ID: nht95-5.36

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: JULY 25, 1995

FROM: Robert J. Ponticelli -- President, American International

TO: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 9/19/95 LETTER FROM JOHN WOMACK TO ROBERT J. PONTICELLI (A43; REDBOOK 2; STD. 114)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Womack,

I would like to request an opinion on the regulations concerning an aftermarket anti-theft device.

This device is installed between the steering wheel and the steering shaft. When a key swich is activated the steering wheel is disengaged and becomes freewheeling, preventing the vehicle from being driven.

I am requesting an interpretation of federal regulations to identify any restrictions or conditions which apply to this device when installed on a motor vehicle. Please distinguish which, if any, would apply to a regulated party such as a new car dealer and to aftermarket service businesses.

Thank you for your time and assistance with this matter, any information you could provide would be greatly appreciated. If you have any questions concerning this device I can be reached at (800) 336-6500 ext. 528

ID: nht95-5.37

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: July 25, 1995

FROM: Robert R. Brester -- Director of Product Engineering, Velvac, Inc.

TO: Steve Wood -- Office of Chief Council, NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 10/17/95 LETTER FROM JOHN WOMACK TO ROBERT R. BRESTER (A43; STD. 105; STD. 106)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Wood

On the advice of Mr. Richard Carter with NHTSA, (1-202-366-5274) I am sending you this letter requesting your departments legal interpretation of 571.105 in regards to auxilary braking systems on motor vehicles.

Velvac Inc. manufactures and sells brake components and power braking systems for trailers and truck tag axles. These brake systems are not part of the primary vehicle braking system. In the case of a tag axle, our customers are retrofitting a standard vehicle with an additional axle to increase its load carrying capacity. In the case of a trailer, our system may be the only source of braking.

The brake components Velvac supplies generally include control valving, brake boosters and various types of hoses and fittings. These items can be sold both as components and as complete power brake kits. (See attached a catalogue drawings 003119, 003118, 003117 and 003115 to 003128). We do not supply the braking mechanism at the wheels. (brake linings, wheel cylinders etc.) These items come as part of the axle package. Customers specify our components based on the braking requirements for the axle, (hydraulic pressure and displacement required)

Recently, I called Mr. Richard Carter asking for his interpretation of 571.105 and how it affects the brake products we sell. Basically, Mr. Carter indicated that 571.105 has little affect on Velvac since it deals mainly with vehicle braking performance. 571.105 is not detailed in how the requirements are met, therefore, it can be assumed different combinations of braking components may be used to achieve the desired braking results. Furthermore, Velvac has no control over how the customer installs our brake systems and components on their vehicles.

The opinion given by Mr. Carter is that the responsibility for certifying the vehicle to 571.105 lies in the hands of our customers.

Mr. Carter indicated that your department would make the official reply regarding this matter and would confer with him regarding the technical details.

Your prompt response on this matter would be greatly appreciated.

(Drawings omitted.)

ID: nht95-5.38

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: July 26, 1995

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Lance Tunick -- Vehicle Services Consulting, Inc.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 5/23/95 LETTER FROM LANCE TUNICK TO ORRON KEE (OCC 10925)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Tunick:

This responds to your request for the agency to clarify the requirements of 49 CFR 575.101, which until recently required manufacturers to disclose information about the stopping performance of passenger cars and motorcycles. In particular, you asked how the requirement would apply to vehicles certified to comply with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 135, Passenger Car Brake Systems.

I am enclosing a copy of a June 26, 1995, final rule in which the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) rescinded section 575.101 (60 FR 32918). As a result of this decision, a vehicle manufacturer is no longer required to furnish information about the stopping performance of passenger cars and motorcycles.

I hope this information is helpful to you. Should you have any questions or need additional information, please feel free to contact Marvin Shaw of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht95-5.39

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: July 26, 1995

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Michael J. Wirsch -- Manager, Electric Transportation Department, Sacramento Municipal Utility District

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 6/16/95 LETTER FROM MICHAEL J. WIRSCH TO NHTSA CHIEF COUNSEL (OCC 11006)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Wirsch:

This is in reply to your letter of June 16, 1995, relating to the disposition of 16 City-El electric vehicles ("EVs") which were imported into the United States in 1992 for purposes of demonstration and testing. The EVs do not meet the Federal motor vehicle safety standards.

