ID: 2861o

Mr. Charley Erickson
Charley's Off Road Center, Inc.
14190 E. Firestone Blvd.
Santa Fe Springs, CA 90670

Dear Mr. Erickson:

This responds to your letter asking whether Safety Standard No. 302, Flammability of Interior Materials, applies to the "bikini sun shade," an accessory you wish to sell for both new and used open-body type passenger vehicles. I regret the delay in responding to your letter.

Generally speaking, items of motor vehicle equipment are not covered by Standard No. 302 and the bikini shade may be sold to vehicle owners for their installation in their own vehicles without regard to the product's conformance with the standard. However, as explained below, Federal law places limits on the installation of the bikini shade by some commercial businesses.

Standard No. 302 establishes flammability requirements that must be met by new motor vehicles. The requirements apply to particular components within these vehicles, including shades. However, the requirements of the standard apply to a vehicle only until its first purchase in good faith for purposes other than resale. They do not apply to shades manufactured for aftermarket sale and installation in a a vehicle after its first purchase. It would not violate Standard No. 302 for you to sell aftermarket bikini sun shades that do not comply with the standard.

However, the installation of the shades by certain parties other than vehicle owners could violate the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Act (copy enclosed) specifies: "No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative ... any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard ..." The flammability resistance of the original vehicle is an element of design installed in a motor vehicle in compliance with Standard No. 302. That element of design would be rendered inoperative in violation of section 108(a)(2)(A) if a manufacturer, distributor, dealer or motor vehicle repair business installed a bikini sun shade in a new vehicle and thereby caused that vehicle to fail to comply with Standard No. 302. There would also be a rendering inoperative when one of these parties installed the shade in a used vehicle if the shade would have caused the vehicle, when new, to fail to comply with the standard. Section 109 of the Act specifies a civil penalty of up to $1,000 for each violation of 108.

You should be aware also of an additional aspect of the Act. All manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment are subject to the provisions set forth in sections 151-159 of the Act concerning the recall and remedy of equipment with defects relating to motor vehicle safety. If it were determined that the bikini shade had a defect relating to motor vehicle safety, you as the shade manufacturer would have to notify all purchasers of the defect and either repair the shade so that the defect is removed, or replace the shade with an identical or reasonably equivalent product that does not contain a defect.

To summarize, there is a difference in the application of Standard No. 302 to vehicle equipment such as the bikini sun shade, depending on the identity of the person installing the shade in new and used motor vehicles. If the shade does not afford at least as good a level of flammability resistance as that specified by Standard No. 302, the shade cannot be installed in vehicles by any commercial business listed in 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act. Shades that do not meet the standard's flammability resistance requirements may legally be installed in vehicles by the owners of those vehicles. However, NHTSA discourages owners from installing any item of equipment that would degrade the safety performance of their vehicles. To repeat, you as the shade manufacturer would still be obligated to recall and remedy shades that are determined to contain a defect relating to motor vehicle safety, even if those shades were installed by vehicle owners themselves.

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

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Enclosure ref:302 d:6/24/88

ID: 2861yy

Mr. Ron Marion
Sales Engineer
Thomas Built Buses, Inc.
P.O. Box 2450
High Point, NC 27261

Dear Mr. Marion:

This responds to your letter noting that Headstart facilities have been deemed by this agency to be schools for purposes of determining the applicability of this agency's standards for school buses asking whether "privately owned and operated preprimary school type facilities" for children are also considered to be schools. I apologize for the delay in this response. The applicability of these standards is not dependent on whether the ownership of a facility is public or private, but on whether the function of the facility is educational or custodial.

The definition of "schoolbus" set forth in the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act specifically includes buses likely to be significantly used to transport students to or from preprimary schools. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has issued a number of interpretations concerning whether specific types of facilities are preprimary schools, within the meaning of this definition. These include the December 21, 1977, letter to James Tydings of Thomas Built, a copy of which was attached to your letter, as well as a May 12, 1981, letter to Doris Perlmutter and a May 10, 1982, letter to Martin Chauvin (copies of the latter two are enclosed). The Perlmutter letter explains that nursery schools are considered preprimary schools, while the Chauvin letter draws a distinction between day care centers and preprimary schools. This distinction is based upon the function of the facility. Facilities that are primarily educational in nature are considered schools, while those that are primarily custodial in nature are not considered schools. Hence, day care facilities, being custodial in nature, are not schools, while nursery schools and Head Start programs, which are educational in nature, are considered schools. I hope you find this information helpful. If you have further questions, please do not hesitate to contact Mary Versailles of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

Enclosures /ref:VSA#571 d:3/8/9l

ID: 2862o

Mr. M. Arisaka
Manager, Automotive Lighting Homologation Sec.
Stanley Electric Co. Ltd.
2-9-13, Nakameguro, Meguro-ku
Tokyo 153
JAPAN

Dear Mr. Arisaka:

This is in reply to your letter of June l0, 1988, describing a "flash to pass" headlighting feature and asking whether it is permissible under Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. l08.

