ID: nht87-3.5

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 09/25/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: John R. Niemela -- President, Ranger International Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. John R. Niemela, President Ranger International Inc. P.O. BOX 311 Peterborough, NH 03458

This responds to your letter asking whether a "Mototractor" you may import into the United States would be considered a motor vehicle. The vehicle looks like a conventional motorcycle, except tractor tires are mounted on wheels that enclose auxiliary fue l storage tanks. It has a maximum speed of 40 miles per hour. Based on the information provided with, your letter, it appears that your Mototractor would not be a motor vehicle.

Section 102(3) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, as amended (15 U.S.C. 1391(31) defines a "motor vehicle" as any vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power manufactured primarily for use on the public streets, roads, and highways, ex cept any vehicle operated exclusively on a rail or rails.

We have interpreted this language as follows. Vehicles that are equipped with tracks or are otherwise incapable of highway travel are plainly not motor vehicles. Agricultural equipment, such as tractors, are not motor vehicles. Further, vehicles designed and sold solely for off-road use (e.g., airport runway vehicles and underground mining vehicles are not considered motor vehicles, even though they may be operationally capable of highway travel.

On the other hand, vehicles that use the public highways on a necessary and recurring basis are motor vehicles. For instance, utility vehicles like the Jeep are plainly motor vehicles, even though they are equipped with special features to permit off-roa d operation. If a vehicle's greatest use will be off-road, but it will spend a substantial amount of time on-road, NHTSA has interpreted the vehicle to be a "motor vehicle". Further, if a vehicle is readily usable on the public roads and is in fact used on the public roads by a substantial number of owners, NHTSA has found the vehicle to be a motor vehicle. This finding was made with respect to dune buggies and regardless of the manufacturer's stated intent regarding the terrain on which the vehicles we re to be operated.

Your vehicle is not easily classified under either of these groupings. On the one hand, your vehicle has a body configuration nearly identical to a motorcycle and a top speed that would allow it to keep up with the flow of traffic on low speed roads. The se factors suggest that the vehicle should be classified as a motor vehicle. On the other hand, you state repeatedly that this vehicle is intended to be used as a two-wheeled tractor, it comes equipped with tires and wheels that are suited to off-road us e, your advertising shows it pulling and powering a number of off-road attachments, and there is no evidence that it has been or will be substantially used on-road in this country. This suggests that the vehicle should not be classified as a motor vehicl e. In past instances where the agency was asked whether a vehicle Has a motor vehicle when it had both off-road and on-road operating capabilities and about which there is little or no evidence about the extent of the vehicle's on-road use, we have appli ed five factors in offering our advice.

These factors Here:

1. whether States or foreign countries have permitted or are likely to permit the vehicle to be registered for on-road use. The vehicle shown in your brochures does not have lights, mirrors, or a speedometer. we are not aware of any State that would license a vehicle without this equipment for on-road use. Further, the Canadian Tax Court has ruled that the vehicle should be c lassified as a tractor, which presumably means that the vehicle will not be licensed for use on public roads. Hence, this factor suggests that the vehicle should not be considered a motor vehicle.

2. Whether the vehicle is or will be advertised for use-on-road as well as off-road, or whether it is or will be advertised exclusively for off-road use.

Your brochure shows that one of the functions the Mototractor can perform is "road and trail maintenance." Additionally, your advertising shows an attachment that is described "ATT Transport, On/Off Road" (Part No. 1043301. We generally consider such adv ertising to be evidence that the vehicle should be considered a motor vehicle, since purchasers have reason to believe the vehicle is intended to be used on the public roads.

3. Whether the vehicle's manufacturer or dealers Hill assist vehicle purchasers in obtaining certificates or origin or title documents to register the vehicle for on-road use.

You stated that the Chinese manufacturer will provide a certificate of origin/title document. However, this is not the sort of action to which we were referring. Assuming that neither your company nor the Chinese manufacturer assist purchasers in registe ring Mototractors. for on-road use, this would tend to indicate that the vehicle is not a motor vehicle.

4. Whether the vehicle is or will be sold by dealers also selling vehicles that ace classified as motor vehicles.

You did not provide any information on U.S. dealers for this vehicle. However, you stated that the foreign dealers of Mototractors are agricultural equipment dealers. Assuming this is also true in the United States, this fact would indicate that the vehi cle is not a motor vehicle.

5. Whether the vehicle has or will have affixed to it a warning label stating that the vehicle is not intended for use on public roads.

You stated in your letter that a label limiting the vehicle's use will be placed on the Mototractors. Assuming that this label states that the vehicle is not intended for use on public roads, this would indicate that the vehicle is not a motor vehicle.

At this time and after considering the available information, he believe that the Mototractor does not appear to be a motor vehicle. However, we will reexamine this conclusion if we learn that, for example, the vehicle is in fact used on the public roads by a substantial number of its owners.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

ID: nht89-2.95

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 09/07/89

FROM: STEPHEN P. WOOD -- NHTSA ACTING CHIEF COUNSEL

TO: TERRY HUDYMA -- VICE PRESIDENT, ENGINEERING LAFORZA AUTOMOBILES, INC.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 11/16/88 FROM TERRY HUDYMA -- LAFORZA AUTOMOBILES TO CHIEF COUNSEL NHTSA; REF 49CFR 567, CERTIFICATION; OCC 2857; LETTER DATED 05/06/85 FROM JOFFREY R. MILLER CHIEF COUNSEL TO HAYLEY ALEXANDER

TEXT: Dear Mr. Hudyma:

Thank you for your letter requesting an interpretation of 49 CFR Part 567, Certification. Specifically, you asked about certification requirements for multipurpose passenger vehicles that will be assembled in Italy and in Michigan. I apologize for the d elay in this response. The vehicles in question will be assembled in Italy to the extent that they will be "complete with everything except the engine (and associated equipment such as ignition and air conditioning, etc.), transmission and transfer case in Italy." These assemblies will then be imported into the United States where the vehicles will be completed. You state that both the operations in Italy and in Michigan will be performed pursuant to a contract with LAFORZA, who will have "complete co ntrol over the manufacturing process at all times."

