ID: aiam4556

"Dear Mr. Ivie: This responds to your letter seeking information abou the labeling requirements in Standard No. 218, Motorcycle Helmets (49 CFR 571.218). You noted that Oregon recently enacted a mandatory helmet use law which adopted Standard No. 218 as the minimum standard for helmets. You correctly noted that section S5.6.1 of Standard No. 218 requires subject motorcycle helmets to be permanently and legibly labeled with specified information, including the symbol 'DOT' as a certification that the helmet complies with Standard No. 218. However, you stated that you have received reports that the labeling required by Standard No. 218 is not present on many helmets, either because it has fallen off or been removed by someone. You said that there is often no other identification of the manufacturer or brand name on the helmet. Accordingly, it is not possible for the owner of a helmet without the Standard 218 label present to contact a dealer or manufacturer for information about the helmet. You then asked several questions about the labeling requirements set forth in Standard No. 218. Before answering your specific questions, I would like to provide some general background information on Standard No. 218. Prior to October 3, 1988, Standard No. 218 applied only to helmets that could be placed on the size C headform. The helmet manufacturers estimated that approximately 90 percent of all motorcycle helmets were subject to Standard No. 218, because they could be placed on the size C headform. However, helmets manufactured before October 3, 1988 that could not be placed on the size C headform (these were typically smaller sizes of helmets) were not subject to Standard No. 218. Hence, manufacturers of helmets that could not be placed on the size C headform were not required by Standard No. 218 or any of our other regulations to label any information on these helmets. In fact, manufacturers could not label the DOT certification symbol on those helmets that were not subject to Standard No. 218. See the enclosed December 4, 1987 letter to Mr. Hoppe for more information on this subject. We published a final rule on April 6, 1988 that extended the requirements of Standard No. 218 to all motorcycle helmet sizes (53 FR 11280). This rule became effective on October 3, 1988. Accordingly, all motorcycle helmets manufactured on or after October 3, 1988 are subject to Standard No. 218 and must be labeled in accordance with the requirements of S5.6 of that standard. With this background, your question can be answered as follows. For the approximately 10 percent of helmets manufactured before October 3, 1988 that could not be placed on the size C headform, Standard No. 218 did not apply to them, so there was no requirement for any information to be labeled on these helmets. Any such helmets would not display a 'DOT sticker' because they were not required or permitted to display such a sticker when they were new, not because the sticker 'fell off' or was removed. However, Standard No. 218 applied to approximately 90 percent of all helmets manufactured before October 3, 1988 and applies to every motorcycle helmet manufactured on or after that date. For those helmets, S5.6.1 of Standard No. 218 requires that: 'Each helmet shall be permanently and legibly labeled . . .' with the manufacturers name or identification, the precise model designation, the size, the month and year of manufacture, the DOT certification mark, and warning instructions. (emphasis added) In an October 16, 1973 letter to the Cycraft Co., NHTSA stated that the requirement that helmets be permanently labeled prohibits the use of labels that can be removed easily by hand without tools or chemicals. You stated that you have heard of two reasons why helmets that originally had a DOT certification label would no longer have such a label. One of the reasons was that the affixed label was a 'sticker' and it 'fell off.' Standard No. 218 permits manufacturers to label the required information on the helmet by means of a 'sticker,' provided that the label is permanent and legible and contains all the information required by S5.6. A 'sticker' that falls off the helmet would not appear to be permanent within the meaning of Standard No. 218, so this would be an apparent noncompliance with the standard. If you have any evidence that 'stickers' are falling off helmets, please forward that information to our Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance at this address, and we will take appropriate actions. The second reason that you have heard for helmets no longer having the labeling required by Standard No. 218 is that someone removed the label to paint the helmet and failed to put the label back on the helmet. Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C 1397(a)(2)(A)) prohibits any manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair business from 'knowingly render ing 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.' In this case, the label on motorcycle helmets is a device or element of design installed on the helmet in compliance with Standard No. 218. If a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair business removed that label and failed to put it back on the helmet, then those entities would be rendering the label inoperative, in violation of Federal law. Again, if you have any evidence that violations of Federal law have occurred in your State, please forward that evidence to our Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance and we will take appropriate actions. Please note that Federal law does not prohibit the helmet's owner or any other person that is not a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair business from removing the label from motorcycle helmets. Thus, the owner of a motorcycle helmet is permitted to remove the label from his or her helmet for any reason without violating any provision of Federal law. The individual States are free to establish requirements for motorcycle helmets used in their State, and could prohibit an owner from removing the label. You suggested that the problem of missing labels could be solved if this agency were to require that the DOT symbol be embossed on or in the helmet. NHTSA considered and rejected this suggestion 15 years ago when it established Standard No. 218. In the August 20, 1973 preamble to the final rule that established FMVSS 218, we said: With respect to providing important safety information in the form of labeling, one comment recommended that, due to possible label deterioration, both the manufacturer's identification and the helmet model designation should be permanently marked by etching, branding, stamping, embossing, or molding on the exterior of the helmet shell or on a permanently attached component so as to be visible when the helmet is in use. The NHTSA has determined that the practical effect of this recommendation is accomplished by requiring each helmet to be permanently and legibly labeled. The method to be used to permanently and legibly affix a label for each helmet is therefore left to the discretion of the manufacturer. (38 FR 22391) You finally asked if other jurisdictions have informed NHTSA of similar problems and sought suggestions on methods to resolve the situation where an apparently undamaged helmet would be in compliance with the standard except that it is not properly labeled. As noted above, approximately 10 percent of the motorcycle helmets manufactured before October 3, 1988 were not subject to Standard No. 218 and were not required to be labeled. To my knowledge, no other jurisdictions have informed this agency of problems akin to those raised in your letter aside from more general questions about labeling. I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions or need some more information on this subject, please do not hesitate to contact Mr. Marvin Shaw of my staff at this address, or by telephone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel Enclosure";

ID: 1985-04.15

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 11/05/85

FROM: JIM BURNETT -- NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION SAFETY BOARD

