ID: nht91-4.34

DATE: July 1, 1991

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: John Mayeda -- Marketing and Sales Coordinator, GRE America, Inc.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 6-4-87 from Erika Z. Jones to Robert J. Heath; Also attached to letter dated 9-21-89 from Stephen P. Wood to Jim Bowen; Also attached to letter dated 1-7-89 from Erika Z. Jones to Koji Tokunaga (Std. 101); Also attached to letter dated 5-6-91 from John Mayeda to the Department of Transportation, NHTSA (OCC 6034)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter asking whether there are any laws or regulations that govern car stereos. You asked this question in the context of a stereo system that you are considering developing. The stereo would include a built-in television monitor.

I note that your letter and an enclosed drawing are stamped "Proprietary Information." In a May 30, 1991 telephone conversation, Elizabeth Barbour of my staff advised you that all NHTSA interpretation letters are a matter of public record, and that all incoming requests are also made public unless confidential treatment is requested and granted. You indicated your understanding of this policy and stated that you did not wish to request that the materials you submitted be treated confidentially.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration does not have any safety standards specifically covering car stereos or television receivers. However, a car stereo or television receiver may include a source of illumination which is regulated by Standard No. 101, Controls and Displays. Further, the installation of a car stereo or television receiver could affect the compliance of a vehicle with a number of safety standards. I have enclosed copies of three letters which discuss these and a number of other issues relating to the installation of radios or television receivers in motor vehicles. They include a June 4, 1987 letter addressed to Pansonic, a January 7, 1988 letter addressed to Isuzu, and a September 21, 1989 letter addressed to Gulf Stream Coach.

I hope this information is helpful.

ID: nht91-4.35

DATE: July 1, 1991

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Cliff Chuang -- Chief Design Engineer, Prospects Corporation

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 5-1-91 from Cliff Chuang to Legal Counsel, NHTSA (OCC 6009)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter seeking clarification of recent amendments to Standard No. 118, Power-operated Window Systems (49 CFR S571.118), as published in the Federal Register on April 16, 1991. Specifically, you were interested in new requirements applicable to remote control operations of power windows. You first asked for confirmation of your interpretation of the new requirement in S5(a) that, while closing, remote control-operated power windows automatically reverse direction "when they meet a resistive force of 22 pounds or more." You also asked for an interpretation of the term "daylight opening" as it appears in S5(b) of Standard No. 118.

This agency has received several petitions for reconsideration of the recent amendments to Standard No. 118 with respect to the automatic reversal requirements. In response to the petitions, NHTSA is currently reexamining several aspects of this requirement, including those raised in your letter. The agency will publish its response to the petitions for reconsideration in the Federal Register after it has finished its reexamination of the automatic reversal requirement in the April 16 final rule. Please let us know if you have any questions about this new automatic reversal requirement after our response to the petitions for reconsideration has been published and you have had the opportunity to review it.

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

ID: nht91-4.36

DATE: July 1, 1991

FROM: David R. Stepp -- Stein Shostak Shostak & O'Hara

TO: Paul Jackson Rice -- General Counsel, NHTSA

COPYEE: Greg Long -- Escargot Motor Cars, Inc.

TITLE: Escargot Motorcars, Inc. - Reimportation of Previously Imported Automobiles

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 8-12-91 from Paul Jackson Rice to David R. Stepp (A38; Part 591; VSA 108(a)(2)(A))

TEXT:

On behalf of our client, Escargot Motorcars, Inc. (Escargot) of Toronto, Canada, we hereby request written approval for the reimportation into the United States of Volkswagen Beetles previously imported into the United States in their respective years of manufacture which have been sent to Mexico for refurbishment. This processing operation is prospective in nature and Escargot will not proceed until written assurances are received from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA).

FACTS:

In the United States, Escargot intends to purchase titled Volkswagen Beetles, last available in 1979, which were previously imported into the United States by Volkswagen of America. At the time of original purchase, each automobile complied with all laws and regulations applicable to that year of manufacture.

