ID: 86-3.29

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 05/24/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Mr. T. Chikada

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

March 24, 1986 Mr. T. Chikada Manager, Automotive Lighting Engineering Control Dept. Stanley Electric Co., Ltd. 2-9-13, Nakameguro, Meguro-ku Tokyo 153, Japan Dear Mr. Chikada: This is in reply to your letter of January 9, 1986, telling of your development of a center high-mounted stop lamp which would utilize light-emitting diodes (LEDs) as a light source, rather than a light source incorporating a tungsten filament. You have asked whether such a device would be permissible under Standard No. 108. In support of your argument that such a light-producing device would be acceptable, you have brought to our attention paragraph S4.1.1.19 which allows a lamp manufacturer to use "bulbs" that are not listed in SAE Information Report J387 Jul83 is appropriate. The SAE defines a "bulb" as "an indivisible assembly which contains a source of light and which is normally used in a lamp." In further support of your position, you have submitted a summary of test results indication that your LED stop lamp meets all applicable requirements of Standard No. 108, except for S4.1.1.41(e). That subparagraph requires the lamp to "provide access for convenient replacement of the bulb without the use of special tools." We have reviewed your request, and have the following comments. As you have pointed out, Standard No. 108 does not define a "bulb," but we interpret that word in a manner similar to the SAE, that it refers to a photometric performance requirements of Standard No. 108, and you have indicated that your LD4ED lamp complies with these requirements. However, your LED lamp must also meet the requirements of S4.1.1.41(e). Access must be provided for convenient replacement, without use of special tools, of either the individual clusters of LEDs which burn out or the entire lamp. If your lamp is designed so that it meets S4.1.1.41(e) in one of these two ways, then your lamp would appear to be acceptable under Standard No. 108. Sincerely, Original Signed By Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

ID: 86-3.3

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 05/01/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Elizabeth Hanford Dole; NHTSA

TO: William von Raab -- Commissioner of Customs, U.S. Customs Service

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. William von Raab The Commissioner of Customs United States Customs Service 1301 Constitution Avenue, N.W. Washington, D,C. 20229

This responds to your letter suggesting a potential enforcement problem with the new Federal motor vehicle theft prevention standard promulgated by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). As you noted, the Customs Service will be the agency responsible for enforcing the provisions in the theft prevention standard requiring subject vehicles and parts to be properly marked and certified before they are imported into the United States. You stated that it was essential that the Customs Service be provided a list of "authorized individuals or companies which have been found by (the Department of Transportation) to possess the capability and integrity to properly certify imported vehicles and parts." Accordingly, you requested that we provide you with such a list. The Department of Transportation does not authorize individuals or companies to engage in the business of importing and modifying vehicles. Therefore, we cannot provide you with a list such as you requested.

This issue arises primarily with respect to "direct importers". These direct importers are individuals and commercial enterprises that obtain foreign cars not originally manufactured for sale in the United States, bring them into this country under bond, and modify the cars so that they can be certified as being in compliance with the U.S. vehicle safety, emissions, and bumper standards. This is commonly referred to as the automotive "gray market". The statutes mandating the Federal safety, emissions, and bumper standards (15 U.S.C. 1397(b)(3), 42 U.S.C. 7522(b)(2), and 15 U.S.C. 1916(b)(3)) explicitly authorize vehicles not in compliance to be brought into this country under bond. However, the Theft Act (15 U.S.C. 2021 et seq.) contains no such provision. Therefore, direct importers must modify all their subject vehicles to comply with the theft prevention standard before the vehicles are imported, and must certify that the vehicles are in compliance at the time of entry.

You stated in your letter that the theft prevention standard could be read to allow any person to certify compliance of an imported vehicle with the standard and that the Customs Service would have no way to judge the authenticity of the certification or the "ability of the party to certify to compliance at the time of importation." You suggested that vehicles and parts could be imported without being properly marked, if Customs had to accept the certification of any person importing such vehicles or parts.

