ID: nht89-1.38

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/14/89

FROM: C. COLEMAN BIRD

TO: ERIKA JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL OFFICE OF THE CHIEF COUNSEL NHTSA

TITLE: REQUEST FOR INTERPRETATION REGARDING STATUS OF PORTABLE BACK MASSAGER UNDER NATIONAL TRAFFIC AND MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY ACT OF 1966, AS AMENDED

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 06/05/90 FROM STEPHENS P. WOOD -- NHTSA ACTING CHIEF COUNSEL TO C COLEMAN BIRD -- PEPPER HAMILTON AND SCHEETZ, A35, VSA 102[4]

TEXT: This is written to request the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's ("NHTSA's") interpretation of the requirements of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, as amended, 15 U.S.C. @@ 1381 et seq. (the "Act") and the regula tions (49 C.F.R. Part 571) as applied to the portable back massager product described below. The particular questions are: (1) whether this product is an "item of motor vehicle equipment" as defined in the Act, 15 U.S.C. @ 1391(4); (2) whether any Feder al safety standards (including but not limited to any NHTSA vehicle or equipment safety standards) are applicable to this product; and (3) if the product is not subject to the regulatory jurisdiction of NHTSA or the Department of Transportation, whether it is subject to the regulatory jurisdiction of any other agency.

The product in question is a portable back massager, which consists of an inflatable cushion (approximately 24.5 inches long, 14.5 inches wide, and 3 inches deep) that conforms to the user's back, with two massaging units (separate electric motors) th at are capable of giving simultaneous massage to the thoracic (upper back) and lumbar (lower back) regions of the user's back. The product also can provide heat to the user's back. It is designed for use either in the home or the user's vehicle (by mean s of an adaptor that plugs into the vehicle's cigarette lighter). When used in a vehicle, the product will simply be

placed on the user's seat and will not be affixed or installed in the vehicle in any way. It could be used either by the driver or by a passenger.

Please let me know if you need any additional facts concerning the product or its proposed use in motor vehicles in order to respond to this inquiry.

Thank you in advance for your anticipated prompt response.

Sincerely,

ID: nht89-1.39

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/15/89

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL NHTSA

TO: BYUNG M. SOH -- TARGET MARKETING SYSTEMS, INC.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 10/05/88 FROM BYUNG M. SOH TO TAYLOR VINRON; OCC 2648

TEXT: Dear Mr. Soh:

This responds to your letter of October 5, 1988, inquiring whether your "Starrace" hub cap violated Standard No. 211, Wheel Nuts, Wheel Discs, and Hub Caps (49 CFR @ 571.211) or any other of our safety standards. You explained that your self lighting hu b cap includes a motion activated LED light whose intensity varies according to the speed of the vehicle. You further noted that the LED, which has a maximum intensity of 40mmAmp, is designed for cosmetic rather than illuminating purposes. As explained below, your device would not appear to violate Standard No. 211. However, this device may present problems of compliance with Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment (49 CFR @ 571.108).

Standard No. 211 prohibits winged projections on wheel nuts, wheel discs, and hub caps. This prohibition extends to these items of motor vehicle equipment both as items of original equipment on new passenger cars and multipurpose vehicles and as items s old in the aftermarket as replacement parts for use on such vehicles. Judging by the picture enclosed with your letter, it does not appear that this hub cap has any winged projections. Nothing in Standard No. 211 explicitly prohibits LEDs on hub caps, wheel nuts, or wheel discs. Accordingly, your product does not appear to violate any provision of Standard No. 211.