It is your understanding that in the fact situation described above, LAFORZA is considered to be the manufacturer of the vehicle and therefore LAFORZA is responsible for affixing the certification label on the completed motor vehicle pursuant to 49 CFR P art 567. You asked us to confirm this interpretation. We cannot do so. Under our law and regulations, the company that completes the vehicles in Michigan is a "manufacturer" of the vehicles in question. The information provided in your letter is inad equate to allow us to determine whether LAFORZA might also be considered a "manufacturer" of these vehicles.

The first issue to be addressed in our analysis is whether the products in question are "incomplete vehicles" when they arrive in the United States. An "incomplete vehicle" is defined at 49 CFR @568.3 as:

. . . an assemblage consisting, as a minimum, of frame and chassis structure, power train, steering system, suspension system, and braking system, to the extent that those systems are to be part of the completed vehicle, that requires further manufact uring operations, other than the addition of readily attachable components,

such as mirrors or tire and rim assemblies, or minor finishing operations such as painting, to become a completed vehicle.

Your letter states that the products that arrive in the United States will not have an engine or transmission, which means they will not have a power train.

Accordingly, @568.3 makes clear that these products would not be "incomplete vehicles" for the purposes of our regulations. In previous interpretations, we have referred to products that do not qualify as "incomplete vehicles" as an "assemblage of items of motor vehicle equipment". In those previous letters, we have stated that the assemblage should be labeled as items of motor vehicle equipment for importation into the United States and that the importer of the assemblage must certify that each item of motor vehicle equipment that is covered by a Federal motor vehicle safety standard complies with such standard. See the enclosed May 6, 1985 letter to Mr. Hayley Alexander.

This finding also means that the Italian company that produces these "assemblages of items of motor vehicle equipment" is not a "manufacturer" of motor vehicles with respect to the vehicles in question. Section 102(5) of the National Traffic and Motor V ehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1391(5); the Safety Act) defines a "manufacturer" as "any person engaged in the manufacturing or assembling of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, including any person importing motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipme nt for resale." In this case, the Italian company producing the assemblage of items of motor vehicle equipment has not manufactured or assembled any motor vehicles, nor has it imported any motor vehicles. Hence, it does not fit the statutory definition of a "manufacturer" of the vehicles in question.

After these assemblages are imported into the United States, the operations performed by the Michigan company will transform the items of motor vehicle equipment into a motor vehicle. Therefore, the Michigan company would be a "manufacturer" of these ve hicles for the purposes of the Safety Act and our regulations. Since @567.4(g)(1) requires the certification label to include the name of the manufacturer, the vehicles could comply if the name of the Michigan company were shown on the certification lab el.

The information in your letter was inadequate to allow us to make even a tentative determination of whether LAFORZA may also be considered a manufacturer of these vehicles. The agency discussed the issue of vehicles with more than one "manufacturer" at length in its proposal to establish rules of attribution for determining which of the manufacturers would be responsible for complying with the phase-in requirements in Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection (49 CFR @571.208). In that proposal, NHT SA said:

Since the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act places the responsibility of compliance with safety standards on manufacturers, the agency does not have authority to attribute a vehicle to a party other than one of the vehicle's manufacturers. However, the agency considers the language in section 102(5) of the Vehicle Safety Act that a manufacturer is "any person engaged in the manufacturing or assembling of motor vehicles . . ." to be sufficiently broad to

include sponsors, depending on the circumstances. For example, if a sponsor contracts for another manufacturer to produce a design exclusively for the sponsor, the sponsor may be considered the manufacturer. This follows from application of basic princ iples of agency law. In this case, the sponsor is the principal. On the other hand, the mere purchase of vehicles for resale by a company which also is a manufacturer of motor vehicles does not make the purchaser the manufacturer of those vehicles. 50 FR 14589, at 14596; April 12, 1985.

According to your letter, LAFORZA has a contractual relationship with the company in Intaly that is producing the assemblage of items of motor vehicle equipment and a contractual relationship with the company in Michigan that is assembling the motor vehi cle. These contractual relationships led you to assert that ". . . LAFORZA Automobiles will have complete control of the manufacturing process at all times." If LAFORZA merely has contractual relationships under which it purchases products for resale fr om the companies in Italy and Michigan, LAFORZA would not be considered the manufacturer of those vehicles. If you can provide us with information about any role LAFORZA has in producing these vehicles besides contracting with other companies to assembl e the vehicles, we will review that information and offer our interpretation of whether LAFORZA could be considered a "manufacturer" of these vehicles for the purposes of the Safety Act and our regulations.

Sincerely,

ENCLOSURE

ID: nht94-4.47

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: October 11, 1994

FROM: Recht, Philip R. -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Unrath, Albert W., Sr. -- President, Albert W. Unrath, Inc.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: Attached To A Letter Dated 7/5/94 From Albert W. Unrath, SR. To John Womack (OCC 10204)

TEXT: This responds to your request for an interpretation of how NHTSA's regulations apply to your company's plans to refurbish used vehicles. In a telephone conversation with Dorothy Nakama of my staff, you explained that after refurbishing, the vehicles wil l have lower gross vehicle weight ratings (GVWRs). You wish to know whether you could add a label showing the lower GVWR to the vehicles' original certification label (which you refer to as the "original Vin Plate").

As explained below, NHTSA does not require the supplementary label on a refurbished -- and not newly manufactured -- used vehicle. We would, however, encourage you to add the label on the refurbished vehicles, since the label would provide important saf ety information to the vehicle operator. On the other hand, the modifications you make to the vehicle could be so extensive that the resulting vehicle is considered "new" under our regulations. If the vehicle is a new vehicle, you must certify the vehi cle as complying with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS's), and include on your certification label the new GVWR of the vehicle.

Based on the information you provided, the vehicles you are refurbishing are "trucks" under section 571.3 of our regulations. Section 571.3 defines a "truck" as a motor vehicle with motive power "designed primarily for the transportation of property or special purpose equipment." You provided two photographs of the vehicles after they have been refurbished. Your photographs show the refurbished vehicles as carrying 4' x 8' "Advanced Warning Flashing Arrow" signs on flat beds. Since your vehicles are designed for transporting property or special purpose equipment, the vehicles are "trucks" under 571.3.

You describe your refurbishing process in your letter. You state that you will take a used truck with a GVWR of 45,000 or 80,000 pounds (lbs.), "scrap" the body, and check remaining truck parts such as the subframe, brakes, steering system, axles, and s uspension. You will repair and replace those parts, as needed. Next, you will clean and paint the frame and running gear, and add a new support frame and "attenuator mounting hardware with braces." After the vehicle is refurbished, its GVWR will be app roximately 25,500 lbs.