We do not believe that reliance on the importers' certifications will cause the enforcement problems you fear. If subject vehicles or parts bear a certification that complies with the requirements of the theft prevention standard, the Customs Service should allow those vehicles or parts to be imported. NHTSA enforcement personnel will conduct spot checks of the direct importers' vehicles and parts. If we discover that some direct importers are certifying compliance with the theft prevention standard without actually marking in accordance with that standard, we will take appropriate enforcement actions. We expect these actions will help deter any direct importers or other manufacturers who are tempted to falsely certify compliance with the theft prevention standard.

Although we share your concern that all authorized manufacturers and importers of motor vehicles comply with the theft prevention standard, we have no authority to require any person or entity to register with the Department of Transportation and show a capability to comply with the standard before importing a vehicle. We do currently collect information about importers after they have imported a vehicle, as does the Customs Service. However, the fact that a potential importer has not previously imported a vehicle has no legal significance for our enforcement efforts.

I appreciate your concern for the effective enforcement of our theft prevention standard. Please feel free to contact me if you have any further suggestions or ideas in this regard.

Sincerely,

Original Signed By Elizabeth Hanford Dole

Dear Secretary Dole:

I am writing with respect to the recently issued regulations from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration implementing the Motor Vehicle Theft Law Enforcement Act of 1984, 50 Fed. Reg. 43166 (October 24, 1985). As you may be aware, the Customs Service is developing regulations for the implementation of the export provisions of the Act as it applies to motor vehicle exports. In addition, the Service is also directed to enforce the import restriction set forth in the Act and implemented by the October 24, 1985 Federal Register notice. I want to direct your attention to a potential enforcement problem which has been brought to my attention with respect to the final regulations issued by NHTSA.

The regulations as issued can be read to allow any person to place a certification label for vehicle identification marking on an imported vehicle. If this is the Department of Transportation's interpretation, the Customs Service will have no basis for judging the authenticity of the certification or the ability of the party to certify to compliance at the time of importation. This raises a significant enforcement issue within the Service. If the Service must accept the certification of any person importing a vehicle or parts, these items may in fact be imported without being properly marked in accordance with the statute. If, however, a list of parties who have the ability to certify compliance can be established and utilized by the Customs Service to approve imported vehicles and parts, the Service could, as it does today, spot check the individuals on this list and carefully check for possible exclusion any other importers. We believe, from an enforcement standpoint, to carry out the purposes of the Motor Vehicle Theft Act that it is essential that the Service have a list of authorized individuals or companies which have been found by your Department to possess the capability and integrity to properly certify imported vehicles and parts.

In order to assure effective enforcement of the Act's regulations, I would appreciate receiving a listing identifying those parties who are authorized to certify compliance as soon as possible so we may proceed with our implementation plans and instructions to the field in a timely fashion.

Yours faithfully,

The Honorable Elizabeth Hanford Dole Secretary of Transportation 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

ID: 86-3.30

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 05/27/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Karl-Heinz Faber, Vice President

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Karl-Heinz Faber, Vice President Product Compliance and Service Mercedes-Benz of North America, Inc. One Mercedes Drive, P.O. BoX 350 Montvale, NJ 07645

Dear Mr. Faber:

This responds to your letter addressed to Mr. Barry Felrice concerning Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 101, Controls and Displays, and use of the "fanfare" symbol. According to your letter, all Mercedes-Benz passenger cars are provided with a horn that when activated produces an audible tone. The control for so activating the horn is located in the steering wheel hub. In addition to the standard horn, your company also offers an optional system on some models which permits the driver to choose either the standard tone or a higher frequency tone by means of a dash-board-mounted rocker switch. The rocker switch is identified by the fanfare symbol. The audible tone selected is then produced by activating the horn control in the steering wheel in the usual manner. This letter confirms that the use of the fanfare symbol for the rocker switch described above is permissible under Standard No. 101.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 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 and equipment meet applicable safety standards. The following represents our opinion based on the facts provided in your letter.

