ID: nht90-2.83

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/13/90

FROM: PAUL JACKSON RICE -- NHTSA CHIEF COUNSEL

TO: MICHAEL F. PICKHOLZ -- PRESIDENT, PANDA TECHNIK

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 04/19/90 FROM MICHAEL F. PICKHOLZ -- PANDA TECHNIK TO NHTSA; OCC 4689

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of April 19, 1990, enclosing a sample of a motor vehicle reflector, expressing your concern that "no laws or regulations are violated in the use" of it.

It is contemplated that the reflector will be distributed in the United States to enhance nighttime and adverse weather visibility of slow moving/stationery vehicles. The reflective efficiency is represented to be up to ten times that of conventional re flectors, such as those "required by law" on motor vehicles. The photograph you enclosed shows the reflectors mounted on a large, wide truck or trailer. The reflector "can be installed with simple hand tools", on either the front or rear of the vehicle.

It is apparent from your letter that Panda intends the reflector to be an aftermarket device, and one that is capable of installation by the vehicle owner. There are no Federal motor vehicle safety standards that apply to the reflector as an aftermarket device, and there is no Federal prohibition applicable to installation of the reflector by a vehicle owner.

There is a general prohibition of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act under which modifications may not be performed to vehicles in use, by manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and motor vehicle repair businesses, if they result in renderi ng inoperable, in whole or in part, any device or element of design installed in accordance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard. Should the reflective efficiency and mounting location of your reflector result in a reduced ability of drivers of o ther vehicles to perceive the turn and stop signals of the vehicle on which the reflector is mounted, we would regard the turn and stop signals to have been rendered inoperable in part within the meaning of the prohibition. Thus, you should ensure that the device would not have this effect.

Supplementary lighting devices are also subject to the laws of the States in which they are sold and used. We are unable to advise you on State laws and suggest that you write the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 4600 Wilson Bouleva rd, Arlington, Va. 22203, for an opinion.

We are returning your sample.

ID: nht90-2.84

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/14/90

FROM: PAUL JACKSON RICE -- NHTSA CHIEF COUNSEL

TO: KARL-HEINZ FABER -- SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT MERCEDES-BENZ OF NORTH AMERICA, INC.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 04/19/90 FROM KARL HEINZ FABER TO BARRY FELRICE -- NHTSA; RE ARMREST STORAGE COMPARTMENT; OCC 4699

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of April 19, 1990 to Barry Felrice, our Associate Administrator for Rulemaking, in which you sought an interpretation of Standard No. 201, Occupant Protection in Interior Impact (49 CFR @ 571.201). More specifically, yo u stated in your letter that future Mercedes-Benz vehicles will come equipped with new armrests between the two front and, where applicable, two rear seating position. The new design will have a built-in compartment that can accommodate car phone storag e. It will be covered by a lift-up lid that will afford easy access to the phone.

Your letter indicated that your company believes the lift-up lid on this armrest would not be subject to the provisions of S3.3 and S3.3.1 of Standard No. 201 for "interior compartment doors," since those provisions do not apply to doors incorporated in center armrests. However, your letter indicated your company's belief that the new armrests would be subject to the requirements of S3.5.2 of Standard No. 201, which applies to folding armrests. As explained more fully below, these beliefs appear to be correct applications of the standard.

At the outset, I would like to note that section 114 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (15 U.S.C. 1403) makes a vehicle's manufacturer responsible for certifying that the vehicle complies with all applicable provisions of the F ederal motor vehicle safety standards. For this reason, NHTSA has no authority to approve, endorse, or offer assurances of compliance for any vehicle designs or features. NHTSA will, however, tentatively state our opinion of how the safety standards wo uld apply to a vehicle design or feature. It is important that the manufacturer be aware that these tentative statements of agency opinion are based entirely on the information presented to the agency by the manufacturer, and that the agency opinions may change after NHTSA has had an opportunity to examine the vehicle itself or otherwise acquire additional information.

