ID: 86-4.41

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/13/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: W. K. Sherman

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. W. K. Sherman Manager Inventors Research Foundation P.O. Box 02588 Portland, OR 97202

Dear Mr. Sherman:

This is in reply to your letter of June 30, 1986, with reference to the possible interest of this agency in an illuminated license plate holder which is lit when the ignition is turned on.

The agency does not "approve" or promote proprietary items of lighting equipment. It does require illumination of the rear license plate in the manner set forth in SAE J587 October 81 (incorporated by reference in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 Laps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment) but there is no requirement for illumination of the font plate; however, consideration is being given to proposing the installation of a daytime running light on the front of vehicles, as Canada has recently done. Should the agency issue a formal proposal your client may wish to submit comments to the docket with reference to its device. Your client may also wish to examine current Federal rear lighting requirements to determine whether a vehicle equipped with its device would meet Standard No. 108 If so, it may wish to market the device as original or aftermarket equipment.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

June 30, 1986

Chairman National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 7th and D S.W. Washington, D.C.20007

Gentlemen:

Neil Goldschmidt of Oregon has suggested we refer our client's auto license plate concept to you for possible interest.

This device is an illuminated auto license plate holder which is a metal box with translucent plastic front, permanently attached to an auto. Two lights are turned on with the ignition, thus contributing considerably to the visibility and safety of motor vehicles.

If you would like to know more details we shall be glad to oblige.

The device has been registered with th Patent office under the Disclosure Document Act.

We anticipate your interest.

Sincerely,

INVENTORS RESEARCH FOUNDATION (IRF) W. K. Sherman, manager

WKS/bd cc:Client

ID: 86-4.42

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/14/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Ralph Hitchcock for Barry Felrice; NHTSA

TO: Harry H. Kazakian -- President, Corleone International Traders, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Harry H. Kazakian President Corleone International Traders, Inc. P.O. Box 3417 Los Angeles, Calif. 90028

This is in reply to your letter of April 29, 1986 to which was attached a "Magic Eyes Brake Light". This device consists of two small lamps. whose primary functions are to flash automatically upon catching light within safety range and when the car's brake is in use" The purpose of the device is to reduce rear end collisions. The artwork the package shows the lamps mounted at the base of the rear window on either side of the vehicle's vertical centerline. You asked that your letter be treated as a petition for rulemaking to require the device as original equipment, or for the aftermarket.

I regret that we have decided to deny your petition that the device be required as original equipment. The agency's research has shown that the most effective device for reducing rear end collisions is the single center high-mounted stop lamp, and the agency now requires that device to be installed as original equipment on passenger cars. You have presented no facts that demonstrate that an amendment of the nature you have requested is necessary. Although the agency has specified no requirements for aftermarket supplementary stop lamps (other than those that replace original equipment), on the basis of the agency's research, we believe that aftermarket equipment should meet as closely as possible the specifications for original equipment. Therefore, we are also denying your petition for aftermarket equipment.

We would like to advise you that there are no Federal restrictions on the importation and sale of "Magic Eyes". However, any State may impose its own restrictions on the use of this lamp on roads within its borders, and you should consult these laws before selling the device.

As a final note, the copy for model JA 201 on the package states "To comply with latest United States' regulations, this single lamp lights on automatically upon catching light within safety range and when the car's brake is in use". Please delete the reference to United States regulations on your packages. The single lamp required by the United States is steady burning and has but one function, to indicate application of the brake pedal. It cannot be combined with any other light or device. In comparison, your lamp has two functions, and appears to flash in each.

As an accessory item of motor vehicle equipment, your lamp is subject to the notification and remedy provisions of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. This means that if a safety related defect occurs in the lamp, the manufacturer or importer is obligated to inform dealers, distributors and purchasers to repair, repurchase, or replace the item. We are returning your device with this letter.

Sincerely,

Barry Felrice Associate Administrator for Rulemaking

Enclosure

APRIL 29, 1986

OUR REF. COR/030886 BANKERS: CALIFORNIA OVERSEAS BANK

INTERPRETATION CHIEF COUNCIL NATIONAL TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION Rm. # 5219 # 400, 7th St. South West Washington D.C. 20590

ATT: Erika Z Johns

Dear Erika,

In response to our conversation with Mr. Bob Nikelson in Department of Traffic Safety after a long conversation over the phone about the "Magic Eyes Brake Lights" we were advised to get your attention with this safety device,which could reduce a large quantity of rear endings, help saving lives in U. S. highways an street roads and at the mean time be helpfull financially. Therefore we would certainly appreciate to get your precious time and attention, if you would, to explain about this safety device after a small brief about our business.