Standard No. 101 requires that vehicles with any control listed in the standard must meet specified requirements for the location, identification and illumination of such control. See section S5. Among the controls listed in Standard No. 101 is the 'horn' control. See section S5.1 and column 1 of Table 1.

It is our opinion that the "horn" control referred to by Standard No. 101 is limited to that which activates the horn to produce an audible tone. Thus, a separate rocker switch which permits the driver to choose different tones but does not activate the horn to produce an audible tone is not considered to be a "horn" control within the meaning of Standard No. 101. Since a control of this type is not otherwise covered by Standard No. 101 or any other standard, the identification of the control is at the option of the manufacturer.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

ID: 86-3.31

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 05/27/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Toshio Maeda

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Toshio Maeda Executive Vice President & Chief Operating Officer Nissan Research & Development, Inc. P.O. Box 8650 Ann Arbor, MI 48104

Dear Mr. Maeda:

Thank you for your letter of April 11, 1986, requesting an interpretation of the comfort and convenience requirements of Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection. Your specific question is whether the retraction requirements of S7.4.5 of the standard apply only to the front outboard seating positions. As explained below, the answer is yes.

The April 12, 1985 notice proposed changes to the comfort and convenience requirements in response to petitions for reconsideration. In the case of the retraction requirements, the proposed language of S7.4.5 said that the requirement would only apply to a safety belt system installed at the "front outboard designated seating position." In the November 6, 1985 final rule adopting the retraction requirement, the agency dropped the reference to the "front outboard seating position." However, S7.4.5 still referred to conducting a compliance test on a test dummy which has been positioned "in accordance with S10." S10, in turn, references the test dummy positioning requirements of S8.1.11. S8.1.11.1 and S8.1.11.2 provide for positioning test dummies in the front outboard seating positions. Thus, the minor change in the language of the requirements did not change the applicability of the requirement. However, to eliminate any possible ambiguity about the application of the retraction requirement, the agency is planning to amend S7.4.5 to provide explicitly that it only applies to the front outboard designated seating positions.

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

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel April 11, 1986 Ref : W-159-H

Ms. Erika Jones Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 7th St., S.W. Room 5219 Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Ms. Jones:

Re: REQUEST FOR INTERPRETATION 49 CFR Part 571 Docket No. 74-14; Notice 42 Seat Belt Comfort and Convenience

On behalf of Nissan Motor Co., Ltd. of Tokyo, Japan, Nissan Research & Development, Inc. herewith requests interpretation of a somewhat ambiguous phrase in the NHTSA's final rule on the performance requirements for seat belt assemblies (Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 208).

S571. 208. S7.4.5, Retraction, reads, in part, ". . .the torso and lap belt webbing of any of those seat belt systems shall automatically retract when the adjacent vehicle door is in the open position, or when the seat belt latchplate is released, to a stowed position." (Emphasis added)

Question:

In the case of a 2-door vehicle, what would be considered the "adjacent" door for either the rear outboard seat or the rear center seat? Or is the retraction performance requirement intended to be applicable to rear seating positions at all?

Since the effective date for this requirement is already less than six months away, any urgency with which you can address our concern is highly appreciated.

If you have any questions, please contact Mr. Tomoyo Hayashi of my Washington, D.C. staff at (202) 466-5284.

Thank you very much. Again, we would be grateful for a prompt response.

Respectfully submitted,

Toshio Maeda Executive Vice President & Chief Operating Officer

TM:TH:mab cc) Mr. Steve Oesch, Chief Counsel Office, NHTSA

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

ID: 86-3.33

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 05/27/86 EST

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA CHIEF COUNSEL

TO: R.A. BYNUM -- ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR, PUPIL TRANSPORTATION SERVICE, VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

TITLE: NONE

TEXT: This is a response to your letter of January 25, 1988, where you asked this agency to "provide (your Department) with the precise language of the various federal laws and regulations which describes the application and enforcement of the April 1, 1977 school vehicle regulations." You state that Virginia has "agreed to enforce" the Federal school bus regulations by requiring that "all school activity buses purchased, leased or contracted for after January 1, 1985" comply with Federal school bus regulations.