With those caveats, I agree with you that sections S3.3 and S3.3.1 of Standard No. 201 do not appear to apply to the lift-up lid on your armrest design. Section S3.3 of Standard No. 201 requires that interior compartment doors "located in an instrument p anel, console assembly, seat back, or side panel adjacent to a designated seating position" remain closed when tested in accordance with the demonstration procedures in section S3.3.1 of the Standard. It is not clear if the lift-up lid on your armrest de sign would qualify as an "interior compartment door" within the meaning of the definition of that term in 49 CFR @ 571.3 "(any door in the interior of the vehicle installed by the manufacturer as a cover for storage space normally used for personal effec ts"). If the armrest is not designed for storage of personal effects, the lift-up lid on the armrest would be considered an "interior compartment door." If the armrest is not designed for storage of personal effects, the lift-up lid would not be an "int erior compartment door" and S3.3 and S3.3.1 would not apply to it. Even if the lift-up lid were considered an interior compartment door, it would not appear to be subject to sections S3.3 and S3.3.1 of the Standard. This is because those sections apply only to interior compartment doors "located in an instrument panel, console assembly, seat back, or side panel adjacent to a designated seating position. . . ." Only interior compartment doors located in the listed components must comply with S3.3 and S3 .3.1. Since an armrest is not among the listed components, interior compartment doors located in an armrest are not subject to S3.3 and S3.3.1.

You also discussed the applicability of section S3.5.2 of Standard No. 201 to your armrest design. Section S3.5.2 applies to armrests that folds into the seat back or between two seat backs. Based on the information supplied in your letter, we agree th at your armrest design would be subject to section S3.5.2 of Standard No. 201, because it is a folding armrest between two seat backs. We also agree with your suggestion that Mercedes-Benz may comply with section S3.5.2 by ensuring that this armrest des ign is "constructed of or covered with energy-absorbing material."

I hope this information is helpful. Please feel free to contact me if you have any additional questions or need some additional information on this subject.

ID: nht90-2.85

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/14/90

FROM: PAUL JACKSON RICE -- NHTSA CHIEF COUNSEL

TO: JOSEPH R. WHEELER

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 06/08/90 FROM JOSEPH R. WHEELER TO KEN WEINSTEIN -- NHTSA

TEXT: This is in response to your letter to Kenneth Weinstein of my staff requesting information about actions by the Secretary of Transportation pursuant to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection (49 CFR @ 571.208). More spe cifically, you noted that S4.1.4.1 of Standard No. 208 states that, "Except as provided in S4.1.5 [and another section not relevant to your inquiry], each passenger car manufactured on or after September 1, 1989 shall comply with the [automatic restraint requirements]." S4.1.5 of Standard No. 208 provides that: "If the Secretary of Transportation determines, by not later than April 1, 1989, that state mandatory safety belt usage laws have been enacted that meet the criteria specified in S4.1.5.2 and tha t are applicable to not less than two-thirds of the total population . . ., [the automatic restraint requirements will not go into effect]." You asked whether the Secretary ever made a determination under S4.1.5 regarding State safety belt use laws. The answer is no.

Under S4.1.5, the Secretary was not required to make any determination about any State safety belt laws. In fact, the Secretary never did so. Because no determination was made under S4.1.5, the automatic restraint requirements are now in effect for all passenger cars.

This letter expresses no opinion about the implications under Tennessee law of the absence of a determination by the Secretary of Transportation regarding any State's safety belt law.

ID: nht90-2.86

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: June 14, 1990

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Normand Laurendeau, Esq. -- Guy And Gilbert

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 8/4/95 LETTER FROM JOHN WOMACK TO JEREL M. SACHS (A43; STD. 205; REDBOOK 2); ALSO ATTACHED TO 6/26/95 LETTER FROM JEREL M. SACHS TO CLARKE HARPER; ALSO ATTACHED TO 8/4/86 LETTER FROM ERIKA JONES TO HENRY A. GORRY; ALSO ATTACHED TO 6 /10/87 LETTER FROM ERIKA JONES TO DAVID C. MAROON

TEXT: Dear Mr. Laurendeau:

Thank you for your letter on behalf of your client, who distributes auto glass parts in Canada. You had two questions regarding your client's status as an "intermediate" in the motor vehicle industry.

