ID: 2673y

Mr. Satoshi Nishibori
Vice President
Industry-Government Affairs
750 17th Street, NW
Suite 902
Washington DC 20006

Dear Mr. Nishibori:

This responds to your request for an interpretation of Standard No. 114, Theft Protection (49 CFR 571.114). You were uncertain whether your shift lock emergency override system, your emergency key release, and your transmission park lock system comply with S4.2 and S4.3, as amended by a May 30, 1990 final rule (55 FR 21868). On June 29, 1990, you submitted a petition for reconsideration which the agency is currently considering. Under the revised requirements, section S4.2 provides that:

"Each vehicle shall have a key-locking system that, whenever the key is removed, prevents: (a) the normal activation of the vehicle's engine or motor; and (b) either steering or forward self-mobility of the vehicle or both. For a vehicle equipped with an automatic transmission with a "park" position, the key-locking system shall prevent removal of the key unless the transmission or transmission shift lever is locked in "park" or becomes locked in "park" as the direct result of removing the key."

As explained below, we have made the following interpretations concerning your systems based on our understanding of them from your petition for reconsideration, your July 25, 1990 letter, and your discussions with agency staff.

By way of background, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, ("Vehicle Safety Act," 15 USC 1381 et seq.) requires every new motor vehicle sold in the United States to be certified as complying with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. The Vehicle Safety Act specifies that the manufacturer must certify that each of its vehicles complies with all applicable safety standards in effect on the date of manufacture. Because of this statutory requirement, this agency does not approve any manufacturer's vehicles or offer assurances that the vehicles comply with the safety standards. Any person violating the Vehicle Safety Act by manufacturing or selling new noncomplying vehicles may be liable for potential penalties of $1,000 per violation up to $800,000.

Shift Lock Emergency Override You explained that your shift lock emergency override system is operable by depressing a button on the lower, rear portion of the shift lever. By depressing the button, the transmission may be shifted out of "park," independent of the ignition key position or the key being in the ignition switch. You expressed your opinion that the transmission remains "locked" in "park" until it is "unlocked," either by turning the ignition key to the "on" position and depressing the brake pedal or by operating the emergency shift release override. This led you to conclude that your emergency shift override would be permissible under S4.2(b).

We disagree with your suggested interpretation. Under S4.2(b), the key-locking system must prevent removal of the key unless the transmission or transmission shift lever is locked in "park" or becomes locked in "park" as the direct result of removing the key. Given the presence of the emergency shift release override, we do not believe the transmission or transmission shift lever would ever be "locked" in park, since it could be released without regard to the key used to operate the vehicle's key-locking system. Your alternative shift lock system in which the manual override would be operable only after removing a cover over the override lever would also not appear to comply with S4.2 because the presence of a cover would not affect one's ability to release the transmission shift lever without regard to the key used to operate the vehicle's key-locking system.

Emergency Key Release You explained that your emergency key release system facilitates removal of the ignition key in the event of an electrical system failure. That system permits overriding the ignition key lock, so that the ignition key can be removed from the vehicle and the driver can lock the vehicle. You explained that the emergency key release override is activated by removing a cover over the ignition switch and then using a screw driver to activate a hidden lever located inside the exposed ignition switch compartment.

We do not concur with your suggested interpretation of S4.2. That requirement provides that "the key-locking system shall prevent removal of the key unless the transmission or transmission shift lever is locked in "park." The regulatory text does not refer to alternative methods of key removal such as the procedure you describe. While you state that virtually any key locking system can be overriden through some form of lock disassembly and associated procedures, we do not consider the simple override you describe to be similar to lock disassembly. Therefore, an emergency key release system in which the key could be removed in a position other than "park" would not comply with S4.2, regardless how the key could be removed. Nevertheless, such an emergency key release would be permissible if it were operable only while the transmission or transmission shift lever were locked in the "park" position. You should be aware that we are evaluating such systems in our review of the petitions for reconsideration to the final rule.