You state that according to your maintenance records for vehicles in the school bus fleet, some "Detroit Line" vans do not comply with Federal regulations, and Virginia may wish to take some action (1) to remove certain "noncomplying" vehicles from the school bus fleet, and (2) to warn dealers and manufacturers against selling noncomplying vehicles to Virginia school divisions. You state that you are concerned with "school activity vehicles which were designed for more than ten passenger capacity," and say that the State of Virginia may order some school districts to remove certain vehicles from service, because they appear not to comply with Federal safety standards for school buses.

As I read your letter and the materials you submit with it, your principal concern seems to be with the compliance requirements for passenger vans with at least 11 designaated seating positions, and used to transport students to and from school-related events. Let me begin by explaining that under Federal regulations, there is no vehicle classification called "van." Instead, a passenger van is classified either as a "multipurpose passenger vehicle" (MPV) or a "bus," depending primarily upon its seating capacity. An MPV is a motor vehicle (1) designed to carry a driver and nine or fewer passengers, (in other words, with not more than 10 designated seating positions), and (2) either constructed on a truck chassis or equipped with features for off-road operation. A bus is a motor vehicle designed to carry a driver and 10 or more passengers. (In other words, a bus has at least 11 designated seating positions.)

If that vehicle with at least 11 designated seating positions also is manufactured and sold to carry school children, then the vehicle is not just a bus, but a school bus. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Vehicle Safety Act) and regulations issued under it, define a school bus in terms of (1) the vehicle's designed capacity for carrying people, and (2) the vehicle's intended use. More specifically, a school bus is a motor vehicle designed for carrying a driver and 10 or more passengers, and sold for transporting students to and from school or school-related events. Please note that a vehicle with at least 11 designated seating positions intended for use in transporting students to school-related activities is a school bus even if the vehicle is not used to transport students to and from school.

Please note further that NHTSA uses its definition of school bus in regulating the manufacture and sale of new vehicles. A new vehicle that meets the definition of a school bus must meet Federal safety standards for school buses. A school bus manufacturer must certify that its vehicle meet all applicable Federal safety standards, and a commercial seller must sell only a complying vehicle as a school bus. In your letter, you state that Virginia may warn some dealers and manufacturers against selling noncomplying vehicles to your school districts. If a dealer has in its inventory, a motor vehicle with at least 11 designated seating positions, and if that vehicle is not certified as complying with all Federal safety standards applicable to a school bus, then in all likelihood, the dealer has violated the Vehicle Safety Act if he sells or has sold a noncomplying vehicle to a Virginia school district.

This is because NHTSA has maintained a long-standing position that if a dealer sells an MPV or bus capable of being converted and used as a school bus to a school or a school bus contract operator, that dealer is responsible for certifying the vehicle's compliance with school bus standards. (40 FR 40854, September 4, 1975.) The agency has placed these special responsibilities with the dealer because the dealer frequently is the person in the distribution chain with the best knowledge of how a buyer intends to use a vehicle. In a case where the dealer is uncertain of the buyer's intent, the agency has suggested that the dealer request a written statement of purpose from the buyer. (40 FR 60033, 60034, December 31, 1975.) Of course, a manufacturer who sells a noncomplying vehicle to a school district also violates the Vehicle Safety Act, and is subject to a civil penalty of $ 1000 for each violation of the Act or regulations issued under it.

Generally under the Vehicle Safety Act, a manufacturer's or seller's certification responsibilities apply up to the vehicle's first purchase in good faith for purposes other than resale (in other words, up to the first retail sale of the vehicle). After that first retail sale, Federal responsibilities change. Federal restrictions concerning used vehicles are set out in @ 108(a)(2)(A) of the Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)). That section states 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 or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard . . .

Section 108 means that none of the identified persons or businesses may remove, disconnect, or degrade the performance of safety equipment or designs that are installed in a school bus in compliance with an applicable Federal safety standard. Note that this prohibition in the Federal law does not prevent the vehicle owner (e.g., a local school system) from itself making modifications to its own vehicles. Again, as with any violation of $ 108 or regulations issued under it, this agency may seek civil penalties of $ 1000 per violation.