Enclosed is a copy of the agency's letter of June 17, 1987, to MMC Services, Inc. commenting on a similar device. The fact that Stanley's passing beam would project through an amber lens rather than a clear, or noncolored one, does not affect this interpretation. The address of the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators is now 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Va. 33203.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

/Enclosure ref:108 d:6/30/88

ID: 2862yy

AIR MAIL

Mr. A. Kling Hamadbik, Ltd 16, Beit Alfa St. Tel-Aviv 67219 Israel

Dear Mr. Kling:

This responds to your inquiry about the color coding requirements in section S5.1.14 of Federal motor vehicle safety standard No. 116, Motor vehicle brake fluids. (49 CFR 571.116). After noting that DOT 3 and DOT 4 brake fluid must be colorless to amber, you asked what is the color coding range for amber. As explained below, the agency has decided not to specify a numerical or chromatic "range" for the color coding requirements. Instead, the appropriate method for determining compliance to the color coding requirements is through visual inspection.

The purpose of the color coding requirements is to permit easy identification of fluids before they are placed in a vehicle, in order to prevent the mixing of an incompatible fluid in a braking system. At one time, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) had proposed color requirements defined in terms of millimicrons. (38 FR 32142, November 21, 1973). However, when the agency later determined that visual inspection for color compliance was adequate, the proposed wavelength bands were deleted. (39 FR 30353, August 22, 1974)

In a subsequent notice, the agency explained that

The specifications for fluid colors are intended to refer to color ranges as generally interpreted in daylight by persons of normal color vision. No color coordinates are proposed, since the fluids may change color in storage or in use (without detriment to the performance of the fluids). (40 FR 56928, December 5, 1975)

Thus, the generally interpreted meaning for "amber" (which is defined as "yellowish-brown" by the Random House Dictionary of the English Language) should be used to determine if a brake fluid complies with the color coding requirements for DOT 3 and DOT 4 brake fluid. I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Marvin Shaw of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

ref:ll6 d:3/8/9l

ID: 2863o

Jay D. Starling, Manager
Strategic Business Development
ARCO Solar, Inc.
4650 Adohr Lane
P. O. Box 6032
Camarillo, CA 93010

Dear Mr. Starling:

I am writing in response to your letter that requested the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's (NHTSA) interpretation as to whether the ARCO Solar "G-33 Charge Saver" is an item of "motor vehicle equipment", as defined in Section 102(4) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966. I regret the delay in responding to your inquiry.

The product literature you enclosed with your letter describes the "G-33 Charge Saver" as a "12 Volt car battery maintenance system, designed to overcome natural battery self-discharge and drain from constant electrical loads...It is operated by simply placing it in sunlight on the dashboard and plugging it into the car lighter whenever the vehicle is parked." It also claims that the "G-33 Charge Saver" can help to: "Extend Battery Life Prevent Dead Batteries Provide Quick Starts."

Section 102(4) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act defines, in part, the term "motor vehicle equipment" as:

any system, part, or component of a motor vehicle as originally manufactured or any similar part or component manufactured or sold for replacement or improvement of such system, part, or component or as any accessory, or addition to the motor vehicle......(Emphasis added.)

In determining whether an item of equipment is considered an "accessory" the agency has looked at the following two factors: first, whether the item has no ostensible purpose other than use with a motor vehicle and second, whether it is intended to be used principally by ordinary users of motor vehicles.

From the product literature provided, the ARCO Solar "G-33 Charge Saver" is advertised for use with a motor vehicle and appears to be marketed for the ordinary user of motor vehicles, with emphasis on the ease of installation of the charge saver. We would therefore consider your solar powered battery charger to be a vehicle accessory and thus an item of motor vehicle equipment covered by the Vehicle Safety Act.

If the ARCO Solar "G-33 Charge Saver" will be installed in new or used vehicles by a commercial business, Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act could affect your product. That section of the Act requires manufacturers, distributors, dealers and motor vehicle repair businesses to ensure that they do not knowingly render inoperative any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle in compliance with an applicable Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS). These businesses could sell your product, but could not install it if the installation would adversely affect the vehicle's compliance with any FMVSS. In the first instance, it would be the responsibility of these entities to determine whether there is any possibility of such an effect.