As a general rule, NHTSA has no requirements for "used" vehicles. Whether a vehicle is considered new or used depends on the origin of its parts. For example, we regard an assemblage of a new body on a chassis of a vehicle that was previously registere d for use on the public roads to be a "used" vehicle and therefore not subject to the FMVSS's. When a modified chassis is being used in the refurbishment, NHTSA has a regulation (49 CFR section 571.7(e)) for determining when the modifications to the use d chassis are so extensive that the resulting vehicle will be considered new for the purposes of the FMVSS's. Section 571.7(e) states:

When a new cab is used in the assembly of a truck, the truck will be considered newly manufactured . . ., unless the engine, transmission, and drive axle(s) (as a minimum) of the assembled vehicle are not new, and at least two of these components were taken from the same vehicle.

It does not appear that you plan to add a new engine, transmission, or drive axle to each refurbished truck. If you leave the requisite components specified in section 571.7(e) in place from the previous vehicle, we would consider the vehicle you produc e to be a used vehicle. However, please keep in mind that you would be subject to the provisions of 49 U.S.C. section 30122(b), which provides that:

A manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business may not knowingly make 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 safety s tandard . . .

This means that the refurbished truck must continue to meet the FMVSS's that it met before the modification, such as those for braking, lighting and safety belt systems. Any violation of this "make inoperative" prohibition would subject the violator to a potential civil penalty of up to $ 1,000 for each violation.

You ask whether, after refurbishing the used truck, your company may affix additional labels with a new GVWR to reflect the lower GVWR. Since NHTSA generally does not regulate used vehicles, we do not require or prohibit the addition of a supplementary GVWR label. However, we would encourage you to add the supplementary GVWR label to the vehicle.

American Association of Blood Banks (AABB), NHTSA recognized that certain modifications that might be made to a used vehicle (e.g., adding or deleting an axle) could make the originally assigned GVWR inappropriate for the vehicle as modified. In the let ter to the AABA, NHTSA stated that although it is not required by our regulations, we believe it would be appropriate in these situations to add a label to the vehicle which indicates the appropriate loaded weight of the modified vehicle. Similarly, in your case, since the GVWR of the refurbished trucks would be much lower than that indicated on the certification label, we believe it would be appropriate for your company to add a label to the trucks which indicates the appropriate loaded weigt of the r efurbished truck.

As noted at the beginning of this letter, it is possible that your modifications could result in a "new" vehicle. You indicate that, if needed, you could replace the vehicle's subframe, brakes, steering system, axles, suspension, and/or support frame. If you were to remove all the drive components from the frame of the original vehicle and add new drive components or rebuilt drive components from different vehicles, the vehicle would be a new vehicle and would have to be certified by you as complying with all applicable FMVSS's in effect on the date of the remanufacture of the new vehicle.

You also asked that NHTSA "approve" your proposed operations. NHTSA has no authority to "approve" refurbishing operations. Under our regulations, manufacturers of new vehicles "self-certify" that their vehicles comply with all applicable FMVSS's. Like wise, businesses refurbishing used vehicles must assure themselves that the resulting vehicle continues to meet the FMVSS's that it met before the modification. NHTSA can examine the refurbisher's determination in the context of an enforcement proceedin g.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Dorothy Nakama at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht74-5.25

DATE: 04/10/74

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Lawrence R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: Volkswagen of America, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your March 8, 1974, letter reviewing our disposition of Volkswagen's petition to add a new crash protection option to S4.1.2 of Standard 208 (49 CFR 571.208). You requested a determination of whether the seat belt assembly described in that petition constitutes a passive restraint system for purposes of Standard 208, that is, one that requires "no action" by vehicle occupants.

The Volkswagen assembly consists of a single diagonal belt for restraint of the upper torso and an energy-absorbing knee bolster. Mounting of the upper torso restraint to the door causes the belt to move forward during occupant entry and then fall back across the occupant's torso when he is seated and the door is closed.

The NHTSA issued an interpretation of what constitutes a "passive" restraint system on May 4, 1971 (36 FR 4600):

The concept of an occupant protection system that requires "no action by vehicle occupants" as used in Standard No. 208 is intended to designate a system that requires no action other than would be required if the protective system were not present in the vehicle.

The question of what constitutes "no action by vehicle occupants" in a vehicle equipped with (presumptively) passive belts is best considered in two stages: (1) entry and exit from the vehicle, and (2) positioning of the belt for safety and comfort.

Entry and exit action "that requires no action other than would be required if the protective system were not present

2 in the vehicle" means that a person is not hampered in his normal movements by the presence of the belt system. A test of this is whether a human occupant of approximately the dimensions of the 50th percentile adult male finds it necessary to take additional actions to displace the belt or associated components in order to enter or leave the seating position in question. An example of impermissible action would be the necessity of manually pushing a belt out of the way to gain access to the seat. Displacement of the components incidental to normal entry and exit, or merely for the convenience of the occupant, would not be prohibited. Examples of permissible displacement would be brushing against the upper torso restraint during seating, or grasping the torso restraint to close the door.

The second question relates to the usefulness of the system once the occupant has been seated. The essence of a passive restraint is that it provides at least the minimum level of protection without relying on occupant action to deploy the restraint. At this stage, then, the question is whether an occupant who has seated himself without taking any "additional action" is in fact protected in a 30 mi/h impact. This can be measured by conducting the impact tests with the belt positioned on the test dummy in the orientation that results when a human occupant enters the vehicle according to the first test described above. It would not be required that the belt position itself for maximum comfort of the human occupant, if it met the safety requirements. For example, if the belt were to fall across the upper arm instead of the clavicle, but still passed the test, the system would be considered conforming.

The procedure for conducting this evaluation would be to have a human occupant enter the vehicle without taking any "additional actions" to displace the belt, to note the location of the belt on him before he exists, to position the test dummy in accordance with S8.1 of Standard 208, to position the belt as it positioned itself on the sample occupant, and then to conduct the impact tests. The exit evaluation would require the human occupant to be seated with the restraint normally deployed and then exit the vehicle without needing to take any separate actions to displace the belt.

This discussion is intended to permit you to evaluate your passive belt system under the language of the May 4, 1971, interpretation.