The automobiles will be shipped to Mexico for refurbishment after having been registered by Vehicle Identification Number (VIN) at the border with the United States Customs Service by a licensed customhouse broker. In Mexico, each automobile will be completely stripped of all damaged original parts and the frames will be restored and repainted. The engine will be replaced with an original Volkswagen replacement engine of 1,600 cc displacement. The body, all sheet metal, interior, bumpers, and lights will be restored or replaced with replacement parts and will be exactly as those original to the Volkswagen Beetles for their respective years of manufacture. A catalytic converter will be installed to meet or surpass U.S. emission standards in effect for the particular vehicle's year of manufacture.

Upon reimportation into the United States, all applicable customs duties will be paid. During the refurbishment in Mexico, the original frame/chassis is preserved on each automobile. The original VIN, which is physically stamped onto the frame/chassis, is also preserved and is easily readable for Customs inspection. Some of the original Volkswagen as exported to Mexico will possess the manufacturer's certification disk on the door post which shows the year of manufacture and confirms the satisfaction of all requirements of that date. In other automobiles whose bodies are worn or damaged, the entire bodies may be replaced and/or painted and this manufacturer's certification may be damaged or removed.

For certain vehicles with extensively damaged bodies, Escargot is contemplating stripping the bodies from the chassis in the United States prior to exportation to Mexico.

Escargot will keep detailed records of all restoration processes and will take photographs to confirm the processing performed in Mexico.

LAW & DISCUSSION:

The Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) for passenger cars and equipment are applicable to automobiles manufactured on or after the dates of the various provisions (49 C.F.R. Part 571). Thus, any previously imported Volkswagen Beetle will be required to meet all FMVSS for its respective model year, i.e., a 1968 Volkswagen Beetle must satisfy FMVSS 101-107, 109-11, 116, 201, 203-11, and 301.

For automobiles where the FMVSS apply, a manufacturer's certification must be permanently affixed to the motor vehicle. Under 49 C.F.R. Sec. 567, this certification must contain the name of the manufacturer, month and year of manufacture, "Gross Vehicle Weight Rating," "Gross Axle Weight Rating," the VIN, the type classification of the vehicle, and a statement that the vehicle conforms to all applicable FMVSS in effect on the date of manufacture.

In addition, an importer must file a declaration in accordance with 49 C.F.R. 591.5. In particular, Sec. 591.5(b) provides that the declaration must state that the imported vehicle conforms with all applicable safety standards, bumper, and theft prevention standards. A certification label or tag to that effect must be permanently affixed by the original manufacturer to the vehicle. See also 19 C.F.R. Sec. 12.80(b)(1), where Customs states its procedures for implementing the NHTSA declaration requirements.

Against this background, the Volkswagen Beetles which Escargot proposes to refurbish in Mexico and reimport into the United States should be allowed reentry by NHTSA. The automobiles will be restored to a point which actually exceeds the standards necessary for the model years of the motor vehicles. For example, a Volkswagen Beetle imported in 1968 will be fitted with a catalytic convertor, a device originally not required for that model year. Where the manufacturer's certification on the doorpost is preserved after restoration in Mexico, the vehicles clearly should be allowed to enter the United States without further certification.

In addition, we maintain that further certification is also not necessary for motor vehicles which may require body restoration so extensive that the doorpost which contains the manufacturer's certification may be damaged or removed. Since the original frame and VIN is retained throughout the restoration process, the refurbished Volkswagen Beetle will be recognized as a motor vehicle by its title which was previously imported and which complied with all applicable laws and regulations. The fact that a doorpost containing the certification is replaced or repainted should not nullify the manufacturer's certification. NHTSA, through the U.S. Customs recordation of the VIN at the border, has sufficient means to insure that a vehicle which is sent from the United States to Mexico will

be the same one returned to the United States after restoration. Similarly, vehicles which are stripped of their bodies prior to shipment to Mexico should be allowed entry without further certification since the chassis will be preserved and registered.

Although not controlling in the United States, Transport Canada's enforcement position with respect to the importation of restored Volkswagen Beetles into Canada is relevant. Under the Canadian Motor Vehicle Act, vehicles manufactured or rehabilitated on used chassis or floor pans are not subject to its provisions. This position is based on the concept that the chassis is the integral part of the vehicle and is thus the only component which must be retained.