Park Lock System You explained that your park lock system prevents drivers from inadvertently depressing the accelerator pedal rather than the brake pedal when shifting out of "park". This is accomplished by permitting the transmission lever to be moved out of "park" only if the ignition key is in the "on" position and the brake pedal is depressed. You further explained that if the transmission is placed in "park," the shift lever locks in that position when the ignition key is turned to the "off" position. You expressed your belief that your park lock system complies with S4.3, as amended.

I agree that your park lock system appears to comply with S4.3. That provision requires that the prime means for deactivating the vehicle's engine or motor, typically the ignition key, shall not activate the key-locking system described in S4.2(b). Based on our understanding of your key-locking system, it appears to comply with S4.3 because that provision refers to the key-locking system and not a transmission shift lock. As you correctly note, the purpose of S4.3 is to prevent the potentially dangerous situation in which the ignition key of a moving vehicle is turned to the "off" position causing the steering column to lock.

You asked that we continue to consider your petition for reconsideration, if, as we have done, we concluded that some of your suggested interpretations were incorrect. We will notify you of our response to that petition as soon as we complete our review of it.

I hope this explanation is helpful. Please contact Mr. Marvin Shaw of my staff at (202) 366-2992 if you have any further questions.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel Enclosure ref:ll4 d:9/26/90

ID: 2674y

Mr. Robert Roden
Roden & Hayes
2015 First Avenue No., Suite 400
Birmingham, AL 35203

Dear Mr. Roden:

This responds to your questions about the requirements for key-locking systems in section S4.2(b) of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 114, Theft Protection (49 CFR 571.114). As explained below, the enclosed copy of the agency's recent final rule amending this provision may be relevant to your inquiry (55 FR 21868, May 30, 1990).

By way of background, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, ("Vehicle Safety Act," 15 USC 1381 et seq.) requires every new motor vehicle sold in the United States to be certified as complying with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. The Vehicle Safety Act specifies that the manufacturer must certify that each of its vehicles complies with all applicable safety standards in effect on the date of manufacture. Any person violating the Vehicle Safety Act by manufacturing or selling new noncomplying vehicles may be liable for potential penalties of $1,000 per violation up to $800,000 for a related series of violations.

One such Federal safety standard is Standard No. 114, Theft Protection, which applies to passenger cars, and to trucks and multipurpose passenger vehicles having a gross vehicle weight rating of 10,000 pounds or less.

Your first question asked whether section S4.2(b) requires key locking systems to prevent removal of the ignition key except when the transmission is in the "park" position. Section S4.2(b) currently requires such vehicles to have a "key-locking system that, whenever the key is removed, will prevent...(b) either steering or forward self-mobility of the vehicle, or both." However, the agency has recently amended section S4.2(b) to read as follows:

Each vehicle shall have a key-locking system that, whenever the key is removed, prevents: (a) the normal activation of the vehicle's engine or motor; and (b) either steering or forward self-mobility of the vehicle or both. For a vehicle equipped with an automatic transmission with a "park" position, the key-locking system shall prevent removal of the key unless the transmission or transmission shift lever is locked in "park" or becomes locked in "park" as the direct result of removing the key.

You should be aware that this amendment takes effect on September 1, 1992. For vehicles manufactured before September 1, 1992, S4.2(b) merely requires that when the key is removed, the key-locking system must prevent steering or forward self-mobility, or both. This provision does not address the issue of the transmission's position at the time of key removal. In contrast, under the recent amendment applicable to vehicles manufactured on or after September 1, 1992, S4.2(b) requires automatic transmission vehicles to prevent removal of the key unless the transmission or transmission shift lever is locked in "park" or becomes locked in "park" as the direct result of removing the key.

Your second question asked whether a replacement key-locking system is required to comply with Standard No. 114. Because Standard No. 114 applies to new motor vehicles and not to motor vehicle equipment, the standard does not in itself require aftermarket replacement systems to comply with its requirements. However, you should be aware that section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Vehicle Safety Act prohibits manufacturers, distributors, dealers, or motor vehicle repair businesses from knowingly "rendering inoperative," in whole or in part, any device or element of design installed on or in a vehicle to comply with an applicable safety standard.