VOLKSWAGEN OF AMERICA, INC.

March 8, 1974

Lawrence Schneider National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

RE: The Volkswagen Passive Belt

This will refer to our telephone conversation of March 6, 1974, concerning Volkwagen's passive restraint system.

On October 1, 1973, Volkswagenwerk AG and Volkswagen of America, Inc. petitioned the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to add a new crash protection option to Paragraph S4.1.2 of Standard 208 in order to permit use of Volkswagen's passive belt in 1975 as well as subsequent model year passenger cars and to make available other changes in Standard 208. A copy of Volkswagen's petition is enclosed.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration by Notice 1, Docket 74-4 published in 39 Federal Register 3834 dated January 30, 1974, denied that part of the petition that requested the additional option. The petition was rejected as unnecessary on the grounds that Paragraph S4.5.3 of Standard 208 already permitted the use of a passive belt system "to meet the crash protection requirements of any option under S4 and in place of any seat belt assembly otherwise required by that option." The Notice further concludes that "thus, this language permits the use of the Volkswagen passive belt system to meet the perpendicular impact protection requirements of Option 2 and to replace the required seat belt assemblies. Option 2 exists, in fact, to accommodate date the introduction of passive restraint systems like Volkswagens, which cannot yet meet all requirements of Option 1."

2

While we have recognized that Notice 1 is essentially a proposal for rule making without binding effect as a rule or regulation, it also disposes unconditionally of that part of Volkswagen's petition which sought the inclusion of an additional option. Nowhere does the Notice call upon interested persons to submit their comments with respect to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's denial of Volkswagen's petition for rule making. Comments are invited only in regard to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's proposal for amending Paragraphs S4.1.2.2 and S4.5.3.3

Because questions have been raised regarding the qualification of Volkswagen's new restraint concept as a system that requires no action on the part of the occupant, I would appreciate your confirmation that the system described in our petition of October 1, 1973, constitutes a passive belt within the meaning of Paragraph S4.5.3 to meet the crash protection requirements of the second option set forth in Paragraph S4.1.2.2.

Sincerely,

Gerhard P. Riechel Attorney

Enclosure

cc: Philip Hutchinson

ID: nht91-4.48

DATE: July 12, 1991

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA; Signature by Ken Weinstein)

TO: Samuel Albury -- President, Three Wolves and Associates, Inc.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 6-3-91 from Samuel Albury to Chief Counsel, NHTSA (OCC 6112)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of June 3, 1991 concerning whether your company would be considered the manufacturer of certain vehicles. Your company is planning to use jeep conversion kits on Chrysler Corporation jeeps. Under one approach, your company would purchase the basic stripped down model jeep from Chrysler and add the body, stereo, air conditioning, tires, running lights, carpeting, and high visibility seats. You state that the body would be one solid piece and that your company would add wheel wells, doors, a solid or canvas top, and a windshield. Alternatively, your company would purchase the chassis, with engine and transmission, from Chrysler and add the above items.

I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our regulations to you. Some background information on Federal motor vehicle safety laws and regulations may be helpful. As you are aware, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized, under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. S1381 et seq., the Safety Act), to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and certain items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA, however does not approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, nor do we endorse any commercial products. Instead, the Safety Act establishes a "self-certification" process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards. I will address the responsibilities of your company under the Safety Act in each of the situations you described. First, if your company purchased a stripped down vehicle from Chrysler and made the modifications described, it could be considered an alterer under our regulations. Under 49 CFR Part 567, Certification, an alterer is defined as:

A person who alters a vehicle that has previously been certified . . . other than by the addition, substitution, or removal of readily attachable components such as mirrors or tire and rim assemblies, or minor finishing operations such as painting, . . . before the first purchase of the vehicle in good faith for purposes other than resale . . . .

As an alterer, your company would be required to certify compliance of its vehicles with the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards in accordance with 49 CFR Part 567. The only exception would be if:

1. The modifications consisted solely of "readily attachable components;" or

2. The modifications were only "minor finishing operations."

Whether modifications involve "readily attachable" components depends on the difficulty in attaching those components. In the past, the agency has looked at such factors as the intricacy of installation and the need for special expertise. Without extraordinary ease of installation, NHTSA would not consider modifications involving the addition or substitution of seats to involve "readily attachable" components.

If considered an alterer, your company would be subject to the certification requirements of 49 CFR S567.7. These requirements include provisions that the alterer supplement the existing manufacturer certification label, which must remain on the vehicle, by affixing an additional label. The label would state that the vehicle as altered conforms to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. The label would also state the alterer and the month and the year in which the alterations were completed.

In addition to these certification requirements, an alterer is considered a "manufacturer" for the purposes of the Safety Act. Among other things, this means an alterer is responsible for notification and remedy of defects related to motor vehicle safety and noncompliances with applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards, as specified in sections 151-160 of the Safety Act. Alterers also are subject to the requirements of 49 CFR Part 573, Defect and Noncompliance Reports.

Second, as an alternative, your company is considering buying a chassis from Chrysler. In that case, your company would likely be considered a final-stage manufacturer. Under 49 CFR Part 568, Vehicles Manufactured in Two or More Stages, a final-stage manufacturer is defined as:

A person who performs such manufacturing operations on an incomplete vehicle that it becomes a completed vehicle.

Under the regulation, incomplete vehicle is defined as

An assemblage consisting, as a minimum, of frame and chassis structure, power train, steering system, suspension system, and braking system, to the extent that those systems are to be part of the completed vehicle, that requires further manufacturing operations, other than the addition of readily attachable components, such as mirrors or tire and rim assemblies, or minor finishing operations such as painting, to become a completed vehicle.

As a final-stage manufacturer, your company's certification responsibilities would depend on the information provided by the manufacturer of the incomplete vehicle. Under 49 CFR Part 568, the incomplete vehicle manufacturer must furnish your company with a document which states one of the following three things concerning the incomplete vehicle:

1. The vehicle when completed will conform to some or all of the applicable safety standards if no alterations are made to any identified components of the incomplete vehicle;

2. The vehicle when completed will conform to some or all of the applicable safety standards if specific conditions are followed by the final-stage manufacturer;

3. Conformity with some or all of the applicable safety standards is not substantially affected by the design of the incomplete vehicle, so the incomplete vehicle manufacturer makes no representation as to conformity with the standards.