Before I address your specific questions, I believe some background information about this agency may be of assistance to you. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has the authority under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safe ty Act (Safety Act) to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and new 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 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 al so investigates other alleged safety-related defects. I have enclosed an information sheet which briefly describes each of a manufacturer's responsibilities under the Safety Act. The information sheet also explains how a company offering an item of mot or vehicle equipment for importation into the United States must designate an agent within this country for service of process.

Your letter describes your client as "one of the major distributors of auto glass parts in all of Canada." Your letter states that your client's customers demand that your client "certifies all glasses shipped with D.O.T. number AS1 or AS2 for domestic a nd export purposes in all countries." I will now address the specific questions raised in your letter.

Your first question was whether your client, as a distributor of automotive safety glass, needs a D.O.T. number to operate in the United States. The answer to this question depends on what role your client has in the process that results in glazing bein g sold to the customer.

The agency has issued Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials (49 CFR $ 571.205) which specifies performance requirements for glazing for use in motor vehicles. S6 of Standard No. 205 establishes marking and certification requirements for manufacturers and d istributors of glazing materials.

The marking and certification requirements differ, depending upon whether your client is a "prime glazing material manufacturer" or simply a manufacturer or distributor. A "prime glazing material manufacturer" is defined in S6.1 of Standard No. 205 as " one who fabricates, laminates, or tempers the glazing material." If your client performs any of these operations, it must comply with the marking and certification requirements set forth in S6.1 through S6.3 of Standard No. 205. S6.1 requires every prim e glazing material manufacturer to mark all glazing materials it manufactures in accordance with American National Standard "Safety Code for Safety Glazing Materials for Glazing Motor Vehicles Operating on Land Highways". Z-26.1-1977, January 26, 1977, as supplemented by Z26.1a, July 3, 1980 (hereinafter referred to as "ANS Z26). S6.2 of Standard No. 205 requires each prime glazing material manufacturer to certify each piece of glazing designed as a component of any specific motor vehicle or camper by adding to the mark required by S6.1 the symbol "DOT" and a manufacturer's code mark that is assigned by this agency. S6.3 requires each prime glazing manufacturer to certify each piece of glazing designed to be cut into components for use in motor vehi cles pursuant to the requirements of section 114 of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1403).

Assuming that your client would not be considered a "prime glazing material manufacturer," but is simply a distributor, it would not need to be assigned a DOT number pursuant to S6.2 of Standard No. 205. In your letter, however, you incorrectly identifi ed the codes AS1 and AS2 as DOT numbers. Those codes are required on glazing materials by section 6 of ANS Z26. As explained below, your client may be required to add such markings to glazing materials, even if your client is only considered a distribu tor for the purposes of Standard No. 205.

Each manufacturer or distributor who cuts a section of glazing material to which Standard No. 205 applies, for use in a motor vehicle or camper, must comply with the requirements set forth in S6.4 and S6.5 of Standard No. 205. For sections of glazing th at are cut by the manufacturer or distributor, the manufacturer or distributor must mark it in accordance with section 6 of ANS Z26 (S6.4) and certify it in accordance with section 114 of the Safety Act (S6.5).

Your second question asked about the potential liability of a distributor for the certification of automotive safety glazing for importation into the United States.

If your client is required to certify glazing it distributes pursuant to the provisions in either S6.2, S6.3, or S6.5 of Standard No. 205, the failure to so certify would be a violation of the standard. Section

108(a)(1)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(1)(A)) provides that:

No person shall 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 manufactured on or after the date any appl icable Federal motor vehicle safety standard takes effect under this title unless it is in conformity with such standard . . .

Thus, if your client is required by Standard No. 205 to certify some glazing it distributes, the failure to make such a certification would be a violation of section 108(a)(1)(A) of the Safety Act. Even if your client is not required to certify the glaz ing it distributes pursuant to Standard No. 205, section 114 of the Safety Act requires every distributor of motor vehicle equipment (such as glazing) to furnish a certification. Section 114 provides: Every manufacturer or distributor of . . . motor veh icle equipment shall furnish to the distributor or dealer at the time of delivery of such . . . equipment by such . . . distributor the certification that each such . . . item of motor vehicle equipment conforms to all applicable Federal motor vehicle sa fety standards. In the case of an item of motor vehicle equipment such certification may be in the form of a label or tag on such item or on the outside of a container in which such item is delivered.