In conclusion, NHTSA should determine that Volkswagen Beetles previously imported into the United States and restored in Mexico should be allowed entry into the United States without further certification. The proposed restoration performed in mexico is no different than that which is currently done in the United States with original Volkswagen Beetles. The original chassis of each Volkswagen is retained and the VIN is preserved throughout the refurbishment operations. The registration of the vehicles by VIN at the Mexican border provides a sufficient method to insure the integrity of the automobiles upon reimportation. Accordingly, we respectfully request NHTSA's approval for the reimportation of Escargot's refurbished vehicles.

We look forward to your earliest possible response to this inquiry. Should you need any additional information or have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.

ID: nht91-4.37

DATE: July 3, 1991

FROM: Michael D. Incorvaia -- Manufacturing Engineering Manager, Wagner Lighting

TO: NHTSA -- Office of Chief Counsel

TITLE: Re Request for Letter of Interpretation

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 11-12-91 from Paul Jackson Rice to Michael D. Incorvaia (A38; Std. 108)

TEXT:

Wagner Lighting is requesting an interpretation on Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) 108 per the documentation that follows.

All responses by NHTSA to this request should be addressed to:

Michael D. Incorvaia Manufacturing Engineering Manager Wagner Lighting P.O. Box 4650 Sevierville, TN 37864.

Wagner Lighting, a manufacturer of automotive and truck turn signal and hazard warning flashers for more than thirty years, requests a letter of interpretation from NHTSA concerning FMVSS 108. Per 49 CFR 512 4b3i, Wagner Lighting wishes to keep this request confidential because this concept is a trade secret.

Per 512 4b3ii and 4b3iii, Wagner Lighting has disclosed this information to three (3) sources. However, Wagner Lighting does not consider these disclosures to be a compromise of the confidential nature of the material. During conference calls on the twentieth day of May, 1991, Allegro MicroSystems, Inc. of Concord, N.H. and Exar Corp. of San Jose, California were given this information. These companies are designers and manufacturers of custom integrated circuits (IC) which would be used to control Wagner Lighting's flasher. Both of the companies were being interviewed as potential suppliers of the solid state IC that would help perform the functions listed in this document. Prior to this date, both of these companies had signed a non-disclosure agreement concerning any information that would be given to them by Wagner Lighting concerning purposed flasher development. The same information was shared again with Exar in meetings at Wagner Lighting on June 25-27, 1991.

This information was also disclosed to one of our customers. On three (3) separate dates, May 9 and 29, 1991 and June 13, 1991, This information was shared with the General Motors (GM) Flasher Task Force in Detroit. The GM Flasher Task Force is developing a new flasher specification for the corporation. Wagner Lighting felt this information was important for future flasher technology and needed GM's feedback as a customer. The other competitors, who are also involved with the GM Flasher Task Force, were asked to leave the room before this information was disclosed. Therefore, to the best of our knowledge, it was only disclosed to GM personnel.

Wagner Lighting does not feel that any of these disclosures is a compromise to the confidentiality of the following ideas because Wagner Lighting has applied for a patent for these ideas. (Patent application WLD-019749)

Per 512 4b3iv, Wagner Lighting knows of no other disclosure, public or private.

Per 512 4b3v, Wagner Lighting knows of no prior determination of these ideas.

Per 512 4b3vi, Wagner Lighting feels that the disclosure of these ideas would be harmful due to two (2) reasons. One, Wagner Lighting is planning on applying for foreign patents and the disclosure of these ideas would jeopardize these applications. Second, if the US patent is not granted, it would take away the competitive advantage of these ideas.

Per 512 4b3vii, Wagner Lighting sees no reason why this disclosure would impair NHTSA's ability to obtain similar information in the future.

Per 512 4b3viii, Wagner Lighting sees no reason why this disclosure would impair any other government interests.

Per 512 4b3ix, Wagner lighting request that these ideas be held as confidential until such time that US and European patents are awarded.

Per 512 5a, Wagner Lighting feels that the denial of confidentiality would result in competitive harm.

DESCRIPTION

The present conflict involves turn signal flashers, hazard warning flashers, and combination flashers, which perform the functions of both previously listed flashers. The conflict centers around FMVSS 108.

Previous to the 3 terminal, 3 lamp electronic/relay flasher, automobile systems utilized two 2-terminal thermal flashers. One flasher operated the automobile signal lamps for the turn signal mode, the other for hazard warning. Still today, the two 2-terminal flashers are used in 754 of the vehicles made in the United States.