TO: T. C. GILCHREST -- NATIONAL SAFETY COUNCIL

TITLE: SAFETY RECOMMENDATIONS, H-85-30, ISSUED 11/05/85 BY NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION SAFETY BOARD

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 03/30/89 FROM ERIKA Z. JONES TO SAMSON HELFGOTT, REDBOOK A33(4), STANDARD 108, VSA SECTION 108 (A) 2 (A); LETTER DATED 01/12/89 FROM SAMSON HELFGOTT TO ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA, OCC 2989; REPORT DATED 06/01/87 FROM NATIONAL PUBLIC SERVICES RESEARCH INSTITUTE, AN EVALUATION OF THE EFFECT OF A REAR WARNING LIGHT ON THE FOLLOWING DISTANCE AND/OR BRAKING RESPONSE TIME (BRT) OF VEHICLES BEHIND; AFFIDAVIT UNDER RULE 132, DATED 09/09/88, BY MERRILL J. ALLEN, IN SUPPORT OF PATENT REAPPLICATION OF AUTOMOTIVE WARNING AND BRAKE LIGHT ARRANGEMENT; BIOGRAPHICAL INFORMATION OF MERRILL J. ALLEN, DATED 09/09/88 EST

TEXT: NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION SAFETY BOARD WASHINGTON, D.C.

ISSUED: November 5, 1985

Forwarded to:

Mr. T. C. Gilchrest

President

National Safety Council

444 N. Michigan Ave.

Chicago, Illinois 60611

SAFETY RECOMMENDATION(S) H-85-30

Motor vehicles are equipped with lights for seeing, but also for being seen. During hours of darkness, it is illegal in every State to operate a vehicle with the lights unilluminated. During the daytime, lights also can help to make vehicles more readily visible. Daytime illumination can enable other motorists, as well as pedestrians and cyclists, to perceive hazards earlier, take evasive action sooner, and thus possibly avoid a collision.

When ambient illumination is low, in conditions such as dawn, dusk, rain, and overcast, conspicuity may be significantly improved by the use of lights. They also can be valuable when there is little contrast between the color of a vehicle and that of its background, i.e., a light car against snow, or a green car against foliage. Small cars are harder to see at a distance than large ones, and so, as average vehicle size decreases, it, becomes increasingly important to enhance vehicle conspicuity.

It has been demonstrated that improved conspicuity can help prevent a variety of accidents. Among these are head-on collisions and sideswipes with the vehicles traveling in opposite directions, as well as collisions with pedestrians and cyclists. In 1983 there were 156,144 injuries and 10,531 deaths in such accidents. n1

n1 Analysis of data from Department of Transportation's National Accident Sampling System and Fatal Accident Reporting System.

Vehicle conspicuity is one of the factors in highway accidents involving older motorists and pedestrians. As a person ages, he or she needs more light than before to see properly. According to one expert optometrist, those illumination requirements double for each 13 years of a person's age. n2 He recommends that cars be driven with lights on

during the day to improve safety for this growing portion of the population. Today 22 percent of U.S. drivers are age 55 or over, but by the year 2000 that proportion is expected to grow to 28 percent, and to 39 percent by 2050. n3 In 1984, 35.7 percent of the U.S. pedestrians killed by motor vehicles during the hours of daylight, dusk, and dawn were age 55 or older. n4

n2 Merrill J. Allen, "Older Drivers and Pedestrians: Vehicle/Highway Design and Driver Testing," Workshop on the Highway Mobility and Safety of Older Drivers and Pedestrians, Automotive Safety Foundation, Washington, D.C., June 11-12, 1985.

n3 Forward by James L. Malfetti, Editor, "Needs and Problems of Older Drivers: Survey Results and Recommendations -- Proceedings of the Older Driver Colloquium, Orlando, Florida," AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety, February 4-7, 1985.

n4 Analysis of data from Fatal Accident Reporting System.

There already have been numerous instances of vehicles operated with daytime running lights. n5 For the last 25 years, Greyhound bus drivers have been Instructed to use headlights both day and night. In the early 1960s, a campaign entitled "Drive Lighted and Live" urged Texas drivers to use their headlights during major holidays. In 1972, the Private Truck Council called for round-the-clock headlight use by its member fleets. In the same year, AT&T's Long Lines Division began a two-year program for its fleet to use headlights at all times.

n5 "Daytime running lights" are any vehicle lights illuminated during the day to make that vehicle more readily visible.

In Finland, motorists driving outside urban areas are required by law to have lights on at all times. A law in Sweden requiring daytime use of lights applies to motorists using all public roads. The requirement can be met in both countries with low-beam headlights or with special running lights described in the regulations. And in countries such as Norway, the Soviet Union, and the United Kingdom, light use is required at times when visibility is low. Most States in the U.S. have similar requirements, but the level of compliance is not known.

Questions of concern to authorities promoting the use of daytime running lights, as well as those contemplating such action, include: Are the lights effective in reducing accident losses? If so, to what degree? And which type of light is best?

Numerous studies have been conducted on the subject, and each has produced the same answer to the first question: Running lights definitely are a means to help reduce the toll in lives and property from highway accidents. However, there is no consensus as to which type of light is best suited to the task, and data are not yet available to predict the degree to which lights will reduce accidents in a given region.

In Finland, the use of daytime lights was studied over a six-year period: two years before there was any government involvement concerning daytime running lights (July 1968 through June 1970), two years in which their use was recommended (July 1970 through June 1972), and then two years in which it was required (July 1972 through June 1974). In the first period, before government action, at least 40 percent, and perhaps as many as 75 percent of the country's motorists already were using daytime running lights. When the practice was a recommended one, the rate was 84 percent, and when light use became mandatory in rural areas during winter, the percentage rose to 97. n6

n6 Kjell Andersson, Goran Nilsson and Markku Salusjarvi, "The Effect of Recommended and Compulsory Use of Vehicle Lighting on Road Accidents in Finland," Swedish National Road and Traffic Research Institute, Report No. 102, 1976.