However, the self lighting nature of your hub cap may raise questions under Standard No. 108. If this hub cap is marketed as original equipment to be installed before the initial sale of a motor vehicle, the vehicle with these hub caps installed must be certified as complying with Standard No. 108. Section S4.1.3 of Standard No. 108 provides that "No additional lamp, reflective device, or other motor vehicle equipment shall be installed that impairs the effectiveness of lighting equipment required by this standard." As I stated in my September 13, 1988 letter to you with respect to different equipment, we interpret this requirement as follows:

"Effectiveness may be impaired if the device creates a noncompliance in the existing lighting equipment or confusion with the signal sent by another lamp, or functionally interferes with it, or modifies its candlepower to either below the minima or ab ove the maxima permitted by the standard." (emphasis added)

Your product might impair the effectiveness of the required lighting by causing motorists to confuse its signal with the signal emitted by headlamps, stoplights, brakelights, taillights, side marker lamps, and other lighting devices. Such confusion is p ossible since your product is located on the wheels at approximately the same level as the lights required by Standard No. 108. This impairment of effectiveness would be especially likely if the hub cap lights were the same color (red, amber or white) as the lights required by Standard No. 108.

As for the aftermarket sale of your product, under @ 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act, a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business may not perform modifications that render inoperative, in whole or in part, an element of design, s uch as lighting equipment, installed in compliance with a Federal safety standard. Again, if these lighted hub caps would impair the effectiveness of the lighting required by Standard No. 108, we would consider each aftermarket installation of the hub c aps by the manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair business to be a violation of the "render inoperative" provision of the Safety Act. Section 109 of the Safety Act provides for a civil penalty of up to $ 1,000 for each violation of the "render ino perative" provision. Please note that the Safety Act does not restrict a vehicle owner from modifying his or her own vehicle, even if the modification resulted in the vehicle no longer complying with Standard No. 108. Such modifications may, however, b e prohibited by State law.

Additionally, you should be aware that as a manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment, you will be subject to the requirements of sections 151-159 of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1411-1419), concerning the recall and remedy of vehicles and equipment with defe cts related to motor vehicle safety. If it were determined that your product had a defect related to motor vehicle safety, you as the manufacturer would have to notify purchasers of the defect and either:

1. repair the product so that the defect is removed; or

2. replace the product with an identical or reasonably equivalent product that does not have the defect.

In either case, the manufacturer must bear the full expense of the remedy and cannot charge the product owner for the remedy if the product was first purchased less than eight years before the notification campaign.

If you have any further questions or need more information on this subject, please feel free to contact Marvin Shaw of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

ID: nht89-1.4

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 01/18/89

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL NHTSA

TO: WENDELL D. KEGG -- TIRE WHEEL CONSULTANTS

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 09/14/88 FROM WENDELL D. KEGG TO ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA, OCC 2560

TEXT: Dear Mr. Kegg:

This responds to your letter seeking an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 110, Tire Selection and Rims. You were uncertain about section S4.3.1's requirements related to the inflation pressure for spare tires specified on vehic le placards. You asked whether a vehicle manufacturer can specify a higher inflation pressure for a spare tire than the maximum inflation pressure molded on the tire's sidewall.

As you know, FMVSS 110 sets forth requirements related to vehicle placards in passenger cars. Section S4.3 requires that the placard be "permanently affixed to the glove compartment door or an equally accessible location" and display the vehicle capacit y weight; the designated seating capacity; the vehicle manufacturer's recommended cold tire inflation pressure for maximum loaded weight and, subject to the limitations of S4.3.1, for any other manufacturer-specified vehicle loading condition; and the ve hicle manufacturer's recommended tire size designation. FMVSS 110 does not have any provision requiring the inclusion of information on the placard related to spare tires or air pressure related to spare tires. Accordingly, a passenger car manufacturer may, but is not required to, specify information related to spare tires on the placard.

In response to your question whether a passenger car manufacturer can specify a higher inflation pressure for a spare tire than the maximum inflation pressure molded on the spare tire's sidewall, section S4.3.1 of FMVSS 110 states that the vehicle placar d must not specify an "inflation pressure other than the maximum permissible inflation pressure" required to be molded on the tire itself by section S4.3 of FMVSS 109, New Pneumatic Tires, unless the alternative inflation pressure satisfies the three con ditions set forth in S4.3.1. The first condition requires that the alternative inflation pressure be less than the maximum permissible inflation pressure. The second condition requires that the vehicle loading condition be specified for the alternative reduced pressure. The third condition requires that the tire load rating be specified by an individual manufacturer for the tire size at that inflation pressure that

is not less than the vehicle load on the tire for that vehicle loading condition. Accordingly, a vehicle manufacturer could not specify on its placard an inflation pressure that exceeds the maximum permissible inflation pressure.