The EVs were imported pursuant to the declaration that, at the end of the test period, they would be exported or brought into compliance with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards not later than November 1995. You suggest that there may be a third alternative, which you would prefer: "transferring ownership" to McClellan Air Force Base for use on base property and not on the public roads. McClellan apparently has been testing another group of 25 EVs.

Although a literal interpretation of our regulations does not permit this transaction without exportation and reimportation of the EVs, we have determined that the transaction you propose is in the public interest, and may be accomplished, subject to the terms of this letter.

In brief, the regulation under which the EVs were imported does not allow transfer of ownership or possession, and provides that such vehicles must be exported or brought into compliance with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards at the end of the period for which admission has been authorized. The regulations would permit the EVs to be exported to Mexico or Canada, transferred to McClellan, and reimported into the United States by McClellan under the same terms and conditions as the original importation (your letter indicates that McClellan may also be engaged in an evaluation of electric vehicles for use on military bases).

We assume that this course of action would be acceptable to you and to McClellan. Under that assumption, we have tentatively concluded that it would be in the public interest to forego the formalities and to allow a direct transfer of the EVs to McClellan without requiring them to be exported. However, in order to allow us to reach a final conclusion, we want you to obtain from McClellan and to provide us with a written statement similar to what McClellan would have provided had it imported the vehicles itself. Understanding from you that the EVs will not be operated on the public roads, McClellan should also provide this assurance. We also need a statement as to McClellan's eventual intended disposition of the EVs, which should include an assurance that none of the EVs will be sold to individuals for on-road use.

This is especially important in view of the fact that McClellan appears to be one of the military bases that has been selected for closure.

Our eventual agreement to the transaction you propose will not relieve you of your obligation to fulfill the requirements of the U.S. Customs Service regarding the original importation of the EVs.

If you have any further questions, you may refer them to Taylor Vinson of this Office (202-366-5263).

ID: nht95-5.4

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: December 15, 1995

FROM: Samuel J. Dubbin -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Hai Tee Young

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: 8/14/95 letter from Hai Tee Young to Secretary of Transportation

TEXT: This responds to your August 14, 1995, letter to the Secretary of Transportation asking whether there are any Federal regulations prohibiting your sunshade invention. The Secretary referred your letter to me because the National Highway Traffic Safety A dministration (NHTSA) is the Department of Transportation agency that issues Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS's) for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. From the patent application materials and drawings you enclose d with your letter, your invention appears to be venetian blind-type slats for use as a sunshade device on all windows of a motor vehicle, especially the windshield.

In a September 6, 1995 phone conversation with Paul Atelsek of my staff, you stated that you were not concerned about confidentiality of this public letter, even though your patent application has not been made. You also indicated that you wanted us to supplement your letter with additional drawings and letters. We received those materials by facsimile on September 18, 1995.

Let me briefly review the important points of your letter. The blinds for side windows are depicted as being attached to hooks above and below the windows. For the windshield, they are attached to the existing sunvisor and the dashboard. In these drawi ngs, blind deployment appears to be manual and require two hands. However, you state that you could also design the slats to be installed between two layers of glass and have them adjusted either manually or by electric automatic control. You believe t hat in a crash the blinds would cushion unbelted vehicle occupants before they hit the glass.

The short answer to your question is that, while there are no regulations that directly prohibit your invention, there are Federal requirements that it must satisfy. We also have some safety concerns regarding this invention.

The FMVSS most relevant to your blinds is Standard No. 205, Glazing materials. Among other things, this standard requires the glazing to permit 70 percent of the incident

(Page 2 is missing.)