The prohibitions of Section 108(a)(2)(A) do not apply to the actions of a vehicle owner in adding to or otherwise modifying his or her vehicle. Thus, a vehicle owner would not violate the Act by installing the ARCO Solar "G-33 Charge Saver" even if doing so would adversely affect some safety feature in his or her vehicle.

The Act also requires the recall and remedy of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment determined to contain a defect related to motor vehicle safety. If you or NHTSA determine that the ARCO Solar "G-33 Charge Saver" contains such a defect, you must recall and repair or replace the item without charge to the purchaser.

I am enclosing a copy of the Act, and an information sheet describing how you can obtain copies of our motor vehicle safety standards and any other NHTSA regulation. If you have any further questions, please let me know.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

ref:VSA#102 d:6/30/88

ID: 2863yy

Mr. Louis F. Wilson
Instant Traffic Lights
2580 W. Venice Boulevard
Los Angeles, CA 90019

Dear Mr. Wilson:

This is in reply to your letter of February 20, 1991, with respect to the acceptability under Federal law of your product, the "Instant Traffic Light. I regret that we do not appear to have a record of your earlier letters to the agency on this subject.

The "Instant Traffic Light" is a four-section unit intended to perform three functions, each indicated by a different color. A green light appears when the accelerator is applied, an amber light when the accelerator is released, and a red light when the brakes are applied. The lamp's shipping carton shows the unit mounted on the rear parcel shelf behind the rear window. The text on the carton says that the lamp is easy to assemble. You have asked whether the product meets Standard No. l08, whether it would be "legal" in the U.S. "and her territories", and whether the product could replace, or be an option to, the requirements of Standard No. 108 for the center high-mounted stop lamp. Finally, of the l6 States that have responded to your inquiry, an equal number (six) have indicated that the lamp is and is not acceptable to them, while the remaining four "said they will follow the Federal requirement."

Standard No. l08 does not permit the center high-mounted stop lamp to be combined with any other lamp. This means that your product could not be used as original equipment on a passenger car, whether as standard equipment or as an option, or marketed and sold as replacement equipment for a center lamp on a passenger car that was originally equipped with it. However, Standard No. l08 does not apply to the "Instant Traffic Light" if it is marketed or sold exclusively for use on passenger cars that were not originally required to be manufactured with the center stop lamp, i.e., those cars that were manufactured before September 1, l985. Under this circumstance, the question of the legality of use of the device is to be determined by the laws of the individual States. The "territories" are "States" for purposes of this discussion. Since there is no legal prohibition under Federal law for installation of your lamp only on older passenger cars, we presume that the four States that reserved their decision would permit it on pre - l985 vehicles registered and/or operating within their borders.

We are aware that, nevertheless, there may be some owner interest in replacing original equipment center stop lamps with your product. We would like to advise that such replacement would be a violation of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, if performed by a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business. There is no such restriction upon a vehicle owner who performs the replacement of the lamp himself.

I hope that this responds to your questions.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

/ref:l08 d:3/8/9l

ID: 2864o

Irving Gingold, Esq.
529 Nassau Road
Roosevelt, NY 11575

Dear Mr. Gingold:

This is in response to your letter of April 27, 1988, asking whether any of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards apply to an airport baggage conveyor. The answer is no.

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 ("Safety Act", 15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.), authorizes this agency to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and certain items of motor vehicle equipment. Conversely, we have no authority to regulate vehicles that are not "motor vehicles" or equipment that is not "motor vehicle equipment." Section 102(3) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1391(3)) defines a motor vehicle as

any vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power manufactured primarily for use on the public streets, roads, and highways, except any vehicle operated exclusively on a rail or rails.

Under this definition, any vehicle intended and sold solely for off-road use is not considered a motor vehicle under the Safety Act, even if it is operationally capable of highway travel. We have long offered "airport runway vehicles" as an example of vehicles that are not motor vehicles, because they are sold solely for off-road use. NHTSA has specifically stated that an airport baggage trailer is not a motor vehicle, in a July 11, 1983 letter to D.F. Landers.

Since the airport baggage conveyor to which you referred in your letter is not a "motor vehicle," none of our safety standards or other regulations would apply to the vehicle. We are not aware of any other Federal agency that has established safety standards applicable to airport baggage conveyors.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

ref:VSA#102 d:6/30/88

ID: 2864yy

Ms Anne Lombardi
Acting Director
Office of Passenger
Enforcement and Facilitation
Department of the Treasury
U.S. Customs Service
Washington, D.C. 20229

Dear Ms. Lombardi:

This is in reply to your letter of February 14, l99l, asking for an opinion on kit cars.