Corleone International Traders Inc. is known as well established incorporation in U. S. A. with many satisfied customers. We have relations all over the world, we specialize medical items, auto accessories, foodstuff and many novelties. We also represent variety of manufacturers overseas on exclusive basis.

We would like to take this opportunity to introduce you one of our new sophisticated low coast brake light system which was invented and made with few of our engineers to reduce tail gating and rearending in U.S. highways. This magnificent system is "The Third Brake Light" of the car which has a built in sensor device. This system flashes automatically upon catching light within safety range and when the car's brake is in use.

Our main goal is to see less rear endings in U.S. highways. Therefore we would like to have this sophisticated light activated sensors to be included in every auto's brake system is being built in U.S.A.

We sincerely would like to ask to have this "Safety Device" to be treated as a petition for rule making to require this device or permited originally or after market "Vehicle Safety Standard Cod- -108."

For your research and study we are including a sample of this device on the back of the carton explains product No."JA 101 WARNING LIGHTS" and "JA 105 MAGIC EYE SENSOR".

Dear Chief Council, we are taking this opportunities very seriously and depending on your full research and your answer.

At the mean time we are at your disposal for any information you may need or any questions you may ask. We are sincerely thanking you for your time and your attention at this matter and hoping to hear from you soon about your opinion, until than we remain

HARRY H. KAZAKIAN PRESIDENT

HHK/mb/lb

ID: 86-4.43

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/18/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Mr. William H. Spain

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Thank you for your letter of May 20, 1986, asking how our regulations would apply to a wooden steering wheel you manufacture. You explained that you use a standard steering wheel with a steel outer rim. The steel outer rim is then veneered with wood, which is covered with a protective finish. The finished wheel will then be use as an item of original equipment by a vehicle manufacturer. I hope the following discussion answers your question.

The agency has issued two Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards that set occupant crash protection performance requirements for vehicle steering systems, which includes the steering wheel. Those standards are Standard No. 203, Impact Protection for the Driver from the Steering System, and Standard No. 204, Steering Column Rearward Displacement. Those two standards do not regulate the types of material that may be used in the steering wheel, but instead set performance requirements that the steering systems must meet under certain test conditions. Therefore, a manufacturer may use any material in its steering wheel, as long as the steering system still complies with the performance requirements of Standard Nos. 203 and 204.

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

Sincerely,

NATIONAL MANAGEMENT, INC.

May 20, 1986

Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Ms. Jones,

Confirming our telephone conversation of May 20, 1986 with your Mr. Steve Oesch, we have a tenative inquiry from a small manufacturer of automobiles for the purchase of wood steering wheels.

The steering wheels would be installed by the manufacturer as original equipment. We would use a standard steering wheel with a steel outer rim. The steel outer rim would be veneered with wood and then covered with protective coats of clear polyeutherene finish. There would be no modification to the steering wheel hub itself.

The manufacturer asked if there would be any problems with your office on this approach. I have discussed this briefly with your testing and engineering people and their first impression is that the material of which the rim is constructed is of no consequence so long as the steering assembly complies with the applicable regulations.

We would appreciate your taking the time to confirm whether or not we should anticipate any difficulties with your department using this approach.

Your department's time and courtesy are appreciated.

NATIONAL INDUSTRIES

William H. Spain

ID: 86-4.44

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/18/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Wayne D. Buhler -- Director of Engineering, Onspot, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Wayne D. Buhler Director of Engineering Onspot, Inc. 1424 E. 800 N. Orem, UT 84057

Dear Mr. Buhler:

This responds to your letter requesting a review of your "Onspot Safety Chain," an automatic snowchain, for compliance with existing regulations. according to your letter, the current units are being installed both as original equipment and in the aftermarket on 1/2 ton and larger vehicles, although prototypes are being developed for passenger cars. The device is activated by pulling a dash mounted electrical switch which activates an electric solenoid valve, allowing air to pass from an air tank or the Onspot air chambers. For the future, you are considering using a push pull air switch mounted at the dash which would get air supply from the tank or a manifold, thus eliminating the solenoid valve. On vehicles with air-mechanical brakes, air is generally used from the secondary air reservoir, or the primary reservoir if that is all that is available. On vehicles with hydraulic brakes, an auxiliary air system is provided. I regret the delay in responding to your letter.