Section 108(a)(1)(C) of the Safety Act provides that no person shall fail to issue a certificate required by section 114, or issue a certificate to the effect that a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment conforms to all applicable safety stand ards, if such person in the exercise of due care has reason to know that such certificate is false or misleading in a material respect. Section 109 of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1398) provides that any violations of section 108 subject the violator to a civil penalty of not to exceed $ 1,000 for each such violation, up to a maximum penalty of $ 800,000.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions or need any additional information, please feel free to contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht90-2.87

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/15/90

FROM: NORMAN B. SCOTT, JR.,-- SNUG SEAT, INC.

TO: ERIKA T. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 8-15-90 TO N. B. SCOTT, JR., FROM P. J. RICE; (A36; STD. 213); ALSO ATTACHED--PHOTOGRAPH (OMITTED)

TEXT:

During a meeting held at NHTSA offices on June 13, 1990, 1 presented a new product being introduced to the market in the next 60 days which will transport "Low Birth Weight" (LBW) infants in a supine or prone position.

This "LBW" car bed is to be called the Mini-Swinger and will be represented as appropriate for infants no longer than twenty (20) inches and no more than eight to ten (8-10) pounds in weight. The Mini-Swinger was developed as a safer means of transporta tion for the "LBW" population of infants that do not have the skeletal/muscular structure required for safe transportation in the standard rear facing six (6) month old car seats. The Mini-Swinger is protected by patent number 4,113,306 issued to Mr. vo n Wimmersperg and owned by the West German firm, Romer-Britax.

As FMVSS 213 does not deal directly with infants of this size we would like an opinion on the following:

In order to certify to FMVSS 213 we are required to place the six (6) month old seventeen (17) pound dummy in the Mini-Swinger. The six (6) month old dummy's torso fits in the Mini-Swinger; however, the legs do not. A dynamic crash test showed the dumm y staying in the shell and the shell maintaining its integrity.

Given that FMVSS 213 does not address the comfort of the occupant of a car seat, we need to know if you accept our testing as adequate relative to the present standard.

On July 8, 1988, you wrote a six (6) page letter to Donald Friedman, Liability Research, Inc., relative to a similar issue. During review of this letter, it seems evident to me the testing we have done is an acceptable test for compliance to FMVSS 213.

Would you please review our request and let me know your thoughts at the earliest convenience?

ID: nht90-2.88

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: June 15, 1990

FROM: James W. Lawrence -- Manager, Compliance and Technical Legislation, Volvo GM Heavy Truck Corporation

TO: Stephen P. Wood -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: Re Interpretation on Conformance of Aftermarket Parts

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 4-9-90 from Stephen P. Wood to Mehdi Rowghani (A35; Std. 214; Part 541); Also attached to letter dated 3-13-91 from Paul Jackson Rice to James W. Lawrence (A37; Std. 214; VSA 108(a)(2)(A))

TEXT:

I recently became aware of an Administration interpretation (copy attached) to a parts distribution that states in part as follows:

"...there is no requirement that the replacement door restore the vehicle to a condition in which it continues to meet Standard No. 214."

In contrast, the Act section 108a(2)(A) prohibits rendering inoperative devices or elements of design installed in compliance to a Safety Standard. I interpret this provision of the Act to require the installation of parts meeting the same performance r equirements as OEM parts. A clarification would be most appreciated.

ID: nht90-2.89

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/18/90

FROM: PAUL JACKSON RICE -- NHTSA CHIEF COUNSEL

TO: JOHN W. GARRINGER

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 05/07/90 FROM JOHN W. GARRINGER TO STEPHEN P. WOOD -- NHTSA, OCC 4751; LETTER DATED 02/01/90 FROM JOHN W. GARRINGER TO TERRY M. GERNSTEIN

TEXT: This responds to your letter asking whether Federal law permits the installation of tinted plastic film on the bottom of motor vehicle windshields. The purpose of this film would be to reduce glare for the driver and any front seat passengers. I am ple ased to have this opportunity to explain how our laws and regulations apply to such a product.