Specifically, military and DOD civilian employees stationed on the Philippines

"frequently purchase automobiles which are composites of old chassis and engines, of U.S. manufacture, and new bodies and interiors, fabricated and attached to the chassis by local Filipino car shops. Normally, the chassis and engines were not taken abroad by the importers, but were purchased in the Philippines from other sources. In most cases the chassis are said to have been manufactured prior to January 1, l969."

You have asked which DOT regulations apply to these automobiles, those applicable to the year the chassis was manufactured, or those applicable to the year the body was attached.

This is a question of first impression with us. Under the opinions of this Office relating to the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, if a person meeting the definition of a "manufacturer", "distributor", "dealer", or "motor vehicle repair business" removes a body from the chassis of a motor vehicle and installs a new one, the resulting vehicle must continue to meet the Federal motor vehicle safety standards that were in effect at the time that the vehicle was originally manufactured. If a person other than the above installs the new body, the vehicle is simply a used vehicle to which no Federal motor vehicle safety standards are applicable (but which must meet State standards for vehicle registration). However, these interpretations apply only to modifications that occur within a "State" as defined by the Act. The Philippines is not included in the definition of "State."

Where such modifications have occurred outside a "State", and the modified vehicle is offered for importation into the United States, the vehicle is treated under the importation regulations (49 CFR Part 591) as a used vehicle which must be brought into conformity with Federal safety and bumper standards in effect at the time of its manufacture. We regard the date of manufacture of the original vehicle (i.e., chassis) as the appropriate date, because it may not be feasible to conform the assemblage to vehicle standards in effect at the later date on which the body was manufactured. If the original vehicle were manufactured before January 1, l968 (the effective date of the original safety standards), then no Federal motor vehicle safety standards apply to the vehicle.

I must add an important caveat here. There are two types of Federal motor vehicle safety standards: those that apply to the vehicles as a whole (such as the so-called crash standards), and those that apply to individual equipment items. The equipment standards apply regardless of the date of manufacture of the vehicle. Thus, the tires, brake fluid, brake hoses, glazing, seat belt assemblies, and lamps and reflectors on any modified vehicle imported into the United States must meet the standards in effect at the time the items were manufactured, regardless of whether the modified vehicle must meet the Federal safety standards applicable to vehicles.

I must also add two other caveats. The Imported Vehicle Safety Act of l988, which has been implemented by 49 CFR Parts 591-594, forbids the importation of a vehicle not originally manufactured to conform to the Federal motor vehicle safety standards (e.g., this would apply to an assemblage of a new body placed upon a chassis manufactured on or after January 1, l968) unless this agency has determined that the vehicle is capable of modification to comply with all applicable safety standards. This determination is made pursuant to a petition submitted by a "Registered Importer," who will undertake to conform the vehicle if a favorable determination is made. The second caveat is that the owner can import the vehicle only if (s)he has a contract with a Registered Importer to perform conformance work.

However, there is a limited exception to the two caveats of the preceding paragraph. They do not apply to any vehicle that will be imported into the United States on or before October 31, l992, if its importer owned the vehicle (or had a contract to acquire it) before October 31, l988, was employed outside the United States at all times between those two dates, and had never before imported a nonconforming motor vehicle. Under this exception, the owner may import the vehicle without the necessity of a determination or the intervention of a Registered Importer. (S)he must then bring the vehicle into compliance with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety and bumper standards, and present evidence of conformance to this agency. Under any circumstances of importation of a noncomplying vehicle to be conformed, its owner must acquire a performance bond to ensure that the work is, in fact, completed.

If you have any further questions, we shall be pleased to answer them.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

ref:VSA#59l d:3/ll/9l

ID: 2865o

Mr. R. H. Madison
12814 Asbury Drive
Ft. Washington, MD 20744

Dear Mr. Madison:

This responds to your March 31, 1988, letter asking for our interpretation of Safety Standard No. 207, Seating Systems, as it applies to a seat installed in a multipurpose passenger vehicle and equipped with a safety belt. You attached a sketch of your seat and asked whether the safety belt assembly is considered to be attached to the seat. You asked this question in order to determine whether the seat would be subject to the specified forces of paragraph S4.2(c) of the standard. The answer is that NHTSA considers the assembly to be attached to the seat.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not grant approval 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 requirements. The following represents our opinion based on our understanding of the facts provided in your letter. In this regard, I want to note that rendering an opinion in this case was complicated by the fact that your sketch does not show the seat structure and its interrelationship with the vehicle structure and belt anchorage.