The turn signal flasher would operate in a "steady on" condition if a lamp was lost (i.e. lamp outage) in the turn signal mode. This was to indicate to the driver that a lamp had failed. The hazard warning flasher would operate at the same speed regardless of the number of lamps, down to two lamps. The constant speed was required to maximize the visual perception of the flashing lamps, no matter how many lamps had failed. Both the turn signal and the hazard warning flashers are required to operate within the unshaded polygon shown in Figure 1.

FMVSS 108 was written to agree with the above discussion. The actual laws read:

FMVSS 108 (reference SAE J945 (3.0)) "...The previous operating tolerances shall apply for loads of two signal lamps, and the maximum design load..." where the tolerances are the unshaded polygon in figure 2.

FMVSS 108 (reference SAE J588e (4.5)) "failure of one or more turn signal lamps to operate should be indicated by a "steady on", "steady off", or by a significant change in the flashing rate of the illuminated indicator."

In the 1980's, electronic based flashers were introduced into the market. Presently, most are three terminal (battery, load, and ground) relay based flashers. (note: there is a two terminal, transistor based flasher (battery and load) under development at Wagner Lighting). These electronic flashers are required to operate within the same unshaded polygon in Figure I during the normal turn signal and in the hazard warning mode. Because the flash rate/duty cycle window is so wide, the technology of the flashers on the market today have wide variations in flash rate over temperature. Therefore, the flash rate had to be doubled for the lamp outage condition in turn signal mode to meet the "significant change" required in FMVSS.

As automobile designers began to cut costs, the electronic/relay flashers were used as combination flashers, both turn signal and hazard warning mode. However, using the flasher in this application for a 3 lamp turn signal/6 lamp hazard system introduced a conflict with the FMVSS laws. The units were design to double in flash rate when there were only 2 lamps in the system. This would indicate a lamp out for the turn signal mode.

However, if a automobile had 4 lamps out while in hazard mode, the flasher would also double in flash rate. There would be two lamps flashing in hazard mode outside the unshaded polygon and therefore not within the optimum perception region of other drivers. Such an occurrence would be rare case, but it is possible and therefore is a safety issue.

The present solution to the problem is the electronic/relay flasher designers plan to add a terminal to the flasher that would indicate whether the vehicle is in turn signal or hazard warning. A special IC would be designed to monitor this terminal, and adjust the flash rate accordingly.

This solution will require an additional terminal on the flasher, an additional plug, associated wiring, and a new switch design. All of these will add cost to the automotive wiring system.

Wagner Lighting has a solution to the problem.

The proposed lamp outage indication will remain within the acceptable performance range of FVMSS 108 represented in Figure 1.

Figure 1 GRAPH - FMVSS 108 POLYGON (Graph omitted)

I Michael D. Incorvaia, pursuant to the provisions of 49 CFRS12. state as follows:

(1) I am Manufacturing Engineering Manager, and I am authorized by Cooper Industries Wagner Lighting Division, hereinafter written as Wagner Lighting, to execute documents on behalf of Wagner Lighting.

(2) The information contained in the following letter to the Office of Chief Counsel is confidential and proprietary data and is being submitted with the claim that it is entitled to confidential treatment under 5 U.S.C #22(b)(4).

(3) I have personally inquired of the responsible Wagner Lighting personnel who have authority in the normal course of business to release the information for which a claim of confidentiality has been made to ascertain whether such information has ever been released outside Wagner Lighting.

(4) Based upon such inquiries, to the best of my knowledge, information, and belief, the information for which Wagner Lighting has claimed confidential treatment has never been released or become available outside Wagner Lighting except as hereinafter specified:

(5) I make no representations beyond those contained in this certificate and in particular, I make no representations as to whether this information may become available outside Wagner Lighting because of unauthorized or inadvertent disclosure except as stated in paragraph 4; and

(6) I certify under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on this the tenth day of July, 1991.

Michael D. Incorvaia

ID: nht91-4.38

DATE: July 5, 1991

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Dwayne R. Szot

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 6-28-91 from Dwayne R. Szot to Paul Jackson Rice (OCC 6171)

TEXT:

This responds to your FAXed letter of June 28, 1991, with respect to your prospective importation from Poland of a 10-year old Syrena passenger car. We have also received a letter from Roy Slade, President, Cranbrook Academy of Art, relating to you.