In your letter, you express concern with the failure of some Virginia school districts either to purchase school buses that comply with Federal safety standards, or to maintain the districts' existing school bus fleet. Please be aware that there is no Federal requirement that school districts either purchase complying vehicles for transporting school students, maintain a bus fleet so that the vehicles continue to comply with Federal safety standards, or otherwise bring a vehicle into compliance with Federal school bus standards. This agency can not regulate the purchase or use of a vehicle, and consequently can not require a school district to purchase or use only those vehicles that comply with the Federal school bus safety standards. These matters are within the authority of the individual State. Under a Federal statute called the Highway Safety Act, NHTSA has issued guidelines that cover a wide range of subjects relative to school bus identification, operation, and maintenance (23 CFR Part 1204, Highway Safety Program Standard No. 17). NHTSA may recommend, but does not require, that an individual State adopt all or part of these guidelines. Therefore, the State of Virginia, not the Federal Government, would impose limitations on the purchase, use, and maintenance of vehicles by a school district, and would determine whether to order a district to remove noncomplying vehicles from its school bus fleet.

You ask for "the precise language" of Federal laws and regulations that apply to school buses. Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 571 contains the Federal safety standards. The following is a list of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards that include requirements for new school buses:

Standards No. 101 through 104 (49 CFR @ 571.101 - @ 571.104)

Standard No. 105 (School buses with hydraulic service brake systems)

Standards No. 106 through 108

Standards No. 111 through 113

Standard No. 115

Standard 116 (School buses with hydraulic brake systems)

Standard No. 120

Standard No. 121 (School buses with air brake systems)

Standard No. 124

Standards No. 201, 203, and 204 (School buses with a gross vehicle

weight rating [GVWR] of 10,000 pounds or less)

Standards No. 205, 207, 208, and 210

Standard No. 212 (School buses with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less)

Standard No. 217

Standard No. 219 (School buses with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less) Standard No. 220

Standard No. 221 (School buses with a GVWR greater than 10,000 pounds)

Standards No. 222, 301, 302.

You may find a copy of 49 CFR at a Federal Depository Library in your State. I enclose a list of those Libraries in Virginia. If you so choose, you may purchase a copy of Title 49 from the United States Printing Office (GPO), Washington, D.C., 20402, (202) 783-3238. The principal Federal statute governing vehicle safety regulation is the Vehicle Safety Act (15 United States Code @ 1381 et seq.). You may obtain a copy of this and other Federal laws from GPO.

In an undated memorandum you sent to Division Superintendents, you refer to a school bus fleet review, and state that this review includes "cars, vans, activity buses, etc. which are used primarily to transport school pupils." Some of these vehicles were not subject to Federal school bus vehicle classification. I must emphasize NHTSA's position that a vehicle meeting Federal school bus regulations is the safest way to transport students, and I encourage your school districts to give their most careful consideration to the possible consequences of transporting students in vehicles that do not comply with these regulations.

I hope you find this information helpful. If you have further questions, please contact Joan Tilghman of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

ID: 86-3.34

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 05/28/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Ms. Joy Binkley