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, it is the responsibility of the manufacturer to ensure that its vehicles or equipment comply with applicable safety standards. The following represents our opinion based on the facts provided in your letter.

NHTSA does not have any regulations covering automatic snowchains. However, it is possible that installation of the Onspot Safety Chain could affect a vehicle's compliance with other safety standards. We note in particular that since the device may be tied into a vehicle's air brake system, it could affect a vehicle's compliance with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems.

If your device is installed as original equipment on a new vehicle, the vehicle manufacturer is required to certify that, with the device installed, the vehicle satisfies the requirements of all applicable safety standards. If the device is added to a previously certified new motor vehicle prior to its first sale, the person who modifies the vehicle would be an alterer of a previously certified motor vehicle and would be required to certify that, as altered, the vehicle continues to comply with all of the safety standards affected by the alteration.

If the device is installed on a used vehicle by a business such as a garage, the installer would not be required to attach a certification label. However, it would have to make sure that it did not knowingly render inoperative the compliance of the vehicle with any safety standard. This is required by section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act.

Enclosed is an information sheet which identifies relevant Federal statutes and NHTSA standards and regulations affecting motor vehicle and motor vehicle equipment manufacturers. I note that the Vehicle Safety Act's provisions requiring manufacturers to notify purchasers of safety-related defects and to remedy such defects without charge apply regardless of whether an item of motor vehicle equipment is covered by a safety standard.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Enclosure

Erika Jones March 24, 1986 Chief Council N.H.T.S.A. Washington, DC 20590

Ms. Jones:

I am writing to officially request a review of our product for compliance with existing codes. Enclosed is a copy of our patents and a description of the installation of the product. This should prove helpful in your evaluation.

The Onspot Safety Chain is relatively new to the United States as it has only been marketed since 1984. The product is currently being imported from Sweden, where it was invented. There are approximately 10,000 units in operation worldwide with 1000 of these in operation in the U.S. Customers include the U.S. Postal Service and the U.S.A.F.

The current units have been installed on 1/2 ton and larger vehicles, though prototypes are being developed for passenger cars. Installations are made both at the O.E.M. level and the aftermarket.

Onspot safety chains have been approved in the National Standards for School Bus Body on May 22, 1985. California Senate bill No. 2186 also allows the chains is equivalent to a single set of standard chains. The state of Washington granted a certificate of approval for the device in 1981. This approval has been transferred to our company since November 25, 1984. You will find copies of these approvals enclosed.

Currently the device is activated by pulling a dash mounted electrical switch which activates an electric solenoid valve, allowing air to pass from in air tank to the Onspot air chambers. In the future we may use a push pull air switch mounted at the dash which would get air supply from the tank or a manifold, thus eliminating the solenoid valve (see Figure 1).

On vehicles with air-mechanical brakes, it is common to use air from the secondary air reservoir, or primary if that is all that is available. On vehicles with hydraulic brakes we provide an auxiliary air system which consists of a Delco compressor, an air reservoir, and a limit switch to keep the pressure between 85 and 110 psi (See Figure 2).

As can be seen from the drawings, the device is pneumatically actuated, and then powered by the tire of the vehicle. As the velocity of the vehicle increases the angular velocity of the chainwheel increases. The device is not warrantied if engaged above 25 mph, and when engaged the top speed of operation is 45 mph. The chains may be disengaged at any speed within the operating envelope. Please note the Operating Instructions and Recommendations enclosed.

Also enclosed is a summary of test results which have been selected from several independent tests on the product. These tests will be available for your review at your request. Please call me If you have any questions or for additional material.

Sincerely,

Wayne D. Buhler Director of Engineering Onspot, Inc.

cc: Dr. Carl Clark Inventor Contaxct code NRD-12

Enclosures Omitted.