After receiving this document from the incomplete vehicle manufacturer, your company would be required to certify compliance with the safety standards. In addition to these certification requirements, a final-stage manufacturer is considered a "manufacturer" for the purposes of the Safety Act. Among other things, this means a final-stage manufacturer is responsible for notification and remedy of defects related to motor vehicle safety and noncompliances with applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards, as specified in sections 151-160 of the Safety Act. In addition, final-stage manufacturers are subject to the requirements of 49 CFR Part 573, Defect and Noncompliance Reports.

I am also enclosing a general information sheet for manufacturers of new vehicles. This sheet highlights the relevant Federal statutes and regulations and explains how to obtain copies of the regulations.

I hope that this information is useful. If you have any further questions, please contact John Rigby at 202-366-2992.

ID: nht72-1.44

DATE: 10/16/72

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Douglas W. Toms; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Heinrich von Wimmersperg, Development Engineer

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Thank you for your letter of October 2, 1972, concerning the Ford "Tot-Guard" and your child restraint patents.

The consumer complaints that we have received on the Ford Tot-Guard have been complaints focussing on the fit of the device for minimum recommended size children. The comments relate both to the case with which small children may climb out of the device and slide under it, as well as to the vision restriction problem for the small child.

The Tot-Guard has proven to perform well in 30 mph frontal impacts with the three-year-old child dummy in our research programs, but can be improved in lateral protection capability and in performance with the 50-pound child dummy.

We have just completed a research program to develop new concepts in child restraints and will very shortly be making these designs available for any manufacturer who chooses to produce one of these advanced design restraints.

A copy of your letter will be placed in the public docket along with plans for the restraints developed on our child restraint development contract.

We are interested in reviewing and placing in the public docket copies of your designs for the infant car bed, which you mention, in hopes of stimulating the production of a crashworthy design for such a device.

We appreciate your letter and are looking forward to hearing from you in the near future.

SINCERELY,

HEINRICH VON WIMMERSPERG DEVELOPMENT ENGINEER

OCTOBER 2, 1972

Douglas W. Toms Director National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

An article by John Thorner in the WASHINGTON POST on 20 July 1972, relative to the Consumers Union's report on children's car safety restraint systems, quoted you as stating that your agency, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, had found that children did not like the FORD "TOT-GUARD" and that therefore it would be difficult to get parents to use this restraint system.

As the owner of the basic patent used in the "TOT-GUARD", (Patent #3,232,665), I am naturally interested in your comments.

It is my impression that you are referring to the fact that the "TOT-GUARD" does have an extended front piece, covered by FORD's patent #3,424,497, which does interfere somewhat with the child's ability to see forward and may thus cause some children to object to being placed in the seat.

However from all dynamic tests about which I have heard, the FORD "TOT-GUARD" does provide maximum safety for children weighing up to 50 pounds in simulated crash conditions.

An editorial in the WASHINGTON POST of 6 July 1972, copy of which I am enclosing, did pose the question: "If some manufacturers can meet safety testing, why can't all of them?"

It is with this thought in mind that I would like to call your attention to the fact that FORD has a NON-EXCLUSIVE license on my patent and that I would be willing to license other manufacturers to avail themselves of its features on terms generally equivalent to the FORD agreement, involving a very nominal royalty.

I do feel that the small royalty should not deter them from using my patent to make their devices safer.

I have already noted that some attempts have been made to copy my system, but the endeavor to avoid infringement of my patent has not resulted in making their devices as safe as they would be if they had used my patent.

I realize that the NHTSA is not in a position to act as a "sales agent" for my patent but, in the mutual interest of promoting safety for children riding in cars, I do think it would be perfectly proper for you to at least call attention of manufacturers of child car restraint systems to the fact that my basic patent is available on a non-exclusive basis to any manufacturer for a very nominal royalty.

For your ready reference, I am enclosing a copy of U.S. Patent #3,232,665 issued on 1 February 1966.

I am presently in the process of developing a new version of a children's seat based on my Patent #3,232,665, for children up to 50 pounds weight, having no restricted frontal vision, conveniently adaptable to different sizes of children and collapsible for easy storage and transportation.

Recently a patent was allowed to me which probably will be issued in January 1973. This is for a Safety Seat for Infants (old enough to be seated).

Further, I have just filed a Patent Application for a CAR BED for infants too young to be seated. It is based on a completely new principle, which provides maximum possible protection, equally safe for short trips or for longer traveling.

These three developments thus cover the complete range from the newborn baby to the 50 pound child.

Having had over 30 years background in the development of automotic firearms, covered by over 60 patents, I have, since 1955, been interested in the difficult problem of decelerating fast moving vehicle occupants in crashes without injury, a problem very similar to the problems to be solved in the design of ornaments. This work has resulted in my obtaining patents for an Automotive Safety Belt and for a shock absorbing Sun Vison, automatically covering the impact area of the windshield.

I would be happy to give you additional information regarding any of the above-mentioned matters if you are interested.

I know that you primary interest is in promoting, SAFETY for all people riding in cars and airplanes. It is my sincere belief that I have contributed something to this cause, and I got particular satisfaction from seeing a display of photos on the fifth Floor of the NASSIF Building in Washington showing a little girl sitting in a "TOT-GUARD" and also the car in which she was riding when it was rolled over in a side-impact collision, without injuring the girl. I presume you have seen this display. If not, I am enclosing a copy of the display.

I look forward to hearing from you.

Heinrich von Wimmersperg

[Enclosures Omitted]

1) Copy of U.S. Patent #3,232,665

ID: 7383

Mr. Steven Henderson
Department of Psychology
McGill University
1205 Dr. Penfield
Montreal PQ H3A 1B1
Canada

Dear Mr. Henderson:

This responds to your letter of August 11, 1992, commenting on my response to you of June 29 with respect to the relationship of your motorcycle headlamp warning device to S5.6 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, the provisions regulating the modulation of motorcycle headlighting systems.

In my letter, I informed you that the device would not comply with the requirements of Standard No. 108, and would affect compliance of the taillamps and turn signal lamps with the standard. I also advised you that if a motorcycle owner could install the device, there would be no violation of Federal law, and that the legality of its use would be determinable under the laws of the individual American states.

In your latest letter, you "agree that the device contravenes the letter of DOT Standard No. 108 as it presently stands." However, "if the device violates the letter of the law while satisfying the spirit or inferred intent of the law in each case," you believe "that the granting of an exception should be considered by the NHTSA."