The manufacturer of these blinds, which are motor vehicle equipment, would be subject to the requirements in sections 30118-30122 of Title 49 of the U.S. Code concerning the recall and remedy of products with defects related to motor vehicle safety. In the event that a manufacturer or NHTSA determines that the product contains a safety-related defect, the manufacturer would be responsible for notifying purchasers of the defective equipment and remedying the problem free of charge.

Other legal requirements could apply depending on how your product is marketed. If your product were installed by a vehicle manufacturer as original equipment, i.e., on a new vehicle, the vehicle manufacturer would have to certify that the vehicle with t he blinds installed complies with all FMVSS's, including the standards discussed above. In addition, if your invention were installed by motor vehicle manufacturers, distributors, dealers or repair businesses, those commercial enterprises would have to take care not violate section 30122(b) of Title 49, which prohibits them from "knowingly mak[ing] inoperative any part of a device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle . . . in compliance with an applicable. Federal motor vehicle safe ty standard . . ." For instance, compliance with Standard No. 201 might be degraded if the blinds were mounted in front of the driver. Any violation of this "make inoperative" prohibition would subject the violator to a potential civil penalty of up to $ 1,000 for each violation.

The "make inoperative" prohibition does not apply to modifications that vehicle owners make to their own vehicles. Thus, Federal law would not apply to individual vehicle owners who install your blinds in their own vehicles, even if the installation wer e to result in the vehicle no longer complying with the safety standards. However, NHTSA encourages vehicle owners not to degrade any safety device or system installed in their vehicles. In addition, since individual States have the authority to regula te modifications that individual vehicle owners may make to their vehicles, you might wish to consult State regulations to see whether your device would be permitted.

I hope this information is helpful. I am also enclosing a copy of a fact sheet titled "Information for New Manufacturers of Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Equipment." If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Paul Atelsek of my st aff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht95-5.40

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: July 26, 1995

FROM: Arthur N. Arschin, Esq

TO: Wilart Banks -- Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, U.S. DOT

TITLE: Vee Rubber Co., Ltd. and Vee Rubber International Co., Ltd.

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 10/20/95 LETTER FROM JOHN WOMACK TO ARTHUR N. ARSCHIN (A43; REDBOOK 2; PART 574)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Banks:

I am writing as the attorney and agent for the captioned companies, which are tire manufacturers based in Thailand. Previously, in 1987 I had made an inquiry to your office to obtain DOT identification numbers for those two Thailand corporations for the purpose of importing new and retreaded tires into the United States.

By your agency letters of November 3, 1987 and August 24, 1988 (copies enclosed), the DOT assigned identification marks to my client as follows: YRV for Plant No. 1 and YRV for Plant No. 2. In addition Plant No. 1 was assigned the code 4A and Plant No. 2 was assigned 5A for purposes of new tire manufacturing.

What I need from your agency is a written confirmation that such assigned codes are still valid and may be validly used by my client.

If you are not able to do that, I would need a letter stating that once such codes are assigned, they remain valid for an indefinite period unless abandoned by the manufacturer.

Please contact the undersigned if additional information is needed.

Your prompt and considered attention will be greatly appreciated.

Attachments

LETTER # 1: 8-24-88

Mr. Arthur N. Arschin 233 Broadway - Suite 730 New York, N.Y. 10279

Dear Mr. Arschin:

We have registered the Vee Rubber Co., LTD., Inc. of Bangkok area retreed manufacturer with you as their agent.

The identification marks assigned to this company are: FOR PLANT NO. 1 YRU FOR PLANT NO. 2 YRV

These marks identify the Vee Rubber Co. as the retread manufacturer of both plants.

If you should no longer represent them or if there is a change in the company location or ownership, please notify us immediately.

Note: The code YPV, previously assigned to you is error, is not to be used as it is retained by another retreader.

Sincerely,

Nelson Gordy Motor Vehicle Requirements Division Office of Market Incentives, NHTSA

LETTER # 2:

11/3/87

Mr. Arthur N. Arschin Attorney at Law 233 Broadway - Suite 730 New York, NY 10279

Dear Mr. Arschin:

This is in reply to your request for assignment of tire manufacturer identification codes for the Vee Rubber Co., Ltd. and Vee Rubber Int. Co., Ltd. plants located at Samutsakorn, Thailand.