I am enclosing a December 13, 1984 letter to Mr. Alberto Negro of Fiat, which explains the agency's position concerning a manufacturer's specification on the placard of an inflation pressure that exceeds the maximum inflation pressure molded on the tire. As that letter indicates, a manufacturer would have to meet each of the conditions specified in section S4.3.1, including that the alternative inflation pressure must be less than the maximum permissible inflation pressure. Because spare tires are sub ject to these requirements like any other pneumatic tire, a vehicle manufacturer could not specify a higher inflation pressure for a spare tire than the maximum inflation pressure molded on that tire.

If you have any further questions or need additional information on this subject, please feel free to contact Marvin Shaw of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

ENCLOSURE

ID: nht89-1.40

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/17/89

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL NHTSA

TO: J. JAMES EXON -- UNITED STATES SENATOR

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 02/09/89 FROM J. JAMES EXON -- SENATE, TO NHTSA; LETTER DATED 01/26/89 FROM RON MOXHAM TO J. JAMES -- EXON; LETTER DATED 09/26/88 FROM RON MOXHAM TO ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA

TEXT: Dear Senator Exon:

Thank you for your letter of February 9, 1989, in which you inquired about the status of a letter to this office from Mr. Ron Moxham, one of your constituents. I apologize for the delay in responding to Mr. Moxham.

In his inquiry, Mr. Moxham asked about the applicability of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's (NHTSA's) regulations to an add-on-trunk for mini vans, pickup trucks, Blazers, and other vehicles. He described his product as a detachable box that could be attached to the liftgate, bumper, or frame at the rear of a vehicle and extend 16 to 20 inches beyond the bumper. Your constituent asked whether there are any regulations applicable to this product, especially in relation to the vehic le's tail lights and other lighting components. He also asked whether his product would be required to have its own separate lighting equipment and its own separate bumper.

By way of background information, NHTSA does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under the statutes administered by NHTSA, it is the responsibility of the manufacturer to ensure that its vehicles or equipment comply with all applicable standards. The following represents our opinion based on the facts provided in Mr. Moxham's letter.

NHTSA does not have any specific regulations covering an add-on trunk. However, the addition of such a device could affect a vehicle's compliance with various safety standards. For example, an add-on trunk could affect a vehicle's compliance with Stand ard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment, by obscuring the vehicle's rear lights from some angles of view. This adverse effect could be offset by the addition of supplementary lighting devices to the trunk. See S4.3.1.1 of Standa rd No. 108. (Copy enclosed.)

If an add-on trunk 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 such a device is added to a previously certified new motor vehicle prior to its first sale, the person who modifies the vehicle may have certification responsibilities as an "alterer" under 49 CFR Part 567.7. This would occur if the installation of t he add-on trunk either altered the vehicle's stated weight ratings or constituted the installation of something that is not a "readily attachable" component. To ascertain whether the installation involves attachable components such factors as the intric acy of installation, and the need for special expertise must be taken into consideration. More information regarding the method of installation is necessary before we could determine whether the installation of the add-on trunk was the installation of a readily attachable component.

A person who modifies a vehicle prior to its first sale is also affected by other Federal requirements, whether or not that person is considered an "alterer." Section 108(a)(1)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act generally provides th at no person may "manufacture for sale, sell, offer for sale, or introduce or deliver for introduction in interstate commerce, or import into the United States," any motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment that does not comply with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard. In addition, under section 108(a)(1)(A) of the Act, no manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business may knowingly render inoperative, in whole or in part, any device or element of design inst alled on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard.

