (inclination degree (A) as showed in Fig)?

4. Is there any regulation regarding the necessary of putting on or off the headlamp unit outside the vehicle, i.e., do not need to open the hood:

5. If a headlamp unit can satisfy the photometric requirements of the SAE, but a small area of the lens is shaded by the other part of the vehicle, then, could it pass the regulations or not?

Your kind assistance and earliest reply will be highly appreciated.

Sincerely yours,

Yueh-An Chen Division Head Planning Division

ID: 86-3.27

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 05/17/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Jon F. Gasper

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Jon F. Gasper Box 13 Fairbury, NE 68352

Dear Mr. Gasper:

This is in reply to Your letter of January 21, 1986, to the Office of Standards Enforcement of this agency with respect to the applicability of Federal regulations to "a kit car, especially a turn key unit".

For purposes of discussion, I shall assume that a "turn key" kit car is one that is assembled by the kit car supplier before its sale or delivery, even though it may also be available in kit form. If a person is manufacturing or supplying all parts necessary to produce a completed motor vehicle, and all those parts are newly fabricated, that motor vehicle must comply upon assembly with all Federal motor vehicle safety standards that apply to its vehicle type (e.g. passenger car, truck). In this situation, the kit supplier is regarded as the "manufacturer" responsible for compliance, and for attaching a certification label to the vehicle attesting to its compliance. If final assembly is performed by a person other than the kit supplier, the supplier nonetheless under agency interpretations must provide a certification label in the kit, and instructions sufficient to inform the assembler what must be done so that the vehicle conforms to Federal requirements when it is assembled.

If the "turn key" kit car is assembled using the chassis of a motor vehicle previously in use, and which is likely to retain its original title, then it is regarded as a "used vehicle". A familiar example of this type of vehicle is one comprising a new body placed upon the chassis of a Volkswagen Beetle. If the chassis has been purchased without the body, no Federal motor vehicle safety standards will apply to the vehicle upon its completion, nor will it have to be certified. However, if the operation entails removal of the old body and the installation of a new one, and the person removing the body (if a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business) is the person installing the new one, he must ensure that the reassembled vehicle continues to comply with standards effective upon its original manufacture (for example, a vehicle comprised of a 1986 body mounted upon a 1972 chassis must meet all applicable 1972 safety standards). A few individual parts such as tires, glazing, brake hoses, brake fluid, lighting equipment, and seat belt assemblies are subject to standards at the time of their manufacture and must comply regardless of the age of the vehicle for which they are intended (for example, the windshield in the 1986/1972 hybrid must meet the 1986 glazing standard if it is newly manufactured, but meet only the 1972 safety standard on windshield retention).

There are some fact situations in which combinations of new and used parts different than those discussed above are used, and for which no general answer applies. However, I hope that this letter has been sufficiently clear to provide an answer for you.

Finally, a manufacturer of vehicles or equipment items will be responsible for notification of purchasers and remedy of any safety related defect or noncompliance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard that exists in its products.

Sincerely,

Original Signed By

Erika Z. Jones

Chief Counsel

cc (NEF 30) Armstrong/Shifflett

ID: 86-3.28

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 05/21/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Ivan Chien -- President, Friendship Over Water, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