We are assigning the code 4A to Plant No.-1 and code 5A to Plant No.-2. Our records show the address of these plants and your main office as follows:

Plant Plant No.-1: B7/5 Gp. 4 Sethakij Road, Ban Koh Muaug District, Samutsakorn Province - Thailand Plant No.-2: 22/3 MOO 2 Tambal Chaimongkol Ampher * Samutsakorn, Thailand Main Office Plant No.-1: Vee Rubber Co., Ltd.

142/37 Sol Suksavithaya Sathorn Nua Road, Bangrak Bangkok, Thailand 10500 Plant No.-2: Vee Rubber International Co., Ltd.

142/35 Sol Suksavithaya Sathorn Nua Road, Bangrak Bangkok, Thailand 10500 * Denotes Illegible Word

We are enclosing the following publications for your information:

Regulation Part 574

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards Nos. 109 and 119

The use of the DOT symbol molded into or onto a tire constitutes a certification by the manufacturer and signifies that the tire meets applicable Federal safety requirements. While it is not required that tires be tested prior to using the DOT symbol, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration does maintain a compliance test program to enforce safety standards, and any tires that are found not to meet the Federal standards, are subject to civil penalties of up to $ 1000 per tire but not to exceed $ 800,000 for any related series of violations.

Your tire manufacturer's identification code mark is required on all new pneumatic tires sold in the United States for highway use. This code mark and other tire identification labeling are specified in Regulation Part 574.

Sincerely

Stanley R. Scheiner, Chief Crash Avoidance Division Office of Vehicle Safety Standards

3 Enclosures

ID: nht95-5.41

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: July 28, 1995

FROM: T. J. Sommer -- President, White Bear Sales

TO: Taylor Vinson -- NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 9/19/95 LETTER FROM JOHN WOMACK TO T. J. SOMMER (SEC. 30162(a)(6); A43; REDBOOK 2)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Vinson,

I was directed to you for information regarding the legality of licensing four wheel all-terrain vehicles.

White Bear Sales Inc. is the U.S. distributor of a three wheel police vehicle classified as a "motorcycle" by the DOT, CARB and EPA. Our vehicle is street legal and licensable and has been emission certified.

The City of Chicago Police Dept. is using a number of four wheel all terrain vehicles for patrol work within the downtown area. These vehicles have been issued Illinois State license plates and the officers are using them on public roadways.

We believe that these vehicles are illegal to use on the streets. The City of Chicago is placing their employees at high risk by allowing officers to operate this unit on their routes. The director of Chicago's fleet asked me to compile all federal definitions and statutes which apply to the quad runners, regarding classification, certification, and compliance for street use.

Would you direct me to this information or send me a copy of the statute(s) that apply to licensing (or proof that it is not licensable) for this type of vehicle? We would appreciate any pertinent information regarding this topic.

Phone: 414-466-6868 Fax: 414-466-6936

Thank you in advance for your help.

ID: nht95-5.42

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: July 31, 1995

FROM: Steven B. Fisher -- Kostow And Daar, P.C.

TO: Phillip R. Recht -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: Re: Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 8/30/95 LETTER FROM JOHN WOMACK TO STEVEN B. FISHER (REDBOOK 2; STD. 108)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Recht:

I am writing you in hopes of obtaining an opinion and/or interpretation concerning Safety Standard No. 108, including but not limited to Table II of such Motor Vehicle Safety Standard.

Pursuant to the above safety standard, with respect to truck, trailer identification lights (red), what is meant exactly by the word "practicable" as used in @@ 5.3.1.1, and 5.3.1.4.

Secondly, whose responsibility is it to assess, or in other words to determine, what is "practicable" and what is not "practicable" relative to the placement and location of rear, identification lamps (red). Is it the manufacturer of the particular identification light who provides the trailer manufacturer with tye type of identification light requested or is it the duty of the trailer manufacturer who receives the identification light for incorporation into its trailer to make such determination as they see fit in accordance with No. 108 and in light of the particular design/configuration of the trailer involved?