If an add-on trunk 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 be subject to the "render inoperative" requirement cited above. Thus, the installer would have to make sure that it did not knowingly render inoperative, in whole or 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 st andard.

I note that in a letter dated September 25, 1987, NHTSA indicated that a person who installs a lift platform on the rear of a car, thereby blocking a lamp required by Standard No. 108, could avoid violating the prohibition against rendering inoperative b y installing an auxiliary lamp meeting the standard's photometric requirements. Since that situation may have similarities to the one faced by Mr. Moxham, I am enclosing a copy of the letter.

Mr. Moxham did not specifically indicate whether his product would be sold for passenger cars. NHTSA has a bumper standard which sets forth requirements for the impact resistance of passenger cars in low speed front and rear collisions. The addition of an add-on trunk could affect a passenger car's compliance with the bumper standard.

Enclosed is an information sheet which identifies relevant Federal statutes and NHTSA standards and regulations affecting motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment manufacturers. Mr. Moxham should also be aware that state laws may apply to his device.

I hope this information is helpful.

Sincerely,

ENCLOSURES

ID: nht89-1.41

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/17/89

FROM: ROBERT V. POTTER -- SPALDING AND EVENFLO COMPANIES INC

TO: NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 07/27/89 FROM STEPHEN P. WOOD -- NHTSA TO ROBERT V. POTTER -- SPALDING AND EVENFLOW CO; REDBOOK A33; STANDARD 213; LETTER DATED 07/31/86 FROM ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA TO K. A. ZIOMEK -- TRW

TEXT: Dear Sir or Madam:

I am writing to request a formal opinion on whether any National Highway Traffic Safety Administration rule, regulation or requirement addresses the question of how long a manufacturer of child restraint devices, designed for use in motor vehicles, must retain or make available replacement parts for those devices. It is my understanding that there is a regulation requiring the manufacturers of motor vehicles to manufacturer or make available replacement parts for ten years. It is my current understand ing and opinion that those regulations do not apply to child restraint devices, but I would appreciate your opinion on this matter.

Very truly yours,

ID: nht89-1.42

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/20/89

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL NHTSA

TO: PETER J. YANOWITCH -- DAVIS, MARKEL, & EDWARDS

TITLE: IMPORTATION OF PORSCHE 959

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 02/27/89 FROM PETER J. YANOWITCH TO ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA, RE IMPORTATION OF PORSCHE MODEL 959,0CC 3188

TEXT: Dear Mr. Yanowitch:

This is in reply to your letter of February 27, 1989, requesting a response by March 10 as to whether the Department would permit the importation of a Porsche 959 pursuant to 19 CFR 12.80(b)(1)(v).

Specifically, you represent a non-resident of the United States who wishes to import such a vehicle, and operate it on the public roads of this country during the 1-year period. You have asked for confirmation in writing that if the vehicle is imported on this basis that "the Department of Transportation would not have jurisdiction to impound, confiscate, destroy, require a bond, or otherwise take any action with respect to the vehicle, so long as the non-resident fully complies with the provisions" of 12.80(b)(1)(v), and, further, that the Department "would not object to the non-resident driving this vehicle on the road" while it is the United States. You also state that your client is prepared to submit "sworn testimony that he will comply with the requirements of the United States Customs Regulations."

Under 19 CFR 12.80(b)(1), each vehicle offered for introduction into the Customs territory of the United States shall be denied entry unless the importer files a declaration which declares that "(v) The importer . . . is a non-resident of the United Stat es, is importing the vehicle . . . primarily for personal use for a period not exceeding 1 year from the date of entry, will not sell it in the United States during that period, and has stated his passport number and country of issue . . . in the declara tion." This provision was adopted in recognition of international treaties to which the United States is a party, which intended to assure the free flow of international road traffic. However, this agency does not construe either the regulation or the t reaties as conferring an absolute right upon any non-resident to import a non-conforming vehicle if considerations of policy dictate a determination that such entry would not be in the interests of the United States. Chief among these considerations is whether the importer has previously imported a motor vehicle in violation of the importation regulations.