Researchers found that the increased percentage of use resulting from the new law prompted a measurable decline in a broad range of accidents. The winter daylight accidents in which more than a single vehicle was involved (including collisions with pedestrians, animals, and other vehicles) dropped as much as 21 percent from the first test period to the third, according to several accounts of the results in Finland. n7 A 28-percent reduction was reported in collisions involving vehicles traveling toward each other. n8 These crash reductions were achieved despite increasing traffic volume during the six-year period. With the law initially applying only in winter, the reductions appeared only during those months and not during summer months.

n7 Ibid. Also, Charles H. Kachn, "A Cost/Benefit Study of a Potential Automotive Safety Program on Daylight Running Lights," National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, April 1981; and Michael Perel, "Daytime Running Lights: A Review of the Literature and Recommendations for Research," NHTSA, June 1980.

n8 Andersson et al., op. cit., cited in Kaehn, op. cit.

In Sweden, the daytime running light legislation raised the use level from about 50 percent to more than 95 percent. The estimates of resulting crash reductions vary from 6 to 13 percent, for accidents involving more than a single vehicle. n9

n9 Jkell Andersson and Goran Nilsson, "The Effects on Accidents of Compulsory Use of Running Lights during Daylight in Sweden," Swedish National Road and Traffic Research Institute, S-581 01, Linkoping, Sweden (no date). Also, crash reductions of 5 to 15 percent were reported by Karc Rumar, "Daylight Running Lights in Sweden -- Pre-Studies and Experiences," Society of Automotive Engineers Technical Paper Series, 810191, presented at SAE International Congress and Exposition, February 23-27, 1981.

In both Finland and Sweden, the safety benefits were particularly significant for nonmotorists. Daylight winter accidents involving pedestrians declined 24 percent in the Finnish study. n10 In Sweden, the decline was 17 percent, and accidents in which motor vehicles struck "cycles or mopeds" dropped 21 percent. n11

n10 Kaehn, op. cit., and Perel, op. cit.

n11 Andersson and Nilsson, op. cit. Crash reductions of 27 percent for pedestrians and 25 percent for cyclists were reported in built-up areas in Sweden during summer by David B. Richardson, "Daytime Running Lights -- A Concept Whose Time Has Come," Institute of Traffic Engineers Journal, October 1984.

These studies, both conducted in the 1970s, were particularly valuable because they dealt with entire populations. Since Sweden and Finland are the only countries in which daytime running light use is nearly 100 percent, all types of vehicles and all types of drives in each country were represented. Other studies have been limited to specific fleets, and the results of using such limited test samples may not be extrapolated reliably to the full population.

But the very reasons that prompted these Nordic countries to lead the way in daytime running light use also limit the applicability of their research to the United States. The light conditions are very different. During the long winter in high northern latitudes, ambient light is low throughout most of the day, with lengthy periods of twilight. And with the sun frequently low in the sky, glare is common. These are the kinds of conditions in which daytime running lights are thought to be most effective, but such conditions are not found with comparable frequency throughout the United States.

There are differences as well in climate and road conditions. However, there have been studies in this country that suggest that daytime running lights would be effective, to some extent, in cutting the toll from highway accidents.

One of the earliest studies was conducted by the New York Port Authority. n12 About 200 vehicles operated by the Port Authority were modified so the parking lights and taillights were illuminated automatically when the ignition switch was turned on. The vehicles, some painted black and others yellow, were predominantly sedans and station wagons, with some light trucks and a few heavy trucks. For a year, beginning in July 1967, accidents involving these vehicles were monitored, along with those of a control group of about 400 unmodified vehicles.

n12 Edmund J. Cantilli, "Daylight 'Running Lights' Reduce Accidents," Traffic Engineering, February 1969.

Overall, the group of modified vehicles was involved in 18 percent fewer accidents than those without the change. In addition, the modified group had accidents that were less severe. A "severity index" was calculated, based on a graduated scale of damage and injury, and the modified vehicles scored 66 percent better than the control group. When passenger vehicles only were considered, the modification lowered the accident rate 23 percent, and the severity index improved 41 percent.

Experiments were conducted with other fleets. The daytime running lights program at AT&T's Long Lines Division produced a 32 percent reduction in that fleet's accident rate. n13 Greyhound Lines reported a 12 percent drop. n14 When a group of Checker cabs drove with lights on during the day, and a group of Yellow cabs did not, the Checker cabs had 7.2 percent fewer collisions, according to a 1979 report. n15 A 1965 survey of 181 U.S. companies with lights-on policies found accident reductions up to 38 percent. n16

n13 Editorial, "What Happened to All the Lights?" Diesel Equipment Superintendent Journal, November 1973.

n14 Dennis A. Attwood, "The Potential of Daytime Running Lights as a Vehicle Collision Countermeasure," Society of Automotive Engineers Technical Paper 810190 (1981).

n15 Merrill J. Allen, "The Current Status of Automobile Running Lights," Journal of American Optometry Association, Vol. 50, No. 2, 1979, cited in Attwood, op. cit., and Kaehn, op. cit.

n16 Merrill J. Allen, "Running Light Questionnaire," American Journal of Optometry, Vol. 42, No. 3, March 1965, cited in Attwood, op. cit.

In 1974, the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) conducted tests in Arizona to determine the effect of daytime running lights on the distance at which drivers were able to detect oncoming vehicles. Without lights, the average detection distance was 2,074 feet; with lights, the average distance increased to 4,720 feet. n17

n17 R. W. Oyler, Executive Engineer, General Motors (personal communication to Kare Rumar, March 28, 1977).

The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) recently completed a study using more than 2,000 cars, vans, and light trucks operated by three corporate fleets. Half the vehicles were equipped with increased-intensity parking lights that were turned on

automatically with the ignition switch; no changes were made in the other half. The modified vehicles experienced 7 percent fewer daytime multiple-vehicle crashes than did the unmodified ones. n18

n18 Howard Stein, "Fleet Experience with Daytime Running Lights in the United States," Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, May 1985.