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

May 28, 1986 Ms. Joy Binkley MJB Windshield Repair 3765 South Acoma Englewood, CO 80110 Dear Ms. Binkley: Thank you for your letter of April 23, 1986, concerning the application of our regulations to a product your company uses. The product, which is called the Novus method of windshield repair, is used to fill in breaks in vehicle windshields with a liquid resin. You explained that several companies in your area have asked whether the U.S. Department of Transportation has approved the use of the Novus product. I hope the following discussion answers your questions. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is the agency within the U.S. Department of Transportation which has been delegated the authority 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 National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act establishes a "self-certification" process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet our safety standards. The agency periodically tests vehicles and equipment items for compliance with the standards, and also investigates other alleged safety-related defects. NHTSA has issued Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials, which sets performance and location requirements for glazing materials used in motor vehicles. Standard No. 205 does not contain performance requirements for repair kits, such as the Novus method, which are used to repair broken glazing. However,use of such a material or process in a new windshield which required repair, for example, as a result of damage sustained in shipment, would be affected by Standard No. 205. Manufacturers must certify that their new vehicles comply with all applicable safety standards. If a windshield is repaired prior to the new vehicle being sold for the first time to a consumer, the person making the repairs would be considered a vehicle alterer under our regulation on certification (Part 567). As an alterer, the person must certify that the vehicle, as altered, continues to comply with all of the requirements of Standard No. 205. In case of a used vehicle, use of a windshield repair kit could potentially be affected by section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Vehicle Safety Act. That section prohibits commercial businesses from knowingly tampering with devices or elements of design installed in a vehicle in compliance with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. In discussing the applicability of section 108(a)(2)(A) to the repair of windows in used vehicles, NHTSA has said that the prohibitions of that section do not apply to use of a product or process used in the repair of a windshield which has been previously installed in a vehicle and damaged in use. The agency has considered the event that damaged the windshield, and not any subsequent action by a person repairing the damaged window in a used vehicle, as the event which rendered inoperative the compliance of the glazing with the standard. Thus, there is no Federal regulation which would prohibit the use of a product or process in the repair of a windshield which has previously been installed in a vehicle and damaged in use. The manufacturer of the windshield repair kit is considered a manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment. Thus, it is subject to the requirements in sections 151-159 of the Vehicle Safety Act concerning the recall and remedy of products with defects related to motor vehicle safety. If you have any further questions, please let me know. Sincerely, Original Signed By Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

ID: 86-3.35

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 05/29/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Brenda Hartman

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Thank you for your letter of February 27, 1986, asking how our regulations affect a product you are considering. In your letter, you asked the agency not to disclose your idea for this product. In a phone conversation of April 28, 1986, with Stephen Oesch of my staff, you waived your request for complete nondisclosure and agreed to the disclosure of a generic description of your product. As you requested, we will not disclose the specific details of your product or the sketches you enclosed with your letter.

Your product is designed to reduce the possibility that a young child could unbuckle a vehicle safety belt. The product would enclose the buckle of the safety belt, so that it is difficult for a child to operate the buckle release.

We have significant reservations about your product. I hope the following discussion explains our reservations and the effect of our regulations on your product.

Our agency has the authority 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 National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act establishes a "self-certification" process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet our safety standards. The agency periodically tests vehicles and equipment items for compliance with the standards, and also investigates other alleged safety-related defects.

Although we do not have any standards that directly apply to your product, we do have several statutory provisions that could affect it. Manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment such as your product are subject to the requirements in sections 151-159 of the Vehicle Safety Act concerning the recall and remedy of products with defects related to motor vehicle safety. The agency does not determine the existence of safety defects except in the context of a defect proceeding, and thus is unable to say whether your product might or might not contain such a defect. However, the agency has reservations about your product because of our concern that people be able to easily and quickly operate a safety belt in an emergency. As the agency said last year on the related topic of the force level necessary to operate buckles in child restraints:

The agency's safety concerns over child restraint buckle force release and size stem from the need for convenient buckling and unbuckling of a child and, in emergencies, to quickly remove the child from the restraint. This latter situation can occur in instances of post-crash fires, immersions, etc. A restraint that is difficult to disengage, due to the need for excessive buckle pressure or difficulty in operating the release mechanism because of a very small release button, can unnecessarily endanger the child in the restraint and the adult attempting to release the child. (50 FR 33722, August 21, 1985)

In addition, use of your product can be affected by section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Vehicle Safety Act. That section prohibits commercial businesses from knowingly tampering with devices or elements of design installed in a vehicle in compliance with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. One requirement of Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies, is that the pushbutton release for a safety belt must have a a minimum area for applying the release force. Installation of your device by a commercial business could be prohibited since it apparently would substantially reduce the minimum area available for applying the release force to the safety belt pushbutton. In addition, Standard No. 302, Flammability of Interior Materials, requires new safety belts to meet a flammability resistance requirement. Thus, although Standard No. 302 does not directly apply to aftermarket equipment, commercial businesses could not install your device if it would mean that the safety belt no longer meet the flammability resistance requirements of Standard No. 302.