As you have explained, you intend to remove the engine upon arrival to meet EPA approval. You intend the remainder of the vehicle to become a "time capsule" containing artifacts relating to the hopes and dreams of Poles, here and abroad, for the future, and their feelings about the past and present. You will transport the car among Polish communities here, and then seal the car in November in a Plexiglas box. For the next 25 years, the car will be displayed in its box at museums and art galleries, and, in 2016, will be returned to Poland.

As you undoubtedly know, motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment must comply with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards in order to be imported into the United States, with such exceptions as Congress has authorized in the Imported Vehicle Safety Compliance Act of 1988, and as have been set forth in the implementing regulation, 49 CFR Part 591. The Syrena, of course, does not meet these standards. The Act does not specifically permit the importation of a noncomplying vehicle for purposes of static display, though it does allow admission for purposes of "research, investigations, studies, demonstrations or training, or competitive racing events." We have not interpreted any of these provisions as allowing importation for display.

The question then is whether the importation of the Syrena for the purposes described may nonetheless be justified because it presents no threat to motor vehicle safety. We note that you will satisfy the concerns of EPA by removal of the engine. This, in itself, does not result in the Syrena becoming something other than a motor vehicle, but it does mean that the Syrena cannot be driven on the public roads.

Further, under the circumstances you describe, should the vehicle be towed, it is unlikely to be occupied by passengers because of the quantity of its contents. Under the circumstances you have described, the Syrena time capsule will present no threat to motor vehicle safety.

Although the importation of this vehicle may be a technical violation of the 1988 Act, it would not be the type of violation that this agency, in the exercise of its prosecutorial discretion, would pursue. You may therefore present this letter to the appropriate Customs officials at the port where the Syrena will arrive for entry into the United States as a

statement from the Department of Transportation that it has no objection to your importation of the Syrena time capsule.

If you have further questions, you may refer them to Taylor Vinson of this Office (202-366-5263) who spoke with your wife last week.

ID: nht91-4.39

DATE: July 5, 1991

FROM: Debby Funk

TO: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 7-30-91 from Paul Jackson Rice to Debby Funk (A38; Std. 108; VSA 108(a)(2)(A))

TEXT:

Thank you for your thorough and informative response to my inquiry regarding regulations governing the display of lighted signs in vehicles in my letter to you June 4, 1991.

Since you kindly offered to answer any further questions I might have, your response did leave me unclear on one point in particular.

In your letter you state that "the Vehicle Safety Act does not prohibit owners from modifying their vehicles in any manner they choose, even if the modification creates a noncompliance." And then you went on to say that "Our regulations do prohibit combining the center highmounted stop lamp with any other lamp or device such as a lighted display sign."

Does this mean that it would be illegal for the owner of a vehicle that has a center highmounted stop lamp to install an additional rear window brake light? (Anywhere in the back window?)

I have one additional question if you would be so kind to answer as I have been unsuccessful in finding the answer in the Federal Code book at my local library. What is F.M.S.S. 108?

Thank you again for your time and considerate help in this endeavor.

ID: nht91-4.4

DATE: May 23, 1991

FROM: Allen I. Swenson -- The Compliance Group, Inc.

TO: Robert F. Helmuth -- Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 7-16-91 from Paul Jackson Rice to Allen I. Swenson (A38; Std. 208)

TEXT:

This letter is in response to our telephone conversation of May 9, 1991 regarding a past agency decision to amend 49 CFR Part 571, para. S4.1.4.2.2.

In a ruling published in the Federal Register, Volume 55, No. 146 dated July 30, 1990, the requirement to install lap/shoulder harnesses in rear outboard DSP's where the seat is readily removable was delayed, to become effective in September 1, 1992. This implies that if the seat were not readily removable, the requirement to install lap/shoulder harnesses on rear outboard DSP's as required by Standard 208 is effective on September 1, 1991.

This ruling seemed to be caused by the need to develop a new type of harness release latch mechanism that was not a pushbutton release. The purpose of this mechanism is to allow the lap/shoulder harness to be detachable with the seat.

In our telephone discussion, you defined a "readily removable seat" to be one that easily releases from its mounting by means of a easily operated unlocking mechanism installed by the manufacturer and does not require tools, wrenches, etc.