In your letter, you refer to a vehicle having a "Belt Attachment Frame" made from steel members attached to the vehicle's structure. You said that,

"(r)esting on the Belt Attachment Frame is a plywood deck... The seat cushion rests on but is not otherwise attached to the deck. The seat belt attachments pass through the deck and are secured to the Belt Attachment Frame. Other portions of the seat or its supporting structure might rest on and contact the Belt Attachment Frame and might extend to or beyond it. However, except for the deck, no part of the seat or its structural members would be attached to the Belt Attachment Frame." (Emphasis added.)

The answer to your question depends on whether the Belt Attachment Frame is considered part of the seat. Based on the information you provide, we conclude that the Belt Attachment Frame is part of the seat itself. According to your letter, the deck for the seat cushion is attached to and supported by the Belt Attachment Frame; it appears that the Belt Attachment Frame is a necessary and functional part of the seat structure. Since we interpret the Belt Attachment Frame to be a part of the seat, and since the seat belt assembly loads will be transferred to the Frame in the event of a crash, we consider the seat belt assembly to be attached to the seat, for purposes of testing the seat under S4.2(c) of Standard No. 207.

Please contact my office if you have further questions.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

ref:207 d:6/30/88

ID: 2865yy

Mr. Robert H. Jones
President, Triple J Enterprises, Inc.
P.O. Box 6066
Tamuning, Guam 96931

Dear Mr. Jones:

This responds to your letters of December 11, l990, and January 22, l99l, to Clive Van Orden of this agency, enclosing copies of your letters to Representative Blaz, dated July 6 and October 11, 1990, and to our Office of Enforcement dated July 5, l990. You have also enclosed a copy of a letter that Governor Guerrero of the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI) wrote on your behalf on October 11, l990, to Representative Blaz.

Your letter to us of July 5, l990, expresses your understanding that the Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) apply in the CNMI, and that you, as an importer, have imported only vehicles that are certified as conforming to the FMVSS; however, certain of your competitors have not. You asked "Will I get compliance enforcement? Or should I join the competition and bring in the vehicles that do not comply?" To similar effect is your letter of the next day to Representative Blaz. Governor Guerrero's letter to Mr. Blaz expresses his opinion that the FMVSS do not apply in the CNMI.

The Governor explains:

By our Covenant with the United States, we were obliged to except [NHTSA believes he means "accept"] federal laws that applied to Guam and the several states as of January 9, 1978. Federal enabling legislation behind the FMVSS has been on the books since l966. The legislation applied to Guam and the states on January 9, 1979 [sic]. It looks like we get the law. But that is not the end of the analysis.

We would accept application of the FMVSS here only if such federal law did not deny us our guaranteed right of local self-government with respect to internal affairs. It is my view that automobile safety is an internal affair. It is the subject for self- government. The Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards do not apply in the CNMI. These federal safety standards are imposed on the states by virtue of the Commerce clause of the Federal Constitution. The federal Commerce clause does not apply in the CNMI; it cannot carry the FMVSS into our islands.

[I]t is our position that the FMVSS does [sic] apply here and will not be enforced by my Administration.

We cannot agree with the Governor's conclusion. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of l966 (l5 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.), does apply in the CNMI, as do all regulations such as the FMVSS that are issued under the authority of that law.

The Governor believes that "automobile safety is an internal affair". For the most part we agree, but not with respect to the primacy of the FMVSS. We agree that vehicle registration, taxation, and use of the roads in the CNMI are matters properly under the jurisdiction of the CNMI. Further, the Act permits local jurisdictions to enact or continue in effect their own vehicle safety standards provided that they do not differ from the FMVSS (except as may apply to their own official vehicles). The FMVSS are manufacturing standards that apply when the vehicles are built, imported, and sold.

We are sorry that your observance of the law may have put you at a competitive disadvantage. If you have specific information regarding possible violations of the importation provisions of the Act in the CNMI including the names and addresses of specific businesses or individuals, please communicate that information to Mr. Van Orden. Our sources of information are kept confidential.

Although the FMVSS apply in the CNMI, it is obvious that enforcement of them by this agency is made more difficult by the absence of agency staff in the CNMI. If local government would "move for immediate adoption of those standards ... by local law", then they may be enforced locally. I cannot think of a single one of the FMVSS that would not be of benefit. Although speeds may be low on the roads of the CNMI, many of the FMVSS are intended to provide crash protection at 30 m.p.h. Obviously, FMVSS that pertain to vehicle lighting, windshield wiping and washing, etc. provide protection at any speed.

We appreciate your bringing this matter to our attention.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

cc: Thomas Rabago Highway Safety Coordinator /ref:VSA d:3/ll/9l