The prohibition of section 108(a)(2)(A) does not apply to individual vehicle owners who may install or remove any items of motor vehicle equipment regardless of its effect on compliance with Federal motor vehicle safety standards. However, our policy is to encourage vehicle owners not to remove or otherwise tamper with vehicle safety equipment. Installation of your product by any person could be inconsistent with that policy.

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

SINCERELY,

THIS IS A PROPIATARY IDEA, NOT FOR DISCLOSURE.

February 27, 1986

Erika Jones Chief Counsel N.H.T.S.A.

RE: Inquiry of safety standards.

Dear Miss Jones,

I am submitting to you my idea. I would like to know if there are any safety standards which may prohibit me from proceeding with such a product.

I appreciate your cooperation in this matter and would like a response at your earliest convience.

Sincerely,

Brenda Hartman 8617 CRESTON PINCKNEY, MI 48169 (313) 878-2413

ID: 8640

Mr. Shawn Shieh
Ventures International USA
1141 N. Columbus Ave., Suite 303
Glendale, CA 91202

Dear Mr. Shieh:

This replies to your undated letter to the Office of Enforcement, NHTSA, asking questions about an emergency communication product intended to be permanently mounted in the back window of an automobile. The product uses light emitting diodes to form messages for the drivers of following cars to read.

I enclose a copy of a letter dated August 17, 1989, that the agency sent to Alan S. Eldahr who asked for our comments on a similar device. The same advice applies to your product. As you will see, our opinion is that the product is of doubtful legality under Federal law when used on passenger cars manufactured on or after September 1, 1985, which are equipped with center highmounted stoplamps.

In addition, the product must not create a noncompliance with the Federal field of view requirements for interior rear view mirrors. Thus, we cannot answer your question about the maximum size of a permanent structure to be installed in an automobile because that will vary from car to car. With respect to your other questions, there are no Federal specifications for the material of the base support. The "restriction" on the product's wiring is that it must not interfere with the functioning of any Federally required lamp on the vehicle. This agency is the only government agency you have to consult on the product.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosure ref:108 d:6/8/93

ID: 8660

Mr. Ray Kesler
Kesler Research Enterprises
5508 Cahuenga Blvd.
North Hollywood, CA 91601

Dear Mr. Kesler:

This responds to your follow-up letter to the agency in which you request further interpretation of the requirements in Standard No. 111 relating to convex mirrors. Specifically, you asked about how section S5.4.1, which limits the radii of curvature's permissible variance, relates to S12, which specifies the procedures for determining a convex mirror's average radius of curvature. I am pleased to have this opportunity to respond to your request.

As Marvin Shaw of my staff informed your associate Lawrence Hufstedler in a telephone conversation, section S12 sets forth a detailed multi-step procedure for calculating a convex mirror's average radius of curvature. The first step is to take ten readings on the mirror surface with a 3-point linear spherometer as specified in Figure 1 of the Standard. (See S12.1.) The second step is to convert each of the ten readings to a "radius of curvature calculation" using Table 1. (See S12.5.) The third step is to calculate the "average radius of curvature" by adding all 10 radius of curvature calculations and dividing by 10. (See S12.6.)

Mr. Hufstedler asked how S5.4.1 affects the calculations. That section states "none of the radii of curvature readings shall deviate from the average radius of curvature by more than 12.5 percent." This means that some of the radii of curvature readings may be up to 12.5 percent different than the average radius of curvature. In numerical terms, this means that if a mirror had an average radius of curvature of 36 inches a given radii of curvature reading could be as low as 31.5 inches and as high as 40.5.

I hope this information is helpful. Please feel free to contact Marvin Shaw of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992 if you have any further questions or need additional information.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

ref:#111 dL7/2/93