The running light studies so far have varied widely in results and test procedures. Their sample sizes often have been to small to provide statistical confidence in the specific results of each individual study. However, all the studies that have been reviewed suggest that the use of running lights during the day will indeed result in a decrease in accidents. The issue now is to determine the level of crash reductions and how this would vary by accident type.

A study conducted by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) in 1981 produced inconclusive results about the relative benefits and costs of daytime running lights. To help clarify the issue, NHTSA is sponsoring a field study involving approximately 10,000 vehicles throughout the United States. As in the IIHS study, some of the vehicles will be modified so that lights come on automatically with the ignition; others will serve as a control group. The modified vehicles probably will have lamp intensities of various levels. Accident data will be collected on the vehicles for at least a year, starting in late 1985. There also will be an attempt to compare maintenance and repair costs.

NHTSA is unlikely to consider regulatory efforts until this large-scale fleet study is completed. It is expected to give the clearest picture so far of the likely decreases in accidents, deaths, and injuries from a daytime running lights program.

If a Federal standard were issued to require that vehicles be equipped with ignition-activated daytime running lights, it would have to specify whether low beams, high beams, parking lights, or turn signal lamps should be used, or whether a special running light should be added. If a light were to be added, the size, shape, location, lamp color, and lighting would have to be established. The standard also would have to specify the required light intensity. The NHTSA study should help provide a basis for determining these specifications.

It will take many years before the NHTSA study is evaluated, an acceptable Federal standard is developed, and running lights are incorporated into the U.S. fleet in substantial numbers. Those are years in which a measure already recognized as a means to improve safety would continue to be largely unused on U.S. highways.

Canada is facing a similar problem. As in the U.S., the Canadian government has been studying the crash-reduction potential of daytime running lights. In 1984, the Canadian Minister of Transport said that widespread use of daytime running lights could save 200 lives a year, which is about 5 percent of the total highway deaths each year in Canada. In addition, he said highway injuries could be cut by 2,500 and property losses by $ 200 million. n19

n19 Statement by Lloyd Axworthy, Minister of Transport, Press Release, Transport Canada, May 31, 1984.

An official notice has been drafted describing a proposed regulation that would require ignition-activated daytime running lights on new automobiles. The choice of the type and intensity of the light to be used would be left to the manufacturers, as long as the lights met certain specifications. n20 n20 Winson Ng, Transport Canada (personal communication to NTSB staff, July 5, 1985).

Staff of Transport Canada say the earliest such a regulation could be in effect would be for model year 1988 and 1989. After that, it would be 8 to 10 years before the nation's fleet would be converted substantially to the automatic daytime running light system. Because of this likely delay, programs have been undertaken in at least two Canadian provinces that encourage motorists immediately to start driving during the day with their lights on.

Saskatchewan Government Insurance, which provides mandatory insurance to all motorists in that province, has mounted a major public education campaign. Called "Lights On For Life," this program employs a variety of means to encourage motorists to drive with low-beam headlights on. In print and broadcast media, there are public service announcements, as well as paid advertising. Four vans tour the province, promoting the message. Signs at border crossing say, "In Saskatchewan we drive with our lights on." n21

n21 Suzzane Hart, Program Director, "Lights On For Life," Saskatchewan Government Insurance (personal communication to NTSB staff, July 8, 1985).

The Premier of Saskatchewan has ordered that all vehicles of the provincial government be driven with their lights on during the day, and family members of government workers are encouraged to do the same in their private vehicles. Corporate fleets have followed suit. The message is being promoted as well by trucking associations, car rental companies, tourist information agencies and many other groups and companies. As a result, with the program in operation only about a year, daytime light use has increased in the province from 8.2 to 24.7 percent. n22

n22 Ibid.

The Insurance Corporation of British Columbia (ICBC) required drivers of its own fleet of 300 vehicles to use low-beam headlights during the day, and strongly recommended that staff members and their families follow the same practice in their private vehicles. ICBC subsequently urged the operators of 140,000 fleet vehicles insured by the corporation to use lights in the daytime. The insurance company plans to monitor the damage claims filed by fleets using daytime running lights, and to use the expected crash-reduction results to convince more fleets, as well as the general public, to take up the practice. n23

n23 "ICBC Backs Use of Daytime Headlights," Press Release, Insurance Corporation of British Columbia, June 4, 1984; and "Support Growing for Daytime Driving Lights," ICBC People, no date.

CKIQ, a radio station in Kelowna, British Columbia, has taken the lead in a campaign to promote daytime use of running lights in the province, and the station reports endorsements and participation by groups such as B. C. Telephone, B. C. Transit Co., and

the Canadian Armed Forces. n24 Canadian military vehicles are required to be driven with lights on not just in British Columbia, but in many operations throughout the country. n25

n24 Dave Daniels and Yvonne Svensson, "Headlights for Life," Public Education Fact Sheet, CKIQ Radio, Kelowna, British Columbia, no date.

n25 Hart, op. cit.

The organizers of all these efforts stress that the programs are short-term, designed to enable the Canadian public to start realizing the benefits of daytime running lights immediately -- while work continues toward adoption of a Federal standard.

The National Transportation Safety Board believes that a similar approach could be undertaken in the United States. As in Canada, this would be an interim step in anticipation of a Federal standard. Motorists would be urged to keep their low-beam headlights on when driving during the day.

Therefore, the National Transportation Safety Board recommends that the National Safety Council:

Develop and conduct a program to encourage motorists to drive with their low-beam headlights on during the day. (Class II, Priority Action) (H-85-30)

BURNETT, Chairman, GOLDMAN, Vice Chairman; and BURSLEY, Member, concurred in this recommendation.