Third, given the "practicability" term as used in the above standard, combined with the many number of different types of trailers which are made each year and travel the public roadways, is there any way for a manufacturer of a single, rear identification light to know for certain, anticipate or otherwise predict where the trailer manufacturer will ultimately place and/or locate the identification lights on any given trailer?

Your cooperation and assistance concerning the above request for an advisory opinion and/or interpretation of the aforementioned standard would be greatly appreciated.

Should you have any questions, please feel free to give me a call. My direct number is 312/474-1404. Thanks again.

ID: nht95-5.43

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: July 31, 1995

FROM: Dennis G. Moore -- President, Sierra Products Inc.

TO: Chief Council -- NHTSA

TITLE: Legal Interpretation Request for FMVSS # 108

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 9/20/95 LETTER FROM JOHN WOMACK TO DENNIS G. MOORE (A43; REDBOOK 2; STD. 108)

TEXT: Around 1985 * , NHTSA significantly reduced the Amber (Yellow) Photometric output minimals for all Rear Amber Turn Signal Lights. This reduction was implemented, I believe, partially as an act of Common Sense and partially as a positive Harmonization gesture to European Vehicle Safety people. Whereas these European Safety people did then and still do require "significantly less" Amber Photometric Output area, which was not correspondingly reduced when NHTSA reduced the required Photometric Output. Further, the Europeans still require significantly less Area for Amber lenses than the U.S. still requires.

* Presently I can't find the Federal Register Announcement with Details on this issue, however, I will attempt to send it later. I do know this data is readily available from your Docket Files.

European Safety leaders, I've been told, have "tests" that substantiate their position that a "Smaller" and less bright Amber Turn Singal yields "less conspicuosity", which is a desirable feature when compared to the Conspicuosity demanded by the Very Important Red Brake Lights . . . and rightfully so. As one can see for themselves . . . just the fact that a Turn Signal is Amber and not Red (as are all other Rear Safety Lights) makes it adequately "conspicuous", even if it is "smaller" and significantly less bright compared to the Brake Lights.

Also, European Scientists contend they have always had a "safer system" than the U.S. System as they have always required Two Brightly Lit Brake Lights, whereas the U.S. System allows only One Brake Light to be illuminated, leaving the other as a "Red" Turn (Blinking) Signal -- They contend that the U.S. approach can confuse the human mind and in fact, perhaps be comprehended as an Impending Turn and "not specifically" as a Braking Action whereas their system using. Two Brake Lights - both clearly Lit - means nothing but "Braking . . . Danger!"

They indicate that their smaller in size and brightness, Rear Amber Turn Signal "clearly indicates" to following traffic the situation when a Turn is occurring by itself or simultaneously with the Braking Action.

In any case, I believe our U.S. NHTSA Rulemakers of several years past were in error or experienced an oversight when they reduced and Harmonized the U.S.'s Rear Amber Turn Singal's required output but at the same time did not reduce the "Area" of output which would have kept the "Density * "of U.S. Amber Lights output about the same as the Europeans have found to be effective . . . thus making the U.S. more or less completely Harmonized with the New EU Specifications effective January 1, 1996.

* "Density", a better layman's term than getting into Luminesec and Luminous intensity . . . at this time.

Any American that is actively involved in the Manufacturing of Vehicle Lights knows it is ludicrous to require U.S. Manufacturers to Design Amber Turn Singal lenses in the 12in<2> range * , and then ask them to try and Balance our Trade by attempting to sell larger than necessary (therefore more expensive Lights) in Europe whereas European Manufacturers enjoy the advantage over U.S. Manufacturers of less expense simply because of size.

* which is what is now required for Big Rig and RV Rear Amber Turn Signals

I am asking that a better Trade Balance Policy be adopted as well as seeing that Common Sense reasoning prevails at NHTSA by asking that this situation be corrected.