Accordingly, we wish to review your client's declaration before the time the vehicle arrives at the port of entry. I enclose a copy of our Form HS-7 for its completion and return to us. We request that a photocopy of the title or other certificate of o wnership be enclosed as well. We also ask that a statement be attached to the declaration, so that it becomes a part of it and subject to penalties in the event that it is false or misleading, in which your client discloses whether he has ever imported into the United States any motor vehicle manufactured on or after January 1, 1968, and, if the answer is affirmative, to provide the make, model, and port and approximate date of entry, and the name of the importer or cosignee as it appeared on the decla ration. Finally, we also request an affirmation from your client that he will not sell the vehicle, or offer it for sale, either before or during the stay in the United States, and that he will export it at the end of the 1-year period.

We have received and reviewed the declaration and statement we shall be pleased to consider this matter further, and we shall answer your questions at that time.

Sincerely,

ENCLOSURE

ID: nht89-1.43

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/20/89

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL NHTSA

TO: THOMAS E. GUNTON -- CORPORATE COUNSEL MCCULLAGH LEASING, INC.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 12/01/88 FROM THOMAS E. GUNTON TO JUDITH KALETA RE ODOMETER DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENTS, OCC 2865

TEXT: Dear Mr. Gunton:

This is in response to your letter of December 1, 1988, concerning the Federal odometer disclosure requirements. You asked whether the Federal requirements apply to large scale sales of motor vehicles between leasing companies or whether a lease company that is transferring many vehicles to another lease company is exempt from these requirements.

Section 408 of the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act, 15 U.S.C. @ 1988, requires the Secretary of Transportation to prescribe rules and regulations requiring any transferor to give a written disclosure (1) of the cumulative mileage registere d on the odometer or (2) that the actual mileage is unknown, if the odometer reading is known to be different from the number of miles that the vehicle has actually travelled. This authority was delegated to NHTSA. NHTSA has created exemptions for tran sferors of vehicles for which the odometer is not relied upon as an indicator of vehicle mileage or condition. Currently, pursuant to 49 C.F.R. @ 580.5, transferors of the following vehicles are not required to issue an odometer disclosure statement:

(1) a vehicle with a gross vehicle weight rating of more than 16,000 pounds;

(2) a vehicle that is not self-propelled;

(3) a vehicle that is twenty-five years old or older;

(4) a vehicle sold directly by the manufacturer to any agency of the United States in conformity with contractual specifications; and

(5) a new vehicle prior to its first transfer for purposes other than resale.

Beginning April 29, 1989, a transferor of a vehicle that is ten years old or older need not disclose the mileage to the transferee in connection with the transfer of ownership. 53 FR 29464 (1988).

NHTSA has not created any other exemptions. Therefore, a transferor of vehicles must issue an individual odometer disclosure statement for each of the vehicles being transferred, regardless of the number of vehicles transferred in a single transaction. It is our opinion that this requirement may be met with a single odometer disclosure statement that could be used to disclose the mileage of several vehicles, as long as all of the information required by our regulations appears for each vehicle on the combined statement. While the parties to the transfer of numerous vehicles might not rely on the odometer reading of each vehicle to determine the total value of the transaction, subsequent purchasers are entitled to rely on the odometer reading as an a ccurate reflection of the mileage travelled by the vehicle in order to determine the condition and value of the vehicle. The odometer disclosure statement given from one leasing company to the other will be retained by both the transferor and transferee . The purchasing company will rely on this statement when issuing an odometer disclosure statement to a subsequent buyer. Furthermore, the statement between the two leasing companies will become part of the "paper trail", the evidence of mileage that ma y be checked by subsequent purchasers and law enforcement officials.

I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any questions, do not hesitate to contact us again.