ID: 86-4.45

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/18/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Koji Tokunaga

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Koji Tokunaga Manager, Engineering Isuzu Motors America, Inc. 21415 Civic Center Drive Southfield, MI 48076-3969

Dear Mr. Tokunaga:

Thank you for your letter of December 19, 1985, to former Chief Counsel Prank Berndt, asking several questions about how the requirements of Standards No. 207, Seating Systems, 209, Seat Belt Assemblies, and 210, Seat Belt Assembly Achorages, apply to an airsuspension truck seat equipped with a safety belt and a tether belt. The diagrams you enclosed with your letter show that one end of the tether belt is connected to the floor behind the seat and the other end is connected to the frame of the air suspension seat. The safety belt is also connected to the frame of the seat. I regret the delay in our response and hope the following discussion answers your questions.

You first asked about which portion of the system is considered the safety belt anchorage for the purpose of Standard No. 210. S3 of the standard defines the term "seat belt anchorage" as "the provision for transferring seat belt assembly loads to the vehicle structure." Since, according to the diagram enclosed with your letter, the safety belt is directly attached to the seat, we would consider the attachment point on the seat to be the anchorage. It is that attachment point that transfers the seat belt load to the vehicle structure. Although not specifically discussed in your letter, we believe that the primary purpose of the tether belt is to hold the seat in position during a crash rather than to transfer the safety belt loads to the vehicle structure.

You next asked whether S4.2(c) of Standard No. 207, Seating Systems, would apply to the seat since the safety belt is secured to the seat. The answer is yes, S4.2(c) would apply. S4.2(c) sets requirements for any seat in which "a seat belt assembly is attached to the seat."

In your third question, you asked whether the seat would have to be tested to the requirements of Standard No. 210 if it meets the requirements of S4.2(c) of Standard No. 207. The seat must meet the requirement of S4.2(c) of Standard No. 207 and the seat belt anchorages must separately meet the requirements of Standard No. 210. As a manufacturer, your responsibility is to certify that the seat and safety belt anchorages will meet each of those requirements. You may not have to conduct two separate tests if you can demonstrate compliance to both sets of requirements when the seat and seat belt anchorage are tested in accordance with S4.2(c) of Standard No. 207.

In your fourth question, you asked whether the struts specified in S5.1.1 of Standard No. 207 can be used in testing the system. S5.1.1 provides that if "the seat back and the seat bench are attached to the vehicle by the same attachments," a strut can be secured on each side of the side for the purposes of securing a rigid crossmember used in loading the seat. In the case of your seat, the seat back and the seat bench are attached to the vehicle by the same attachments and thus use of the struts is permitted.

You then asked how the center of gravity of the seat is to be determined for the purpose of the test. You asked whether you are to determine the center of gravity of the entire system, including the seat stand with the air suspension and slide mechanism. In a July 14, 1983 letter to Mack Trucks, Inc., NHTSA addressed the issue of how to apply the loading required by Standard No. 207 to a heavy-duty truck seat which, as with yours, includes a suspension system and is mounted on a pedestal-like structure.

In its letter, Mack explained that it tests its seat in a two step process. First, the seat supplier for Mack mounts the seat cushion and the seat back on a rigid structure and tests the seat to the performance requirements of Standard No. 207 by applying 20 times the weight of the seat cushion and seat frame to the seat. Then, Mack conducts a separate test of the seat cushion and seat back with those components mounted on the pedestal used in its trucks. In that test, Mack subjects those components to 20 times the weight of the seat back, seat cushion and pedestal applied at the center of gravity of the entire seat system (seat back, seat cushion, and pedestal).

In responding to Mack, NHTSA said that a manufacturer can separately test the seat in the manner followed by Mack. Thus, a manufacturer can conduct one test of the upper section of the seat by applying 20 times the weight of those components to the upper section and then separately test the seat, as anchored to the vehicle floor, by applying 20 times the weight of the entire seat, including the pedestal, at the center of gravity of the entire seat.

In your sixth and final question, you asked whether the tether belt would have to meet the seat belt assembly requirements of Standard No. 209. S3 of Standard No. 209 defines, in part, a seat belt assembly as "any strap, webbing, or similar device designed to secure a person in a motor vehicle to mitigate the results of any accident. . . ." Since your tether belt is not designed to restrain an occupant, it would not be required to meet the requirements of Standard No. 209.