This ruling introduces an opportunity to evade the intent of Part 208 which enhances occupant safety through the use of lap/shoulder harnesses on rear outboard DSP's. In the van conversion industry, it has been common practice to install "readily removable" seat systems in the rear of the vehicle. These systems are available from several manufacturers such as FlexSteel, Adnick Recreational, Goshen Cushion, Boss Manufacturing, etc. At a cost of approximately $10.00 per vehicle, the regulatory intent to improve occupant safety is completely contravened. Undoubtedly, numerous converters, given this loophole, will follow this path.

From the discussion in the Federal Register, it appears that this ruling was the result of an agency determination to eliminate the use of an easily released push-button buckle at a harness attachment point which would allow the user to "easily release either the lap or shoulder belt portion and use only the unreleased portion."

The intention of this letter is to determine if the purpose of the amendment was to delay the implementation of the lap/shoulder harness in rear outboard DSP's or to ensure that installed lap/shoulder harnesses would not allow the user to "easily release either the lap or shoulder belt portion and use only the unreleased portion."

An argument can be made that installation of any release mechanism for a detachment point can be installed so that it cannot be easily released by the user. An additional argument can also be made that a release mechanism even if so used is no less safe than a seat with a lap belt only.

As you know, the van conversion industry has had great difficulty with finding ways to comply with Standard 208 and meeting Standards 207 and 210. Several industry suppliers including The Compliance Group have invested substantial funds to develop solutions to these needs. If we are to continue investing development funds to help converters meet these standards it is important that we fully understand the true intent of this ruling.

As you know, The Compliance Group has already developed a system to allow converters to meet the requirements of standards 208, 207, and 210 for rear shoulder/lap seat harnesses and seating installation. This system includes the installation of readily removable seat mechanisms and upper harness release mechanisms using unique end release buckles.

Your interpretation of this amendment will certainly help clarify what additions or modifications may be necessary to help our product development efforts and the industry.

I look forward to your reply.

ID: nht91-4.40

DATE: July 8, 1991

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Erika Z. Jones -- Mayer, Brown & Platt

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 5-9-91 from Erika Z. Jones to Paul Jackson Rice (OCC 6038)

TEXT:

This responds to your request for an interpretation of 49 CFR Part 565, Vehicle Identification Number - Content Requirements. More specifically, you asked whether NHTSA's regulations would prohibit or otherwise affect the ability of a foreign subsidiary of an American company from obtaining a special world manufacturer identifier (WMI) code from the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) in the subsidiary's name for use on vehicles to be offered for sale outside of the United States. As explained below, the answer is no.

Your letter posed the following hypothetical situation. The XYZ Company manufactures motor vehicles for sale in the United States and Europe. XYZ certifies that the motor vehicles offered for sale in the United States comply with the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS), and accepts full responsibility as a manufacturer of the U.S. vehicles under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. XYZ has two wholly-owned subsidiaries: ABC Company, which performs "assembly and marketing functions" solely for vehicles sold in the United States for the U.S.-certified vehicles manufactured by XYZ, and the DEF Corporation, which performs "assembly and marketing functions" solely for vehicles sold outside the United States.

Your first question was whether "there would be any implications under NHTSA rules" if wholly-owned subsidiary DEF were to obtain a WMI from the SAE in its own name, for use solely on vehicles assembled and sold outside of the United States. The WMI, which serves to uniquely identify the vehicle manufacturer, consists of the first three digits of the vehicle identification number assigned to the vehicle in accordance with Standard No. 115 and Part 565.

To answer your question, we must consider the scope of NHTSA's authority. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, NHTSA administers Federal regulations, including Part 565, relating to the manufacture, sale, introduction into interstate commerce, and/or importation of motor vehicles into the United States. In your hypothetical, wholly-owned subsidiary DEF is not engaged in any activities with respect to vehicles offered for sale in the United States. In that case, the Federal regulations administered by NHTSA would not apply to the activities of wholly-owned subsidiary DEF.