As I understand it, your principal argument as raised on page 2 of your August 11 letter is that it is improper to consider your device under S5.6 as it is not a motorcycle headlamp modulating system as described in that section. Thus our objections to modulation rate and intensity, based upon the specifications of that section, are misplaced.

Assuming for the sake of argument that you are correct, your device becomes subject to another provision of Standard No. 108 that I did not mention in my June letter. Paragraph S5.1.3 prohibits the installation, as original equipment, of any motor vehicle equipment that impairs the effectiveness of lighting equipment that Standard No. 108 requires. Application of paragraph S5.1.3 returns us to my comments in June that your device would affect compliance of the taillamps and turn signal lamps with Standard No. 108. The taillamps would no longer be steady-burning, as required by S5.5.10(d). It would appear that the turn signal rate would also cease to comply with the flash rate of 60-120 per minute specified by SAE requirements incorporated by reference in Standard No. 108. Thus, under paragraph S5.1.3, installation of the device as aftermarket equipment, if performed by a manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or motor vehicle repair business would continue to be prohibited by Federal law.

Your latest letter also addresses the issues of taillamp and turn signal conformance. You argue that

"a taillight's purpose is to mark the rear of a motor vehicle during nighttime driving when it would otherwise be invisible. For this reason the law requires that taillights be lit at night. The law makes no such requirement during the day. The law does require that motorcycle headlights be lit during the day. * * * At night the taillight will always be steady-burning as required by S5.5.10(d) because the flasher device is only able to induce taillight flicker during daylight hours due to the photocell circuitry incorporated to prevent the headlamp from generating strobe effects at night. Therefore, the device is in compliance with S5.5.10(d) as it will cause the taillight to flash only at times that it is not required by law to be lit."

The law that applies to your argument is Standard No. 108. Paragraph S5.5.7(b) states in pertinent part that "On each . . . motorcycle . . . when the headlamps are activated in a steady-burning state, the taillamps . . . shall also be activated." Thus, under Standard No. 108 the taillamps must always be activated when the headlamps are activated.

The device also functions through the horn button to cause the turn signal lamps to flash at a rate higher than the maximum permitted by Standard No. 108. In your view, the situation in which the turn signal and horn button are in simultaneous use will be rare. However, if they are used together, "the SAE-specified turn signal flash of 1-2 hz will be perceptually present, the hazard signal flash of 10 hz will also be perceptually present at the same location, and the two signals will not interfere."

We consider that paragraph S5.1.3 applies here as well, and that a flash of 10 hz would impair the effectiveness of the required turn signal flash of 1-2 hz. There could be another undesirable consequence as well. When NHTSA proposed allowing modulating headlamps, commenters were concerned that the flashing might trigger a photic reaction, akin to an attack of epilepsy, in onlookers. NHTSA observed that the reaction was most likely to occur at a frequency of 10 hz against a very dark background. Although your device does not operate at night, its frequency is at the threshold where photic reactions can occur, and we want to bring this fact to your attention.

The agency shares your concern with improving the detectability of motorcycles and their riders. You have suggested writing an "exception" in Standard No. 108 for a period of one or two years so that the safety benefits of the device can be evaluated. We have a procedure under which a manufacturer of motorcycles can petition for a temporary exemption of up to two years, applicable to 2,500 vehicles per year, on the basis that it would facilitate the development and field evaluation of an innovative safety device. Perhaps you can interest a manufacturer in petitioning for a temporary exemption from Standard No. 108 on this basis.

You may also petition the agency for rulemaking to amend Standard No. 108 in a manner that would allow your device. A petition must set forth facts which it is claimed establish that a change in the standard is necessary, and a brief description of the changes which should be made. This means that you should show how your device is expected to improve safety, or, at a minimum, not decrease the existing level of safety. The agency has no plans to initiate rulemaking on its own initiative to permit your device.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

ref:108 d:8/28/92

ID: nht91-1.23

DATE: January 15, 1991

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: John K. Roberts -- Vice President, Muth Advanced Technologies

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 11-29-90 to Richard Van Iderstine from John K. Roberts (OCC-5511)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of November 29, 1990, to Richard Van Iderstine of this agency. You are developing a "Stop Turn Mirror" (STM) which you intend to be used "in combination with (or possibly in place of) center high-mounted stop lamps (CHMSL's). The STM is so designed that it appears as a mirror to a vehicle operator, but as a stop and turn signal indication system to the operator of a following vehicle.

You have not provided us with a picture of the STM, and we are unable to tell from your letter and description sheet whether the STM is intended to be mounted as an interior rear view mirror, or as an exterior one. As a surrogate for the CHMSL, it would appear to be intended for installation as an interior rear view mirror. However, as a stop and turn signal system, the STM would appear more appropriate as two exterior mirrors mounted on either side of the vehicle. Nevertheless, we shall try to answer your questions on the basis of the information available to us.

Your first question is:

"(1) If the STM satisfies the current explicit requirements of FMVSS 111 and 108, is there further NHTSA approval we should seek before fielding the device?"

NHTSA does not "approve" or "disapprove" items of motor vehicle equipment such as the STM. It will advise whether the equipment is permitted or not permitted by Federal laws, standards, or other regulations. If the equipment is permitted, then it may be manufactured and sold. However, it is the inquirer's responsibility to determine if there are any State and local restrictions on use of the equipment.

For the reasons expressed below, we have serious reservations whether the STM could meet the requirements of Standard No. 108. There is no requirement that a CHMSL be mounted on the rear of a vehicle or in the rear window. STM theoretically could fulfill the requirements for CHMSL's if combined with an interior rear view mirror conventionally placed in the center of the windshield area. In this location, it would appear to be mounted on the vertical centerline of the vehicle as seen from the rear, as the standard requires. The STM will not be perceived by the driver as anything but a mirror; however it must also fulfill the requirement that light from it falling on the rear glazing not reflect back into the mirror, or, in the words of Standard No. 108 that means have been "provided to minimize reflections from the light of the lamp that might be visible to the driver when viewed directly or indirectly in the rear view mirror." Most importantly, the STM must fulfill the photometric requirements and visibility requirements of center high-mounted stop

lamps. Compliance with these requirements is determined with the lamp mounted on or in the vehicle. Because of the different designs of back windows and adjacent "C" pillars in cars, and the distance of the STM from the back window, we believe that compliance with all applicable requirements would be difficult, if not impossible, to achieve.