Your third question asked how long the key locking system is required to perform under S4.2(b) of the standard. The Vehicle Safety Act only requires manufacturers to assure that vehicles and equipment comply with applicable safety standards at the time of the first consumer purchase.

However, please note that if at any time a manufacturer or the agency determines that a vehicle or item of equipment contains a safety-related defect, which could result from the failure of a system to operate properly, the manufacturer is required to notify all product purchasers of the defect and remedy the defect without charge. See 15 U.S.C. 1411-1414.

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

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel Enclosures ref:VSA#ll4 d:9/l9/90

ID: 2677y

Mr. Stephen R. Darling
Presvac Systems (Burlington) Ltd.
4131 Morris Drive
Burlington, Ontario, Canada L7L 5L5

Dear Mr. Darling:

This responds to your inquiry about an amendment to 49 CFR Part 575, Consumer Information Regulations, requiring vehicle manufacturers to include information in the owner's manual (or on a one-page document if there is no owner's manual) about the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's Auto Safety Hotline and its defect investigation and remedy and recall authority. (54 FR 48745, November 27, 1989; copy enclosed). I apologize for the delay in our response.

You explained that you are involved in three types of activities: the manufacture of liquid cargo vessel trailers; the fabrication of liquid cargo tanks; and the installation of these tanks onto existing or modified truck chassis. While you acknowledged your obligation to furnish the consumer information for the trailers you manufacture, you were uncertain about your responsibilities to furnish this information for the liquid cargo tanks you fabricate and install. You asked whether you are required to supply the specified consumer information in these instances. Your questions are responded to below.

Section 575.6(a)(2)(i), as amended, provides that "At the time a motor vehicle manufactured on or after September 1, 1990 is delivered to the first purchaser for purposes other than resale, the manufacturer shall provide to the purchaser" a specified statement about this agency's activities related to motor vehicle defects. Among other things, the specified statement indicates that if an owner believes the vehicle has a defect which could cause a crash or an injury or death, the owner should inform NHTSA in addition to notifying the manufacturer. The manufacturer's name must be indicated in the statement.

In responding to your questions, I note that section 575.6(a)(2)(i) applies to manufacturers of new motor vehicles. As a manufacturer of trailers, you are, of course, responsible for providing the specified consumer information to the first purchaser of such trailers (for purposes other than resale). On the other hand, in situations where you are not a vehicle manufacturer, e.g., where you may be installing tanks on used motor vehicles, the requirements would not apply.

Your letter also raises the issue of how section 575.6(a)(2)(i) applies in situations where there is more than one manufacturer of a motor vehicle, i.e., where vehicles are manufactured in two or more stages. While it is not clear from your letter, it is possible that you may be a final stage manufacturer under 49 CFR Part 568. (The term "final stage manufacturer" is defined in 49 CFR Part 568.3.)

As indicated above, section 575.6(a)(2)(i) specifies that, at the time a vehicle is delivered to the first purchaser for purposes other than resale, "the manufacturer" must provide specified consumer information to the purchaser. Since the regulation requires information to be provided at the time of first consumer sale, we construe it to require the manufacturer of the completed vehicle, i.e., the final stage manufacturer, to meet this requirement. As a general rule, the final stage manufacturer is the manufacturer that has the closest relationship to the dealer which sells the vehicle to the consumer. It is also the manufacturer that the consumer will typically contact first in the event of problems.

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

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel Enclosures ref:568#575 d:l0/l/90

ID: 2678y

Mr. Philip A. Hutchinson, Jr.
Vice President, Public Affairs,
General Counsel and Secretary
Volkswagen of America, Inc.
P.O. Box 3951
Troy, MI 48007-3951

Dear Mr. Hutchinson:

Thank you for your letter to Administrator Curry inquiring about the status of Volkswagen's exemption from certain provisions relating to the Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) program. The Administrator has asked me to respond. Your letter requested NHTSA's position on the status of Volkswagen's exemption from the provisions of section 503(b)(1) of the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act (15 U.S.C 1901 et seq.), and indicated that Volkswagen considers the exemption moot and terminated. As explained below, NHTSA considers the exemption terminated as of the beginning of model year (MY) 1989.