Sincerely,

ID: nht89-1.44

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/20/89

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL NHTSA

TO: CONRAD S. BROOKS -- ENGINEERING MANAGER FISHER ENGINEERING

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 12/01/88 FROM CONRAD S. BROOKS TO ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA, OCC 2859

TEXT: Dear Mr. Brooks:

This responds to your December 1, 1988, letter concerning the applicability of Federal regulations to motor vehicles to which a detachable snowplow is attached. I will respond to each one of your specific questions below.

Question One: "Please confirm in writing that the substructure for a snowplow mounting that is permanently attached to a four wheel drive vehicle may be attached to and be forward of the front bumper without violating any existing or proposed vehicle saf ety standard."

Response: We cannot make such a blanket statement. The weight and the location of the substructure might affect the vehicle's compliance with Standard No. 105, Hydraulic Brake Systems (49 CFR @ 571.105) and Standard No. 120, Tire Selection and Rims for Motor Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars (49 CFR @ 571.120). Any person attaching such a substructure before the first retail sale of the vehicle would have to certify that the vehicle with the substructure attached complied with all applicable safety s tandards. Any commercial business attaching such a substructure after the first retail sale of the vehicle must ensure that the addition of the substructure does not "render inoperative" the vehicle's compliance with any safety standard. Commercial bus inesses are prohibited from "rendering inoperative" a vehicle's compliance with any safety standard by section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)).

Question Two: "Is the snowplow blade, being detachable and used only a few hours each year, considered as part of the vehicle payload when it is attached?"

Response: None of our regulations define or otherwise mention the term "vehicle payload." We assume that you are referring to calculation of the vehicle's weight when you speak of its "payload." If this is the case, we have definitions of many different weight calculations set forth

in 49 CFR @ 571.3 and in our individual safety standards. Some of these weight calculations would exclude a detachable snowplow blade. For instance, "unloaded vehicle weight" is defined in 49 CFR @ 571.3 as:

the weight of a vehicle with maximum capacity for all fluids necessary for operation of the vehicle, but without cargo, occupants, or accessories that are ordinarily removed from the vehicle when they are not in use. (emphasis added).

In a January 18, 1977, letter to Mr. D. J. Henry, the agency stated that portions of a snowplow that would ordinarily be removed from the vehicle when they are not in use (such as a snowplow blade) would not be included in calculating the "unloaded vehic le weight."

If you would identify the particular weight calculation in which you are interested, we would be pleased to tell you whether the weight of a detachable snowplow blade should be included in that particular weight calculation.

Question Three: "Does this exempt a vehicle, with the blade attached and raised, from having to meet the Front Gross Axle Weight Rating restrictions?"

Response: No. There are no exemptions from the gross axle weight ratings. 49 CFR @ 571.3 defines gross axle weight rating as "the value specified by the vehicle manufacturer as the load carrying capacity of a single axle system, as measured at the tire -ground interfaces." The vehicle manufacturer or any vehicle alterer must base its certification of the vehicle's compliance with all applicable safety standards on the assigned gross axle weight ratings.

NHTSA answered the specific question of how detachable snowplow blades are considered in determining whether a vehicle is within its assigned gross axle weight ratings in a March 8, 1976, letter to Mr. Edward Green. In that letter, we stated that any de termination of whether a vehicle was within its assigned gross axle weight rating would include the weight imposed on that axle system by a snowplow with the blade attached and raised.

Question Four: Is there a specific limitation of what percent of the vehicle curb weight can be supported by the front axle? The Ford Truck and Body Builders Layout book specifies a maximum of 63 percent for the front axle.

Response: None of our regulations, including the definitions of "gross axle weight rating" and "gross vehicle weight rating," specify any weight distribution limitations or proportions for the front axle of a vehicle. The only issue for the purposes of our safety standards is whether the vehicle complies with all applicable standards when it is loaded to its assigned gross axle weight ratings. As long as the vehicle complies with our standards under those loading conditions, it makes no difference wha t proportion of the curb weight is assigned to each axle.