May 21, 1986 Mr. Ivan Chien President Friendship Over Water, Inc. 8F-6, No. 9, San-Min Road Taipei, Taiwan REPUBLIC OF CHINA Dear Mr. Chien: This responds to your letter seeking information about our requirements applicable to "hub covers and wheel covers". The only applicable requirement for those items is set forth in Standard No. 211, Wheel Nuts, Wheel Discs, and Hub Caps (49 CFR 571.211; copy enclosed. That standard specifies that wheel nuts, hub caps, and wheel discs for use on passenger cars and multipurpose passenger cars and multipurpose passenger vehicles shall not incorporate winged projections. Hub covers and wheel covers that you manufacture for use on vehicles other than passenger cars and multipurpose passenger vehicles are not subject to any standards issued by this agency. However, as a manufacturer of hub caps and wheel covers, you incur statutory responsibilities under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.; "the Safety Act"), even for those hub caps and wheel covers not subject to Standard No. 211. If either your company or this agency determines that some of your wheel covers subject to Standard No. 211 do not comply with that standard or determines that any of you wheel covers contain a defect related to motor vehicle safety, you would be required to notify your distributors, dealers, and purchasers of the noncompliance or defect and remedy the noncompliance or defect. In the case of wheel covers, section 154(a)(2)(B) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1414(a)(2)(B)) requires that, if there is a determination of a noncompliance or defect and remedy the noncompliance or defect, the manufacturer must notify distributors, dealers, and purchasers of the noncompliance or defect and must either: 1. repair the wheel cover so that the defect or noncompliance is removed; or 2. replace the wheel cover with an identical or reasonably equivalent wheel cover that does not have a defect or noncompliance. Whichever of these options is chosen, the manufacturer of the wheel covers must bear the full expense of the recall campaign and cannot charge the purchaser for the remedy if the wheel cover was first purchased less than 8 years before the notification campaign began. We have several regulations relating to defect and noncompliance notification and remedy campaigns. Those regulations are identified in the enclosed information sheet for new manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment. That sheet also gives you a broad overview of our statutory and regulatory requirements applicable to manufacturers. You also asked about obtaining necessary "approvals" before selling these products in the United States. For those items subject to Standard No. 211, NHTSA does not use a certification process similar to the European countries, in which the manufacturer delivers the products to be certified to a governmental entity and that entity tests the products to determine if they can be certified as complying with the applicable standards. Instead, in the United States the manufacturer of the product must certify that its products comply with all applicable safety standards. The manufacturer's certification need not be based on actual tests; the only requirement is that the manufacturer exercise due care in making the certification. Once you have determined that your wheel covers comply with Standard No. 211, section 114 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1403) requires you to furnish to each of your distributors and dealers at the time of delivery of the wheel covers a certification that those wheel covers conform to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. That section further provides that your certification "may be in the form of a label or tag on such item or on the outside of a container in which such item is delivered." You also asked how you apply for the approval of the SAE, AAMVA, and CHP. The Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) is a private group that issues recommended practices for the design and performance of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. You are not required by the Vehicle Safety Act to obtain the approval of SAE prior to marketing your products in the United States. You obtain information about the SAE standards by contacting that group at the following address: Society of Automotive Engineers, Inc., 400 Commonwealth Drive, Warrendale, PA 15096, USA. The group may be contacted by telephone at (412) 776-4841. Various States may also have requirements concerning wheel covers. However, section 103(d) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1392(d)) provides that "(w)henever a Federal motor vehicle safety standard established under this title is in effect, no State or political subdivision of a State shall have any authority to establish, or to continue in effect, with respect to any motor vehicle or time of motor vehicle equipment, any safety standard applicable to the same aspect of performance of such safety standard applicable to the same aspect of performance of such vehicle or item of equipment which is not identical to the Federal standard. Nothing in this section shall be construed as preventing any State from enforcing any safety standard which is identical to a Federal safety standard." Thus, any non-identical State safety standard covering the same aspect of performance as Standard No. 211 would be preempted by the provisions of the Safety Act, making it leagally unenforceable. States do have authority to enforce identical standards related to the same aspect of performance as Standard No. 211, and some may exercise that authority. To learn more about this issue, you should contact the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 1201 Connecticut Avenue, N.W., Suite 910, Washington, D.C. 20036, USA. Their telephone number is (202) 296-1955. The Department of California Highway Patrol may be contacted at the following address: Enforcement Services Division, P.O. Box 898, Sacramento, CA 95804, USA. Their telephone number is (916) 445-1865. For your information, I an enclosing copies of two procedural rules that apply to all parties subject to the standards and regulations of this agency. The first is 49 CFR Part 566, Manufacturer Identification. This requires each manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment subject to one of our safety standards to submit its name, address, and a brief description of the items of motor vehicle equipment it manufactures to this agency within 30 days of the date the motor vehicle equipment is imported into the United States. The other regulation is 49 CFR Part 551, Procedural Rules. This regulation requires all manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment headquartered outside of the United States to designate a permanent resident of the United States as the manufacturer's agent for service of process in this country. Part 551 specifies that the designation of agent must contain the following six items of information: 1. A certification that the designation is valid in form and binding on the manufacturer under the laws, corporate by-laws, or other requirements governing the making of the designation at the time and place where it is made; 2. The full legal name, principal place of business, and mailing address of the manufacturer; 3. Marks, trade names, or other designations of origin of any of the manufacturer's products that do not bear its name; 4. A statement that the designation shall remain in effect until withdrawn or replaced by the manufacturer; 5. A declaration of acceptance duly signed by the agent appointed by the manufacturer, and that agent may be an individual, firm, or U.S. corporation; and 6. The full legal name and address of the designated agent. This designation must be received by this agency before your wheel covers are imported into the United States. If you need further information or a clarification of our regulations, please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, Original Signed By Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel Enclosures