In 1981 (46 FR 54453, November 2, 1981), NHTSA granted Volkswagen's petition seeking an exemption from the general statutory provision that a manufacturer's domestically manufactured passenger automobiles and non-domestically manufactured passenger automobiles be placed in separate fleets for purposes of determining compliance with CAFE standards. Such an exemption is authorized under section 503(b)(3)(A) of the statute. The statute prohibits a manufacturer so exempted from earning CAFE credits during the period of the exemption.

At Volkswagen's request, NHTSA granted the exemption for the indefinite future, reserving the agency's right to reconsider its action if it appeared that the exemption was no longer consistent with the purposes of the Act.

Your letter indicates that Volkswagen terminated the production of "domestically manufactured" vehicles (i.e., vehicles whose domestic content exceeds 75 percent) on June 30, 1987, and that Volkswagen's U.S. production was terminated entirely effective July 14, 1988. You believe the exemption (including its prohibition on the accumulation of CAFE credits) should have ended on June 30, 1987, but in no event later than July 14, 1988. The primary legal issue raised by your letter is how exemptions can be terminated. Although the agency expects that exemptions will normally terminate only after affirmative agency action, automatic terminations are not precluded. However, we do not believe that an exemption terminates "automatically" merely because a manufacturer terminates its production of vehicles with more than 75 percent domestic content or halts all U.S. production. To conclude otherwise could create confusion and result in exemptions being terminated in instances in which the exempted manufacturer wanted its exemption to continue. The possibility of such problems may be seen in a number of circumstances, e.g., if a manufacturer temporarily halts U.S. production and then resumes it, or if it permits domestic content to fall below 75 percent temporarily and then raises it. We note that, in situations in which a manufacturer allows the percent domestic content to fall below 75 percent and continues to produce vehicles in the U.S. with that level of domestic content, it is likely to be relatively easy for the manufacturer to raise the level back above 75 percent.

There are circumstances in Volkswagen's case, however, that lead us to conclude its exemption terminated at the time Volkswagen's U.S. production terminated in its entirety (July 14, 1988). We believe it was evident at that time that Volkswagen was not merely halting U.S. production, but doing so with an intention to permanently abandon such production. We note, for example, that Volkswagen actively sought purchasers for its U.S. production facility in advance of its termination of U.S. production. While a manufacturer could change its mind after permanently abandoning U.S. production, resumption of U.S. production would be relatively difficult. Further, subsequent events, up to and including Volkswagen's February 1990 letter, have confirmed the appearances in 1988 of permanent termination of production.

While it would have been preferable for those appearances to have been confirmed essentially contemporaneously, we conclude that Volkswagen terminated U.S. production with an intention to permanently abandon it, and that its exemption became moot at that time. Since Volkswagen could receive no benefit from the exemption, and clearly had no intention of resuming U.S. production, I conclude that the exemption should be considered terminated effective with the beginning of the first model year following the company's cessation of U.S. production, i.e., MY 1989.

This decision is consistent with section 503(b)(3)(F) which provides that in any model year in which an exemption is effective, no credits may be earned. We interpret that section as requiring the bar to continue to the end of the model year in which the exemption terminated. Hence, the prohibition against earned credits is deemed to have ended with the beginning of the 1989 model year. I note that during MY 1989, Volkswagen accrued a CAFE credit excess of $28,798,575 for its passenger cars, and $56,310 for its light trucks. I hope you have found this information useful. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions concerning this matter.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

ref:CSA d:l0/l/90

ID: 2679y

Mrs. Tonda Anderson
1134 Ross Avenue
St. Paul, MN 55106

Dear Mrs. Anderson:

Thank you for your letter asking for an explanation of the legal requirements that would apply to a product you would like to market. Before discussing the substantive issues raised in your letter, I would like to respond to your request that NHTSA not publicly disclose the details of this product. We hereby grant this request. Your letter, which contains the details of this product will not be made available to the public. As Steve Kratzke of my staff explained to you in a telephone conversation on September 19, all of our interpretation letters are available to the public. Thus, this letter will be publicly available. However, I will not discuss any specific features of your product in this letter.