ID: 08_002292-df

ID: 11-002613 drn.doc

ID: 07-000862 3-row CAFE interp (final plus SW edits)--17 Jan 08 rls

ID: 07-002269drn

ID: 1982-1.38

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/02/82

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Automotive Research and Certification Inc.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

April 2, 1982

Mr. Robert P. McEvoy President, Automotive Research and Certification Inc. 5 Orrantia Circle Danvers, MA 01923

Dear Mr. McEnvoy:

This is in reply to your letter of December 18, 1981, appealing our denial of your request to import five different German specification 1982 BMW passenger cars under the provisions of 19 CFR 12.80(b)(1)(vii). This provision allows vehicles not meeting the Federal safety and bumper standards to be imported for test purposes for a limited time without the necessity of conforming them to the Federal motor vehicle safety standards.

You have asked us to reconsider our original decision or alternatively to allow the importation of two of the five vehicles. You have also agreed to perform all safety compliance work within 30 days of receipt of the five test vehicles, allowing you to carry out your test programs for developing complying emissions and bumper systems.

Upon review of your petition, the agency is agreeable to allowing you to import a total of five vehicles under the provision of 19 CFR 12.80(b)(1)(iii), without insisting upon immediate compliance with the bumper requirements, provided that you will agree in writing that the vehicles will be brought into compliance with then existing bumper requirements if they are sold to third parties. This will allow you a maximum of 120 days to bring the vehicles into compliance with safety requirements.

The bumper standard is primarily a property damage standard, rather than a safety standard, and the Administrator has the authority to waive it completely for vehicles imported into the United States. Although this authority has not been exercised or implemented in regulations, the temporary waiver which may be provided you is consistent with the intent of Congress, and allows both you and the agency to accomplish their goals. As a practical matter, the bumper standard may be amended in the near future to prescribe a more cost-effective level of performance and in that event your task of conforming the vehicles might be less difficult; we would not insist on conformance with the bumper standard in effect when the BMW's were manufactured.

I hope that this proposed solution is satisfactory to you.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

December 18, 1981

Mr. Frank Berndt Office of Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20590

Dear Mr. Berndt:

This is in reply to your letter of December 8, 1981, denying our request for permission to import five different German specification 1982 BMW automobiles under the provisions of 19 CFR 12.80(b)(1)(vii).

Your conclusion that "the purpose of your testing is to encourage the eventual importation of motor vehicles that were not originally manufactured to meet Federal safety, bumper, and emission requirements" is in error. The purpose of our research, development, and testing is to insure that the motor vehicles which are imported under the provisions of 19 CFR 12.80(b)(1)(iii) and 19 CFR 12.73(b)(5)(x) are brought into full compliance with Federal safety, bumper, and emission requirements and will remain in compliance with these requirements. It is felt that this purpose is indeed consistent with the mission of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration as well as that of the Environmental Protection Agency.

It is unlikely that our research, development and testing program will have any effect on the number of motor vehicles imported under the provisions of 19 CFR 12.80(b)(1)(iii) and 19 CFR 12.73(b)(5)(x). Since our proposed emission control system will be somewhat more expensive than those systems currently being used to enable non-certified imported automobiles to pass Federal emissions tests, will not become any easier or less expensive to import a non-certified motor vehicle. Similarly, if It was deemed feasible to modify the European bumper systems to comply with Federal bumper requirements (49 CFR Part 581), these modifications would most likely be more expensive than simply exchanging the European bumpers for U.S. style bumpers.

Your suggestion that we complete the necessary safety modifications before conducting our test program would, in effect, prevent us from carrying out that part of the program having to do with the bumper modifications. This is due to the fact that we must test different types of bumper support structures and shock absorbing units with the European bumpers in place. With the U.S. style bumpers installed, this would be impossible. We would, however, be agreeable to performing all of the safety related modifications, except for the addition of the U.S. style safety bumpers, upon receipt of the test vehicles. We expect that this work could be completed within 30 days of receipt of the test vehicles. This would allow us to carry out our test program while at the same time complying with all Federal safety requirements except the bumper standard.

We would also be agreeable to importing only two of the German specification 1982 BMW automobiles under the provisions of 19 CFR 12.80(b)(1)(vii), at this time. This would allow us to get our testing program underway and to demonstrate to the NHTSA that we truly are engaged in a research, development, and testing program. Once this had been done, we would then apply for permission to import the three remaining test vehicles.

Although our testing program will require some operation of the test vehicles on public highways, this operation will be minimal. We anticipate that each test vehicle will be driven not more than 3,000 miles for the duration of the test. These vehicles will be operated for testing purposes only, and will not be used for general transportation. Such limited operation certainly will not represent a safety or health hazard.

As you can see, we are agreeable to almost any conditions which will allow us to get this testing program underway. We therefore request that you reconsider our original request of October 19, 1981, for permission to import five motor vehicles under the provisions of 19 CFR 12.80(b)(1)(vii). As an alternative, we request that permission be granted for the importation of at least two of the five test vehicles listed in our letter of October 19, 1981, under the provisions of 19 CFR 12.80(b)(1)(vii). The test vehicles which we would want to import first are the BMW 323i and the BMW 635i.

Attached is a copy of the testing exemption granted by the EPA. Your prompt attention to our request would be appreciated.

Sincerely yours,

Robert P. McEvoy President

RPM:smm

cc: Mr. Taylor Vinson

Enclosures

November 25, 1981

Mr. Robert P. McEvoy, President Automotive Research and Certification, Inc. 5 Orrantia Circle Danvers, Massachusetts 01923

Dear Mr. McEvoy:

This is in response to your letter of October 19, 1981, in which you requested a testing exemption to cover five (5) light-duty vehicles. The purpose of the test program is to develop a closed-loop emission system for use on BMW vehicles.

A testing exemption is hereby granted, subject to the terms and conditions of the enclosed Memorandum of Exemption. If Automotive Research and Certification, Inc. elects to accept the exemption, please notify this office by returning a signed copy of the Memorandum to this office within thirty days.