If NHTSA's Legal Council feels this error should be corrected through the Petitioning Process, I ask that this writing be considered a "Petition for Change of FMVSS # 108 Request" and given consideration for "rapid processing" through the Public Commenting period. I seriously doubt if any American Company or Engineer is in possession of any Scientific Data that would refute what reasoning and facts I have presented here. By reducing the minimal area of the Amber Turn Signal light lens from 12 in<2> to approximately 8 in<2> or 6 in<2>, the U.S. would have more practical Rules for U.S. Exports at no expense to Safety.

Please handle this expendiently!

Yours truly,

Dennis G. Moore President

P.S. Please understand that I believe I speak primarily for the "Big Rig", Small Trailer and RV Type Lighting Manufacturers in the U.S., not for the typical S.A.E. Detroit Auto Designer and/or Auto Engineer.

My type of manufacturing is forced, through extreme competition pressure, to make Multi-purpose Rear Lights for about $ 3.00 each in order to be competitive here in the U.S., whereas, Detroit Auto Stylists know that small Amber Turn Signal Lights on Autos look puny and degrading to their potential customers. They know the bigger these Amber Lenses are, the better they look, the more they cost, and, therefore, the more overall profit is made on them as they are broken and replaced during the life of the Vehicle. Therefore, Detroit stylists and economists don't really want small sized Amber Turn Signals even if they know that small ones do the Safety Job they're intended to do -- they must compete in "Styling" whereas larger and more elaborate lights sell cars and makes them more money in the long run than what would be saved on small lights, whereas this is not at all true with "Other" Vehicle Lighting Manufacturers like I represent who are trying to Compete in the U.S. and Europe in the Non-Auto Vehicle Lighting business.

I believe, and apparently so do most European Safety people, that Location, Color and the Density * Output of a Safety Light is more important for "Conspicuosity" than a large lens with low output.

ID: nht95-5.44

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: July 31, 1995

FROM: Dennis G. Moore -- President, Sierra Products

TO: Chief Council -- NHTSA

TITLE: Subject: Legal Interpretation Request for FMVSS # 108

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 9/25/95 LETTER FROM JOHN WOMACK TO DENNIS G. MOORE (A43; REDBOOK 2; STD. 108); ALSO ATTACHED TO 3/4/77 LETTER FROM FRANK BERNDT TO DENNIS G. MOORE

TEXT: I have been reviewing all NHTSA's attempts over the years at improving the definition of "OPTICAL COMBINATION" as the subject applies to Vehicle Lighting. I have numerous pages of information from the Federal Register and from NHTSA's Docket "Legal Interpretation" Files gathered over the past 20 years and I must say the situation is now worse than it ever has been.

Back in 1977 I was sent the attached letter from NHTSA lawyers. This was sent to me after five pieces of rather Technical back and forth correspondence * . The substance of the letter is that NHTSA's legal experts finally admitted that Lighting functions that share the same housing and the same lens (and when both use Separate Bulb Filaments and fulfill all other Lighting requirements for their particular function when lit separately), were "not" to be considered Optically Combined.

* All five pieces of Correspondence available upon request, but also in NHTSA's Docket Records.

Later, the Canadians, in spite of U.S. and Canadian written agreements to adopt identical rules and interpretations on this issue, said essentially they would only honor the common housing portion of this Interpretation, which "somehow?", NHTSA also later adopted in spite of the 1977 Legal Interpretation sent me that was based on well thought out scientific discussions and conclusions. *

Then, around 1990, "out of the blue", NHTSA put a "Rider" into a proposed change that had no relevance to this subject, whereas the Rulemakers added the expression, "NOT TO SHARE THE SAME HOUSING", which of course, knocked out the second part of the Legal Interpretation sent me. In response, I wrote NHTSA asking for clarification and a reasonable explanation, and was essentially ignored.

Using the Scientific Argument and discussions I submitted back in 1975, 1976 and 1977, and the Re-Interpretation letter sent me, how can NHTSA support the SAME HOUSING definition they currently support?