We assume the reason that Ford's guidebook specifies a maximum of 63 percent of the vehicle's curb weight to be supported by the front axle is to ensure that the proportional load stopped by the vehicle's front and rear brakes will be such that the vehic le can be certified as complying with our braking standard. Any commercial entity that modified a Ford vehicle in such a way that more than 63 percent of the curb weight were supported by the front axle would have to certify that the modified vehicle com plied with our braking standard, if the modification were made before the first retail sale of the vehicle, or make an initial finding that the modifications did not result in "rendering inoperative" the vehicle's compliance with our braking standard, if the modifications were made after the first retail sale of the vehicle.

Question Five: If the portion of curb weight on the front axle is only dictated by vehicle performance, can NHTSA suggest a source for some general guidelines to avoid performance testing?

Response: As noted in response to Question Four, vehicle performance is the only limitation on the proportion of curb weight that can be assigned to the front axle. For vehicles that are modified before the first retail purchase, the entity making the m odifications can consult the instructions provided by the incomplete vehicle manufacturer. An example of these instructions is the Ford Truck and Body Builders Layout book to which you referred in your letter. Those instructions generally establish som e limits on the parameters of the completed vehicle, such as its weight, height of center of gravity, and so forth. When the entity modifying the vehicle completes the vehicle within the limits established by the incomplete vehicle manufacturer, the mod ifier is not required to conduct its own testing or engineering analyses.

When a vehicle is modified after its first retail purchase, the modifier could remain within the gross axle weight ratings and gross vehicle weight ratings labeled on the vehicle. If the modifier does so, it would not need to conduct any testing or engi neering analyses.

If you have any further questions or need more information on this subject, please feel free to contact Marvin Shaw of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

ID: nht89-1.45

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/20/89

FROM: M. IWASE -- TECHNICAL ADMINISTRATION DEPT. KOITO MFG. CO., LTD.

TO: ERIKA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 06/19/89 FROM ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA TO M. IWASE; REDBOOK A33; STANDARD 108

TEXT: Dear Ms. Jones,

Koito would like to confirm the following prescription of license plate lamp in Table II and IV of FMVSS No. 108.

TABLE II - LOCATION OF REQUIRED EQUIPMENT Location on Height above Item Multipurpose passenger Trailers road surface vehicles, trucks, and busses measuredLicense At rear license plate, to At rear license plate, to No plate illuminate the plate from the illuminate the plate from requirement lamp top or sides. the top or sides. TABLE IV - LOCATION OF REQUIRED EQUIPMENT Location on Height above Item Passenger cars, multipurpose Motorcycles road surface passenger vehicles, measuredLicense At rear license plate, to At rear license plate No plate illuminate the plate from the requirementlamp top or sides.

We interpret that the license plate lamp is not permitted to illuminate the plate from the bottom (except Motorcycle).

We would greatly appreciate if you would kindly and promptly give us your confirmation as to whether the illumination from the bottom be permissible.

Sincerely yours,

ID: nht89-1.46

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/22/89

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL NHTSA

TO: JUNITA P. DAVISON

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 04/22/88 FROM JUANITA P. DAVISON TO NHTSA, OCC 2041

TEXT: Dear Ms. Davison:

Thank you for your letter describing your impressions of the automatic safety belts on your 1987 Toyota. I apologize for the delay in this reply. You said that this motorized automatic belt system "takes away the roominess of the front," because it is in the way when getting in the car with a handbag or package and that it is cumbersome to get out of the belt system. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our law and regulations to you.