Standard No. 108 does prohibit the physical combination of the required CHMSL with any other lamp or reflective device. A mirror is not a "reflective device" for purposes of Standard No. 108. Thus the question would be whether the turn signal functions of the STM are clearly separated from the stop function so that the question does not arise as to whether they are combined.

If the STM iS intended to be mounted as one or both exterior rear view mirrors it would not meet the location requirement, and could not be used as a substitute for the required CHMSL. Under Standard No. 108 it would be permissible as supplementary lighting equipment as long as it did not impair the effectiveness of lighting equipment that the standard requires. In this instance, in its role as a supplementary stop/turn signal lamp system, we do not consider that the STM would impair the effectiveness of the original stop/turn signal lamp system.

"(2) Would it be reasonable for us to apply for a variance or to seek a change in FMVSS 108, if the STM doesn't meet the letter of FMVSS 106 in certain applications, but demonstrably meets or exceeds the intent of the standard."

"Variances", or exemptions from one or more requirements of a Federal motor vehicle safety standard are only granted to manufacturers of motor vehicles. We have no authority to exempt an equipment manufacturer.

As for seeking a change in Standard No. 108, while any person may file a petition for rulemaking to change a standard, I have no reason to believe that the agency would look favorably on allowing the CHMSL to be combined with a turn signal lamp, or require use of the STM as standard equipment in place of the present CHMSL.

"(3) Before a pickup truck standard is published, would it be possible to certify the STM as a compliant device and ensure that the wording of the new rule doesn't needlessly prohibit utilization of STM's?"

It is a legal impossibility to certify something as a compliant device before the requirements for that device have been formally adopted, and the effective date established for compliance. We anticipate the "pickup truck standard" as you call it will be published sometime in January 1991. If you find that it prohibits utilization of the STM you may file a petition for reconsideration of the rule with the agency within 30 days after its publication.

" (4) Is it possible that someone at NHTSA would like to see this thing or test it before we go too far in our development and larketing? It may be a useful development in vehicle safety devices with importance to industry and the public. It also may be a ready solution to the difficult issue of requiring CHMSL's on pick-up trucks. We would be happy to support

any such investigative effort by supplying a model, information, etc.

We appreciate but decline your offer. The agency is satisfied that its forthcoming rule achieves a reasonable solution to the issue of CHMSL's on pickup trucks. The agency's resources are limited, and must be deployed in areas where there is a reasonable possibility that a mandatory safety standard may result as a consequence of its investigative efforts. Given the facts that the STM addresses an area of safety that is already covered by the CHMSL, and that any safety benefits of the STM remain speculative while those of the CHMSL are well demonstrated, there is no reasonable possibility that the STM would become a mandatory requirement of this agency.

ID: nht92-4.23

DATE: August 28, 1992

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Steven Henderson -- Department of Psychology, McGill University

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 8/11/92 from Steven Henderson to Paul Jackson Rice (OCC-7640)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of August 11, 1992, commenting on my response to you of June 29 with respect to the relationship of your motorcycle headlamp warning device to S5.6 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, the provisions regulating the modulation of motorcycle headlighting systems.

In my letter, I informed you that the device would not comply with the requirements of Standard No. 108, and would affect compliance of the taillamps and turn signal lamps with the standard. I also advised you that if a motorcycle owner could install the device, there would be no violation of Federal law, and that the legality of its use would be determinable under the laws of the individual American states.

In your latest letter, you "agree that the device contravenes the letter of DOT Standard No. 108 as it presently stands." However, "if the device violates the letter of the law while satisfying the spirit or inferred intent of the law in each case," you believe "that the granting of an exception should be considered by the NHTSA."

As I understand it, your principal argument as raised on page 2 of your August 11 letter is that it is improper to consider your device under S5.6 as it is not a motorcycle headlamp modulating system as described in that section. Thus our objections to modulation rate and intensity, based upon the specifications of that section, are misplaced.

Assuming for the sake of argument that you are correct, your device becomes subject to another provision of Standard No. 108 that I did not mention in my June letter. Paragraph S5.1.3 prohibits the installation, as original equipment, of any motor vehicle equipment that impairs the effectiveness of lighting equipment that Standard No. 108 requires. Application of paragraph S5.1.3 returns us to my comments in June that your device would affect compliance of the taillamps and turn signal lamps with Standard No. 108. The taillamps would no longer be steady-burning, as required by S5.5.10(d). It would appear that the turn signal rate would also cease to comply with the flash rate of 60-120 per minute specified by SAE requirements incorporated by reference in Standard No. 108. Thus, under paragraph S5.1.3, installation of the device as aftermarket equipment, if performed by a manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or motor vehicle repair business would continue to be prohibited by Federal law.

Your latest letter also addresses the issues of taillamp and turn signal conformance. You argue that

"a taillight's purpose is to mark the rear of a motor vehicle during

nighttime driving when it would otherwise be invisible. For this reason the law requires that taillights be lit at night. The law makes no such requirement during the day. The law does require that motorcycle headlights be lit during the day. *** At night the taillight will always be steady- burning as required by S5.5.10(d) because the flasher device is only able to induce taillight flicker during daylight hours due to the photocell circuitry incorporated to prevent the headlamp from generating strobe effects at night. Therefore, the device is in compliance with S5.5.10(d) as it will cause the taillight to flash only at times that it is not required by law to be lit."

The law that applies to your argument is Standard No. 108. Paragraph S5.5.7(b) states in pertinent part that "On each...motorcycle...when the headlamps are activated in a steady-burning state, the taillamps...shall also be activated." Thus, under Standard No. 108 the taillamps must always be activated when the headlamps are activated.

The device also functions through the horn button to cause the turn signal lamps to flash at a rate higher than the maximum permitted by Standard No. 108. In your view, the situation in which the turn signal and horn button are in simultaneous use will be rare. However, if they are used together, "the SAE-specified turn signal flash of 1-2 hz will be perceptually present, the hazard signal flash of 10 hz will also be perceptually present at the same location, and the two signals will not interfere."