Very truly yours,

Timothy Fields, Jr., Chief Manufacturers Programs Branch Manufacturers Operations Division (EN-340)

Enclosure

ID: 1984-4.2

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/13/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Blue Bird Body Company -- Thomas D. Turner, Manager, Engineering Services

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your letter dated December 5, 1983, to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) concerning the remanufacture of school buses. You requested NHTSA to confirm that when an old bus body is placed on a new chassis "the chassis is the incomplete vehicle and that the completed vehicle must conform to all applicable FMVSS and be properly certified based on a date no earlier than the date of manufacture of the chassis." You also requested an interpretation that the remanufacture of a school bus using a new body on an old chassis would be considered the manufacture of a new school bus which would be required to be certified based on the date of manufacture of the final stage, completed vehicle.

You requested confirmation that NHTSA consider the school bus chassis to be the "incomplete vehicle" under 49 CFR Part 568, Vehicles Manufactured in Two or More Stages. "Incomplete vehicle" is defined in 49 CFR @ 568.2 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.

If the school bus chassis is completed to the extent that it has the above-listed components and merely needs the addition of a body by a final-stage manufacturer, it would be considered an incomplete vehicle.

You are correct in your understanding of 49 CFR @ 567.5, Requirements for Manufacturers of Vehicles Manufactured in Two or More Stages. The completed vehicle must be properly certified by the final-stage manufacturer as conforming to all applicable Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards based on a date no earlier than the manufacturing date of the incomplete vehicle, and no later than the date of completion of the final-stage manufacture. The final-stage manufacturer must be consistent in its choice of completion date; it cannot choose one date to determine applicability of certain standards while choosing another date for other standards.

You are also correct that the agency has previously said that the final-stage manufacturer's use of a new body on an old chassis does not amount to the manufacture of a new motor vehicle. The agency is aware of your concern regarding the remanufacture of school buses using a new bus body on an old chassis. NHTSA acknowledges your petition for rulemaking filed pursuant to 49 CFR Part 552, Petitions for Rulemaking, Defect, and Noncompliance Orders, and will conduct a technical review of your petition in accordance with this part.

SINCERELY,

BLUE BIRD

BODY COMPANY

December 5, 1983

Administrator National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

SUBJECT: PETITION FOR RULEMAKING AND/OR INTERPRETIVE ACTION

Dear Ms. Stead:

Blue Bird Body Company has received requests to mount new school bus bodies on used school bus chassis that are several years old. In the past these requests have been few and scattered and we have declined this business due to the obvious concerns dealing with safety, liability, compliance, certification, etc. We currently plan to continue with our practice of turning down these requests, however, with these requests becoming more numerous, we feel it is necessary to address the compliance and certification requirements involved in remanufacturing a school bus using a new body and a used chassis.

It is our understanding, based on the December 29, 1977 NHTSA letter from Chief Counsel, Joseph J. Levin Jr. to the Honorable John Tower, reference NOA-30, and other NHTSA correspondence, that the manufacture of new motor vehicles includes the remanufacture of vehicles when such remanufacture is accomplished using a new chassis. Thus, remanufacture of a school bus using a new school bus chassis and a used school bus body constitutes the manufacture of a new school bus which would be subject to all applicable Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards in effect on the date of manufacture. The date of manufacture would be any date no earlier than the date of manufacture of the incomplete vehicle and no later than the date of completion of the final stage manufacture. It is our interpretation that the chassis is the incomplete vehicle and therefore, the date of manufacture of the chassis is the earliest limiting date for the purposes of compliance and certification. Thus, a 1975 bus body, for example, built without FMVSS 221 Joint construction or FMVSS 222 Seats and Barriers, would have to be upgraded to meet these and other applicable standards if it were to be mounted on a 1983 school bus chassis and completed as a final stage vehicle. We request your confirmation that the chassis is the incomplete vehicle and that the completed vehicle must conform to all applicable FMVSS and be properly certified based on a date no earlier than the date of manufacture of the chassis.

Assuming that the above interpretation is correct and confirmed by NHTSA, it is the opinion of Blue Bird Body Company that the manufacture of school buses using new chassis is a safe and acceptable practice because both body and chassis will be required to conform to current FMVSS and the completed vehicle is required to be properly certified.

The situation discussed in the first paragraph above, however, where school buses are remanufactured using a new body and an old chassis causes us concern. If the NHTSA does not consider this practice as manufacture of a new school bus, then apparently, no certification would be required and the vehicle would not have to conform to current FMVSS. If the agency does consider the remanufacture of school buses using new bodies and old chassis as the manufacture of a new vehicle, then questions of responsibility for compliance of the incomplete vehicle (the chassis), certification procedures, dates of effectivity, etc., are presented and must be addressed. For example, if a 1983 school bus body were to be mounted on a 1975 school bus chassis and completed as a school bus, what date would be used in determining the FMVSS that apply to the completed vehicle? If the 1975 date of manufacture of the incomplete vehicle (the chassis) is used, then the completed school bus would not be required to have FMVSS 221 Joint Construction or FMVSS 222 Seats and Barriers. We do not believe this would be an acceptable situation in terms of safety nor in the best interest of the school buses' owner, operator, passengers, the manufacturer of the incomplete and/or completed vehicle, the NHTSA or the pupil transportation industry in general.

In the interest of safety and for the benefit of all parties concerned, Blue Bird Body Company requests that the NHTSA consider the situations discussed herein, initiate Rulemaking action and/or issue appropriate interpretations, to address the remanufacture of school buses. We feel appropriate action concerning remanufacture of school buses using new bodies on old chassis would be to (1) define this as the manufacture of a new vehicle to which FMVSS apply, (2) require that remanufactured school buses using new bodies on old chassis meet all applicable FMVSS and be certified based on the date of final manufacture of the final stage, completed vehicle.

I trust that this letter provides sufficient information to NHTSA to enable proper action to be taken. If Blue Bird can be of any assistance or further information is needed, please feel free to contact me.

Thomas D. Turner Manager Engineering Services

C: WILBUR RUMPH -- V.P. ENGINEERING

ID: 1985-02.47

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/24/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Jeffrey R. Miller; NHTSA

TO: Mr. L. D. Pitts, Jr.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. L. D. Pitts, Jr P. O. Box 52592 Houston, Texas 77002

Thank you for your letter of March 12, 1985, asking about the effect of our regulations on a product you would like to manufacture. I hope the following discussion explains that effect.