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

Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

DET-85-258

December 19, 1985

Mr. Frank Berndt Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Mr. Berndt:

Subject: Test Procedures for Seat Belt With Tether Belt

Regarding the compliance with the requirements of FMVSS 207 and 210, we would request you to answer the following questions and provide necessary information on a seat belt with tether belt, which is used on an airsuspension truck seat. Please see Fig. 1 on the next page for the outline of the system.

1. We think that (1) the securing on the floor end or the tether belt, (2) the tether belt itself, and (3) the area where the seat belt and tether belt are together secured to the seat constitute the seat belt anchorage as defined in FMVSS 270 S3. Is this correct?

2. Since the seat belt is secured to the seat together with the tether belt, we think FMVSS 207 S4.2(c) is applicable. Is this understanding correct?

3. If your answer to the question 2 above is yes, there seems to be no necessity for testing the system separately to FMVSS 210 S4.2 if the system meets the requirements or FMVSS 207 S4.2(c). Is this correct?

4. If your answer to the question 2 above is yes, is the use of the struts mentioned in FMVSS 207 S5.1.1 permitted in testing the system? Then, how is the center of gravity or the seat determined? Is it the center or gravity or the entire system including the seat stand which incorporates the suspension and slide mechanisms?

5. If the center of gravity is to be determined as in para. 4 above, this center exists inside the suspension mechanism as shown in Fig. 2, and thus the crossmember for the struts cannot be installed.

Is there any established regulation or procedure which specifies what load is to be applied where? If no, please advise what action we are to take.

6. It is our understanding that the tether belt is to meet the requirements or FMVSS 209 as linked to the seat belt. Is this understanding correct?

Thank you for your cooperation.

Sincerely yours,

Koji Tokunaga Manager, Engineering

jj

ID: 86-4.47

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/18/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Thomas J. Flanagan

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Thomas J. Flanagan, Esq. Wiggin & Dana 195 Church Street P.O. Box 1832 New Haven, CT 06508

Dear Mr. Flanagan:

This responds to your letter to Mr. Brian McLaughlin, of our Rulemaking division, seeking an interpretation of the requirements of 49 CFR Part 541, Federal Motor Vehicle Theft Prevention Standard. You described a situation in which a client, Saab-Scania of America, imports cars subject to the theft prevention standard and uses them directly as company cars or leases them to employees for their personal use. After such use, the company sells the cars to dealers as used cars. On occasion, these vehicles may have an original equipment major part covered by the theft prevention standard that is so badly damaged during such use that the part must be replaced before the vehicle is delivered to a dealer or distributor. When this occurs, you asked whether the repair would be required to be made with a part marked with the full VIN or whether the repair could be made with a properly marked replacement part. We conclude that when a manufacturer uses a car as a company car in the manner you describe, it may make any necessary repairs to damaged major parts by installing parts marked as replacement parts. This conclusion is explained in detail below.

Section 2(7) of the Cost Savings Act (15 D.S.C. 1901(7)) defines a manufacturer as "any person engaged in the manufacturing or assembling of passenger motor vehicles or passenger motor vehicle equipment including any person importing motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment for resale." (Emphasis added). It is clear under this statutory definition that your client is a "manufacturer" for the purposes of the theft prevention standard, since it is importing motor vehicles for resale.

Section 606(c)(1) of the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act (15 U.S.C. 2026(c)(1)) requires vehicle manufacturers to certify that each vehicle complies with the requirements of the theft prevention standard "at the time of delivery of such vehicle". The preamble to the final rule establishing the theft prevention standard discussed this agency's conclusion that the "delivery" as used in this part of section 606(c)(1) means the delivery from the manufacturer to a dealer or distributor, and that the delivery occurs when the goods are delivered by the seller to a carrier. 50 FPR 43166, at 131B6-43187, October 24, 1985. In the next sentence, section 606(c)(1) specifies that the certification shall accompany the vehicle until delivery to the first purchaser. NHTSA believes that this statutory requirement means that each vehicle in the lines selected as high theft lines and listed in Appendix A of Part 541 must be delivered to the first purchaser with all covered major parts marked in accordance with the theft prevention standard. However, NHTSA does not interpret this statutory provision as requiring that every first purchaser be delivered a vehicle with all covered major parts marked with the VIN. Instead, the agency believes this means that the first purchaser may receive a vehicle with the undamaged covered original equipment major parts marked with the VIN, and with those covered major parts installed by a dealer or distributor to replace damaged original equipment parts marked as replacement parts.