We consider that paragraph S5.1.3 applies here as well, and that a flash of 10 hz would impair the effectiveness of the required turn signal flash of 1-2 hz. There could be another undesirable consequence as well. When NHTSA proposed allowing modulating headlamps, commenters were concerned that the flashing might trigger a photic reaction, akin to an attack of epilepsy, in onlookers. NHTSA observed that the reaction was most likely to occur at a frequency of 10 hz against a very dark background. Although your device does not operate at night, its frequency is at the threshold where photic reactions can occur, and we want to bring this fact to your attention.

The agency shares your concern with improving the detectability of motorcycles and their riders. You have suggested writing an "exception" in Standard No. 108 for a period of one or two years so that the safety benefits of the device can be evaluated. We have a procedure under which a manufacturer of motorcycles can petition for a temporary exemption of up to two years, applicable to 2,500 vehicles per year, on the basis that it would facilitate the development and field evaluation of an innovative safety device. Perhaps you can interest a manufacturer in petitioning for a temporary exemption from Standard No. 108 on this basis.

You may also petition the agency for rulemaking to amend Standard No. 108 in a manner that would allow your device. A petition must set forth facts which it is claimed establish that a change in the standard is necessary, and a brief description of the changes which should be made. This means that you should show how your device is expected to improve safety, or, at a minimum, not decrease the existing level of safety. The agency has no plans to initiate rulemaking on its own initiative to permit your device.

ID: nht92-6.42

DATE: May 22, 1992

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Larry Nunn -- President, Automotive Lighting Technologies, Inc.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 4/10/92 from Larry Nunn to Office of Chief Council, NHTSA (OCC 7224)

TEXT:

This responds to your request for information on laws and regulations administered by this agency that would apply to an aftermarket product you have under development. Since your product constitutes "motor vehicle equipment," your product would be subject to NHTSA's jurisdiction as follows.

Your letter described your product, called "LeLite," as a lighting system designed to be attached to motorcycle helmets. The system is intended to increase rider visibility by providing the equivalent of a center high mounted stop lamp for motorcyclists. A drawing you enclosed depicts the "LeLite" as attached to the rear of the helmet, and you state that the "LeLite" includes a stop/running lamp with two amber turn signals.

You state that the lighting system is powered by a cord that connects to a "simple harness unit" mounted at a motorcycle location chosen by the motorcyclist. You further state that the harness is designed to attach directly into the motorcycle's brake/running lamp wires feeding from the battery terminal, enabling the system to light up in conjunction with the brake/running lamps on the vehicle.

In a telephone conversation with Dorothy Nakama of my staff, you stated that the "LeLite" is to be sold separately from the motorcycle helmet and is designed to be readily attachable and detachable by the motorcyclist.

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Safety Act) authorizes this agency to regulate "motor vehicles" and items of "motor vehicle equipment." Section 102(4) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1391(4)) defines "motor vehicle equipment," in part, as:

any system, part, or component of a motor vehicle as originally manufactured or any similar part or component manufactured or sold for replacement or improvement ... or intended for use exclusively to safeguard motor vehicles, drivers, passengers, and other highway users from risk of accident, injury, or death.

In your letter, you stated that the "LeLite" is intended to increase motorcyclist visibility by providing the equivalent of a center high mounted stop lamp. Increased motorcyclist visibility on the road would lessen the possibility of the motorcyclist's being hit by others who may not see the motorcyclist in time to avoid an accident. Thus, we would consider the "LeLite" as "motor vehicle equipment" since it is intended for use exclusively to safeguard motorcyclists from risk of accident, injury, or death.

You provided no information about the degree of difficulty involved in connecting the "LeLite's" harness into the motorcycle brake/running lamp wiring system. As previously stated, your intention apparently is that the individual user installs the "LeLite." However, please be aware that if installation into the wiring system should prove difficult for some users, and the "LeLite" should be installed into the motorcycle or motorcycle helmet by a commercial business, Section 108 (a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act could affect your product. That section of the Act requires manufacturers, distributors, dealers and motor vehicle repair businesses to ensure that they do not knowingly render inoperative any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS). As you may be aware, FMVSS No. 108; Lamps, reflective devices, and associated equipment, specifies requirements for lamps on motor vehicles, and FMVSS No. 218; Motorcycle helmets, establishes minimum performance requirements for motorcycle helmets.

The above-named businesses could sell the "LeLite" but could not install it if the installation would adversely affect the vehicle or helmet's compliance with any of the FMVSS's. In the first instance, it would be the responsibility of these entities to determine whether there is any possibility of such an effect. The prohibitions of Section 108 (a)(2)(A) do not apply to the actions of a vehicle owner in adding to or otherwise modifying his or her vehicle or motorcycle helmet. Thus, a motorcyclist would not violate the Act by installing ,the "LeLite" even if doing so would adversely affect some safety feature in his or her motorcycle or motorcycle helmet.

However, please note that it is this agency's policy to discourage motorcycle helmet users from modifying their helmets. Section S5.6.1 of FMVSS No. 218; Motorcycle helmets requires that the following instruction be placed on helmets: "Make no modifications..." We are concerned that attaching the "LeLite" to a motorcycle helmet may cover the symbol "DOT" that constitutes the helmet manufacturer's certification that the helmet complies with the FMVSS's. Also, Standard No. 218 limits "rigid projections" outside the helmet's shell to those required for operation of essential accessories, and that do not protrude more than 5 millimeters. Based on your letter, the "LeLite" may constitute a "rigid projection." If so, it is not clear that the "LeLite" can meet the restrictions on "rigid projections" outside of the helmet's shell. For these reasons, the agency's policy would be to discourage motorcyclists from modifying their helmets by attaching any device that protrudes beyond the standard.

Manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment such as the "LeLite" are also subject to the requirements in sections 151-159 of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1411-1419) concerning the recall and remedy of products with defects related to motor vehicle safety. The Safety Act specifies that if either your company or this agency determines that a safety-related defect exists in the "LeLite," your company as the manufacturer must notify purchasers of the safety-related defect and must either:

(1) repair the product so that the defect is removed; or (2) replace the product with identical or reasonably equivalent products which do not have a defect.

Whichever of these options is chosen, the manufacturer must bear the full expense and cannot charge the owner for the remedy if the equipment was purchased less than 8 years before the notification campaign.

For your information, I have enclosed a copy of the Safety Act, and an information sheet describing how you can obtain copies of our motor vehicle safety standards and any other NHTSA regulation. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.