Your letter indicated that your proposed product would alter the alignment of the shoulder belt to increase comfort for the person wearing the shoulder belt. This agency has discussed the legal requirements that might apply to devices that realign the shoulder belt in a February 11, 1988 letter to Mr. Roderick Boutin. I have enclosed a copy of that letter for your information. You should also note that your proposed product would be considered "motor vehicle equipment," within the meaning of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966. I have enclosed an information sheet for new manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment that briefly explains the responsibilities imposed on such manufacturers, and tells how to get copies of the relevant laws and regulations.

I hope this information is helpful. If you need any further information or have some questions, please feel free to contact Mr. Kratzke at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

Enclosures ref:208 d:l0/l/90

ID: 2700y

Mr. Don James
Contracts
Stone Bennett Corporation
l4l9 Upfield Drive
Carrollton, Texas 75006

Dear Mr. James:

This responds to your letter concerning Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. l02, Transmission Shift Lever Sequence, Starter Interlock, and Transmission Braking Effect. You asked about the standard's display identification requirements for automatic transmission vehicles without a gear shift lever park position. Your questions are addressed below.

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 the manufacturer to ensure that its vehicles and equipment meet all applicable requirements. The following represents our opinion based on the facts provided in your letter.

Standard No. l02 sets forth the following display identification requirements for automatic transmission vehicles without a gear shift park position:

S3.l.4 Identification of shift lever positions. . . .

S3.l.4.2 Except as specified in S3.l.4.3, if the transmission shift lever sequence does not include a park position, identification of shift lever positions, including the positions in relation to each other and the position selected, shall be displayed in view of the driver at all times when a driver is present in the driver's seating position.

S3.l.4.3 Such information need not be displayed when the ignition is in a position that is used only to start the vehicle. You asked about several similar designs for shift control consoles. In addition to including a mechanism for shifting the transmission (push buttons or toggle levers), the consoles incorporate a display which lists the particular gear position which has been selected, e.g., "R" for reverse. No other gear positions are shown. In at least some of the designs, the display is an electronic one. You asked about the "acceptability" of providing a label indicating the gear position sequence on the body of the shift control console, e.g., "1 2 D N R." Drawings provided with your letter indicate that the label would be provided directly adjacent to the gear position display.

As indicated above, section S3.l.4.2 requires identification of shift lever positions, including the positions in relation to each other and the position selected, to be displayed in view of the driver. While your designs do identify the gear position selected, they do not, in the absence of an added label, identify the shift lever positions in relation to each other. The additional label would, however, provide such information.

Section S3.l.4.2 also requires that the specified information be displayed in view of the driver at all times when a driver is present in the driver's seating position (except when the ignition is in a position that is used only to start the vehicle). The times when display is required includes situations in which the ignition is "off." Since your designs use electronic technology to identify the gear position selected, a vehicle equipped with your design might not meet this requirement, at least in the absence of a device which activates the display whenever a driver is present. It is our understanding that "permanent" display is not possible with electronic technology, due to battery drain. However, if the gear position display is turned off with the ignition (the most obvious means of avoiding battery drain), this requirement would not be met. This is because the display would not function when a driver is in the driver's seating position (before leaving the vehicle or upon entering the vehicle at a later time) while the ignition is "off."