You described your product, which you call a glare-shield, as a 1/8-inch thick sheet of "Lexan" plastic with a special scratch resistant coating. Your product is designed to be mounted inside a motor vehicle, as close to the windshield as possible, to reduce glare-related vision problems caused by the sun. You stated that your product would cover the entire windshield and is designed to be held in place by three or six latches. The latches can be released by the driver and the shield can be removed from the car.

Pursuant to the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, we have issued Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials, (49 CFR 571.205) which specifies performance and location requirements for glazing used in vehicles. These requirements include specifications for minimum levels of light transmittance (70% in areas requisite for driving visibility, which includes all windows in passenger cars).

Any manufacturer, dealer or other person who installs tinting films or other sun screen devices, such as the one described in your letter, in new vehicles must certify that the vehicle as altered continues to comply with the requirements of the standard. Thus, for example, the light transmittance through the combination of the sun-screening material and the glazing must be at least 70 percent in the case of glazing used in windows requisite for driving visibility. Similarly, the combination must also meet the other applicable requirements of the standard, such as the abrasion resistance requirements.

After a vehicle is sold to the consumer, owners may themselves alter their vehicles as they please, so long as they adhere to all State requirements. Under Federal law, an owner may install any device regardless of whether the installation adversely affects light transmittance. The agency does, however, urge owners not to install equipment which would render inoperative the compliance of a vehicle with our standards. Individual States govern the operational use of vehicles by their owners and therefore it is within the authority of the States to preclude owners from using sun screens on their vehicles.

If a manufacturer, dealer, distributor or motor vehicle repair business installs the sun screen device for the owner of a used vehicle, then S108(a)(2)(A) of the Vehicle Safety Act may apply. That section provides that none of those persons may 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 a Federal motor vehicle safety standard. Violation of the "render inoperative" provision can result in Federal civil penalties of up to $1,000 for each violation.

Sincerely,

Jeffrey R. Miller Chief Counsel

P. O. Box 52592 Houston Texas 77002 March 12, 1985

Mr. George Berndt, Chief Counsel Office of the Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 7th Street, S.W. Washington, D.C., 20590

Dear Mr. Berndt:

I am writing about a product that I would like to manufacture and market in the United States. Since the product is for use on vehicles being driven on public roads, I respectfully request your comments as to whether or not you think the product is in compliance with the laws as they are now written.

The product name is glare-shield. Its' purpose is to reduce motor vehicle accidents. It functions on the same principal as do sunglasses. except it has several advantages over sunglasses. Some people have vision defects for which prescription sunglasses cannot be made. Other people would prefer a glare-shield rather than sunglasses because of the fatigue caused by the physical discomfort of the sunglasses while being worn.

A glare--shield is made from a 1/8" thick sheet of "Lexan" plastic with a special scratch resistant coating. It is the same plastic manufactured by the General Electric Company and known as MR-50T4. Lexan MR-50T4 sheeting has been successfully tested for compliance with FMVSS-217 by bus manufacturers (A.M. General Corporation, General Motor Truck and Coach and Flxible/Rohr). MR-50T4 is approved by the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators. MR-50T4 meets or exceeds the requirements of items 4 and 5 of FMVSS-205.

A glare-shield can come in either one or two pieces, depending on the vehicle. A glare-shield is large enough in size to cover the entire area of the windshield of the vehicle it was designed to fit. A glare-shield is mounted on the inside of the vehicle as close to the windshield as possible. It is mounted in such a position that it does not interfere with the defroster device and can actually aid in its' operation, by directing more air toward the windshield. A glare-shield is not a permanent installation and can be removed for night driving in less than ten (10) seconds. Three or six stainless steel latches are used to hold the glare-shield in place. depending on whether it is a one or two piece unit. These latches are separately and permanently mounted to the vehicle using stainless steel rivets and rubber washers. Each latch has been designed to support the full weight of the glare-shield, should the other two latches not be functioning for some unknown reason. The latches cannot be accidentally opened by vibration, because they are mounted in rubber. Stainless steel sheet metal guards are attached to the edge of the glare-shield in the area where the latches make contact, in order to prevent damage to the coating on the Lexan. A vinyl molding is glued around the edge of the glareshield, to prevent the "Lexan" from coming in contact with any hard surface of the vehicle which could cause rattling from road vibration. The light transmission of various glare-shields will be equal to the various shades obtained from sunglasses found on the market today. The driver will decide which light transmission percentage is best for him, just as he now does when choosing sunglasses.

The main function of a glare-shield is to reduce the blinding glare from the sun at both sun-up and sun-down. The second important function is to reduce driver fatigue caused by reflections of shiny surfaces on a sunny day. An added benefit of using glare-shield is that windshields will no longer be tinted on their top part, or lightly tinted all over, which is a common practice today to reduce daytime glare. This tinting of windshields is bad, of course, because it reduces the driver's visibility at night. Another advantage of a glare-shield is that in the event of an accident, it will keep the driver's and passenger's heads from coming in contact with the windshield which usually results in facial lacerations. The glare-shield also helps in preventing a body being thrown through the windshield. The last advantage of a glare-shield, is that it acts as a protective shield against windshield glass fragments and foreign objects which strike and may penetrate the windshield.

Your immediate attention is requested on this project, as it appears to all those who have heard about glare-shields that they can reduce the number of accidents, and reduce bodily injuries and deaths, when accidents do occur.

Sincerely yours, L. D. Pitts, Jr. LDP/bjs

ID: kane.ztv

Barry C. Kane, Esq.
Miller, Johnson, Snell & Cummiskey, P.L.C.
P.O. Box 306
Grand Rapids, MI 49501-0306

Dear Mr. Kane:

This is in reply to your letters of June 9 and 10, 2003, which asked for an interpretation of terminology in 49 CFR Part 579 and Part 573. These letters were identical, with the exception noted below under the discussion of Section 579.4(d)(2). Your Part 579 questions related both to the reporting obligations under Subpart B pertaining to foreign safety campaigns, and the reporting obligations under Subpart C, the Early Warning Reporting (EWR) requirements. You wrote on behalf of "divers automotive-related clients," including "original equipment manufacturers, as well as first and second tier providers of parts and/or services."