In accordance with this interpretation, NHTSA does not believe that a manufacturer delivers a car to itself, when the car is sold to the public as a new car. However, you have noted a circumstance in which cars are bona fide used as company cars and are sold to the public as used cars, not new cars. Congress knew that used cars frequently have some replacement parts substituted for the original equipment parts. However, Title VI contains no requirement that used cars have all covered major parts marked with the VIN. In fact, Title VI presumes that when an original equipment major part is so badly damaged that it must be replaced, it will be replaced with a replacement part marked in conformity with Part 541. This reflects a legislative judgment that such replacement does not increase the opportunity for car thieves to steal the car without fear of being apprehended, or otherwise frustrate the purposes of Title VI, even though the car no longer has all major parts marked with the VIN.

On the other hand, a severe burden would be imposed on all manufacturers if they were required to deliver all bona fide company cars to distributors or dealers with all covered major parts marked with the VIN. If this were required and the company car were involved in an accident that required a covered major part to be replaced, the manufacturer would have a choice of either asking the factory to produce a replacement part with the VIN marked on the part and waiting to repair the vehicle until the part marked with the VIN arrived, or ending the vehicle's use as a company car and shipping the unrepaired vehicle to a dealer or distributor with the damaged major part marked with the VIN still on the vehicle. Nothing in the legislative history of Title VI explicitly or implicitly suggests that Congress intended such harsh treatment of company cars under the theft prevention standard.

Balancing the absence of negative policy consequences under Title VI if manufacturers are allowed to repair company cars with properly marked parts against the significant burdens that would be imposed on manufacturers if damaged major parts on company cars had to be replaced with parts marked with the full VIN, NHTSA concludes that Title VI of the Cost Savings Act permits cars damaged while in bona fide use as company cars and sold to the public as used cars, to be repaired by the manufacturer using properly marked replacement parts. This conclusion is based on NHTSA's interpretation that bona fide use of the car as a company car by the manufacturer is, for all practical and policy purposes, tantamount to a delivery of the vehicle under section 606(c)(1). The conclusion is reinforced by the fact that when a company car is later sold to the public as a used car, the consumer purchasing the company car Hill get a car with the same theft markings as any other used car.

NHTSA would like to note that this interpretation applies only to Title VI of the Cost Savings Act, and not to any other statutes administered by this agency. Those statutes may have different underlying policy considerations, which might mandate a different conclusion for cars used as company cars. Further, the agency wishes to emphasize that this interpretation applies only to bona fide company cars that are sold to the public as used cars, and not to most of the cars manufactured by the manufacturer.

Please feel free to contact me if you have any further questions about our theft prevention standard.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

April 3, 1986

Mr. Brian McLaughlin Office of Market Incentives NHTSA 400 Seventh Street, SW Washington, D.C. 20530

Re: Theft Prevention Regulations

Dear Mr. McLaughlin:

As you suggested during our phone conversation on March 31, 1986, I am writing to request a more formal response to the question I asked during that conversation.

As you will recall, our client, Saab-Scania of America, Inc., uses some of the vehicles that it imports before selling these cars to dealers as used cars. The company either uses these cars directly or leases them to employees.

The question I asked was whether vehicles so employed by an importer that needed repairs before delivery to a dealer as a used car could be repaired with "R" marked parts or whether such vehicles must be repaired with parts market with the full VIN number.

My reading of the statute is that, under these circumstances, the importer itself becomes the "first purchaser" of tie vehicle thereby allowing the importer to repair the vehicle with "R" marked parts.

Please call if you require any more information to reply.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,

Thomas J. Flanagan

TJF:j1

ID: 86-4.48

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/18/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z Jones; NHTSA

TO: Mr. T. Chikada

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. T. Chikada Manager, Automotive Lighting Engineering Control Dept. Stanley Electric Co. Ltd. 2-9-13, Nakameguro-ku Tokyo 153, Japan

Dear Mr. Chikada:

This is in reply to your letter of July 7, 1986, asking for our advice on a decorative lighting device for motorcycles.