As you are aware, NHTSA has proposed new requirements for the purpose of facilitating the use of electronic technology. See 55 FR l226, January l2, l990. If amendments are adopted based on that proposal, the analysis presented above could change.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

Enclosure ref:l02 d:l0/l2/90

ID: 2701y

Mr. Jeffrey Donaldson
Human Factors Engineer
Arcad
l2025 Tech Center Dr.
Livonia, MI 48l50

Dear Mr. Donaldson:

This responds to your request for an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. l0l, Controls and Displays. I apologize for the delay in our response. You asked about the requirements of sections S5.l and S5.3.3(a) in connection with an instrument panel illumination intensity control. Your question is addressed below.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 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 the manufacturer to ensure that its vehicles and equipment comply with applicable requirements. The following represents our opinion based on the facts provided in your letter.

As noted by your letter, section S5.l of Standard No. l0l reads as follows:

S5.l Location. Under the conditions of S6, each of the following controls that is furnished shall be operable by the driver, and each of the following displays that is furnished shall be visible to the driver. . . .

One of the controls listed under section S5.l is a hand-operated control for illumination intensity. Thus, under section S5.l, an instrument panel illumination intensity control is required to be in a location where it is operable by the driver.

You also noted that section S5.3.3(a) requires that "(m)earns shall be provided for making controls, gauges, and the identification of those items visible to the driver under all driving conditions." You asked whether, under this section, an instrument panel illumination intensity control is required to be "visible to the driver." As discussed below, section S5.3.3(a) does not apply to an instrument panel illumination intensity control.

Section S5.3.3(a) is one of a number of sections which appear under the heading "Illumination." See section S5.3. Standard No. l0l does not require that all controls be illuminated. Section S5.3.l sets forth requirements concerning which controls must be illuminated. Section S5.3.3(a) then sets forth additional illumination requirements for the controls which must be illuminated and their identification (as well as for gauges and their identification).

In order to determine whether section S5.3.3(a) applies to a particular control, the first question is thus whether Standard No. l0l requires illumination for that control. As indicated above, this is covered in section S5.3.l. It provides that, with certain exceptions, the identification required by S5.2.l or S5.2.2 for any control listed in column l of Table l and accompanied by the word "yes" in the corresponding space in column 4 shall be capable of being illuminated whenever the headlights are activated. (Column 4 of Table l includes the heading "Illumination.") Thus, Standard No. l0l requires illumination only for those controls which are listed in Table l and have the word "yes" in the column for illumination.

Since an instrument panel illumination intensity control is not listed at all in Table l, no illumination is required by Standard No. l0l for that control. Given that section S5.3.3(a)'s additional illumination requirements only apply to controls which Standard No. l0l requires to be illuminated, and since no illumination is required for an instrument panel illumination intensity control, the section's requirements do not apply to that control.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

ref:l0l d:l0/l7/90

ID: 2702y

Mr. William D. Rogers
President
SportsCar America, Inc.
400 South Elliott Road
Chapel Hill, N.C. 27514

Dear Mr. Rogers:

We have received the (unsigned) petition of SportsCar America, Inc., for a temporary exemption from Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208, on grounds of substantial economic hardship, and are returning all copies to you for the reasons stated below.

SportsCar America wishes to undertake the importation and sale of passenger cars produced in Brazil. Pursuant to an "Exclusive Distribution Agreement" ("the Agreement") with Alfa Metais Veiculos Ltda. of Brazil, which you enclosed, it has imported a prototype vehicle for study, with reference to its status of conformance with the U.S. vehicle safety and emission standards.

The proper petitioner for this exemption is Alfa Metais Veiculos Ltda., identified in the Agreement that you attached as the "Manufacturer." Under Section l of the Agreement, SportsCar America is to return the prototype to the Manufacturer with "those modifications necessary in order to meet the emission and safety standards necessary for the importation" of the cars, and the Manufacturer will then use it as a model for the production of vehicles for sale in the United States. Under 49 CFR Part 567, the Manufacturer must also attach its certification of compliance to the completed vehicle before its shipment to the United States. Part 555 restricts petitions for temporary exemptions to Manufacturers of motor vehicles.