For purposes of EWR, your clients are considered manufacturers of original equipment (OEM) and thus are covered by 49 CFR 579.27. In response to your initial inquiry, if an OEM does not receive a claim or notice of death in any quarterly reporting period, it is not required to report that fact to NHTSA.

Your next question was postulated on the assumption that section 579.27 requires OEMs to report information about injuries allegedly caused by their products. However, that is incorrect. Section 579.27 requires your clients to report "on each incident involving one or more deaths . . . that is identified in a claim . . . or in a notice . . . which notice alleges or proves that the death was caused by a possible defect in the manufacturers . . . equipment" (emphasis added) (if the incident occurred in the United States, the manufacturer must also report the number of injuries, if any). You asked for confirmation "that an incident in which a manufacturers component is involved that did not initiate the sequence of events leading to [a death] has not to be reported because such a component does not meet the definition of involving in 579.27."

We have not defined "involving" and a definition of the term is not required to respond to your question. Whether a component initiated a sequence of events that led to a death (and injury) may be a question of fact or law (e.g., proximate cause) that is not developed or resolved at the time a manufacturer receives a claim or notice about a death. Regardless, if the document received by the OEM meets the definition of "claim" or "notice" and identifies the OEMs equipment with "minimal specificity," as those three terms are defined in Section 579.4(c), the OEM must report to NHTSA in the manner prescribed by Section 579.27.

You have also asked a question about the application of Section 579.4(d)(2)s definition of identical or substantially similar motor vehicle equipment to a hypothetical situation. Equipment sold or in use outside the United States is deemed to be "identical or substantially similar" to equipment sold in the United States if the equipment has "one or more components or systems that are the same, and the component or system performs the same function" in vehicles sold in the United States (Section 579.4(d)(2)). In your hypothetical, identical fasteners would be used in an air-conditioning unit and an alternator. In your letter of June 9, you stated your belief that "`substantial similarity looks at the assembly as a whole and not to the components forming the assembly to determine the similarity unless it is the particular fastener in this example that is the rudimentary cause of the failure in one of the components." However, on June 10, you advanced a modified view of "substantial similarity" and concluded that "all these different assemblies incorporating such fasteners are substantially similar irrespective of whether the cause of the failure is another part of the assembly," and you asked whether your clients are "obliged to report all these assemblies . . . although the cause of the defect is not the fastener."

We addressed these situations in the preamble to the EWR final rule (67 FR 45822 at 45844). With respect to the view in your letter of June 9, we remarked that we read the word "equipment" both as the completed item of motor vehicle equipment and as each individual component that comprises the item. With respect to your modified view of June 10, the Motorcycle Industry Council (MIC) had asked "if the only commonality [in equipment] is a single type of fastener that neither failed nor contributed to the incident, are the components or equipment substantially similar?" We replied that the equipment incorporating the fasteners would be substantially similar for EWR purposes, "unless the claim [or notice] specifically identified a non-common component as the source of the failure" (p. 45844).

With respect to the phrase "sold or offered for sale" as it appears in the definition of "identical or substantially similar," a client has asked you "if the rule covers the situation where an automobile is manufactured outside the United States and has been privately imported by an individual consumer." It is your suggestion that "the rule does not apply to this situation," and that it "is intended to apply to manufacturers who intentionally enter the market in this country rather than low volume imports arranged by private consumers." We understand that this question relates to Smart cars, manufactured by DaimlerChrysler A.G. in Europe. That company does not sell these cars or offer them for sale in the United States, but at some future time they may be imported by a Registered Importer.

Although, as a factual matter, a Smart car sold outside the United States would be identical or substantially similar to a Smart car sold or offered for sale by a person in the United States other than its fabricating manufacturer (e.g., a Registered Importer), we do not intend the rule to impose a reporting obligation upon a manufacturer who is not marketing an identical or substantially similar vehicle in the United States. Thus, the EWR rule does not require DaimlerChrysler to report incidents of deaths outside the United States involving Smart cars, unless and until DaimlerChrysler imports the Smart car into the United States (see definition of "manufacturer," Section 579.4(c)).

You next asked "whether a supplier of parts to OEMs or Tier 1 suppliers is ever required to notify the Administration of the recall under the rule since they do not decide on or carry out a recall themselves, but solely sell their products via the OEMs/Tier 1." Part 579 does not require an OEM to notify NHTSA that a person is conducting a defect notification and remedy campaign on products that incorporate equipment which the OEMs have supplied. Defect reporting obligations arise under another regulation, 49 CFR Part 573, Defect and Noncompliance Responsibility and Reports. In some instances, these obligations apply to, or may be assumed by, OEMs (see Section 573.3).

With respect to the obligation under Section 579.5(b) to provide copies of each communication relating to a customer satisfaction campaign (as defined in Section 579.4(d) to include other terms as well) within five days after the end of each month, you suggest that "this rule only needs compliance when indeed such customer satisfaction campaigns exist." This is correct. We need not be informed that there were no customer satisfaction campaigns in the previous month. It is also your tentative view that "the campaigns need only be reported when there is "communication with two or more of those involved in the distribution chain for the assembly in the U.S." That is incorrect. If a communication is "issued to, or made available to, more than one dealer, distributor, lessor, lessee, other manufacturer, owner or purchaser, in the United States," a copy of the communication must be furnished to us. See Section 579.5(b).

Your last question is "whether we should consider additional rules, statutes, or provisions promulgated by the individual states or whether this rule supercedes individual state requirements." We are unaware of any State requirements that address the same issues as Part 579.

If you have any questions, you may phone Taylor Vinson of this Office (202-366-5263).

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:579
d.8/8/03