Our agency is authorized under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.; the Safety Act) to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA, however, does not appro ve or certify any vehicles or items of equipment, nor do we endorse any commercial products or processes. Instead, the Safety Act specifies that each manufacturer itself must certify that its products meet all applicable safety standards. The agency pe riodically tests vehicles and items of equipment for compliance with the standards, and also investigates alleged defects related to motor vehicle safety and alleged violations of other statutory provisions.

Pursuant to this authority, NHTSA has issued Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials (49 CFR @ 571.205), which sets forth performance requirements for windows and other glazing items installed in motor vehicles. Among the requirements set forth in Standard N o. 205 are specifications for minimum levels of light transmittance. A minimum of 70 percent light transmittance is required in glazing areas requisite for driving visibility, which includes all windows in passenger cars. In trucks and buses, the winds hield and windows to the immediate right and left of the driver and the rearmost window, if the latter is used for driving visibility, are considered to be requisite for driving visibility, and therefore subject to the 70 percent minimum light transmitta nce requirement.

Your letter did not provide any information on the light transmittance that would be measured through glazing with your Hood Glare product installed on it. The combination of the glazing material and your tinting film must allow at least 70 percent light transmittance to comply with the requirements of Standard No. 205. No manufacturer or dealer would be permitted to install your tinting film on the glazing materials on new vehicles, unless the manufacturer or dealer certifies that the vehicle continue s to comply with the 70 percent minimum light transmittance and other requirements of Standard No. 205.

After a vehicle is first sold to a consumer, modifications to the vehicle are affected by section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)). That section prohibits any manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or repair business from "rendering i noperative" any device or element of design installed in a vehicle in compliance with any safety standard. This provision of the law means that no manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or repair business could install tinting film if the addition of the ti nting film to the glazing would result in a light transmittance of less than 70 percent, or otherwise cause the vehicle to no longer comply with the applicable requirements of Standard 205. Violations of this "render inoperative" prohibition can result in Federal civil penalties to the manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or repair business of up to $ 1000 for each noncomplying installation.

Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act does not affect vehicle owners. Hence, vehicle owners themselves may install tinting film or any other product on the glazing of their vehicle, regardless of whether the installation causes the vehicle to no longer comply with Standard No. 205. Individual States have the authority to regulate the operational use of vehicles by their owners, and, therefore, have the authority to regulate or preclude individual owner modifications to the glazing of their vehicles.

I have enclosed an information sheet that summarizes the relationship between Federal auto safety laws and motor vehicle window tinting. I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions or need any additional information about this topic, please feel free to contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

ENCLOSURE

ID: nht90-2.9

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: APRIL 9, 1990

FROM: STEPHEN P. WOOD

TO: GARY R. BALANZA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 10-11-89 TO NHTSA FROM GARY R. BALANZA ATTACHED.

TEXT:

This is in reply to your letter asking for an interpretation whether your invention "will interfere with the standard equipment" required by Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. I regret the delay in responding.

Your invention, "Pinlights", is described as an auxiliary lighting system designed to fit an automobile's side contours. Its purpose is to light up the entire length of a vehicle, so that it will be more conspicuous at night. We note your uncertainty a s to "number of stripes allowed on Bcar", "colors allowed on a car", and "maximum brightness allowable."

There are two ways to approach your invention under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, our authority for the issuance of the motor vehicle lighting standard, Standard No. 108. The first is as an item of original equipment, in place on th e vehicle at the time it is bought by its first owner. You have asked the correct question: does the invention impair the effectiveness of the lighting equipment required by Standard No. 108? The equipment most likely to be impaired are the side marke r lamps and reflectors. These items are located near the front and rear of the vehicle, to enhance vehicle conspicuity by affording an approximation of vehicle length, and an indication of the vehicle's front and rear. The lamps are amber to the front, and red to the rear. Your invention would be located along the side of the vehicle, from front to rear. This suggests that the color of your device should similarly be amber to the front and red to the rear, so as not to impair the effectiveness of th e directional function of the side marker lamps.

The second way to approach your invention is as an item available in the aftermarket. Standard No. 108 does not apply to a vehicle in use. However, as it applies to your question, the vehicle Safety Act prohibits modifications by manufacturers, distribu tors, dealers, or motor vehicle repair businesses if they render inoperative, in whole or in part, any of the required lighting equipment. In most cases, we consider an impairment of new vehicle equipment to be equivalent to a partial inoperability. Fu rther, if installation of aftermarket equipment directly affects the performance of original equipment (such as a reduction of light output through an interference with the wiring), that would certainly be considered a partial inoperability.