Although you identify SportsCar America as the "distribution agent", we have no record that the Manufacturer has filed the designation of agent pursuant to 49 CFR 551.45 that is required of Manufacturers offering their products for importation and sale in the United States. Presumably Alfa Metais would wish to appoint SportsCar America as its agent. Once it has done so, SportsCar America may submit the petition on behalf of the Manufacturer. The production and financial data (in dollars, please) must be those of the Manufacturer. However, we regard as relevant to conformance arguments the efforts that SportsCar America intends to make during the time a possible exemption is in effect, as outlined in your petition.

Noting your requests for confidential treatment of information, we are returning all copies of your petition, with our comments. Generally, the agency does not like to accord confidential treatment to all financial data submitted. At a minimum, it would like to include in its notice asking comments from the public a dollar amount of the cumulative net profit or loss experienced by the Manufacturer in the three years preceding the filing of the petition. Similarly, it would like to publish a dollar figure in discussing the effects of a denial of the petition on the petitioner. The purpose of this is our policy that if the public is to make an informed comment on the issue of whether compliance would cause a Manufacturer substantial economic hardship, the public should have access to much the same data as is available to the agency in its determination.

If you would like clarification of any of these matters, Taylor Vinson of this Office (202-366-5263) will be happy to provide them.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

Enclosures ref:555 d:l0/9/90

ID: 2703y

Mr. W. Marshall Rickert
Motor Vehicle Administrator
Maryland Department of Transportation
6601 Ritchie Highway
Glen Burnie, MD 21062

Dear Mr. Rickert:

Thank you for your letter seeking this agency's opinion as to whether the State of Maryland may amend its motor vehicle regulations to permit the installation of aftermarket tinting on motor vehicle windows, for individuals who may desire this for medical reasons. I am pleased to have this opportunity to describe the legal principles that relate to your question.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration ("NHTSA") is responsible for issuing Federal motor vehicle safety standards that impose requirements for specific levels of safety performance for new motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials (49 CFR 571.205), which has been in effect since 1968, imposes a minimum level of light transmittance of 70 percent in all areas requisite for driving visibility (which includes all windows on passenger cars). The purpose of this requirement is to ensure adequate visibility through the windows, thereby reducing the risk of a motor vehicle crash.

Although Federal motor vehicle safety standards apply directly only to new vehicles and equipment, Federal law also imposes limits on the addition of tinting materials to motor vehicle glazing after vehicles have been purchased by consumers. Pursuant to section 108(a)(2) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, 15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2), manufacturers, distributors, dealers, or motor vehicle repair businesses may not "render inoperative" any equipment or element of design installed in compliance with a Federal safety standard. Thus, those businesses may not install tinting that reduces the light transmittance of windows covered by Standard 205 to a level below the Federal requirement of 70 percent, since that would make the windows "inoperative" within the meaning of Standard 205.

This Federal prohibition is similar to that imposed by section 22-104 of the Maryland Vehicle Law, which provides: A person may not willfully or intentionally remove or alter any safety device or equipment that has been placed on any motor vehicle . . . in compliance with any law, rule, regulation, or requirement of . . . the United States or of this State . . . unless the removal or alteration is permitted by rule or regulation adopted by the [Maryland Motor Vehicle] Administrator.

The "render inoperative" provision of Federal law does not apply to actions by individual vehicle owners. Therefore, each State may regulate the extent to which aftermarket tinting may be applied by vehicle owners to their own vehicles. Thus, although section 22-104 appears to preclude aftermarket tinting by any person if the result would be to reduce the level of light transmittance below 70 percent, Maryland may amend its rules or regulations to permit such tinting by individuals, for medical or any other reasons deemed valid by the State. However, Maryland has no authority to grant any exemptions, including medical exemptions, from the "render inoperative" prohibition of Federal law that applies to commercial entities. Hence, regardless of any provisions of Maryland law, no manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business may legally install window tinting film on a vehicle, unless the vehicle continues to comply with the Federal light transmittance requirements.

In adopting Standard 205, NHTSA determined that a minimum light transmittance of 70 percent is necessary to meet the need for motor vehicle safety. This is the same level of light transmittance contained in the Safety Code of the American National Standards Institute. If, as your letter suggests, Maryland is considering permitting vehicle owners to modify their vehicles such that their windows will have a lower level of light transmittance, we would urge you to carefully consider the safety consequences of such an exemption.