The general principle remains the same as when I last explained it to you. Please refer to my letter to you dated March 24, 1986 (copy enclosed) on the relationship of paragraph S4.1.3 of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 to auxiliary lighting devices for motorcycles. If you conclude that the device would not impair the lighting equipment required by Standard No. 108 then paragraph S4.1.3 would not prohibit your device.

You may follow this guideline with reference to any future questions you may have about the permissibility of auxiliary motor vehicle lighting devices. The agency does not approve or disapprove of specific items of lighting equipment.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

July 7, 1986

Att.: Ms. Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

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

Re.: Instlallation of decorative extra lighting device to the vehicle, which is not specified in FMVSS No.108

Dear Ms. Jones,

We would like to ask you an advice for the following decorative extra lighting device.

This device will be mounted on the rear side of a motorcycle. We enclose an illustration and a drawing which shows the size, shape and the proximity to a tail & stop lamp. Lens color of this decorative extra lamp is red and its maximum luminous intensity is lower than the minimum of the tail lamp.

We are looking forward to your advice.

Sincerely yours,

Stanley Electric Co., Ltd.

T. Chikada, Manager, Automotive Lighting Engineering Control Dept.

Enc. Drawing 1 : The outlines of the device Drawing 2 : The details of the device (Graphics here)

ID: 86-4.49

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/18/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: William Shapiro

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

William Shapiro, P.E. Manager, Regulatory Affairs Volvo Cars of North America Rockleigh, NJ 07647

Dear Mr. Shapiro:

Thank you for your letter of May 5, 1986, requesting an interpretation of how the requirements of Standard No. 212, Windshield Retention, apply to a passenger car that is equipped with a driver-only air bag system. As explained below, such a vehicle must retain not less than 50 percent of the windshield periphery after being tested in accordance with Standard No. 212.

Standard No. 212 sets different windshield retention requirements for a vehicle depending on whether it is equipped with passive or manual restraints. S5.1 of the standard provides that vehicles equipped with passive restraints must retain not less than 50 percent of the windshield periphery after crash testing. S5.2 of the standard provides that vehicle that are not equipped with passive restraints must retain not less than 75 percent of the windshield periphery.

You noted that S4.1.3.4(b) of Standard No. 208 provides that, for purpose of calculating the number of passive restraint-equipped cars during the phase-in of passive restraints, a car with a driver-only, non-belt passive restraint will be counted as a vehicle complying with the passive restraint requirements of S4.1.2.1(a). Such a driver-only system can have a manual safety belt installed at the right front passenger position. You said that Volvo considers a vehicle with a driver-only, non-belt system to be a passive restraint vehicle and thus subject to the 50 percent windshield retention requirement of S5.1

As discussed in a July 5, 1977, Federal Register notice (42 FR 34288), one of the reasons the agency adopted the 50 percent retention requirement for passive restraint-equipped vehicles has because there could be contact between an air bag system and the windshield. In addition, there could be incidental contact between an air bag-restrained test dummy and the windshield. Because the same air bag-to-windshield and dummy-to-windshield contact is possible in a vehicle equipped with a driver-only air bag system, the agency believes that it is appropriate to apply the 50 percent retention requirement to a driver-only air bag system.

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

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

May 5, 1986

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

Re: Request for Interpretation FMVSS #212 Windshield Mounting

Dear Ms. Jones:

FMVSS #212 requires passive restraint equipped vehicles to retain not less than 50% of the portion of the windshield periphery on each side of the vehicle longitudinal centerline and vehicles not equipped with passive restraints to retain not less than 75% of the windshield periphery.

FMVSS #208 Section 4. 1.3.4(b) states, for purposes of calculating the numbers of cars manufactured under Section 4. 1.3. 1 .2, Section 4. 1.3.2.2, or Section 4.1.3.3.2 L; comply with Section 4.1.2.1. (first option - frontal/angular automatic protection system): "Each car whose driver's seating position with comply with the requirements of Section 4.1.2.1(a) by means not including any type or seat belt ad whose front right seating position is equipped with a Type 2 seat belt is counted as a vehicle conforming to Section 4,1.2.1.",

During the period 1987-89MY, NHTSA has classified cars with a non-belt passive restraint on the driver's side and a Type 2 seat belt on the passenger's side as "passive restraint vehicles".