Before I respond to your specific concerns, I would like to give you some background information on our requirement for automatic occupant protection systems in new cars. Pursuant to the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act in 1966 (the Safety Act; 15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.), a Federal safety standard on occupant crash protection was issued in 1967 requiring the installation of manual safety belts in all new passenger vehicles. Although these manual safety belts showed their effectiveness as saf ety devices, only a relatively small number of motorists used their manual belts. As recently as 1984, only 12.5 percent of front seat occupants wore their manual belts. Because so few people used their manual safety belts, the Department issued the fi rst requirement for automatic restraints in passenger cars in 1970, and it was scheduled to take effect in 1973. That implementation date was delayed for a variety of reasons. On June 24, 1983, the Supreme Court of the United States found our decision t o repeal the requirement for automatic restraints was "arbitrary and capricious," and ordered us to reconsider the decision (Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Association v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 463 U.S. 29). Against this background, for mer Secretary of Transportation Dole issued a final rule amending the Federal safety standard on occupant crash protection on July 17, 1984.

That decision, which promotes both automatic restraints and State safety belt use laws, provides a comprehensive approach designed to save as many lives as possible as quickly as possible. We believe that effectively enforced State laws requiring the pr oper use of the manual safety belts that are in most cars on the road today offer our best opportunity to

save lives at virtually no cost to the customer. The decision also reflects our belief in the value of automatic occupant protection systems, such as air bags and automatic belts, by requiring all new cars to have automatic protection starting with the 1990 model year. The decision requiring further that automatic protection be phased in during the three years preceding that model year. Each manufacturer was required to equip 10 percent of its model year 1987 cars with automatic restraints. That per centage rose to 25 percent for model year 1988, and 40 percent for model year 1989. However, if the Secretary determines not later than April 1, 989, that State belt use laws have been enacted that meet certain criteria and that are applicable to two-th irds of the U.S. population, then the automatic restraint requirements will be rescinded.

You have three specific concerns with your automatic belt system. First, you asked if the motorized automatic belt system in your car was installed to meet some safety regulation. The answer is yes. As explained above, our Standard No. 208, Occupant C rash Protection request all 1990 model year cars to be equipped with automatic occupant crash protection. Please note that this requirement permits manufacturers to install any automatic occupant protection technology that meets the occupant protection requirements set forth in Standard No. 208. Thus, manufacturers may choose to install motorized, or nonmotorized, automatic safety belts, air bags, other technologies such as "passive interiors," or any combination of these technologies.

Your second question was whether you can legally disengage the motorized mechanism on the automatic belts in your car. Section 108 of the Safety Act provides that: "No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly r ender inoperative . . . any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle . . . in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard . . ." In this case, the automatic belts in your car are a "device or element of desig n installed in a motor vehicle in compliance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard." Disengaging the motorized mechanism would render the automatic belts inoperative. Therefore, Federal law prohibits Toyota, any other manufacturer, and any distri butor, dealer, or repair shop from disengaging the motorized mechanism on your automatic belts.

Please note that this Federal prohibition does not prevent you, yourself, from disengaging the motorized mechanism on your automatic belts. However, each of the individual States has the authority to regulate the modifications that may be made to vehicl es by their owners and to establish requirements for vehicles to be registered or operated in that State. You may wish to contact the State of Florida to learn if they have exercised their authority to prohibit the disabling of automatic belts. Even if neither Federal nor State law prohibits you from disabling your automatic belt, we encourage vehicle owners not to tamper with the occupant crash protection systems installed in their vehicles. If you were to improperly disengage the motorized mechanism , you would put yourself, other occupants of your car and subsequent owners and users of the car at substantially greater risk of injury in a crash.

Third and finally, you said that you have been told it is not safe to wear your automatic belts without also fastening the manual lap belt,

because of the possibility of choking. The manual lap belt was voluntarily provided by the manufacturer of your car to provide an even higher level of crash protection for those occupants who choose to use the lap belt. However, the manufacturer of you r car has certified that, in a 30 mph frontal crash into a concrete barrier, a test dummy restrained only by the automatic belt in your car would not experience injury-producing forces in excess of the levels specified in Standard No. 208. Hence, the su ggestion that the automatic belt by itself is somehow unsafe is simply not true.

I would like to thank you for taking the time to express your views on this subject. We welcome the interest of all concerned citizens on this important question and appreciate this opportunity to advise you of our efforts to improve occupant crash prot ection for all Americans.

Sincerely,