Please let me know if you need any further information on this subject.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

ref:205 d:l0/l5/90

ID: 2704y

Ms. C. D. Black
Manager, Product Legislation and Compliance
Jaguar Cars Inc.
555 MacArthur Blvd.
Mahwah, New Jersey 07430-2327

Dear Ms. Black:

This concerns your July 23, 1990 petition requesting "reconsideration of an interpretation" of Standard No. 114, Theft Protection (49 CFR 571.114), as amended by a May 30, 1990 final rule (55 FR 21868). You requested that the agency consider interpreting the amendment to permit a mechanical override device that would allow shifting the transmission lever through the use of a separate tool, other than the key.

We note that while your petition requests an "interpretation," it appears to be seeking an amendment to the standard. Moreover, it appears that you consider your submission to be a petition for reconsideration. However, your petition was submitted to the agency after the June 30, 1990 deadline for submitting petitions for reconsideration. Under 49 CFR 553.35, NHTSA considers a late-filed petition for reconsideration as a petition filed under Part 552, i.e., as a petition for rulemaking. In the case of your petition, the agency received timely petitions for reconsideration which addressed the same issues. NHTSA therefore plans to address the issues raised by your petition at the same as we respond to those petitions.

In addition, in this letter, we will address your questions in the context of Standard No. ll4's current requirements, as amended in the May 30, l990 final rule. As discussed below, your proposed system would not appear to comply with the requirements of section S4.2, as amended.

By way of background, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, ("Vehicle Safety Act," 15 USC 1381 et seq.) requires every new motor vehicle sold in the United States to be certified as complying with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. The Vehicle Safety Act specifies that the manufacturer must certify that each of its vehicles complies with all applicable safety standards in effect on the date of manufacture. Because of this statutory requirement, this agency does not approve any manufacturer's vehicles or offer assurances that the vehicles comply with the safety standards. Any person violating the Vehicle Safety Act by manufacturing or selling new noncomplying vehicles may be liable for potential penalties of $1,000 per violation up to $800,000.

Under the revised requirements, section S4.2 provides that:

"Each vehicle shall have a key-locking system that, whenever the key is removed, prevents: (a) the normal activation of the vehicle's engine or motor; and (b) either steering or forward self-mobility of the vehicle or both. For a vehicle equipped with an automatic transmission with a "park" position, the key-locking system shall prevent removal of the key unless the transmission or transmission shift lever is locked in "park" or becomes locked in "park" as the direct result of removing the key."

You explained that you plan to equip your vehicles with an electrical interlock that allows the transmission shift lever to be moved by producing an electrical signal to disengage the interlock. In case of battery or electrical failure, the electrical interlock does not work and thus the transmission shift lever cannot be moved. Therefore, you plan to install a spring-activated mechanical emergency release that is activated by using a tool in one hand and simultaneously moving the transmission shift with the other hand. You believe that your system would adequately prevent against theft through the steering lock and "rollaway" accidents though the device just described, and there is no need to require the vehicle's key to activate the override.

We do not believe your suggested device would comply with Standard No. ll4, as amended. Under S4.2(b), the key-locking system must prevent removal of the key unless the transmission or transmission shift lever is locked in "park" or becomes locked in "park" as the direct result of removing the key. Assuming that the mechanical emergency release operates independent of the ignition key, it does not appear that the transmission or transmission shift lever would ever be "locked" in park, since it could be released without regard to the key used to operate the vehicle's key-locking system. It is irrelevant that your emergency release could only be operable by using a tool and both hands, because this requirement would not affect one's ability to release the transmission shift lever without regard to the key used to operate the vehicle's key-locking system.

I hope this information is helpful. Please contact Mr. Marvin Shaw of my staff at (202) 366-2992 if you have any further questions.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel Enclosure ref:ll4 d:l0/l2/90