Lighting equipment that is not covered by Standard No. 108 remains subject to the requirements of each State in which a vehicle on which it is installed is registered and/or operated. We are unable to advise you on State laws, and suggest that, for an o pinion, you write the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 4600 Wilson Boulevard,

Arlington, Va. 22203.

ID: nht90-2.90

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/18/90

FROM: PAUL JACKSON RICE -- NHTSA CHIEF COUNSEL

TO: DOUGLAS MAYES -- PRESIDENT CREATIVE PRODUCTS, INC.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 10/17/89 FROM DOUGLAS MAYES -- CREATIVE PRODUCTS TO NHTSA; RE BRAKING DISTANCE TEST AND LABORATORIES USED BY DOT; OCC 4087

TEXT: This responds to your letter asking questions in relation to your product called "gyroscopic wheel covers." We apologize for the delay in our response.

According to your letter and accompanying information, you claim that use of "gyroscopic wheel covers" can reduce stopping distance. You stated that Dr. Carl Clark of this agency suggested that you request this office to provide a letter specifically ou tlining the requirements of the agency's braking test, and a list of the various testing facilities used by the agency when testing a product for this purpose. You then asked for a letter stating the "stopping distance test guidelines" of Safety Standar d No. 105, Hydraulic Brake Systems," and a list of laboratories acceptable to DOT that could be used to test your product. You also asked whether an SAE standard is a proper example of a stopping distance test. You stated that it is your intention to us e these testing standards and one of the acceptable laboratories so as to properly document your product's test results in compliance with the DOT testing standards.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, it is the responsibility of th e manufacturer to ensure that its products meet applicable standards.

Safety Standard No. 105, Hydraulic Brake Systems, applies to passenger cars and other motor vehicles. The standard specifies, among other things, a number of stopping distance tests that each motor vehicle must meet. I have enclosed a copy of the stand ard for your information.

I note that Standard No. 105 was not designed for the purpose of evaluating whether a product such as yours can improve stopping distance. We are unable to offer an opinion as to the appropriateness of using Standard No. 105's stopping distance tests fo r that purpose, or how such a test program would best be carried out.

This agency does not provide recommendations or endorsements for particular testing laboratories. I have, however, enclosed a list of the independent laboratories conducting compliance tests for NHTSA's Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance during the cur rent fiscal year.

I have also enclosed a copy of an information sheet we have prepared which provides information for new manufacturers of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment.

I hope this information is helpful.

[NHTSA STANDARD NO 105 HYDRAULIC BRAKE SYSTEMS; 49 CFR CHAPTER V; DATED 10/01/89 OMITTED]

ID: nht90-2.91

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: June 20, 1990

FROM: Dennis T. Johnston -- Senior Executive Engineer, Product Engineering and Regulatory Affairs, Sterling Motor Cars

TO: General Jerry R. Curry -- Administrator, NHTSA

TITLE: Re Sterling Superlocking System

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 10-5-90 from B. Felrice to D.T. Johnston (A36; Part 543)

TEXT:

Rover Cars of North America (formerly Austin Rover Cars of North America, d.b.a. Sterling Motor Cars), importer of the British Sterling passenger car, manufactured by the Rover Group Ltd., U.K. sent you a letter dated March 14, 1990 outlining a proposed modification to our antitheft system in the 1991 Model Year. Due to marketing considerations, this enhanced system, referred to as 'superlocking' will not be available for the 1991 Model Year. Therefore Sterling would like to withdraw that submission. If we elect to offer this system at some point in the future we will resubmit a request for de minimus change to our currently approved theft prevention system.

We would like to introduce a minor revision to our currently approved system for the 1991 Model Year, however. Our present system, once armed, will activate if the trunk is opened, even using the key, unless the system is disarmed. Our proposed modific ation would allow the system to be disarmed when the trunk is opened by the key and rearmed when the, trunk lid is closed. Forcing open of the trunk without using the key would still activate the alarm.

If you have any questions regarding this request please feel free to contact me on (213) 437-6282 at your earliest convenience.