Volvo interprets that the vehicles covered under Section 4.1.3.4(b) are passive restraint vehicles ad the requirements of FMVSS #212 for those vehicles are the ones that apply to passive restraint vehicles, i.e. , minimum 50% windshield periphery retention on each side of the vehicle longitudinal centerline.

We would appreciate your confirmation of that position as soon as possible.

If additional information is required on this matter, don't hesitate to contact me.

Sincerely,

VOLVO CARS OF NORTH AMERICA Product Planning and Development

William Shapiro, P.E. Manager, Regulatory Affairs

ID: 86-4.5

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/30/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Vincent H. Rose -- President, HI-Q Technology, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Vincent H. Rose President HI-Q Technology, Inc. Box 4836 Walnut Creek, Calif. 94596

This will confirm your understanding, as expressed in your letter of June 3, 1986, that Federal requirements for center high-mounted stop lamps (Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment, do not apply to an aftermarket lamp that "will not replace parts originally governed by regulations".

It is not quite correct, however, to say that "no regulations apply"; a manufacturer of aftermarket lighting equipment to which no standard applies is nevertheless subject to the notification and remedy provisions of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act if either it or this agency determines that a safety related defect exists in the product.

Finally, even though Standard No. 108 does not cover an aftermarket center high-mounted stop lamp such as you propose to market, we encourage manufacturers to design their products as closely as possible to Federal specifications so that the full benefit of the device may be realized.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

June 3, 1986 Ref: 20nhtsa3

Ms Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Room 5219 400 7th St. SW Washington DC 20590

Dear Ms Jones:

We are planning to market a lighting product for passenger cars in the United States and wish to comply with pertinent regulations and safety standards.

The product is a high-mounted stoplamp. It will be sold in the aftermarket and is intended to be added by the consumer to older automobiles not originally equipped with this device. It is not intended for replacement of high-mounted stoplamps installed by the vehicle manufacturer in newer automobiles.

We need your advice regarding U.S. Government regulations, if any, that must be complied with. It is our understanding that perhaps no regulations apply because this product is an add-on and will not replace parts originally governed by regulations.

Your comments will be most helpful and appreciated.

Very truly yours,

Vincent H. Rose President HI-Q Technology, Inc.

ID: 86-4.50

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/19/86

FROM: LYNNE L. KEIL -- MANAGER, MATERIALS AND EQUIPMENT - CITY OF BILLINGS, MONTANA

TO: WCS SPRUNK -- MANAGER, SAF-TEE SIPING, INC.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: DECEMBER 30, 1988 LETTER FROM JONES TO SPRUNK, OCTOBER 8, 1987 LETTER FROM SPRUNK TO JONES, BROCHURES ON TIRE SIPING, 1978 NSC WINTER TEST REPORT, ARTICLE FROM AUGUST 1986 ISSUE OF "SCHOOL BUSINESS AFFAIRS," ARTICLE ENTITLED "SLASHING TIRES FOR SAFETY AND SAVINGS" FROM DECEMBER 1984 "NATIONAL SCHOOL BUS REPORT," MARCH 20, 1985 LETTER FROM GIFFORD TO SPRUNK, OCTOBER 15, 1982 LETTER FROM PALMER TO MARCY MANUFACTURING, AND APRIL 1983 AND APRIL 1984 ARTICLES FROM "GW SAFETY TALK"

TEXT: This is written in accordance with your request that we document the results experienced as a consequence of siping tires to increase handling performance on certain vehicles. Last year, we were experiencing severe handling problems on snow and ice with police vehicles in particular.

Approximately 20 patrol cruisers had been fitted with new Good Year Eagle GT Tires. With these tires, cornering and stopping on ice and snow was hazardous and in some instances, impossible. In an effort to improve performance, we siped the tires on several of these vehicles and ran tests.

On the test vehicles, we found that we could negotiate 90 degrees corners safely on ice at 25 to 30 miles per hour - after siping. Prior to siping, we could corner and maintain vehicle control only at speeds under 10 miles per hour. Braking efficiency was increased in all cases by 30 percent.

Given the inclemental weather and tire type, siping in this case was obviously necessary and functional. It was also a great deal less costly than replacing 20 sets of tires. We have since siped tires on Met Transit coaches with very good results. Should you have any questions, or wish further information, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you.