As you may be aware, NHTSA has entered into a contract with SAE under which SAE coordinates the assignment of WMI's pursuant to 49 CFR S565.5. NHTSA's contract with SAE is naturally limited by NHTSA's statutory authority. That is, NHTSA's contract with SAE relates to coordinating the assignment of WMI's to manufacturers that manufacture motor vehicles sold

or offered for sale in the United States. SAE has no contractual obligation to NHTSA with respect to the assignment of WMI's to manufacturers whose vehicles are not offered for sale in the United States. So long as such assignments do not confuse or obscure the meaning of the WMI's assigned for vehicles offered for sale in the United States, SAE is free to exercise its judgment as to the appropriateness of any such assignments.

Your second question was whether NHTSA would object if XYZ were to ask the SAE to include in its next directory of WMI's a simple notation indicating that XYZ had authorized its subsidiary, ABC, to use one of XYZ's world manufacturer identification codes on vehicles assembled or marketed by ABC. The purpose of the WMI is to ensure that the vehicle manufacturer is uniquely identified. So long as the parent corporation agrees to be treated as the "manufacturer," for the purposes of the Safety Act, for the vehicles produced by its wholly-owned subsidiary, nothing in Part 565 prohibits the wholly-owned subsidiary from identifying the vehicles with a WMI assigned to the parent corporation.

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

ID: nht91-4.41

DATE: July 8, 1991

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Steven M. Healy; Morris G. Healy

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 6-5-91 from Steven M. Healy and Morris G. Healy to Richard Van Eiderstein (OCC 6147)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of June 5, 1991, to Richard Van Iderstine of this agency, asking for an opinion as to the legality of your device that attaches monitoring lights to bug deflectors "and/or to other appropriate mounting areas on vehicles."

As you state it, the primary purpose of the device is to "bring indicator lights up and into the line of vision of the vehicle operator." You specifically mention the turn signal and upper beam indicators ("or other appropriate applications desired by the operator)." You mention that the existing indicator lights on the dashboard are left undisturbed.

As bug deflectors or shields are accessory equipment sold in the aftermarket, it is clear that you do not intend your device to be original equipment offered by the vehicle manufacturer. The Federal statute governing the manufacture of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment is the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. There is no regulation or standard under this Act that relates to the manufacture and sale of your device.

We must, however, add a cautionary note relating to the use of your device by its purchaser. The Act prohibits any "manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business" from rendering "inoperative, in whole or in part, any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle . . . in accordance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard." You have assured us that the existing indicator lamps are not affected. However, one of the requirements of the lighting standard (Standard No. 108) that applies to motor vehicles is that accessory equipment not "impair the effectiveness" of the lighting equipment required by the standard. We regard the potential to create confusion as the potential to impair the effectiveness of lighting equipment. It does not appear that the turn signal indicator portion of your device, operating in tandem with the turn signals, would create confusion. Likewise, the upper beam indicator would be too small to be perceived by an oncoming car at any great distance. However, you have added qualifications to your letter ("other appropriate mounting areas on vehicles" and "other appropriate applications desired by the operator") that require us to advise you of the statutory prohibition.

The prohibition does not affect vehicle owners, and if you intend the device to be installed by them, you may disregard the foregoing. However, in any event, the use of the device is also subject to the laws of any

State in which it will be used. We are unable to advise you on these laws, and suggest that you write for an opinion the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Va. 22203.

ID: nht91-4.42

DATE: July 8, 1991

FROM: Ken Hanna -- Lectric Limited Inc.

TO: Richard Van Iderstine -- NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 7-29-91 from Paul Jackson Rice to Ken Hanna (A38; Std. 108)

TEXT:

In reference to our last conversation regarding the manufacturing of sealed beam bulbs for antique cars. As per your suggestion, we are gathering data so that we may submit a comprehensive petition with all pertinent information included requesting reinstatement of SAE J579A.

Since it may take up to two years to reinstate SAE J579A and we are anxious to get our sealed beam headlight project underway, we would like to manufacture bulbs in the interim which meet J579C specifications in terms of candlepower and photometrics. However, since these bulbs will lack various identification nomenclature on the face of the lenses which are required by SAE J579C we would like to market these bulbs with clear identification on the packaging identifying them "for display purposes only and not approved for highway use". I discussed this possibility with you in our last conversation and as I recall you felt that NHTSA had no jurisdiction over products which are not intended for highway use and do not fall under the same regulations and specifications required of products which are intended for highway use.

Please let me know as soon as possible whether or not we will be violating any NHTSA restrictions by manufacturing and marketing these bulbs in this manner.